Who is the deadliest man eater and why is it Gustav the crocodile?
>blamed for the death of roughly 300 people
>killed for fun
>multiple attempts to kill and capture him have failed
>current location and status is unknown
>>2010719
He looks like a big guy.
Gustave is truly exceptional, I wish there was more footage of him.
>>2010863
for you
>>2010719
>Killed for fun
Yeah, sure mate.
>>2010931
When you're the biggest, baddest motherfucker around all you do is for fun
>>2010719
SIZE OF HIS FUCKING SWEDE IT'S ABOUT TRIPLE THE SIZE OF EVERY OTHER CUNT THERE
>>2010719
>killed for fun
That implies sentience of some form, which i highly doubt
>>2011930
Maybe its just an overly aggressive hunting instinct that makes him hunt even if he's not hungry
>>2012169
More likely a bullshit rumor spread by superstitious villagers.
>>2012169
It's just a total missconception of how reptiles are. Thinking they experience fun like us or even hunger is what makes this kind of "stories" deeply stupid.
>>2012238
Bugguy is that you?
>>2012238
It's not like you are any less ignorant on the subject. They do engage in play behaviors and use tools, implying they do have some level of reasoning skills.
I think you underestimate how exceptionally stupid crocodiles are.
![Gustave-not-yet-captured[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/lQACpmO.jpg "Gustave-not-yet-captured[1].jpg")
oh shit
>>2012248
>They do engage in play behaviors and use tools, implying they do have some level of reasoning skills.
Then OP is doing great anthropomorphizating them and using kids stories resources to define an animal.
Please be serious.
>>2012248
>They do engage in play behaviors and use tools
[citation needed]
>>2012248
>They do engage in play behaviors and use tools
kek
>>2012269
Mugger crocs do the same
>>2012269
>if...
>>2012274
balancing sticks would count if they indeed have a purpose behind the act.
>if.
Animals that can be said for sure that have fun killing based on expierence:
>Hominidae
Animals that biologist consider that can have fun killing based on experience:
>Delphinidae.
Animals that /an/ consider to have fun killing because that would make them cooler with no fucking evidence and based on bedroom stories:
>Crocodyliae
Spot the difference
>>2012280
Shut the fuck up. Next you're going to say it's not breathing if they're not conscious.
>>2012280
>pretty sure the use of a tool requires some sort of conscious goal or task,
nah, ethologists are so busy anthropomorphizing animals they consider any use of any material to be evidence of consciousness.
animals that walk on the ground are using the ground as a tool and must be conscious.
birds build nests because they know there's predators on the ground and they each somehow design exactly the same nest to protect themselves.
crocodiles clearly use sticks to lure nesting birds, despite the fact that most of the sticks pictured are much too large to interest a bird.
they're all conscious. The universe is made of consciousness and love. Save the whales.
>>2012286
Overuse of calling stuff anthropomorphisation is as bad as the thing itself.
The fallacy of anthropomorphisation is using explanation based on human traits to explain behavior when we are not justified to do so by the evidence.
Believing that there are similarities in the motivation of a tool using, bonding or playing crocodile with a human when it is a good explanation that does line up with the evidence is not anthropomorphisation.
It logically the same as doing this with another human. If i see a kid bobbing a ball i am as justified in calling it play behavior or play as i am with a crocodile that bobs a ball. In both cases the qualia and conciousness of the other willl forever escape me.
So either be a stupid behaviorist or accept that certain animals do play and have conciousness
>>2012290
well you'd have to wonder how the crocs would know it's the nesting season. The birds presumably don't even know that.
that is assuming the crocs only engage in the behavior during the birds' nesting season, something that's not really clear.
ethology is so fucking weak. any real science would've controlled for that and other possible hypothesis killers right off the bat.
