Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Best proof of evolution

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Asiaprod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    The Atheist wrote:
    Somebody is cranky because the Creationism thread has disappeared. ;)
    :)
    Wicknight wrote:
    If one doesn't understand the concepts the are challanging then any response to those challanges will appear equally baffling to said idiot.

    That a beauty wicknight, I am going to steal that to use verbally.


  • #33
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    pH wrote:
    What happens when by necessity science is called on to provide an objective truth?

    Scientists should refuse.
    Take DNA evidence in trials, science based and serious enough to deprive someone of their liberty on indeed their life.

    Yes, but thats distinct from objective truth. Even in shows like CSI which are exaggerating how certain science is, you'll get people saying things like "Thats a 1 in 5 trillion match. Good enough for me".

    DNA matching is exactly that. Its a probabilities game.

    I seem to recall reading during the OJ trial that the quality of testing only provided a match to 1 in 100,000, and that the defence were going to leverage this to argue that there were therefore approximately 60 people in LA that day who could have comitted the crime and this it was non-definitive.

    Obviously, today, things are more exact. I dunno what the certainty-level can get up to now, but it will always be some miniscule amount below 100%.

    We could theoretically set the probability bar high enough that we could reasonably expect to never get a false positive within the lifetime of the universe....but its still just a probability game and never to be confused with objective truth....and its still possible that we get a false positive.
    At a certain level even though we're all too much of a philosopher to call it 'proven' or 'the truth',
    I disagree that its to do with philosophy.

    I generally don't call it proven, or the truth because its not proven and its not the truth. When I do (mis)use these terms, its because they're a close enough representation of what is being discussed to make them worthwhile. Just like using Newtonian over Relativistic: its simpler, and usually good enough for the job.

    But I'm always aware that when I claim something has been scientifically proven, I'm only being mostly accurate and that its not entirely true. Maybe its my background in math.

    But I'll stop now, before going utterly off-topic.

    jc


Advertisement