On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 11:59:47 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:53:49?PM UTC-5, Andrew McDowell wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 7:33:37?PM UTC, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:35:39?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I find it marvelous how easily and quickly an evolutionist can create
>> > > a Just-So story to explain ... anything that is even suggested that is
>> > > relevent to biological evolution.
>> > Oh. You're one of Those.
>> >
>> > What TESTABLE hypothesis do you have for altruism and self sacrifice?
>> >
>> > Pt
>> There was an experiment done in this area, but I interpret as voting for something less confrontational than a culture of respect. This was Muir's psychopathic chicken study. The point of using chickens was that it is easy to measure the productivity of a chicken by counting eggs. So you could populate a hen house with chickens all of whom came from a long line of (individual) champion egg-layers, or chickens from hen houses where the productivity of the hen house as a whole was unusually high. The hen house populated by high individual achievers did poorly, with some chickens being pecked to death; the high scores had been achieved at the expense of neighbouring birds, and this tendancy was hereditary. A web search finds one account at https://www.wkms.org/science/2018-10-08/scientists-use-chickens-to-study-new-theory-of-multi-level-evolution - I think I encountered it in a book by David Sloan Wilson.
>
>If the cooperative chickens came from same or related bloodlines, the result suggests that an
>evolutionary explanation is plausible.

An evolutionary explanation is always plausible. But is it falsifiable
(and so scientific)?
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 11:53:03 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 11:33:34 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 11:35:39?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>
> >> I find it marvelous how easily and quickly an evolutionist can create
> >> a Just-So story to explain ... anything that is even suggested that is
> >> relevent to biological evolution.
> >
> >Oh. You're one of Those.
> >
> >What TESTABLE hypothesis do you have for altruism and self sacrifice?
> Nice diversion.
>
> I don't pretend to have testable hypotheses in this area at all.
>
> And I don't go around making up Just-So Stories to try and hide my
> ignorance of the real explanation, should one actually exist.
>
> Alternate Answer:
>
> Two words:
> Natural
> Selection
> that explains everything, biologically speaking.

Not at all. Darwin wrote extensively about sexual selection as another important factor. Since then
neutral theory has shown that even unfavourable traits can be established in the population,
and favourable lost. Which by itself takes the wind out of possible "just so" stories.

Some biologists go so far as to say that the main mechanism of evolution is genetic drift. I am not clear on that.

Nor does any evolutionary theory explain the origin of life, or even why vertebrates have
five digits on each limb, or remnants thereof.

>
> Quantum mechanics,

is a well established field which, with its associated fields of quantum electrodynamics and
quantum chromodynamics, has made some of the most accurate predictions of any
scientific field.

But we can't write the wavefunction for a bacterium, let alone a frog.

>relativity,

Again, well tested, again doesn't explain everything.

Then there is their love-child, relativistic quantum mechanics, which predicted the positron, and,
more importantly, aided me in my work decades ago on the crucial issue of the value of the
anomalous g-shift in the alkali metals. Still waiting for a nobel on that.

Alas the other child, general-relativistic quantum mechanics, is still in gestation.

> and psychoanalysis

One of these things is not like the others.

All of these fields can be abused, and are so repeatedly in scientific-sounding popular literature.
If those were the subjects of your disapproval, this post is unnecessary as I entirely
agree.

are able to explain
> everything else.

Well, except dark matter/dark energy, or, if you prefer, the observations that led people to believe in
those two.

My favourite explanation for dark matter is of course supersymmetric particles, which fit the data
rather well except for the small matter of never having been observed. But we know
so little about this that I suspect my chances of being correct are tiny.

>
> Note that "explain" above includes "explain away".

To take an example:

Dark energy does not "explain away" the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is a suggested
explanation, subject to further work, and it could join philogiston on the ash-heap of science.

Or to recap: We do not have a universally accepted explanation for the origin of life, the cause of the
big bang (nor do we even know if the word "cause" can be used here) or the accelerating expansion
of the universe. Seems there's a lot left to explain.