>>2012294
>when it is a good explanation that does line up with the evidence is not anthropomorphisation.
science doesn't work that way.
you also have to disprove any alternative explanations that could be used to explain the same evidence.
sorry.
crocodiles can hunt in groups and can anticipate future events and plan ahead.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03949370.2014.915432
This also makes it even more obvious that the stick stuff is planned and thus tool use.
>>2012300
that's another study that got rekt.
afaik the consensus was it's just a feeding frenzy, not pack hunting.
>>2012303
>It does.
it's not science once it stops controlling variables.
ethology isn't science. Animal psychology isn't science. Evo-devo isn't science. It doesn't test its hypotheses, it just publishes them.
>>2012294
>If i see a kid bobbing a ball i am as justified in calling it play behavior or play as i am with a crocodile that bobs a ball.
Unironically thinking that. Then he says that anthropomorphisation is a falacy.
Holly shit.
>>2012305
Animal psychology does test its hypothesis and its theories are falsifiable
>>2012302
Link to study?
Which data was found that is only explainable by feeding fremzy and not by cooperative interaction?
Also was the alternation of alligators forming the circles explained? How did they explained that the alligators did the exavt same thing the next day? How were the similarities to dolphin hunting strategies explained, there being even more evidence for dolphin cognition?
Do you really believe that "feeding frenzy" + randomness explains this behavior, which occured on two consecutive days, better than cooperative hunting?
>>2012314
What I could think about a dog is stupid because of two reasons:
I'll assume things from my human perspective.
I'll assume that he does and see things like I do.
Basically I'd end up thinking that if he plays with a ball like I'd do, he also has all the previous development and conciousness that the action does for me. That's what /antromorphization/ does and that is what people like to do with crocs in this thread I don't know why.
If you want to study a dog in a serious way, you won't limit it to the pure observation and the assumption of stupid things, don't you.
>>2012319
So your hypothesis is that "play" and bonding only evolved in humans and that all evidence that points to the contrary is just animals appeasing to humans or random behaviour?
>>2012323
I am waiting for arguments or links to studies.
Its not washed up or unscientifical just because you feel so. Your attitude is highly unscientifical you disgusting tripfag.
>>2012320
>Link to study?
science doesn't work that way. The debunking happens in letters, not studies.
>>2012320
>Also was the alternation of alligators forming the circles explained?
selection bias.
>How did they explained that the alligators did the exavt same thing the next day?
no need since the results aren't repeatable.
>How were the similarities to dolphin hunting strategies explained,
confirmation bias
>Do you really believe that "feeding frenzy" + randomness explains this behavior, which occured on two consecutive days, better than cooperative hunting
It doesn't matter what I believe.
I merely passed on what others believe.
>>2012322
So your answer isno, dogs dont play, play being defined in a way that is both scientifically useful and appliable tohumans?
>>2012327
That is precisely how science works. If it is not published in a peer reviewed paper it cantbe reviewed and the falsfication (or"debunking" to use your words) has not been done.
Randomness + feeding frenzy is obviously the worse explanation.
If you disagree you know nothing about philosophy and conduct of science
>>2012330
If youreally hadstudies and would actlikea scientist and not a child, you would have nothing to loose by posting them, to the contrary you might convince me and thus help with the spreading of knowledge.
>I DO know what it izbut i wont tell you
You
>>2012328
I didn't say dogs don't play. I don't know from what part of what I said you assumed that. But the act of playing needs a more deep understanding and study than just saying "he must be playing because what he is doing looks like what I would do".
An example of that is easily found in tigers. Their mother prepare them for any situation that they could found in the wild but one, fighting against other tigers.
So when they fight against their siblings we say that they're playing.
Why isn't that another part of their training or why isn't their training considered playing too? Just because one involves an autority and that is not considered playing from our point of view?
We have to consider if they are enjoying it, but we have to understand first what tigers consider enjoying, not what we would considerate in their situation.
So it needs a full chain of understanding and evidence much more deeper than just saying "do you think that this dog is playing anon?"
Obviously tigers play, but
>>2012333
Read popper.
