Comments on: Legitimate and cargo cult ideas http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/legitimate-and-cargo-cult-ideas/ Official company blog for Bumblebee Labs Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:50:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ross Lee Graham, PhD http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/legitimate-and-cargo-cult-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-9531 Ross Lee Graham, PhD Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:35:00 +0000 http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/?p=459#comment-9531 I hope this comment gets in the right comment list... This notion of idea into two categories does not hold up. Phlogiston is well-known as a flawed concept and yet from it was generated the concept of calories and calory counting. Furthermore, to say "All attempts to debunk evolution merely reveal the debunker’s lack of understanding of evolution," begs the question. It makes me think that you are unaware of the many problems that are not answered by what you seem to think is a unified theory of evolution. It would place you in the same tribe as those who said Lamarck's theory of evolution had fatal flaws in it and yet in today's research these so-called flaws are being re-examined since there is apparent evidence that there are cases where learned abilities are inherited. It is true that this still stands as an unproven hypothesis, but maybe you do not know that at the foundations of science the only power we have is to show that some generality fails. That is to say that science has more power to disprove than to prove an hypothesis. You can read Hume. William James, Popper, on this assertion. I taught evolution theory at University for 6 years and I still keep up with the subject. It has long been known that the theory that Darwin stole from Wallace has flaws that have yet to be answered. Therefore, to talk about a theory of evolution as if there is only one well-established theory reminds me of a religious evangelist and shows a lack of maturity of judgment on this subject. I suggest you begin by reading Arnold C. Brackman's book: 'A Delicate Arrangement'.  Should you wish further recommendations, just ask... Best regards I hope this comment gets in the right comment list…
This notion of idea into two categories does not hold up. Phlogiston is well-known as a flawed concept and yet from it was generated the concept of calories and calory counting. Furthermore, to say “All attempts to debunk evolution merely reveal the debunker’s lack of understanding of evolution,” begs the question. It makes me think that you are unaware of the many problems that are not answered by what you seem to think is a unified theory of evolution. It would place you in the same tribe as those who said Lamarck’s theory of evolution had fatal flaws in it and yet in today’s research these so-called flaws are being re-examined since there is apparent evidence that there are cases where learned abilities are inherited. It is true that this still stands as an unproven hypothesis, but maybe you do not know that at the foundations of science the only power we have is to show that some generality fails. That is to say that science has more power to disprove than to prove an hypothesis. You can read Hume. William James, Popper, on this assertion. I taught evolution theory at University for 6 years and I still keep up with the subject. It has long been known that the theory that Darwin stole from Wallace has flaws that have yet to be answered. Therefore, to talk about a theory of evolution as if there is only one well-established theory reminds me of a religious evangelist and shows a lack of maturity of judgment on this subject. I suggest you begin by reading Arnold C. Brackman’s book: ‘A Delicate Arrangement’.  Should you wish further recommendations, just ask…
Best regards

]]> By: Hang http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/legitimate-and-cargo-cult-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-815 Hang Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:14:05 +0000 http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/?p=459#comment-815 Hi Zach, This is in my sketches blog which means it's still a work in progress... It's impossible to distinguish the two with an absolute degree of certainty but it's often fairly easy to get 90% of the way there. It's impossible to ever ascertain certainty because simply disproving one version of an idea doesn't mean there doesn't exist a more sophisticated version which is immune to your disproof and proving that your idea survives an argument doesn't mean there's a more sophisticated argument that punctures it. I'm going to expand on this piece in a little bit... Hi Zach,

This is in my sketches blog which means it’s still a work in progress…

It’s impossible to distinguish the two with an absolute degree of certainty but it’s often fairly easy to get 90% of the way there. It’s impossible to ever ascertain certainty because simply disproving one version of an idea doesn’t mean there doesn’t exist a more sophisticated version which is immune to your disproof and proving that your idea survives an argument doesn’t mean there’s a more sophisticated argument that punctures it.