William Hyde

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:02:11 AM UTC-7, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <k6dtbo...@mid.individual.net>,
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
> >On 3 Mar 2023 at 05:41:51 GMT, "Andrew McDowell" <mcdow...@sky.com>
> >wrote:

> >> Much of this I am not impressed by; in particular, I find "I
> >>was being deliberately provocative" more of an admission than an
> >>excuse,

> >Schrodinger's Asshole. Someone who says something horrible, then decides
> >if it was serious or a "hey it's just a joke, maaaan" depending on the
> >reaction.

> That section of the population that feigns in any useful sense being
> members of the cult of that guy who got nailed to a tree by the Romans
> might be interested to know the religious text to which they pay
> lip service covers Schrodinger's Asshole:
>
> "As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death,
>
> So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not
> I in sport?"

Proverbs 26:18-19

And now I see he told the Washington Post:

"“I shook the box intentionally. I did not realize how hard I shook it."

If he doesn't realize that people feel strongly about racism nowadays,
he has not been paying attention.

John Savard

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 2:25:55 PM UTC-7, William Hyde wrote:

> To take an example:
>
> Dark energy does not "explain away" the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is a suggested
> explanation, subject to further work, and it could join philogiston on the ash-heap of science.

Indeed.

There are reasons why dark energy and dark matter have come to be suggested as
explanations for certain cosmological observations that suggest that gravity isn't
acting quite as expected over long distances.

Had those observations been a bit different, a much easier explanation could
have been chosen: oh, gravity must involve three particles, the massless
graviton we knew about, but also two other particles for weaker gravitational
forces, one repulsive, and one attractive, with different very tiny masses....
to give the well-known Yukawa potential.

But the observations didn't fit that simple and obvious theory, so we have
the idea that 95% of the Universe is invisible to us... which a number of
science popularizers, at least, are now presenting pretty much as known
fact. They may be jumping the gun a bit.

John Savard

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 13:25:52 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip-o-rama -- I missed this yesterday>

>> Note that "explain" above includes "explain away".
>
>To take an example:
>
>Dark energy does not "explain away" the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is a suggested
>explanation, subject to further work, and it could join philogiston on the ash-heap of science.

I never said it did (explain anything away).

And, yes, like dark matter, it could turn out to be an epicycle, used
by Copernicus (as by Ptolemy before him) to make the theory fit the
observations. This is a very common occurrence, summarized in the
saying:

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

It is psychoanalysis that does the "explaining away", when that is
needed. The others are limited to explaining what they can.

Identifying a few boundary cases doesn't change that.

>Or to recap: We do not have a universally accepted explanation for the origin of life, the cause of the
>big bang (nor do we even know if the word "cause" can be used here) or the accelerating expansion
>of the universe. Seems there's a lot left to explain.

That's three things.

Millions of things /are/ explained.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 11:33:54 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 13:25:52 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip-o-rama -- I missed this yesterday>
> >> Note that "explain" above includes "explain away".
> >
> >To take an example:
> >
> >Dark energy does not "explain away" the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is a suggested
> >explanation, subject to further work, and it could join philogiston on the ash-heap of science.
> I never said it did (explain anything away).
>
> And, yes, like dark matter, it could turn out to be an epicycle,

At the moment it seems likely that dark matter exists.

used
> by Copernicus (as by Ptolemy before him) to make the theory fit the
> observations. This is a very common occurrence, summarized in the
> saying:
>
> If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
>
> It is psychoanalysis that does the "explaining away", when that is
> needed. The others are limited to explaining what they can.

That you intended this is not at all clear from your post.

BTW I have read with some pleasure Peter Medawar on psychoanalysis.

>
> Identifying a few boundary cases doesn't change that.
> >Or to recap: We do not have a universally accepted explanation for the origin of life, the cause of the
> >big bang (nor do we even know if the word "cause" can be used here) or the accelerating expansion
> >of the universe. Seems there's a lot left to explain.
> That's three things.
>
> Millions of things /are/ explained.

