Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth (page 5)

GromitSK

Let me check what you're saying Adamah - what were the experiments to find Higg's Boson an attempt to falsify?

A theory that it didn't exist? (genuinely curious because I found your statements on science interesting).

Witness My Fury

Ignorance is bliss, eh. FFS

Cofty has the patience of a very patient man as always...

K99 you make some good points. I would agree that school leavers use a different definition of the word theory. If one wishes to learn more about evolution outside academia, this chapter is may be useful to them.

I grasp this is one of his purposes of making a whole chapter of it.

Adam-Your last post lost me in as far as, what Dawkins is saying. I do get though your opinons differ from mine, and you inisist that you are right and I am wrong. I am afraid I disagree with you. But that's fine we all don't have to agree.

cofty- I agree with what you write about maths theories, and how it explains how the word theory should be applied to evolution. I just didn't think it was required, and it was laborious to read IMO.

Kate xx

KateWild

Bohm- I am glad you brought up quatum theory. Good point

KateWild

Some terms Dawkins used that stuck in my head and cause me to feel uncomfortable.

uneducated churchgoer, Holocaust denier, evolution denier, history denier

I feel uncomfortable at the way Dawkins is grouping people together, and labelling them. Many may think it is fine and see the need to do this. But I would disagree with those people.

An uneducated churchgoer, can be a child from 0-18, or an 80 yr old who left education at 14 as they needed to work. Not knowing much about evolution for them is no big deal IMO. Evolution is an area of interest, that many pursue and many do not. I don't think it matter's what the uneducated churchgoer thinks. They are the most vulnerable in the congregation, their physical needs are the most important IMO.

I have never met a Holocaust denier in my life! A Holocaust denier IMO, is a racist, anti-semite, who is politically active and dangerous to the local community. Their motives for denying the Holocaust are driven by hatred, they are likely to be very intelligent and couldn't care less about the topic of evolution IMO. But I haver never met one.

Evolution denier/history denier. I have met plenty of course I am a DF'd JW. Dawkins writing style is very persuasive in making his point that it is important that this group of people are taken seriously and stamped out. He writes in a way that it is damaging to society to deny evolution. He even uses the term, "I aspire to arm those that are not history deniers-but know some"Not only did this make me feel uncomfortable, IMO it is down right creepy and reminds me of Eph 6:10-20 Where the apostle Paul wants the reader to gear up for a preaching battle.

Hopefully many who respect Dawkins, can understand why I feel the way I do. I am only reading this book because someone who I respect wants me to. I am really trying to be open minded about Dawkins, and will continue to read two more chapters as promised. I will not continue reading his books as I don't enjoy his writing style.

Books are to be enjoyed. Love to you all Kate xx

Witness My Fury

Books are to be enjoyed.

Says who? If you only want confirmation bias and your fluffy world view to remain unchallenged then sure, ... if you want answers to difficult questions then, no.

KateWild

Says who?-WMF

Well I am reading it aren't? It's not about confirmation bias either because I dont deny evolution. I am interested in evolution, so I will read books from other authors on the topic when I have finished reading Chapter 3.

Kate xx

bohm

Gromit:

Let me check what you're saying Adamah - what were the experiments to find Higg's Boson an attempt to falsify?

A theory that it didn't exist? (genuinely curious because I found your statements on science interesting).

in two words it was the standard model. But the experiment is also aimed towards trying to discover its energy and other properties.

Anony Mous

As somebody that yesterday sat in on a presentation on the Higgs Boson and measuring the Top Quark. This is how science is done:

We observe a phenomenon (say, adaptation in finches or bacteria)

We create a hypothesis based on what we know (this is what many lay people would call a theory, but it's a hypothesis, untested) - creationism lives here until the next step kills it

We test the hypothesis and repeatedly test our results against different observations. This can cause us to either confirm our initial hypothesis, alter it or discard it. If your hypothesis is untestable, then you have to either create a framework where it eventually becomes testable (eg. string theory and quantum physics can be shown consistent using mathematics but cannot (yet) be tested for lack of power and design in our current accelerators) or discard it - this is where gods and creation gets killed because since you can't test it nor create a consistent framework to be able to test it, it has to be discarded as a valid option.

We create a theory around our hypothesis and observations, publish it and ask others to test it. If at any point ANY observation proves conclusively our theory is false, the entire hypothesis and theory is simply discarded or modified with big warnings to only apply in the realm where it still works (eg. Newton's theory on gravity)

If we can mathematically prove that our theory and observations are consistent and correct (which for natural sciences is practically impossible) we can create an axiom or 'law'. However even in physics, the 'laws of gravity' are still simply theories, just very well tested theories that at the scales most people will use them (up to bridge building) might as well be laws.

Evolution by natural selection is a well-tested theory and so far there hasn't been an observation yet that proves our theory is false. Creationism is a hypothesis that by all but the least reasonable people has to be rejected because there is NO proof. However any scientist including Dawkins is still open to anyone being able to prove it and they would accept it if you can conclusively prove it.

KateWild

AM, another good point. String theory. thanks - Kate xx

Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth

Share this