h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

hi PC,

perhaps just the very broad strokes... otherwise it's difficult to make sense of.

I admit I only just read a very brief summary of Jaynes' book: http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/conscious/conscious3.html
Somebody there gets the size of the corpus callosum wrong, but I wouldn't know whether that's in the original or why it would be relevant.

Ought we really to have to delve into such eccentricities in order to decide whether humans have evolved at all? I believe the Neanderthal's didn't leave any evidence of art. Now if we found something like that suddenly appearing, well, we'd be back to hitchiking the galaxy again; but this time with Pratchett I expect.

??

Sorry Spiff; you'll have to be a little more specific if you want an answer to that question!

Hi Ben,

Just to change the subject, briefly.

I have no problem whatsoever if yourself, Ste, or anyone else uses the thoughts that I added in any way at all.

This is a really interesting subject, and I am glad that I could have added to the debate in a small way.

Thank's

Bed Time!

Oh,

And Thank You for your welcome!

Oh, Toxxin, don't you ever stop? As soon as any claim you make is answered or countered, you're off again, questing for even more obtuse and obscure ways to make points that none but you understand. Well, OK, maybe it's just me.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Bit of a pain ain't I? This topic is supposed to be about evolution. All I have been asking is how do we know whether something has evolved/is evolving. If we can't answer that, we can't tell whether Ben's alleged effect exists - even in principle.

Is that obtuse, obscure, hard to understand? It seems to me to be the most basic, simple and relevant question one could ask about evolution. My proffered answers have been scoffed at, so let's have a better suggestion please, anyone.

Ahah - the central point again (hooray! ):

<...how do we know whether something has evolved/is evolving.>

I don't think we *can* know that *with certainty*. We are agreed, I think that a change due to evolution is just a special case of a change. I agree that we can observe a change, but I don't think we can - *with certainty* - know that the cause of the observed change is evolution. We can guess that it is - an educated guess, with a high probability of correctness - but this isn't certainty.

In the real world, I think we must settle for a high probability of correctness. The chase for certainty is a fruitless one, I believe, in all but trivial cases (such as, for example, "1 + 1 = 2", which is defined to be true, and is therefore certain).



I agree that *with certainty* , but see above....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

So, Toxxin, are you saying 'Evolution? A likely story!' and thence arguing against a minor theory that takes evolution as it's starting point?

If so, could the problem not easily be solved in this specific case by stating early on that this entry assumes that human beings did indeed evolve from other life forms, as positted by Mr Darwin and others.

i mean, we're not expecting every entry that assumes the validity of evolutionary theory to *prove* that theory...

I would be happy to have a test of evolving that had a probability of greater than 50%. Given a large enough sample size, it could turn out to be statistically significant. Failing such a test, we can't tell in even a probabilistic sense whether Ben's alleged effect exists.

I have never sought certainty in areas other than those where necessary truth or falsity are involved.

falsity; an interesting and rarely seen word.

well, by me, anyhoos,

No Spiff, I'm broadly in agreement with the standard view on evolution. My question is not a theoretical one but an empirical one. 'Are humans evolving now?' is an interesting part of it. I don't question for a yoctosecond that HSS is a product of evolution.

ok, , so it's 'belief as an evolutionary trait' that is the sticking point...

To me 'falsehood' implies a deliberate lie, while 'falsity' implies the condition of not being true - with no emotive overtones. Is 'falseness' ever used?

Sure is! I'm stuck right at the start of the question at the heart of this project.

Loaded question (to Toxxin): do you subscribe to creationism, in some shape or form? Depending on your answer, I think all is finally becoming clear. Let's see....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I don't subscribe to any form of creationism unless you count the fact that I'm agnostic about the origin of the universe.

I take back another question. 'Falseness' is used to denote untrustworthiness or even the quality of being ersatz.

Hi Toxxin,



Just for a minute, there, I thought I'd understood. Oh well.



So, if I understand correctly (it *has* happened - once or twice ):

Given that you don't accept evolution as a proven theory - probably with good reason, IMO - there is nothing that will convince you that Ben's proposal is correct, is there?

Don't you think all this has been a little unfair? You have been trying to goad the posters here into providing you with proof of evolution, by your sometimes-less-than-comprehensible objections to Ben's thoughts. Shame on you.

If, as suggested (by Spiff?), Ben includes a rider that Darwinian evolution is assumed correct for the purposes of this entry, will your objections fade away?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what is supposed to have happened once or twice. I have already said that I'm in broad agreement with the standard view on evolution. See reply to Spiff (#196?). I accept the theory of evolution. That isn't my problem. Where did I say otherwise?

I would accept Ben's proposal if it could be empirically demonstrated to have a greater than 50% probability. Yet again, what test would one use and what evidence would show that the proposal was more probably true than false? Simple question. I'm not being radical or complicated. All I say is standard science and philosophy.

Please, please let's assume Darwininan evolution to be correct. Now how does it apply to Ben's proposal? That is all I'm asking. Still no answer.