Obscure letters are not valid sources and cant be cited.
>>2012332
>If it is not published in a peer reviewed paper it cantbe reviewed and the falsfication (or"debunking" to use your words) has not been done.
the bar of falsification is much lower than that of demonstration.
you can give me a hundred examples of a thing and you MIGHT demonstrate it. If I give one example that disproves a thing, I have absolutely disproved it.
>If you disagree you know nothing about philosophy and conduct of science
says the guy that doesn't know the role played by correspondence.
>>2012334
>you might convince me and thus help with the spreading of knowledge.
why would I put my milk in a cracked glass?
>>2012338
>Obscure letters are not valid sources and cant be cited.
they are peer-reviewed, published, valid, and citable.
it's funny you haven't heard of them. They are more than half of science.
>>2012336
Ok i misunderstood you. Your position seems reasonable to me, not like the tripfags rantings.
But if we observe an animal doing something again and again and going through effords to do it again, and we have no othe explanation for it, would we not be justified in believing they do it for fun alone and that they are playing?
Of course play can often have benefit in training an animal for live, which is probably a reason for why it has evolved.
>>2012345
>and we have no othe explanation for it
that's where science usually rapes you.
e.g., are there other possible explanations for every behavior listed itt?
Yep.
Have the people studying those behaviors ruled out the alternative explanations?
nope.
>>2012336
But if tigers and dogs play in that way, why would it be so difficult to accept that crocodiles can too?
Crocodiles and other non avian reptiles have show numerous times to be more intelligent than previously thought. So it would be to easy to dismiss it with the notion that they are to stupid to play.
>>2012346
You just proved again that you know nothing about the theory of science.
As popper pointed out, we never know anything. It is all about justified belief
>>2012350
>why would it be so difficult to accept that crocodiles can too?
~10 times smaller Encephalization Ratio along with 0 forebrain expansion not related to olfaction.
>>2012353
>It is all about justified belief
knowledge is justified belief.
science uses a method to justify.
the stuff itt can be criticized as unjustified because it strays from the method.
>>2012347
There is always an infinite number of other theories that explain a phenomenon. But at every point of time t there is with our knowledge a best theory that uses as little presumptions as possible, lines up best with our other theories while having the highest explenatory value. And this is theory we have to choose then.
>>2012355
Then point out how it does so
>>2012342
Then link me to them
>>2012356
>There is always an infinite number of other theories that explain a phenomenon
there's usually less than ten.
science doesn't pick a 'best' theory, that's subjective bullshit. it seeks to disprove theories, nothing more.
I'm not really certain why I need to give you third-grade science lessons. You claim to be the expert.
>>2012354
Neurology is in its infant shoes. The brain is more plasticala and has evolved in more different ways than previously thought. And again, there are studies which show that for example lizards are more intelligent than predicted by such data.
>>2012361
If you are so convinced about the truth behind your statements then why don't enlighten me.
Inb4 more childish evasion talk about cracked glass and milk
>>2012362
>there are studies which show that for example lizards are more intelligent than predicted by such data.
unfortunately those studies are written by the same field that pretends hypotheses don't have to be falsifiable and observations don't have to be repeatable.
>>2012364
the cracked glass refers to your capacity.
I don't enlighten you because you aren't intelligent enough to contain the enlightenment.
if you were, you'd have been enlightened by now. In fact the very first thing an intelligent person would do is get on google and see if I'm right.
>>2012360
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
Search "infinite number"
>>2012367
Ok more evasion talk then
>>2012368
I love how you cite Popper over and over while ignoring everything he taught. You're quote mining.
you might literally be retarded.
>>2012369
I just brought it up to show that there are alway other theories but that we have criteria to choose the best one. And by these criteria linking play of a intelligent animal with play of humans is a better theory than proposing randomness.
>>2012370
discussing your misunderstandings of science bores me.
>>2012371
Then explain to me how i am quote mining and on what point you disagree.