I’m going to expand on this piece in a little bit…

]]> By: Hang http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/legitimate-and-cargo-cult-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-9096 Hang Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:14:00 +0000 http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/?p=459#comment-9096 Hi Zach, This is in my sketches blog which means it's still a work in progress... It's impossible to distinguish the two with an absolute degree of certainty but it's often fairly easy to get 90% of the way there. It's impossible to ever ascertain certainty because simply disproving one version of an idea doesn't mean there doesn't exist a more sophisticated version which is immune to your disproof and proving that your idea survives an argument doesn't mean there's a more sophisticated argument that punctures it. I'm going to expand on this piece in a little bit... Hi Zach,

This is in my sketches blog which means it’s still a work in progress…

It’s impossible to distinguish the two with an absolute degree of certainty but it’s often fairly easy to get 90% of the way there. It’s impossible to ever ascertain certainty because simply disproving one version of an idea doesn’t mean there doesn’t exist a more sophisticated version which is immune to your disproof and proving that your idea survives an argument doesn’t mean there’s a more sophisticated argument that punctures it.

I’m going to expand on this piece in a little bit…

]]> By: Zach Hale http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/legitimate-and-cargo-cult-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-797 Zach Hale Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:54:52 +0000 http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/?p=459#comment-797 Well done on an extremely lucid contrast of the two types of ideas. It drives me crazy that your solution for how to distinguish between the two is that it's impossible. Even if someone were to "reach the cliff", for any cargo cult idea of significance one man's assertions would be quickly covered up by those who have lived their lives in support of the false idea. You mention "only probabilistic measures are possible" but I a having a hard time conceptualizing for what sort of circumstances you could argue disproving the cargo cult idea is "possible". Or maybe you just mean possible on a one-on-one basis. How frustrating. Do you have other examples of good cargo cult ideas that exist similarly to the atheist vs. christian argument? Well done on an extremely lucid contrast of the two types of ideas.

It drives me crazy that your solution for how to distinguish between the two is that it’s impossible. Even if someone were to “reach the cliff”, for any cargo cult idea of significance one man’s assertions would be quickly covered up by those who have lived their lives in support of the false idea.

You mention “only probabilistic measures are possible” but I a having a hard time conceptualizing for what sort of circumstances you could argue disproving the cargo cult idea is “possible”. Or maybe you just mean possible on a one-on-one basis.

How frustrating.

Do you have other examples of good cargo cult ideas that exist similarly to the atheist vs. christian argument?

]]> By: Zach Hale http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/legitimate-and-cargo-cult-ideas/comment-page-1/#comment-9095 Zach Hale Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:54:00 +0000 http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/?p=459#comment-9095 Well done on an extremely lucid contrast of the two types of ideas. It drives me crazy that your solution for how to distinguish between the two is that it's impossible. Even if someone were to "reach the cliff", for any cargo cult idea of significance one man's assertions would be quickly covered up by those who have lived their lives in support of the false idea. You mention "only probabilistic measures are possible" but I a having a hard time conceptualizing for what sort of circumstances you could argue disproving the cargo cult idea is "possible". Or maybe you just mean possible on a one-on-one basis. How frustrating. Do you have other examples of good cargo cult ideas that exist similarly to the atheist vs. christian argument? Well done on an extremely lucid contrast of the two types of ideas.

It drives me crazy that your solution for how to distinguish between the two is that it’s impossible. Even if someone were to “reach the cliff”, for any cargo cult idea of significance one man’s assertions would be quickly covered up by those who have lived their lives in support of the false idea.

You mention “only probabilistic measures are possible” but I a having a hard time conceptualizing for what sort of circumstances you could argue disproving the cargo cult idea is “possible”. Or maybe you just mean possible on a one-on-one basis.

How frustrating.

Do you have other examples of good cargo cult ideas that exist similarly to the atheist vs. christian argument?

]]>