Leaderboard

The moment you stop believing that Darwin is regarded as some sort of scientific god, and therefore one has to believe or accept everything he wrote as scientific gospel, will be the moment you will be able to make progress.

It lies in 'perfect'. Sorry, I just see this as a kind of language joke, like the question if an almighty god can create a stone that he cannot lift. And as I said, Darwin's remark makes only sense to me talking about the 'design' of species, not about 'perfect gazelles' or 'perfect lions'. Introducing meaningless terms to create a paradox seems not very useful to me. In the context of the design of species, the remark of Darwin makes perfectly sense; your context however does not even make sense in itself.

I think you are applying the criterion of 'perfectness' on the wrong level. It is not between different species: in your example of the gazelles and the lions we see a continuous 'arms-race'. But animal bodies, how greatly adapted they might be, have some 'design errors'. E.g. the placement of our trachea and the oesophagus, which has the risk of suffocation when eating. There is an evolutionary explanation for it, but as a design from scratch, it should never have been made like this.

Did you say somewhere Sorry but you start with axioms in Maths. You don't pick them up in Carrefour somewhere along the journey. The point about this axiom is that you are drawing upon a whole structure of maths that rests upon it Almost everything in arithmetic depends directly upon the property of being closed under addition. Donc, ce n'est pas possible de conduire un entraîneur et des chevaux à travers elle. Bonsoir

As someone in this thread has already inferred, even within species, one Lion will be stronger and smarter then another.....one Gazelle will be faster and more agile then another....the smart Lion stalks the slower, less agile Gazelle....the faster more agile Gazelle will escape the Lion that isn't as smart or cunning as another Lion. Perfection? A measuring tape is perfect for measuring the frame of a window....A Vernier caliper likewise is perfect for optimum results when boring a cylinder for a piston. Perfect is absolutely subjective and is certainly in line with the "survival of the fittest" and the mechanism of "natural selection". The only paradoxes are those dreamed up when unreal applications of "perfection" are dreamed up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Instinct.

To paraphrase Leonard Hofstadter, we're all just one lab accident away from being supervillains. Ignore us at your peril!

And I already asked about that sequence since it's logic is false. (2) quite clearly states (although in poor English) that omega is not a member of N. Therefore arithmetic between omega and any member of N is not defined in the normal Peano system, since Peano arithmetic is closed under addition. So ω-1 is undefined in your system at the outset of your 'proof' So I asked you what system you are using.

Maybe a process using unlimited sets would make the (lack of a) problem with infinite sets clearer. You have the unlimited integer set 1,2,3,4... 2*1 is in that set as is 2*2, 2*3, 2*4 etc. The only problem would be if there was a maximum integer n, then 2*n would not be in the set. It's up to you to demonstrate that there is some integer n in that set, but not n+1...

Read the thread again. The differences you're citing are all semantics that have been explained by other posters quite well. For some reason, you continue to use lazy, vague rules for your own definitions, yet require much stricter rules for everyone else. Have you noticed that your requirements change "depending on the context the words are used in"? Aren't you just forcing these definitions to mean what you want them to mean? I still don't understand how you can acknowledge that theory needs to be constantly updated, and then insist that some evidence is proof. I'm probably on your ignore list after wondering this so many times, so I suppose I'll never know.

And, what is still being ignored is that the definition of "perfect" is subjective and context dependent. So it is not surprising that one can create a paradox by choosing mutually contradictory definitions. That says absolutely nothing about other people's different definitions of "perfect".

