Is science being divided?

[Atla]

Are we currently witnessing science being divided in two directions?

In the one: Old school physicists, who insists on physicalism/materialism, and the traditional approach that derives from Newton, Darwin and Einstein.

In the other: a more modern information approach, deriving from Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger.

I have noticed the first group mocking the latter alot. Especially among amateur scientists.

The real ones just say: Shut up and calculate. They seem to avoid interpreting "the wave collapse" at any cost.
If they don't avoid it, they find speculative explanations that confuse the audience so much, that they forget the essence of the issue itself.

Is the information approach a fad, a new branch or the future of science?

I'll say something on the subject too, because I helped derail the topic a little. The reason why I think it's hard to vote is that physicalism and a matter of "information" are both conceptualizations, but reality isn't really made of anything specific.

"Information" is a dimensionless concept invented in the 20th century. It can also be used as a super flexible catch-all description, abstraction of physical systems. Matter/energy/material/physical is a more diverse and less flexible and much older description, abstraction of reality.

It doesn't really matter which one scientists use as long as they don't mix the two like Susskind does with black holes. Percieving reality twice and then saying that it's really made of two realms is just magical thinking. But I think there is indeed a trend towards the information-conceptualization because it's so flexible. I too find that it's pretty much only possible to think about QM in terms of information.

You misunderstand the deal with wavefunction collapse. Certain interpretations say something like: quantum superpositions are pure information or information waves or there's some universal bookkeeping device or whatever. Other interpretations say different things, like those superpositions don't "exist" at all, or there are hidden variables like guiding waves (ewww), or it's all just "potential" all the way down, or that the wavefunction is physically real and so we see a slice of a reality that extends sideways multiversally (MWI-type).

There are dozens and dozens of interpretations, people have literally come up with everything they could think of to tackle the wavefunction collapse. But in an age where they can put objects big enough to be visible with the naked eye into two states at once, it's getting harder and harder to say that quantum behaviour is somehow "unreal", information-based interpretations aren't clearly favored.

[Walker]

FYI:

Peter is taller than Mike.
Mike is taller then John.
Therefore Peter is taller than John.

There is a proof, with no evidence.

-------------------------------

The evidence is the comparisons.

Whether measured by eye, or units, or memory, or hearsay, the comparisons must have been made in order to state the syllogism.

The proof is the logic.
- However, the logic does not apply to reality if the names refer to people.
- Because the evidence is an event of comparison, then if the names do refer to people, time must specify the event of the evidence to be a valid proof, and time is absent from the syllogism, so the evidence as stated doesn't apply to the proof.
- If each name is otherwise meant to represent a lifetime, then the proof fails because relative sizes change during that duration.

[Averroes]

Therefore I reject your claim of calling "evidence" and "proof" synonyms.

It’s too late for all that now! The English dictionaries unambiguously consider “proof” and “evidence” to be synonyms. You are merely embarrassing and fooling only yourself with all your waffling. For example:

You wrote the following pair of sentences:
1. We found some evidence on the murder scene: a footprint of Mike’s shoe.
2. But it’s not proof that Mike was the murderer. Someone else could have worn his shoes.

And then you wrote: “There is an evidence without proof.”

This is NOT the way to test synonymy! Who taught you English?? This is embarrassing! To test synonymy you have to substitute the synonymous words in the same sentence and then judge whether the same sentence with the substituted words still conveys the same meaning!

So here I will rewrite both these statements by interchanging “proof” and “evidence” and judge whether each sentence still conveys the same meaning individually!

3. We found some proof on the murder scene: a footprint of Mike’s shoe.
4. But it’s not evidence that Mike was the murderer. Someone else could have worn his shoes.

As far as I am concerned the same meaning is undoubtedly being conveyed. 1 is equivalent to 3 and 2 is equivalent to 4. You can also check with the forensic of your locality to verify that the two groups of statements are equivalent. And also check with them if they found to whom the footprint belonged and if they got the murderer!

Here everyone reading this message can also check for themselves to see if the two groups of statements are equivalent. And when they will exchange with you as from now, it is possible that you may notice a difference in their attitude towards you if they feel that the two groups express the same meaning. For example, if some members start to use words like “wholeheartedly” a lot with you or if they write “proof/evidence” a lot, then understand that something is fishy! I can see that John has already started with this!

But anyway, if you rewrite the dictionary now, it will not act retrospectively! And you will still be remembered as someone who has for at least some hours wholeheartedly accepted that Darwinism is a question of belief without proof/evidence. This is on the record. There is no explaining away of that, it is there for everyone to see and enjoy this great moment of philosophy and lucidity from you! I saved that page by the way. Just in case! I don’t want to lose such a great treasure!