Do you always these your opponents like this when having an argument? Its like pulling teeth
>>2012372
>we have criteria to choose the best one.
Popper argued successfully that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to choose the best one.
all we can hope to do is falsify the false ones.
nice job pissing on popper and pretending to know anything.
>>2012373
One can always use such rhetorics when loosing an argument
>>2012374
>Do you always these your opponents
you aren't my opponent.
you failed the entrance exam.
just hopped into this thread; why are bugguy and consorts acting like fucking cunts? if there is a letter why not just dig it up and post it? where's the harm?
you're one of the few tripfags that is usually on topic and posts information, why resort to shitposting all of a sudden? had a bad day?
>>2012380
>where's the harm?
there's no point to it.
the study was broadly panned in the literature. Anyone actually up on the subject already knows that.
I could teach the guy, but he thinks science arbitrarily chooses the best explanation for a phenomenon while citing the very philosopher that pointed out how impossible that is.
ultimately he lacks the understanding to see why the article can be criticized, and it would take years to explain that to him, if he's even smart enough to grasp it at all.
>>2012375
Poppers says that there are always infinite theories.
We can only falsify.
Both true statements.
But if we only had those, science wouldn't move us an inch further, because we cannot falsify an infinite number of theories.
Thus popper includes other criteria, for example how "proven" a theory is (bewährtheitsgrad)
Regarding "better" theories popper also says that a new theory should only be adopted if it has greater empirical content and thus greater predicative value. Search these terms in any popper ebooks you have or the link i posted above.
I saddens me that you try to male such rude attempts to deny central elements of poppers theory.
>>2012383
"Arbitrarily"
I never said that, i said the opposite.
Reading comprehension
>>2012361
why are you being such a smug faggot? why are you basking in your perceived superiority? you come across as a real cunt, man.
not even the faggot you were arguing with
>>2012378
Exactly what i am saying. Scroll back and see how this strain of the argument started
>>2012379
Good argument, spoken like a true scholar
>>2012369
but that's wrong..
"pseudoscientists" is just a buzzword
>>2012386
Predictive power
>>2012383
>Anyone actually up on the subject already knows that.
I'm not up on the subject. there, you have a point.
>>2012384
are you people being fucking serious?
the whole fucking point of having a decent level of discourse is not resorting to insults or other petty shit.
if you have a response letter that disproves the study you post it and the discussion is fucking over.
this is actually pissing me off right now.
there is no place for smugness in scientific discussion.
take this shit to /b/ if you're here to shitpost.
>>2012383
>>2012384
by the way, I just searched for the response letter and google didn't give me fucking shit, google scholar only shows those two citations:
https://scholar.google.de/scholar?cites=7089749136643721049&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=de
so clearly it's not just "1 google search"
>>2012399
>if you have a response letter that disproves the study you post it and the discussion is fucking over
I have stated the disproof, anon didn't catch it.
apparently neither did you.
to repeat, the authors failed to control variables, in particular observation and confirmation biases in their own work. They didn't consider alternate hypotheses including the obvious null hypothesis, they failed to reject the null, and their observations haven't been repeated.
>>2012398
Reading comprehension am i writing in Latin?
I brought up the infinite theories because i mentioned circumstances under which crocodiles playing would be the best possible explanation. This was "countered" by the argument that there could be other explanations.
I countered this by saying that there are always infinite other theories. And by stating that we have criteria to find the best one. These were then questioned on a false understanding of popper.
Then i was criticized for doing the opposite i did: for saying that we arbitrarily choose theories while just a few moments ago i was explaining criteria for choosing such.
In fact one anon, if it was the same anon, had contradictory positions there
I knew this pic will fit in this thread
>>2012402
This casts doubt but is not a disproof. For a disproof you would have to show how another theory offers a better explanation.
