Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution supported by scientific evidence and why or why not?

[WALMART]

It is, but as another extroverted irrational function, so is Ne. Only being able to think of similar historical cases when presented with a new dispute sounds more like Si-Te than Ne-Ti. It merely happens that the details Ne focuses on are different than the details Se focuses on. The generalizing nature of an INTP is due more to Ti than Ne. Ne focuses on the objective external world.

Sounds like an MBTI bastardization of Si, much as Se and Ni have grown into. Ne focuses on preconceived notions; that much can be gathered from this simple short exchange... "merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision."

For example, I really believe this feature in my product will lead to success, but a report was released recently that shows no one wants this feature in their products. It's merely a guide post, though - I really, truly do believe the product will succeed solely using this feature. This is Ne. It makes judgement calls based off of preferences, however these preferences are resolved - faith or what have you.

Contrarily, Se is the cold, business like approach to preferences. No risk/reward system, perhaps. That's a drag, 'cause I do enjoy novelty in products.

Needing "similar historical cases" in fact, speaks of the paralytic over-reliance on "evidence" that pushes me away from empiricism, and attracts me to rationalism.

Why would you not want your judgements evidenced? That makes absolutely no sense to me, and doesn't sound like anything that should be called 'rationalism'.

Case in point: Black Swan Theory

It thrashes rationalism up and down the court of play, in case you don't feel like looking into it.

No. We have the rational functions of Feeling and Thinking, and the irrational functions of Intuition and Sensing. The two rational functions are opposed to each other, as are the two irrational functions. Sensing, however does not oppose feeling or thinking, nor does thinking oppose intuition or sensing. A rational function and an irrational function don't work against each other in the same way that the two rational functions do.

I understand the concept, but I'm not sure if you addressed my assertion. Granted - it is an independent thought of mine, but three other's I've discussed with have individually corroborated the thinking, and I "see" the connotations very well. Te and Se go hand in hand - look at Jung's commentary on Charles Darwin, a Te/Se if there ever were such a thing. Other functions paired with Se will diminish the purely rational thinking ascribed by the duo, even Ti/Se, Ti being a function that appeals to the subjective reader.

But again, this is my subjective interpretation.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Sounds like an MBTI bastardization of Si, much as Se and Ni have grown into. Ne focuses on preconceived notions; that much can be gathered from this simple short exchange... "merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision."

For example, I really believe this feature in my product will lead to success, but a report was released recently that shows no one wants this feature in their products. It's merely a guide post, though - I really, truly do believe the product will succeed solely using this feature. This is Ne. It makes judgement calls based off of preferences, however these preferences are resolved - faith or what have you.

That's not Ne. That's introverted thinking so turned in on itself that it loses a connection to reality. Possibly, it's a Ti-Si loop. But it's not Ne. If that report is being ignored.... it isn't being used as a guidepost. It's not being used at all! Because Ne is extraverted, it is turned towards the objective world, which means it just not just ignore external reality. Ne, at least when paired with Ti (and possibilities with Fi), creates possibilities, and tries them out. Then it moves on to another possibility/expectation, regardless of how accurate that ended up being. it doesn't become "attached" to the possibilities or expectations. In fact, it tends to lose interest in them, even if they end up becoming a reality.

What you are describing is Ti, or Ti-SI.

Why would you not want your judgements evidenced? That makes absolutely no sense to me, and doesn't sound like anything that should be called 'rationalism'.

wiki it

Case in point: Black Swan Theory

It thrashes rationalism up and down the court of play, in case you don't feel like looking into it.

I'd rather look at the lesbian oral sex scene from the movie Black Swan.

I understand the concept, but I'm not sure if you addressed my assertion. Granted - it is an independent thought of mine, but three other's I've discussed with have individually corroborated the thinking, and I "see" the connotations very well. Te and Se go hand in hand - look at Jung's commentary on Charles Darwin, a Te/Se if there ever were such a thing.

There is no Te/Se type. Not in any interpretation of function theory I've ever read. Te is paired with introverted perceiving, like either Si or Ni, as a compensatory measure. There is some debate about what comes next, but you don't seem to be referring to tertiary functions.

He calls Darwin an extroverted thinker. I do not believe he calls him an extroverted senser.

Unless you are referring to tertiary functions? I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, unless it's simply that they are the most objective functions. I would agree with that, but I wouldn't say they go "hand in hand". One of those is going to be pushed out of consciousness somewhat.

 

[ygolo]

Case in point: Black Swan Theory

It thrashes rationalism up and down the court of play, in case you don't feel like looking into it.

You must have read a different book from me. I don't think a light version empiricism survives his analysis either, unless you go with a stance of knowing nothing and just waiting for things to happen.

I think the importance of Black Swans was well stated in Taleb's book. His caution against trying to predict Black Swans is a good one.

But his characterization of "the scientific method" was at best a caricature. Any trashing that rationalism takes in his book was of a straw-man version of rationalism (and ironically would dismantle his own argument if a full version was used).