Now all this waffling from your previous post is merely being interpreted as you backing away after you have wholeheartedly accepted that Darwinism is just a question of belief without proof/evidence. And as I said it is your right to do that. But then in a previous message you said you are not backing away, so I guess that is more good news for me! But then again you have not been a model of consistency and stability so far, so I expect that that too can change any time soon. But history has recorded the essentials of this great exchange. Anyway, many thanks again for this wonderful moment in your very interesting company. It truly and wholeheartedly was a really great pleasure to have exchanged with you!

[Walker]

The evidence in this thread proves lots of things.

The evidence in this thread can be used to prove lots of different things.

The proof is in the quality of the logic, not the evidence.

[Greta]

It proves that some theists can't tell the difference between their mythology and science.

[Walker]

It proves that some theists can't tell the difference between their mythology and science.

Without evidence or proof, that's an opinion.

I've observed that most everyone has one.
Some even consider all opinions to be equal on that basis (based on anecdotal observation).

[Necromancer]

Again: In science, there is no evidence that proves a theory. The right evidence can always disprove a theory.

How do you know this? For example, we still write "Newtonian physics" (Or Newtonian-Einsteinian physics).

I'd say that perfect evidence (by experiment or discovery) always proves a theory, but that the trick is one doesn't know what the perfect evidence is supposed to be. There is still a theoretical chance that you may hit the right data-set for a theory and thus prove it!

Furthermore, in recording all nature's plants and animals and substances and so on, one is always right by this description for what regards planet Earth the year it is recorded. Though discoveries are not theories like that, they hold for an infinity in science.

[-1-]

And then you wrote: “There is an evidence without proof.”

This is NOT the way to test synonymy! Who taught you English?? This is embarrassing! To test synonymy you have to substitute the synonymous words in the same sentence and then judge whether the same sentence with the substituted words still conveys the same meaning!

So here I will rewrite both these statements by interchanging “proof” and “evidence” and judge whether each sentence still conveys the same meaning individually!

3. We found some proof on the murder scene: a footprint of Mike’s shoe.
4. But it’s not evidence that Mike was the murderer. Someone else could have worn his shoes.

As far as I am concerned the same meaning is undoubtedly being conveyed. 1 is equivalent to 3 and 2 is equivalent to 4.

I so totally don't agree with you. 3 is not equivalent to 1, and 4 is not equivalent to 2.

Proof of a murder is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Mike is the murderer. But his shoes are not proof that he committed the murder.

You so completely and conveniently forget that evidence can be proof, in certain circumstances, when evidence is sufficient, and it can be short of being a proof, in other circumstances, when evidence is insufficient. Your dictionary examples take (rather arbitrarily) the case when evidence is sufficient to proof.

Explain, if you so will, please, how come there are such things as

insufficient evidence of proof
sufficient evidence of proof

if the two are synonyms?

WATCH NOW:

Also, we can use your type of test of synonymy of "proof" and "evidence". It is dead easy to illustrate the wrongness of your view this way:
5. We found some proof on the murder scene: a footprint of Mike’s shoe.
6. But it’s not proof that Mike was the murderer. Someone else could have worn his shoes.

Now you see the error in your ways? Something can't both be proof and not proof at the same time and in the same respect. Yet, as you have insisted, the two statements are valid, together, because proof, according to you, is equivalent to evidence.

QED, proof and evidence are not synonyms.

But if you haven't learned that yet at whatever age you are at, then it's futile for me to try to teach you this fine conceptual nuance of the language... as the example above shows.

[-1-]

Again: In science, there is no evidence that proves a theory. The right evidence can always disprove a theory.

How do you know this? For example, we still write "Newtonian physics" (Or Newtonian-Einsteinian physics).

I'd say that perfect evidence (by experiment or discovery) always proves a theory, but that the trick is one doesn't know what the perfect evidence is supposed to be. There is still a theoretical chance that you may hit the right data-set for a theory and thus prove it!

Furthermore, in recording all nature's plants and animals and substances and so on, one is always right by this description for what regards planet Earth the year it is recorded. Though discoveries are not theories like that, they hold for an infinity in science.

I have no doubt that what I highlighted in brown is what you'd say.
But scientific enquiry is different from what you'd say.

All you theists are arguing against Darwinism and you don't even know the basic fundamental principles behind scientific enquiry.

This makes it harder to argue with you theists, because we have to explain to you theists some fundamental principles, which you outright reject. This is not a matter of opinion and it does not hinge on what you find acceptable. The fact that a scientific theory can't be proven by evidence only disproven, is one of the few philosophical cornerstones of science.

[-1-]

FYI:

Peter is taller than Mike.
Mike is taller then John.
Therefore Peter is taller than John.

There is a proof, with no evidence.