Also the fact that an observation can not easily be recreated does not render its empirical value zero. In histroical science (which popper considers to be sciences, too) we encounter this all the time. In fact even in astronomy there are many instances were an observation can't easily be recreated.
Science does not only work with experiments, it also has to explain phenomena which were witnessed.
>>2012411
>For a disproof you would have to show how another theory offers a better explanation.
again with the selecting a better theory mistake.
I don't have to prove the sky is blue to disprove that it's red.
>>2012407
This is because popper makes a distinction between possible theories and theories worth of consideration. Again check out the link i posted and look for these keywords.
Also again, if your point were true in this simplistic form, science could never progress, thats logic.
>>2012411
>it also has to explain phenomena which were witnessed.
yes, and the first and most likely conclusion is error on the part of the witness.
that's why we ask for repeatability.
if crocodiles this one time hunted as a pack and never did it again ever the most likely explanation is that it didn't happen.
>>2012414
>science could never progress,
science gets better and better explanations by rejecting failed ones.
the better explanation isn't chosen, it's just what's left over when the bad explanations are tossed.
>>2012412
But the points you showd don't falsify the theory at hand. And if you think they do explain which data can't be xplained by the theory of group hunting. Because only that would be a clean falsification
They just show alternative theories.
>>2012417
>explain which data can't be xplained by the theory of group hunting
it doesn't matter which data can't be explained by the hypothesis.
what matters is that it can be explained just as well or better by alternative hypotheses, in particular the obvious null.
>>2012415
That is true. Its just that there are multiple cases which can be explained by group hunting strategies in multiple lineages of crocodiles like niles, salties and cubans.
Also we have evidence of cooperative nest raiding in nile monitors, which might be relevant for the whole reptiles are too dumb to do it argument.
>>2012420
>there are multiple cases which can be explained by group hunting strategies in multiple lineages of crocodiles like niles, salties and cubans.
doesn't matter so long as we haven't ruled out other interpretations.
the current accepted interpretation afaik is feeding frenzy.
>>2012416
Logic.
Premise 1: we can only and only judge a theory by falsification
Premise 2: there is always an infinite number of theories
Conclusio: no progeüress is possible
This is not popper and it is why your concept doesnt work. And thats an analytic truth.
Also you are saying the opposite here, if you are the same person>>2012419
>>2012423
Scroll above, i was given that argument multiple times.
>>2012421
You said its likely feedi g frenzy because it is a singular case. Now i have provided further evidence, making it more likely to be group tactics by your OWN argument and you say these are feding frenzy too.
>>2012428
premise 2 is false.
there may indeed be an infinite number of POSSIBLE hypotheses but because of the limits of language and longevity the number of actual hypotheses is finite.
also we generally begin by rejecting almost every hypothesis possible simply because they're absurdly unlikely.
it's possible that invisible santa clause aliens use crocodiles as flesh puppets, but we can reject that out of hand as unlikely.
the same goes for pretty much any other silly bullshit your infinite monkeys might come up with.
actuall possibilities usually boil down to one or two. We simplify it even further with the null hypothesis, distilling everything down to two explanations.
>>2012416
Again there is a distinction between falsification and a preferred theory on basis of empirical content and predicative power. Concepts of popper which have mentioned and cited before. Two different steps listed as d and c in the link above.
>>2012430
>You said its likely feedi g frenzy because it is a singular case
no.
scientist in general said it's a feeding frenzy because that's the simpler explanation. (Occam)
If it only happened once the simplest explanation is that it didn't happen.
this is why I hate "educating" people that didn't pass 8th grade science. I have to fucking explain everything OVER AND OVER and you still don't get it.
>>2012433
>Again there is a distinction between falsification and a preferred theory on basis of empirical content and predicative power
indeed,
that's the difference between hypothesis and theory.
something you completely fail to recognize.
>>2012437
>Premise 2 is from popper and accepted by basicall all of mainstream science
so humans live an infinite amount of time?