I think the main problem that social scientists have when generalizing knowledge to all science is that they have no simple things to study and experiment with to build up intuition from. So they only get the view point of doing observational science, and not experimental science. Even among theorists, they have few, if any, controlled experiments to draw from. Perhaps, this is one place psychologists, and to some extent, behavioral economists, have a slight advantage over sociologists and macro-economists (even here, the controlled experiments are not on simple things).

In the experimental sciences (which, in the modern age, includes biology and a lot of medicine), a great deal of work (the majority of work?) happens before even one data point is collected. There is a mechanistic (even if vague) understanding that goes into even the design of the experiments. (Even bioinformatics relies on the central dogma for its efficacy).

 

[WALMART]

You must have read a different book from me. I don't think a light version empiricism survives his analysis either, unless you go with a stance of knowing nothing and just waiting for things to happen.

I think the importance of Black Swans was well stated in Taleb's book. His caution against trying to predict Black Swans is a good one.

But his characterization of "the scientific method" was at best a caricature. Any trashing that rationalism takes in his book was of a straw-man version of rationalism (and ironically would dismantle his own argument if a full version was used).

I think the main problem that social scientists have when generalizing knowledge to all science is that they have no simple things to study and experiment with to build up intuition from. So they only get the view point of doing observational science, and not experimental science. Even among theorists, they have few, if any, controlled experiments to draw from. Perhaps, this is one place psychologists, and to some extent, behavioral economists, have a slight advantage over sociologists and macro-economists (even here, the controlled experiments are not on simple things).

In the experimental sciences (which, in the modern age, includes biology and a lot of medicine), a great deal of work (the majority of work?) happens before even one data point is collected. There is a mechanistic (even if vague) understanding that goes into even the design of the experiments. (Even bioinformatics relies on the central dogma for its efficacy).

What I took from the book was that there are always outliers of information waiting to damage systems of thought, and to always live with the potential for potentiality to arise. From the Wiki article: "The main idea in Taleb's book is not to attempt to predict black swan events, but to build robustness against negative ones that occur and be able to exploit positive ones." Though to be honest, I was around fifteen or sixteen when I read the book, far from a developed mind took all this in. I would like to revisit the subject.

I wasn't quite speaking from a scientific perspective when I wrote all that but even then I would greatly prefer it if empirical evidence ruled the landscape over intuition. Example: security cameras in America. When a concerned citizen wants to rationalize the situation, what are they going to turn to - 1984, or modern day London? It happens with so many subjects it's astounding.

It's not that I don't value rationalization, or cannot see the utility. Empiricism is simply preferred, is all.

 

[andresimon]

With survival comes fitness towards survival. Their is a selection criteria called "survival." Over any period of time those that "survived" are thus more "Fit" to survive. Anytime you have a selection mechanism that eliminates anything NOT "it" then you will eventually have only those that fit "it" best remain.

Much of our cognitive biases arise from these types of selection mechanisms as well. We focus on certain aspects of reality and their is a trade-off or opportunity cost because we cannot focus on both parts of reality, we "favor" one over the other. The problem arises when companies like McDonald's take these biases and manipulate them for profit or gain.

 

[Fun in the Sun]

I really don't like threads that like to pit evolution against creationism. In the U.S. those terms will split the group into two camps and doesn't make reasonable discussion possible. I'm going to dabble in the discussion anyways for fun.

It's not that evolution is 100% correct, it is that it better explains the origin of life than biblical creationism. Science is the best means we have to discern reality. It's not infallible, it is just the best we have. It's based more on observation and logic than testable experiments but can be falsified at any time with evidence. So far, no conclusive evidence against it appeared. So far, it makes the most sense.

 

[INTP]

It's not that evolution is 100% correct, it is that it better explains the origin of life than biblical creationism. Science is the best means we have to discern reality. It's not infallible, it is just the best we have. It's based more on observation and logic than testable experiments but can be falsified at any time with evidence. So far, no conclusive evidence against it appeared. So far, it makes the most sense.

Dictionary defines evolution like this:
"change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."

How can thi be only partially true and are you serious that it havent been proven?

I mean i have proven it myself by combining different strains of wxxx for few generations to get desired qualities in the offsprings.

 

[TSDesigner]

There's TONS of concrete real world tangible evidence supporting evolution. There's zero evidence supporting the bible, which is 100% lies. The bible is a joke. I don't take it seriously. Every religion is a joke.

 

[Fun in the Sun]

Dictionary defines evolution like this:
"change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."

How can thi be only partially true and are you serious that it havent been proven?

I mean i have proven it myself by combining different strains of wxxx for few generations to get desired qualities in the offsprings.

That's a good point that there are experiments that verify evolution in this way. I was referring to the deductive approach which creationists try and pass as not being scientific, such as when they say there is not enough evidence for macro evolution(creation of new species with innovative traits). Intelligent design advocates often accept micro evolution, such as experiments with fruit flies, etc.

I am being facetious about it not being proven. Of course it has been. Just because we can't yet observe macro evolution over a millennium doesn't mean that we were created by the biblical God and Jesus died for our sins