-------------------------------

The evidence is the comparisons.

Whether measured by eye, or units, or memory, or hearsay, the comparisons must have been made in order to state the syllogism.

The proof is the logic.
- However, the logic does not apply to reality if the names refer to people.
- Because the evidence is an event of comparison, then if the names do refer to people, time must specify the event of the evidence to be a valid proof, and time is absent from the syllogism, so the evidence as stated doesn't apply to the proof.
- If each name is otherwise meant to represent a lifetime, then the proof fails because relative sizes change during that duration.

Please show this to Avarro in our effort to make him understand that proof and evidence are not synonyms.

Avarro has found a dictionary definition that states "proof: evidence..." etc., and he never bothered to explore the entry further, in which it was explained that a certain type of evidence (sufficient evidence) provides proof, but there are evidence (insufficient evidence) which does not provide proof.

From this Avarro went on and proved (erroneously) other things.

Now the whole argument has boiled down to show Avarro that his insistence on calling evidence and proof equivalent is wrong.

But he still stubbornly insists.

Your post entry may give him some insight. The very insight he needs to realize the error of his ways in thinking. I tried to right him, but I failed to imbue with the insight that proof and evidence are not synonyms.

[uwot]

...I love science and logic too much to endorse the illogical and unscientific Darwinian theory.

Of course Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is science. There is a bunch of fossils lying around; 98% of our DNA is identical to chimpanzees; the beaks of Galapagos finches appear to have adapted to the conditions of particular islands. Either you explain all that by appealing to physical causes that we can understand, observe and to some degree manipulate, or you just give up and believe we will never understand how our environment works, because it was created by a being who is much cleverer than us.

The first two meanings of adaptation are backed by empirical evidence. Concerning the third meaning of adaptation, namely the theory of evolution by natural selection (i.e. Darwinism), there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.

You may choose to disregard it, but there is a fossil record that is entirely consistent with the third meaning of adaptation.

[A_Seagull]

The evidence is that you exist. I'm glad we can agree on that.

Of course we can agree that I exist my friend A_Seagull! My existence for me self-evidently prove itself!
But how come you know that I exist??? That is a problem for you, for you have no empirical evidence of my existence! Or do you?

My inferred argument, which was admittedly implied rather than overt, is that there is no explanation for how you came into existence except through some form of Darwinian type evolution.

I am glad to now learn that there was in fact an argument behind what I had labelled as 'hit and run' philosophy! So now you are claiming that my existence is only possible through "some form of Darwinian type of evolution." But the latter claim of yours is just a claim, which you are in fact restating! Respectfully, I already know what Darwinism and Darwinists claim, there is truely no reason for you to state the claim again. But anyway if you feel you need to then it is ok with me. But I am more interested in the scientific evidence which backs these claims. If you have that then as I said in my first post here, 'I am all ears."

I do not take any note of what other people say, whether they be Evolutionists or creationists, except to consider to explore their suggestions and arguments.

Well, I am rather intrigued by that statement of yours, for I am thinking to myself what besides suggestions and arguments of other people on a philosophy forum is there to attract one's attention?! It seems to me that 'suggestions and arguments' are exhaustive of the available options of posters on a philosophy forum! Which means that whatever a poster might write will necessarily either be a suggestion or an argument in his/her point of view! A suggestion is the expression of an opinion!

AS you have stated, creationism is based primarily on hearsay and faith, and without supplementary evidence I have no choice but to reject it as non-real

We can discuss the evidence of creationism at anytime you want my friend. But I think this thread is not the place. Dont you think so? If you are really interested in that and want to have a conversation with me, I can invite you to my forum and we can discuss it on an appropriate thread if here it would not be possible. There is no need to worry, you are in safe hands with me! http://philosophyforum.aba.ae/ It's up to your decision, whatever you choose is fine with me!

That leaves evolution as the only alternative..

Since we can assess creationism whenever you want my friend A-Seagull, so now that leaves evolution as the only alternative to be assessed and analysed in a scientific, rational and civilized manner. If we agree on that, let us proceed.

and there is so much evidence for that that I have no wish to debate the issue with someone who persists in denying the evidence.

I am so glad you are informing me that there is 'so much evidence!' I do not know of any evidence whatsoever for the claims of Darwinism. I do not deny any evidence, the scientists themselves say there is no evidence for the claims of Darwinism! I would really have appreciated that we go through what you alleged to be evidence for Darwinism one by one and take the time to go through the references as should be expected of someone in science and in philosophy. But alas, it seems that you are again indulging in 'hit and run' philosophy. And yet again you missed!
_______________________________________

Anyone who is interested in carrying on with where A_Seagull left is kindly requested to come forward and let us proceed with the presentation of the scientific evidence for Darwinism. Please don't be shy of your beliefs!