>>2012434
Its not the simpler explanation if there are multiple cases and the same behavior was displayed on two consecutive days in one instance. It also has the lower predicative power.
You fucking faggots could have posted awesome stories and images like that Indian fellow getting scalped by a tiger but instead you're still fucking philosophically debating intellect of crocodiles.
Fuck this board.
>>2012438
How do we do now that they are unlikely? Why do we DO rule them out? This can not be done by falsification.
Predictive power and empirical content. Congratulations you just arrived at the sam conclusion as me and popper.
>>2012439
>Its not the simpler explanation if there are multiple cases
the number of times an event occurs has nothing to do with the truth of a hypothesis.
>the sun rises every day
>therefor my hypothesis that the sun is a giant chariot must be true.
>and the same behavior was displayed on two consecutive days in one instance
only observed by one person. Being mistaken twice in a row doesn't make you less mistaken.
>It also has the lower predicative power.
it has higher predictive power.
the null hypothesis says it wasn't pack behavior and we won't find any other signs of complex social structures in adult crocs.
we don't find any such signs, the null isn't rejected.
>>2012442
That was a leopard.
>>2012443
>This can not be done by falsification.
it's ONLY done by falsification
I'm not really sure how you've managed to mangle philosophy of science so badly, but it's honestly pretty amusing.
>>2012445
Whatever the fuck ever
>>2012444
And this hypothesis says that it is pack behavior and we will find further evidence for pa k behavior.
So on this trivial level its 1/1. but that is not relevant, it offers no real progress.
pack behavior offers much more explanatory value, than saying it was frenzy and random.ness. We can always say phenomena are random it will offer us no further explenatory value. On the other hand the theory of pack hunting will allow us to make new predictions. For example if i see crocodiles form a circle again i might predict that they will close the circle again and then rotate their positions to feed. I can also postulate a hogher intelligence which i can then test with other experiments.
You thinking that a theory based on randomness has higher predictive power baffles me.
>>2012448
Explain to me how you can come to the conclusion that out of an infinite number of theories only a few are prima facie to be consiedered by falsification.
You are the one who mangles philosophy. Argue against my analytical argument. I also hace given evidence for popper dividing two stages c and d, c looking at the predictive power and emprical content of a theory To assess it prima facie and d is concerned with falsification
How many times and in how many ways do i have to write it?
>>2012452
>You thinking that a theory based on randomness has higher predictive power baffles me.
because you don't understand what science means by predictive power.
the number of predictions allowed doesn't indicate predictive power.
predictive power refers to the number of predictions that come true.
a hypothesis isn't rejected because it doesn't make enough predictions, it's rejected because one of its predictions don't come true.
the pack hypothesis predicts other different pack behaviors will be observed. They have not. The pack hypothesis is rejected.
the null hypothesis predicts no different pack behaviors will be observed. The prediction is true. The null isn't rejected.
of the two, the null hypothesis is the only one left standing, so it's the better hypothesis for the moment.
>>2012454
>Explain to me how you can come to the conclusion that out of an infinite number of theories only a few are prima facie to be consiedered by falsification
I have repeatedly pointed out that the number isn't infinite, an infinite number can't exist.
show me a real infinite number of hypotheses and I'll show you how we deal with that reality.
>>2012460
>" Rejecting out of hand as unlikely" is not falsification
Occam says otherwise.
parsimony is part of the method.
>>2012459
It is impossible to show you and infinite number. But that does not mean that on logical grounds we dont aühave to assume there is infinite number. I can always add more santaclauses with higher numbers on their t shirts to the theory.
There is also an infinite number of numbers, that doesn't mean i have to show them to you.
Nice argument
>>2012462
the infinite number exists as an idea that can't exist in reality.
science itself exists as a process in reality.
the effect of something that can't exist on things that do exist is a meaningless argument.
science doesn't deal with your fantasies, it deals with reality. In reality the acceptable explanations are reduced to the two most likely and those are stated as opposites and thus tested against each other.
