Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2004, 12:23 PM       
I fail to see how science is hindered by reducing the negative consequences of experiments.

And you haven't addressed my scenario.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Protoclown Protoclown is offline
The Goddamned Batman
Protoclown's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Protoclown is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2004, 12:47 PM       
I support kidnapping human babies and testing things on them.

EVERYBODY WINS!
__________________
"It's like I'm livin' in a stinkin' poop rainbow." - Cordelia Burbank
Reply With Quote
  #28  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2004, 04:16 PM       
This is silliness. If you truly want an answer to this question, I suggest you read up on Einstein and his views on Science, and the Scientists that serve it. He had a rather intriguing little parable about priests in a temple that I believe would fit aptly here and answer your questions.

The problem with your scenerio is inherently flawed by a fatal assumption; Namely that a hypothesis is already formed. Much of what is done within the Scientific community of late is more a recording of observations than a testing of hypothesis'. For a properly formed hypothesis to be established, it has to be composed of previously confirmed data directed at reaching a specific aim not simply an idle supposition which begins nowhere and ends in the air.

Idle suppositions, or poorly thought out hypothesis' will simply result in data, not additional progress towards a specific aim. You rarely find what you're not looking for.

In any case, animal testing makes it more convenient for such wasteful psuedo-scientific pursuits to occour. If they were utilized more like the finite resources they truly are, maybe then I would be open to negotiation on this subject, but as it is the 'Sacredness of Life' wins out
Reply With Quote
  #29  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2004, 04:33 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rez
i'm all for animal testing... love em or dont, animals have no rights.
Deduct two karma points, go back to start and lose your next turn.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2004, 06:22 PM       
Okay, you say a good hypothesis must be "composed of previously confirmed data," and proceed toward a specific aim while "poorly thought out hypothesis' will simply result in data" with no specific aim.

Then where do you get the "previously confirmed data" needed for a proper hypothesis?

Anyway, using this as an argument against animal testing in general doesn't work. The fact remains that even with a specific goal and an excellent idea, there will be experiments that require living creatures. To say we must never perform these experiments and we must either remain where we are or proceed very slowly in certain areas of knowledge (at the possible cost of human health and life) simply because you think that a rabbit's life is sacred is unacceptable.

You can make a case for "sacred" with a lot of people, but lives, even human lives, are in no way finite resources. All creatures reproduce.

As for "you rarely find out what you're not looking for," I was under the impression that unexpected results were the basis for several major discoveries. Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus and the development of penicillin come to mind. This does not support the wanton sacrifice of animals, but it is a case for open-ended experimentation rather than narrow and specific scientific goals.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Helm is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2004, 08:03 PM       
I am beginning to feel like it's a good idea to skip all perndog posts.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2004, 10:32 PM       
I would agree Helm. Lord knows I have moments of sheer pettiness, but I think he is arguing for arguments sake at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2004, 10:43 PM       
The thread topic is "I need a debate." I thought argument for its own sake was the whole point.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Mar 30th, 2004, 10:53 PM       
Argument does not necessarily need to be combative, it can also be conciliatory. The aim of argument is, ultimately, to arrive at a truth -acceptable or absolute is for those involved to decide.

I'm neither debasing nor proving anything. Simply tossing a few pennies into the Arena.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Big Papa Goat Big Papa Goat is offline
Mocker
Big Papa Goat's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Missouri
Big Papa Goat is probably a spambot
Old Mar 31st, 2004, 01:29 AM       
Reply With Quote
  #36  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Mar 31st, 2004, 04:42 PM       
There is a quote of which, at this time, I know neither the author or the exact quote but, paraphrasing, says that you have no real knowledge of what it means to be a pilot until you experience it in real time under real conditions. I think the same point can be made for animal testing. You can hypothesis all you want about how an experiment should go according to what is currently known about physics, biology, chemistry, ect. That does not mean that the expected results will happen or even happen a large percentage of the time. That's why a theory has to be repeated several times under strict control and by different people and even revisited from different viewpoints. Even a hypothesis that is proven so many times that it has essentially become a theory is not an ultimate truth, it just has a high probability of being the truth with the potential to be disproven at any time in the future ... or at least altered to meet a new perspective or new knowledge.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Big Papa Goat Big Papa Goat is offline
Mocker
Big Papa Goat's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Missouri
Big Papa Goat is probably a spambot
Old Apr 1st, 2004, 01:22 AM       
Ror, are you suggesting that hypothesis' should be so good that they don't have to be tested?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Apr 1st, 2004, 12:09 PM       
I'm not suggesting it, I'm saying it. A lawyer never asks a question they do not already know the answer to, a scientist should do no less. Such perfection is, of course, impossible. There are simply too many variables, both known and unknown, to consider for one to properly cover all the bases. It is the attempt which is important.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Apr 1st, 2004, 12:48 PM       
They are called "experiments" not "verifications".