Three rather big things. If we were in the "explaining away" business as you implied, those
would be three we would doubtless deal with thus, as religion does for two of them.

William Hyde

On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 11:56:12 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 11:33:54?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 13:25:52 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip-o-rama -- I missed this yesterday>
>> >> Note that "explain" above includes "explain away".
>> >
>> >To take an example:
>> >
>> >Dark energy does not "explain away" the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is a suggested
>> >explanation, subject to further work, and it could join philogiston on the ash-heap of science.
>> I never said it did (explain anything away).
>>
>> And, yes, like dark matter, it could turn out to be an epicycle,
>
>At the moment it seems likely that dark matter exists.

Well, since "dark matter" can only be detected by means of the very
theoretical discrepancy it is intended to resolve, that is hardly a
surprise.

/Something/ is causing the discrepancy. But whether "dark matter" is
doing so or the theory is simply not entirely correct and needs to be
rethought remains to be seen.

> used
>> by Copernicus (as by Ptolemy before him) to make the theory fit the
>> observations. This is a very common occurrence, summarized in the
>> saying:
>>
>> If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
>>
>> It is psychoanalysis that does the "explaining away", when that is
>> needed. The others are limited to explaining what they can.
>
>That you intended this is not at all clear from your post.

The post clearly stated that, together with evolution, relativity,
quantum theory, and psychoanalysis could expain (or explain away)
everything.

Just because some people chose to interpret that as saying that /each/
of them could do so is not my problem.

>BTW I have read with some pleasure Peter Medawar on psychoanalysis.
>
>>
>> Identifying a few boundary cases doesn't change that.
>> >Or to recap: We do not have a universally accepted explanation for the origin of life, the cause of the
>> >big bang (nor do we even know if the word "cause" can be used here) or the accelerating expansion
>> >of the universe. Seems there's a lot left to explain.
>> That's three things.
>>
>> Millions of things /are/ explained.
>
>Three rather big things. If we were in the "explaining away" business as you implied, those
>would be three we would doubtless deal with thus, as religion does for two of them.

I never said science was in the "explaining" business, never mind the
"explaining away" business. The latter is the province of
psychoanalysis (speaking of "religion").

Science is in the business, as it were, of developing a consensual
view of reality. Preferably one that isn't falsified easily.

But it does explain things, and biological evolution is especially
prone to being used to explain everything. Indeed, I suspect that a
lot of the people who hear that "stars evolve as they age" think that
biological evolution is meant.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 11:40:07 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 11:56:12 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 11:33:54?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 13:25:52 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
> >> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip-o-rama -- I missed this yesterday>
> >> >> Note that "explain" above includes "explain away".
> >> >
> >> >To take an example:
> >> >
> >> >Dark energy does not "explain away" the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is a suggested
> >> >explanation, subject to further work, and it could join philogiston on the ash-heap of science.
> >> I never said it did (explain anything away).
> >>
> >> And, yes, like dark matter, it could turn out to be an epicycle,
> >
> >At the moment it seems likely that dark matter exists.
> Well, since "dark matter" can only be detected by means of the very
> theoretical discrepancy it is intended to resolve, that is hardly a
> surprise.
>
> /Something/ is causing the discrepancy. But whether "dark matter" is
> doing so or the theory is simply not entirely correct and needs to be
> rethought remains to be seen.
> > used
> >> by Copernicus (as by Ptolemy before him) to make the theory fit the
> >> observations. This is a very common occurrence, summarized in the
> >> saying:
> >>
> >> If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
> >>
> >> It is psychoanalysis that does the "explaining away", when that is
> >> needed. The others are limited to explaining what they can.
> >
> >That you intended this is not at all clear from your post.
> The post clearly stated that, together with evolution, relativity,
> quantum theory, and psychoanalysis could expain (or explain away)
> everything.
>
> Just because some people chose to interpret that as saying that /each/
> of them could do so is not my problem.
> >BTW I have read with some pleasure Peter Medawar on psychoanalysis.
> >
> >>
> >> Identifying a few boundary cases doesn't change that.
> >> >Or to recap: We do not have a universally accepted explanation for the origin of life, the cause of the
> >> >big bang (nor do we even know if the word "cause" can be used here) or the accelerating expansion
> >> >of the universe. Seems there's a lot left to explain.
> >> That's three things.
> >>
> >> Millions of things /are/ explained.
> >
> >Three rather big things. If we were in the "explaining away" business as you implied, those
> >would be three we would doubtless deal with thus, as religion does for two of them.
> I never said science was in the "explaining" business, never mind the
> "explaining away" business. The latter is the province of
> psychoanalysis (speaking of "religion").
>
> Science is in the business, as it were, of developing a consensual
> view of reality. Preferably one that isn't falsified easily.
>
> But it does explain things, and biological evolution is especially
> prone to being used to explain everything. Indeed, I suspect that a
> lot of the people who hear that "stars evolve as they age" think that
> biological evolution is meant.