>>2012461
You dont understand popper.
Again: c prima facie reasons for considering theories to put out
d falsification.
What is popperian falsification?
A theory is falsified if a conclusion predicted by that theory does not come true. It is only concerned with empirical data and not the theory itself. Thats it. Thats falsification. Occam is not falsification.
No scientist in world ahares your view on this.
>>2012462
>I can always add more santaclauses with higher numbers on their t shirts to the theory.
you can't though, because you will eventually die.
also that's not a theory. As usual you don't know hypothesis from theory, and that's part of why you're fucking up.
>>2012468
>Occam is not falsification.
of course it is.
a hypothesis makes predictions about the frequency of occurrence.
those predictions can be tested and falsified.
>>2012471
>It is a theoretical and epistemologicalmpoint made by popper to show that we need criteria to prima facie distinguish better suited theories for evaluation.
yes, I understand.
I'm pointing out to you that just because unicorns need to drink melted silver doesn't necessarily mean horses do too.
the infinite hypotheses don't exist, so how we deal with them in reality isn't important.
>>2012469
You in obviously dont now what popper even wants or what the point of philosophy of science is.
We want a model to find explanations that help us to predict future phenomena and understand the world.
To do this as clean as possible we have to start on an abstract level and we have to make everything as logical and transparent as possible
Popper, with whom the Mainstream of scientists agree, correctly assessed that logically speaking there is always an infinate number of possible explanations.
Thus we ned criteria which theorie to put out there to be trsted by falsification.
These criteria are not part of falsification itself
Falsification is an empirical progress.
Again. Read popper, read the link
>>2012475
there is n infinite number of theories that practically,always give the same prediction. They only differ in the number of entities they proclaim.
If the predictions are the same, falsification does not help in discriminating between them.
Occams razor is occupied with the interior of a theory, falsification only with its predictions
>>2012477
But the infinite hypothesis show that we need more than falsification alone to make science work. Which is my whole point.
>>2012482
>Occams razor is occupied with the interior of a theory, falsification only with its predictions
nope, Occam makes predictions about frequency. Math.
>>2012484
>Which is my whole point.
your point is false because the number of actual hypotheses is finite. We don't need a system to deal with infinite ideas that don't exist. The system is real, it deals with real ideas.
>>2012402
>to repeat, the authors failed to control variables, in particular observation and confirmation biases in their own work. They didn't consider alternate hypotheses including the obvious null hypothesis, they failed to reject the null, and their observations haven't been repeated.
so you expect me to just believe anything some anon says over 4chan? am I supposed to read every single study that is posted? because then what the fuck is the whole point of debating
>>2012488
>so you expect me to just believe anything some anon says over 4chan?
absolutely not.
I expect you to fail to understand half of what I'm saying and then spend 50 posts trying to convince me that your misunderstandings represent the superior position.
anyone that actually understands what I'm saying would just nod in agreement and move along.
>>2012486
Learn your theory of science. Math is not empirical and definitly what popper has in mind when talking about falsification.
>>2012486
Ok poppers point is false, even thoughh you still dont understand the logical foundation. And it seems you understand science better than me, popper, and the majority of scientists.
I explained so many times the relevance and status of the infinite number of theories >>2012482
>>2012484>>2012479
I dont know what else to say. Se are talking about the justification of science here and not about real existing human show them to me theories
>>2012492
Thats not me.
You are the one who fails to understand. You are the one who disagrees with popper. You are the one who cant distinguish falsification from prima facie grounds for preferring theories, you are the one lacking logic skills and not knowing the difference between analytical and synthetical and always inventing new definitions of falsification even though we are talking about poppers definition.
>>2012494
1. appealing to popper as an authority doesn't do you any good if you don't understand him.
2. popper is talking about imaginary absolutes, in reality science simply doesn't care. I can falsify your theories just as fast as you can produce them.