Hi again, Unfortunately, Elliott Sober is no more specific about context than quoted in the OP. After reading through the final chapter of Origin, though, the following passage is quite telling: "As natural selection acts by competition, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the degree of perfection of their associates; so that we need feel no surprise at the inhabitants of any one country, although on the ordinary view supposed to have been specially created and adapted for that country, being beaten and supplanted by the naturalised productions from another land. Nor ought we to marvel if all the contrivances in nature be not, as far as we can judge, absolutely perfect; and if some of them be abhorrent to our ideas of fitness. We need not marvel at the sting of the bee causing the bee's own death; at drones being produced in such vast numbers for one single act, and being then slaughtered by their sterile sisters; at the astonishing waste of pollen by our fir-trees; at the instinctive hatred of the queen bee for her own fertile daughters; at ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars; and at other such cases. The wonder indeed is, on the theory of natural selection, that more cases of the want of absolute perfection have not been observed." (pages 417 - 418) http://www.f.waseda.jp/sidoli/Darwin_Origin_Of_Species.pdf Now, this passage seems to make clear that Darwin was not contrasting the imperfections found in nature (as would be expected from natural selection) against a better, albeit imperfect, design -- as you suggested -- that we might expect if special creation were true. Rather, he's contrasting imperfection with absolute perfection. Compare with this remark from your second last post: "But if you apply it to the effectivity of animal bodies it makes perfect sense: they could have [been] designed better". Darwin appears to be saying they could not only have been designed better, but perfectly. I'd agree with all of this, Eise, except the suggestion that the concept of a 4-angled triangle is "meaningless". It's not particularly relevant to our argument, though the concept seems perfectly meaningful to me. We can understand it, right? (Compare with the concept FERLUD GERCILP) If something is meaningless surely we would not be able to understand it. It's just that the concept of a 4-angled triangle is not only uninstantiated (like the concept UNICORN), but cannot be instantiated. As you rightly note, it fails to refer. Frege would say, though, it has a sense (and thus meaningful), but no referent. Ah, now we're straying a wee bit off topic. This stuff fascinates me, though. What you're assuming here is that reference is determined by the satisfaction of a description (a la Russell and Frege). Kripke and Putnam, as you probably know, offer an alternative theory of reference, applicable to at least proper names and so-called natural kind terms, under which reference is secured via a causal chain, as opposed to the unique satisfaction of a description. On this alternative view, reference of the concept UNICORN (which presumably has no extension or referent) or FRANK SINATRA (which presumably does, or did, have a referent) is secured through the user being causally connected in the right way to the referent. For example, Joe Sixpack might not be able to offer but the vaguest description of Richard Feynman, say, ("Er, he's a famous scientist or something"), a description that does not uniquely single Prof Feynman out, though on the Kripke/Putnam account, successful reference can nonetheless be achieved. It seems counterintuitive to say that just coz poor ole Joe is unable to uniquely identify Richard Feynman, he cannot refer to him. And for reasons such as this, classical descriptivist theories of reference are pretty much moribund.

So obviously Darwin did not mean that... Did you find the context already in Darwin's work? I offered you the a possible correct context, and I assume this is what Darwin meant. OK, good you retracted this. You cannot create meaningful concepts by just gluing a few words together. I can talk about to the 4th angle of a triangle, but I do not even need to look for triangles that could have a 4th angle, because the reference is empty, in this case the 'concept' is logically contradictory. On the other hand, the concept of 'unicorn' is not empty, but it highly depends if it has a real referent, not just an intentional, on how you define it. If you define it as 'a horse like creature with a silvery skin, and one long white, spirally formed horn that lies its head in the lap of a virgin' it is very clear that you can describe such an animal, but we know there are no real specimen of this animal. If you define it just as 'an animal with one horn on its head', then there are several animals that fit the description, e.g. the Indian rhinoceros. See, here my unicorn: Isn't it a beauty? The concept of a 'perfect thing' is that perfection is relative to some ideal, i.e. it is related to our aims and values. @Strange gave a few examples (I would add that the perfect mosquito also does not buzz...). See e.g. some criticisms on the ontological proof of God's existence of Anselm.

That cannot be the correct definition of "perfect" for a prey animal. By definition, a prey animal exists to be eaten. Therefore a "perfect" gazelle is one that can be caught, but escapes often enough to allow the species to survive. I think that both Creationists and evolutionary theory would agree about that. Although, a "perfect" prey animal according to Creationists should be one that just appears from nowhere, rooted to the spot, when a predator was hungry. There would be an inexhaustible supply of these magic animals so lions would never go hungry. But not so many that they would get fat. Also, a "perfect" mosquito wouldn't carry malaria and their bites wouldn't itch.

