01 Apr 15
4 edits
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? ....
01 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyHow many times have we heard this?
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? ....
(*) 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.
01 Apr 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasLaser cannons having recoil 🙂
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.
01 Apr 15
Originally posted by humy"Darwin's evolutionary theory predicts survival of the fittest. "
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? ....
"-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.
01 Apr 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainI'm attracted to intelligent women!
"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.
01 Apr 15
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadoh 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.
The second law of thermodynamics means that things always get less complex, and complex things necessarily 'break down' over time.
01 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyDo 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.
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? ....
02 Apr 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou write well, and I have nothing to complain about of what you write.
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.
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!
02 Apr 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasI 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?
Beauty fades, intelligence stands.
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?