I'd like to add that your complaint about evolutionary 'just so stories'
has some merit - there are a lot of potential evolutionary paths which
can lead to a given adaptation, and its not always clear which occurred.
But that doesn't mean that evolution isn't real.

pt

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 11:40:07 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 11:56:12 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 11:33:54?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 13:25:52 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
> >> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip-o-rama -- I missed this yesterday>
> >> >> Note that "explain" above includes "explain away".
> >> >
> >> >To take an example:
> >> >
> >> >Dark energy does not "explain away" the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is a suggested
> >> >explanation, subject to further work, and it could join philogiston on the ash-heap of science.
> >> I never said it did (explain anything away).
> >>
> >> And, yes, like dark matter, it could turn out to be an epicycle,
> >
> >At the moment it seems likely that dark matter exists.
> Well, since "dark matter" can only be detected by means of the very
> theoretical discrepancy it is intended to resolve,

This is not true. Dark matter was originally intended as a possible reason for galactic
rotation rates as long ago as the 1970s. However, other gravitational anomalies have
been observed since which can be explained with dark matter in a consistent way.
Which does not mean it does exist, but is very strong evidence.

Still, until we know what it is, a reasonable doubt will persist.

> >> It is psychoanalysis that does the "explaining away", when that is
> >> needed. The others are limited to explaining what they can.
> >
> >That you intended this is not at all clear from your post.
> The post clearly stated that, together with evolution, relativity,
> quantum theory, and psychoanalysis could expain (or explain away)
> everything.
>
> Just because some people chose to interpret that as saying that /each/
> of them could do so is not my problem.

“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

> Science is in the business, as it were, of developing a consensual
> view of reality. Preferably one that isn't falsified easily.
>
> But it does explain things, and biological evolution is especially
> prone to being used to explain everything. Indeed, I suspect that a
> lot of the people who hear that "stars evolve as they age" think that
> biological evolution is meant.

And some people think the earth is shaped like a burrito.

William Hyde

On 3/9/2023 12:17 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 11:40:07 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 11:56:12 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 11:33:54?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 13:25:52 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>>>> <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip-o-rama -- I missed this yesterday>
>>>>>> Note that "explain" above includes "explain away".
>>>>>
>>>>> To take an example:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dark energy does not "explain away" the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is a suggested
>>>>> explanation, subject to further work, and it could join philogiston on the ash-heap of science.
>>>> I never said it did (explain anything away).
>>>>
>>>> And, yes, like dark matter, it could turn out to be an epicycle,
>>>
>>> At the moment it seems likely that dark matter exists.
>> Well, since "dark matter" can only be detected by means of the very
>> theoretical discrepancy it is intended to resolve,
>
> This is not true. Dark matter was originally intended as a possible reason for galactic
> rotation rates as long ago as the 1970s. However, other gravitational anomalies have
> been observed since which can be explained with dark matter in a consistent way.
> Which does not mean it does exist, but is very strong evidence.
>
> Still, until we know what it is, a reasonable doubt will persist.
>
At the moment I believe the definition of Dark Matter is "A label for
the unknown factor causing these effects that we haven't identified
yet." I.E. we don't know what is causing these observed phenomena but
until we do we are calling it Dark Matter so we all know we are talking
about the same thing.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> writes:
>On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 11:40:07=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrot=
>e:
>
>> Well, since "dark matter" can only be detected by means of the very=20
>> theoretical discrepancy it is intended to resolve,=20
>
>This is not true. Dark matter was originally intended as a possible reason=
> for galactic
>rotation rates as long ago as the 1970s. However, other gravitational anom=
>alies have
>been observed since which can be explained with dark matter in a consistent=
> way.
>Which does not mean it does exist, but is very strong evidence.
>
>Still, until we know what it is, a reasonable doubt will persist.