Anyway I do not think anyone of you will dare even if I am challenging you in your face! I have repeatedly done this for years with many members on this forum but on another forum and each time they backed away and never to be heard of on this topic with me. It seems history is repeating itself unsurprisingly for me though!

This subject is spot on topic besides. It was mentioned in the OP and it is a subject where scientists are no doubt divided. That too we can discuss, for example we could give the names and books of expert biologists who are authorities in their field and yet are divided on the subject of evolution. And they unambigously assert that Darwinism is unfounded. That is perfectly on topic and is to me a very interesting subject. What do you think readers of this post? Do you find this interesting too? Please express yourselves.

Rather than discuss evolution, let us discuss your alternative theory...

We have agreed that you exist and for the sake of argument let us also presume that the inanimate universe exists.

So my question to you is : How do you think you came into existence?

If it wasn't via evolution, what was it? Magic? Something else?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Therefore I reject your claim of calling "evidence" and "proof" synonyms.

It’s too late for all that now! The English dictionaries unambiguously consider “proof” and “evidence” to be synonyms. You are merely embarrassing and fooling only yourself with all your waffling. For example:

You wrote the following pair of sentences:
1. We found some evidence on the murder scene: a footprint of Mike’s shoe.
2. But it’s not proof that Mike was the murderer. Someone else could have worn his shoes.

And then you wrote: “There is an evidence without proof.”

This is NOT the way to test synonymy! Who taught you English?? This is embarrassing! To test synonymy you have to substitute the synonymous words in the same sentence and then judge whether the same sentence with the substituted words still conveys the same meaning!

So here I will rewrite both these statements by interchanging “proof” and “evidence” and judge whether each sentence still conveys the same meaning individually!

3. We found some proof on the murder scene: a footprint of Mike’s shoe.
4. But it’s not evidence that Mike was the murderer. Someone else could have worn his shoes.

As far as I am concerned the same meaning is undoubtedly being conveyed. 1 is equivalent to 3 and 2 is equivalent to 4. You can also check with the forensic of your locality to verify that the two groups of statements are equivalent. And also check with them if they found to whom the footprint belonged and if they got the murderer!

Here everyone reading this message can also check for themselves to see if the two groups of statements are equivalent. And when they will exchange with you as from now, it is possible that you may notice a difference in their attitude towards you if they feel that the two groups express the same meaning. For example, if some members start to use words like “wholeheartedly” a lot with you or if they write “proof/evidence” a lot, then understand that something is fishy! I can see that John has already started with this!

But anyway, if you rewrite the dictionary now, it will not act retrospectively! And you will still be remembered as someone who has for at least some hours wholeheartedly accepted that Darwinism is a question of belief without proof/evidence. This is on the record. There is no explaining away of that, it is there for everyone to see and enjoy this great moment of philosophy and lucidity from you! I saved that page by the way. Just in case! I don’t want to lose such a great treasure!

Now all this waffling from your previous post is merely being interpreted as you backing away after you have wholeheartedly accepted that Darwinism is just a question of belief without proof/evidence. And as I said it is your right to do that. But then in a previous message you said you are not backing away, so I guess that is more good news for me! But then again you have not been a model of consistency and stability so far, so I expect that that too can change any time soon. But history has recorded the essentials of this great exchange. Anyway, many thanks again for this wonderful moment in your very interesting company. It truly and wholeheartedly was a really great pleasure to have exchanged with you!

Evidence and proof are definitely not synonyms. Why doesn't the legal system refer to circumstantial proof? Because that would be silly. Evidence can point you in a certain direction, but proof is conclusive.

You can't really lecture someone on English after writing that highlighted sentence. You can't have 'some proof'. It's similar to when people say 'that's very unique'. Something can't be very unique. It is either unique or it isn't. Your sentence is bad English.

[QuantumT]

Evidence and proof are definitely not synonyms. Why doesn't the legal system refer to circumstantial proof? Because that would be silly. Evidence can point you in a certain direction, but proof is conclusive.

You can't really lecture someone on English after writing that highlighted sentence. You can't have 'some proof'. It's similar to when people say 'that's very unique'. Something can't be very unique. It is either unique or it isn't. Your sentence is bad English.

Exactly. Evidence can point in several directions, depending on interpretation. Proof is irrefutable.

[Averroes]

We have agreed that you exist and for the sake of argument let us also presume that the inanimate universe exists.

Have we really agreed that I exists? How come?
For me my existence is self-evident. It will be logically absurd if I were to deny my own existence. But that's just for me.
But now, how have you come to agree that I exist? What evidence/proof do you have of my existence for you to agree that I exist? Do you have empirical evidence/proof of my existence? Please explain this before we proceed to the other points in your post.