And frankly, I support animal testing in general, while recognizing frivalous tests (something akin to injecting cosmetics into animals eyeballs) should not occur.

That is a very fine line to attempt to regulate and I'd rather cosmetic testing occur, than medical testing not occur.
__________________
BOYCOTT SIGNATURES!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Protoclown Protoclown is offline
The Goddamned Batman
Protoclown's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Protoclown is probably a spambot
Old Apr 1st, 2004, 12:55 PM       
BUNNIES LIKE HAVING LIPSTICK PUT ON THEM

PLAYING "DRESS-UP"
__________________
"It's like I'm livin' in a stinkin' poop rainbow." - Cordelia Burbank
Reply With Quote
  #41  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Apr 1st, 2004, 01:13 PM       
The experiments because the outcome is uncertain Ziggy, no matter how much thought, planning and engineering goes into a hypothesis the outcome is still uncertain - if it is carried out consistant with the Scientific Process.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Apr 1st, 2004, 01:20 PM       
I think you're confusing theory and hypothesis, in terms of the scientific method.
__________________
BOYCOTT SIGNATURES!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Apr 1st, 2004, 03:23 PM       
Nope.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Emu Emu is offline
Level 29 ♂
Emu's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Emu is probably a real personEmu is probably a real person
Old Apr 1st, 2004, 03:36 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protoclown
BUNNIES LIKE HAVING LIPSTICK PUT ON THEM

PLAYING "DRESS-UP"
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Apr 1st, 2004, 03:40 PM       
Yes. A hypothesis is nothing more than an assumption or a speculation, albeit one that must have reasonable grounds. Once it is supported by a good amount of data (as you say any good hypothesis must) it is then a theory and no longer a hypothesis.

As I said before you started getting whiny, if you only test things that are already supported by a lot of experimental data (theories), you aren't going to get anywhere.

Hypotheses should NOT be so good that they don't have to be tested. That's the entire purpose of experimentation, to enter an experiment with several hypotheses about possible outcomes and then toss out the ones that don't work. Extensive engineering does not go into a hypothesis, engineering goes into a working theory.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Apr 1st, 2004, 04:29 PM       
A theory cannot be observed, quanitatively tested or otherwise proven. Such as the theory of Evolution.

Come on people, this is elementary here.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Apr 1st, 2004, 04:36 PM       
If we already know the outcome, what is the point of experimentation?

Ror sounds like he's promoting a priori physical sciences - kinda like what Mises was promoting in economics.

Only, a priori physical sciences, and, for that matter, purely a priori economics, can never work.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Apr 1st, 2004, 09:33 PM       
Ror, what the fuck are you talking about? Newton's Theory of Motion cannot be observed or quantitatively tested? F=ma isn't quantitative and you can't watch something fall at 32.2 ft/s2 or watch pool balls bounce off each other? Evolution hasn't been well-observed in bacteria and other lower life forms?

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Source

a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones Source

A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur. Source

A theory in science is an idea that has been tested thoroughly, and despite extensive testing, cannot be rejected. Source

And I think this quote pretty accurately describes what Ror was trying to tell us earlier:

Quote:
For example, one professor, when asked why he continued to do experiments designed to test a theory that was obviously wrong -- which he was sure was wrong -- answered "Without a theory to test, we wouldn't be able to do experiments at all!"
Source
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #49  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Apr 1st, 2004, 10:07 PM       
in fairness to Ror, the words theory and hypothesis have several definitions outside the context of the scientific method.

but a quick refresh of what is considered elementary physical science -


Quote:
I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
It is only after step four has been repeated, recursing back through the method as new observations are made, and often tested by unaffiliated researchers that the scientific community forms a theorem.

Fuck, now I'm gonna have thermodynamics on the brain for on hour... better go browse loveline. :P
__________________
BOYCOTT SIGNATURES!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old Apr 1st, 2004, 10:27 PM       
Pern, there is a difference between a Theorem and a Theory. A Theorem has been demonstrated to be true, a Theory has not. Newton's Theory of Motion is a Theorem, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not. Just because laymen don't appreciate the difference doesn't mean all should likewise ignore it.

And Ziggy you're quite correct.

In context of the topic, animal experimentation, I think more effort ought to go into the formation of hypothesis and the conclusion speculated before testing is done. I feel the Scientific community has become entirely too relaxed, going by the current vein of projects.

For instance, take the above example. Newton's Theory of Motion, the amount of effort and observation which into the initial hypothesis is vastly different than say, 'how will insects be effected by a change in gravity.' A hypothesis should be like a mission statement not some vague curiousity.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:36 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.