misrepresentation of scientific concepts

I looked at:

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-slimy-dont.html

and was appalled to see that the very first sentence was:

"Darwin's evolutionary theory predicts survival of the fittest. "

-which is simply false. An example of where that is false is the evolution of male peacock tail feathers that clearly don't help it to survive but make it more prone to falling victim to a predictor thus this is a characteristic that can be considered to be 'unfit' for survival and yet this is perfectly consistent with evolution as it helps it pass on its genes.

This is not the only common misrepresentation of a scientific concept and I get fed up with seeing them.

Other common misrepresentation of scientific concepts include false assertions/representations that say/imply that:

2, Chaos theory is a theory about randomness (no, it isn't. A chaotic system may have NO random element and yet still be chaotic )

3, Quantum physics says that the Niels Bohr interpretation of quantum physics is true (this is confusing a baseless metaphysical interpretation of quantum physics with the actual quantum physics )



anyone like to add to this list? ....

Originally posted by humy
anyone like to add to this list? ....

The second law of thermodynamics means that things always get less complex, and complex things necessarily 'break down' over time.

Originally posted by humy
"Darwin's evolutionary theory predicts survival of the fittest. "

-which is simply false.

One could define 'fittest' as meaning 'most likely to survive to pass on genes', but then I guess the statement becomes a tautology.

Originally posted by humy
I looked at:

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-slimy-dont.html

and was appalled to see that the very first sentence was:

"Darwin's evolutionary theory predicts survival of the fittest. "

-which is simply false. An example of where that is false is the evolution of male peacock tail feathers that clearly don't help it to survive but make it more pr ...[text shortened]... f quantum physics with the actual quantum physics )



anyone like to add to this list? ....

How many times have we heard this?

(*) Einstein said: Everything is relative!

(*) Newton got his idea about gravitation when he was hit by a falling apple.

(*) That Schrödinger actually had a cat he used to perform strange experiments upon...

(*) That the Big Bang actually was a really big bang that could be heard.

... and all theese myths promoted by Hollywood:

That rockets really maneuvre areodynamically in space, making engine sounds when they fly by.
That cars explode in mid air when they runs over a cliff.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
How many times have we heard this?

(*) Einstein said: Everything is relative!

(*) Newton got his idea about gravitation when he was hit by a falling apple.

(*) That Schrödinger actually had a cat he used to perform strange experiments upon...

(*) That the Big Bang actually was a really big bang that could be heard.

... and all theese myths ...[text shortened]... aking engine sounds when they fly by.
That cars explode in mid air when they runs over a cliff.

Laser cannons having recoil 🙂

Originally posted by humy
I looked at:

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-slimy-dont.html

and was appalled to see that the very first sentence was:

"Darwin's evolutionary theory predicts survival of the fittest. "

-which is simply false. An example of where that is false is the evolution of male peacock tail feathers that clearly don't help it to survive but make it more pr ...[text shortened]... f quantum physics with the actual quantum physics )



anyone like to add to this list? ....

"Darwin's evolutionary theory predicts survival of the fittest. "

"-which is simply false. An example of where that is false is the evolution of male peacock tail feathers that clearly don't help it to survive but make it more prone to falling victim to a predictor thus this is a characteristic that can be considered to be 'unfit' for survival and yet this is perfectly consistent with evolution as it helps it pass on its genes."

Darwin never wrote those words so the words are false, but few can argue that it is generally true. The peacock survives so any assertion that it could be considered unfit for survival is obviously false. Showing it's colorful array of feathers may be an indication of good health. Good health increases the chance of survival.

People often have their own opinions about what makes a species or an individual of a species fit for survival and they are often wrong. People even think they know what makes their own species more likely to survive and they are often wrong. For example, many people think high intelligence is better for survival but if that were the case women would be attracted to men who are exceptionally intelligent and they are not. Women are attracted to men of average intelligence because average characteristics are (generally) most likely to insure survival.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Darwin's evolutionary theory predicts survival of the fittest. "

"-which is simply false. An example of where that is false is the evolution of male peacock tail feathers that clearly don't help it to survive but make it more prone to falling victim to a predictor thus this is a characteristic that can be considered to be 'unfit' for survival and ye ...[text shortened]... age intelligence because average characteristics are (generally) most likely to insure survival.

I'm attracted to intelligent women!

Originally posted by Ponderable
Laser cannons having recoil 🙂

Lasers do have recoil but it is generally not noticeable.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Lasers do have recoil but it is generally not noticeable.

I reffered to the Star wars movie

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I'm attracted to intelligent women!

Even if they are physically unattractive? Be honest.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The second law of thermodynamics means that things always get less complex, and complex things necessarily 'break down' over time.

oh yes! I forgot about that one! That is a particularly annoying one that I have heard some use against evolution theory -preforming the logical fallacy of equivocation by confusing thermodynamic "disorder" with the much vague and generic every day English dictionary meaning of "disorder" to argue that nothing can evolve to become more "complex" (even though not even the theory of thermodynamic "disorder" actually says things generally get less "complex" with time in particular although that depends on exactly how you define "complex" so first you need to define what you mean by "complex" ). No matter how many times and ways I have explained to them the difference, they just don't get it.

Originally posted by humy
I looked at:

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-slimy-dont.html

and was appalled to see that the very first sentence was:

"Darwin's evolutionary theory predicts survival of the fittest. "

-which is simply false. An example of where that is false is the evolution of male peacock tail feathers that clearly don't help it to survive but make it more pr ...[text shortened]... f quantum physics with the actual quantum physics )



anyone like to add to this list? ....

Do you mean the Cøpenhagen Interpretation? That is the standard interpretation of quantum theory. This is actually a reasonable one for laypersons to get wrong as the Cøpenhagenists like to portray the Cøpenhagen interpretation as being Quantum Mechanics. When Everett first mooted his many worlds interpretation he was told that it should predict all the same things as quantum mechanics, meaning the Cøpenhagen Interpretation, which I think it basically does. It's a funny thing since I always thought it was experiment theories had to agree with, not other theories.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Do you mean the Cøpenhagen Interpretation? That is the standard interpretation of quantum theory. This is actually a reasonable one for laypersons to get wrong as the Cøpenhagenists like to portray the Cøpenhagen interpretation as being Quantum Mechanics. When Everett first mooted his many worlds interpretation he was told that it should predict all t ...[text shortened]... y thing since I always thought it was experiment theories had to agree with, not other theories.

You write well, and I have nothing to complain about of what you write.

But, just a detail that doesn't look right in my Scandinavian eyes:

The capitol of Denmark is Copenhagen (in English) or Køpenhavn (in Danish). Don't use the ø where it doesn't belong.

But everything else that you write I read with most interest!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Even if they are physically unattractive? Be honest.

Beauty fades, intelligence stands.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Beauty fades, intelligence stands.

I agree. Beauty is average though. We are all genetically programed to be attracted to average characteristics. Have you ever considered that this attraction to average is not only physical but also applies to intelligence to some extent?
Have you ever heard a woman say she is attracted to intelligent men only for her to choose a guy of average intelligence instead of an exceptionally intelligent guy who is not exceptionally successful? Intelligence does not always result in success. Most successful people are of average intelligence, right?