Episode 32: The Tragically Depressing Scope Nerd Roundtable

wow. this discussion of evolution leads me to believe its been a few years since any of you have taken a science class. you had to look up “theory” on wiki? its like in office space where they have to look up money laundering.

earl is remembering the mighty brontosaurus, i imagine, when he is criticizing the flux in the dinosaur debate. i know i learned as a kid about them. they never existed, it was a controversy due to a mismatched skeleton. this controversy was quickly corrected (it was actually an appotosaur) in 1903, and is STILL incorrectly taught in schools. its not a problem of permeability of evolutionary biology, its a problem with idiotic science teachers.

there ARE scientific facts. they are called laws. this ‘you can’t really know anything’ mentality is philosophical in nature (Kant, et al) and not scientific. a law or fact describes the way something behaves and a theory attempts to explain why. the crux of a theory is testability. evolution, then, is a scientific law. things evolve, and even creationists or intelligent design adherents, or whatever they’re calling themselves these days admit this (see the admittance of so-called micro-evolution as opposed to macro-evolution). The theory applies to evolutionary *origins*. we know that we are evolving now as a scientific fact, but extrapolating backwards to a point of origin is where the testable theory comes into play. since we think we evolved from a chimpanzee-like creature, there should be not-quite-chimp, not-quite-man skeletal fossil records out there (this is the testable portion of the theory). this would be what earl erroneously referred to as “the missing link.” i have no idea why that term is still in use. there are, literally, hundreds of thousands of “links” in the known fossil record, and more are discovered every day. Testability should be viewed as the penultimate goal of theory in the scientific method and this is why creationism is NOT a theory. there is no testability. none.

ok, sorry, long-winded, but somebody’s gotta stand up for science.

-adam (who is actually a physicist with an interest in evolutionary biology.)

PS transformers is gonna rule.

I only tell the truth.

Liar!

I agree with most of what thosquanta had to say; but now I feel like I have to defend the philosophical side of scientific inquiry.

Yes, the nature of a scientific law as rigorously verified makes it what anyone following that methodology should logically consider to be fact. From a philosophical standpoint however, these facts are only as good as the most recent confirmation of their validity. Is this philosophical stance pragmatic? Not really, but inside of a discussion which allows for the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent being, the verifiability of facts is necessarily bound to philosophical relativism. If I might be so bold, I think that was what Shane was getting at when he pointed out the difference between a matter of faith and a scientific inquiry.

I might have misunderstood the statement “that this ‘you can’t really know anything’ mentality is philosophical in nature (Kant, et al) and not scientific.” It seems strange to me to disallow conclusions that were reached through a process that is very similar to scientific method. While folks like Kant and Descartes might not have followed a recognizable method of experimentation, their conclusions have been tested through methods that follow basic mathematical principles. I admit that defying the existence of a specific and absolute answer might not be practical, but that doesn’t change the validity of the argument. And in this discussion, it didn’t make sense to ignore a valid argument concerning the nature of verifiability.

Oh yeah, and I still don’t buy that bit about The Transformers.
;P

I second A jaclyn bring Brian back.

Damn, you all were way to heavy on Earl. Has The Scope become “The Jerry Springer Podcast”? Earl deserves his opinions to be appreciated just as yours. To negate his opinion is claiming that he is wrong. Just because he may not agree with you, does not mean his opinions are any less valid. I totally understand that when someone is a “pureist” to an idea, that any basterdizing of that idea might not fall under the label of the original idea or concept. Example: Star Trek-TOS. When Star Trek-TNG came along many Trek fans crapped all over it. Only until they found out that Gene Roddenberry was doing it. However, if “Joe Blow” created it, the “formula” of Trek would not have been the same. It’s like if you remade “Citizen Cane” under todays 21st century film making process, some people might like it, but most would say that the “formula” of the original was raped! If “Transformers” had a label under the title that said “based on the original idea” then purists would not slam it as much. You have to be true to the original idea or all you are left with is “one mans concept” which never plays well. You HAVE TO think of the fan base. It’s also not being true to yourself when you add to or take away from the original concept. Somethings should never be re-done or re-invisioned. It’s like colorization of black & white films. Remember what happened when they remade “The Honeymooners” with an all black cast? Or tried to re-create “The Monkees” with the TV show “The NEW Monkees”? Or even remake the New “Partridge Family”. There has even been movies made 5 years ago, that are being remade AGAIN! WTF! Hollywood should never try and re-invision anything iconic, it’s just rapeing the original idea. They should try and be creative enough to create NEW ideas for tv shows and movies and stop being so lazy that you make a $250,000,000 piece of shit!
Transformers was nothing like the original idea. Oh sure, you had some realitive comparisons, but this idea was fucking the die hard fans of Transformers right in the wallet. I’m looking forward to the “G.I. Joe” movie starring Harvey Firestien, Elton John, John Waters and Richard Simmons. Now, how in the hell do you feel? Remember, one’s mans’ vision in all fairness. That is why you should be true to the idea or shit like that would be made.
BTW, lighten the hell up!

Theory is an educated guess. Fact is what you get from proven theory. Nuff said!

[…] dig in as Earl and a few other guests stop by for THE MOST VOLATILE NERD ROUND TABLE EVER.  It’s the only podcast ever recorded that allows listeners to actually see anger emitting […]