I did read something recently that speculated a 'double big bang',
where the second created a parallel dark-matter universe.

Yeah, here 'tis:

https://gizmodo.com/dark-matter-big-bang-hidden-universe-physics-1850199134

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 9:40:07 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:

> The post clearly stated that, together with evolution, relativity,
> quantum theory, and psychoanalysis could expain (or explain away)
> everything.

> Just because some people chose to interpret that as saying that /each/
> of them could do so is not my problem.

Given the fossil record, the correctiions that have to be made in designing
particle accelerators and satellite geolocation systems, the photelectric
effect... and a few other things... to suggest that either the theory of
evolution by natural selection, or the special and general theories of relativity,
or quantum theory, are somehow, in any way, either untrue or even subject
to any serious doubt... seems to me to be lunacy on a par with claiming the
Sun goes around the Earth, or the Earth is flat.

If it does not seem so to you, no doubt that is because your mind has not been
subjected to the salutary effects of several years of undergraduate and
post-graduate study in Physics. So, naturally, you haven't had the opportunity
to see the truth of relativity and quantum mechanics _with your own eyes_ and
to understand *how they work*.

I view that as your problem. As I have not been issued with a Lens, I can't
prove to you that I'm not brainwashed, however.

John Savard

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 3/9/2023 12:17 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>> This is not true. Dark matter was originally intended as a possible
>>reason for galactic rotation rates as long ago as the 1970s.
>>However, other gravitational anomalies have been observed since
>>which can be explained with dark matter in a consistent way. Which
>>does not mean it does exist, but is very strong evidence.
>>
>> Still, until we know what it is, a reasonable doubt will persist.
>
>At the moment I believe the definition of Dark Matter is "A label for
>the unknown factor causing these effects that we haven't identified
>yet." I.E. we don't know what is causing these observed phenomena but
>until we do we are calling it Dark Matter so we all know we are talking
>about the same thing.

The somewhat recent examples of galaxies which don't appear to have
much if any dark matter (contradicting most "modify gravity"
explainations) and galaxies where the visibile matter and gravity
effects are far OFFSET from each other (Bullet Cluster and IIRC a few
others) are very hard to explain any other way!

The Bullet Cluster has sometimes been termed "Direct Proof of Dark
Matter", since there's pretty much no way around there being large
amounts of "non-luminous matter" involved.

This doesn't prove that this effect is also the cause for all what the
current theories ascribe to DM but it does add to the problem for the
non-DM theories - now they need to provide the general "DM" effect AND
still come up with explaination for these wildly diverging examples
too (missing from some, detectable but in "wrong" place in others).

And even before these observation it's my understanding that no one
had been able to come up with a working theory that matched what we
see that didn't involve dark matter despite many people working very
hard on this.

And it's most definitely not due to lack of trying, there's hosts of
people working hard on trying to make non-DM theories that works!
Right now the current state is that the only theory that matches what
we see is "classic+DM" which means it's far more useful than the
various "we can't make it match ALL of what we see" theories.

But as William Hyde mentioned, as long as we don't KNOW there's always
reasonable doubt. And as a result the work continues on both finding
Dark Matter and trying to come up with viable theories without DM,