@ Eise I'd like to retract the following statement from my previous post: "The concepts are clearly not empty." I was talking crap.

Yes, it is if you try to apply it on a paradoxical situation with perfect gazelles and lions. But if you apply it to the effectivity of animal bodies it makes perfect sense: they could have designed better. So while I follow your argument, it is based on the idea that such things as perfect gazelles and lions make any sense. But they already don't make any sense in themselves, the concepts of perfect gazelles and lions are empty. So you can prove everything. So what the fuzz? What do think you gain by this argument? Show that evolution is conceptually not sound? Maybe you should lookup Darwin's remark in context, to see what he is talking about.

I can see God's logic. He created humans, and he created leprosy. He didn't want leprosy to wipe out the humans, he just wanted to see them suffer. So he made it less than fatal, and not hugely contagious, so that there would always be some lepers begging him for a cure for their awful disgusting ailment. I think he went a bit to far with smallpox though. Not his finest hour.

What idiot called it a “randomized clinical trial controlled with placebo” and not “trick or treatment”

It's important to note that this is only a proxy marker for more specific genetic markers. Once bedside genetic testing becomes common place race will become irrelevant as you can test for those specific markers of interest.

I'm typing this from a point of view of someone who had a spine injury that had to be operated due to too much heavy weight lifting at 42 years of age. My advice is whatever path in your fitness quests you choose, do it in such a way that you will be capable of sustaining your plan for years...in fact shoot for doing fitness training until the day you die. The rest is technical stuff which has to suit your body type, lifestyle, mental state, etc. It will be easy to figure out what suits you best and it always changes....one year you're into calisthenics, the next you prefer crossfit - you generally need to change things around to be able to achieve new goals and have fun while doing it. The most important part in any physical fitness endevour (or any other for that matter) is to stick to it and the best way to achieve that is to have fun while doing it.

I'm perfectly ok with negs. There are a lot of sad people out there, who will never get the chance to ride a white stallion to the defence of a damsel in distress. This is the nearest they will ever get, so they should get the chance to gallop to the rescue, deadly mouse in hand. If it makes them feel fine and noble like Sir Galahad, it's fine by me. There are also people who would like to reply with a wise and insightful post, but can't think of any words, or are scared that it will just come out stupid, and expose them to ridicule. A negative click is safe and anonymous, it's a boon for the less gifted.

OK, I looked at the first page of search results. I counted: 11 times 'proof-of-concept' 1 time 'proof-of-principle' 1 time 'formal proof' None of them is a hint that the authors mean 'scientific proof'. As a database administrator, I sometimes make 'proof-of-concepts', showing that a certain solution in principle could work. (So I think that 'proof-of-principle' and 'proof-of-principle' mean the same.) In general, observations and experiments support scientific theories, or shows them wrong (at least int the form the theory has at the moment). And when the support is very strong, one could say that a theory is proven. But there is always the chance that it will turn out that a theory is only valid in a certain domain, and must be changed to include other domains. I think you should be more specific on this 'somehow'... And mostly theories are rejected, because they cannot explain certain observations. But all this scratches just the surface. Already read the philosophy of science of Imre Lakatos?

Proof is absolute. You can do that in math, where you can take a premise and a set of rules, and apply them. In science, the process is inductive. More than one explanation might be consistent with the evidence, but we won't know until more evidence is obtained. Such as with phlogiston — worked with preliminary data, but then evidence was uncovered that was inconsistent with the model. It is the job of scientists to try and exclude all but one explanation, but there's always the chance that the known science is incomplete, and there is more science to be revealed. Such as happened with relativity and quantum mechanics. However, there is a point at which you have to concede that it is exceedingly unlikely that a model is wrong, owing to all the evidence in support of it. It is similar to Stephen Jay Gould's description of "fact" In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

That's a lie. Did you watch his videos?