3. You've defined "falsification" and "knowledge" so strictly they can't exist. This is philosophically valid but pragmatically useless.
4. Philosophy of science describes how science works, it doesn't tell scientists how to do their job. As I said, you start listing "theories" and I'll falsify them as fast as you can think of them. This is because in general arguments can be easily classified and then rejected wholesale.
5. Again, since you don't seem to get it, philosophy of sci doesn't tell science how to do its job.
it just describes what we're already doing and tries to explain why it works.
>>2012499
>You are the one who disagrees with popper
again, I disagree with your misunderstandings, not with anything else.
>>2012500
You dont understand him, as you have shown time and time again.
Provide we with a citation were popper says falsification is anything else than testing the empirical effects of its conclusions.
Again, check this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
I would give you references from logic of scientific method/logik der forschung but i only have it in german
>>2012500
No you cant falsify them. Ok here is my new theory: it is exactly the same as the theory of gravitation just that it proclaims that there is an additional force that works together with gravity, so gravity consists of gravity and gravity 2. but it makes exactly the same predictions.
Inb4 occams razor, which is not falsification
>>2012505
>anything else than testing the empirical effects of its conclusions.
at what scope, at what resolution?
all predictions come true from some point of view, all are false from an infinite number of other points of view.
the scope and resolution isn't arbitrary, we decide the metrics beforehand. That way theory of science is replaced by an actuality.
>i only have it in german
It really doesn't matter. If you hold philosophy as superior to reality we have nothing to discuss.
you deal with ideas, I measure things.
>>2012508
>Inb4 occams razor, which is not falsification
>you can't falsify it because I've taken away the only tool of falsification that exists.
ok. sure thing.
lets have science without all that silly statistics stuff.
>>2012502
So were does popper weite about the falsification of math and occams razor as part of falsification? Were does he write that the whole infinite number of theories was a joke?
Care to give me page numbers of Logik der Forschung?
>>2012507
It seems so.
>>2012513
>Care to give me page numbers of Logik der Forschung?
no.
you fail to understand the most basic principles he set forth, why the fuck would I want to get more detailed?
>>2012513
>Were does he write that the whole infinite number of theories was a joke?
the mere fact that you think it's physically possible is answer enough.
show me an infinite number of anything. Let's see it.
you can't point to anything in reality that's infinite, why do you insist on pretending this thing is?
the answer is simply because you're an idiot.
>>2012510
Oh so we have switched arguments again, haven't we?
So you admit that you disagree with popper now, do you? Because thats not quiet clear to me yet.
And you do revise your repeated accusations of me not understanding popper?
And what you are mentioning there are the Rahmenbedingungen (frame conditions) which popper incorporated as well.
And without philosophy and logic nothing makes your conception of science any better than that of a shaman.
>>2012517
I never said it is physically possible, neither did popper. You again show your inability to understand simply abstract concepts.
>>2012514
If my misunderstandings are so simple it should be quiet simple for you to point them out and give reference regarding the issue from popper himself or even secondary literature. Hell i would even be happy with you posting wiki at this point.
Are you evading me again? Glass and milk again?
>>2012521
>I never said it is physically possible,
then why do you think it matters in the physical world?
Unicorns are theoretically possible but until they show up and start stabbing people we don't need to plan for them.
>>2012523
>Glass and milk again?
pretty much.
again, popper didn't change science. It existed long before he did, in essentially the same form.
It's cute that you seem to know so much about philosophy, but it doesn't help us with your complete ignorance of reality.
>>2012512
Occcams razor has nothing to do with popperian falsification.
Here readpage 10 and then the whole book:
https://books.google.de/books?id=Yq6xeupNStMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=popper+falsification+logic+of&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib_bDCycjJAhVBXRQKHc6QD2IQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=popper%20falsification%20logic%20of&f=false
"If the decision is negative, or in other words if the conclusions have been falsified, then their falsification also falsifies the theory from which they were logically deduced."
>>2012531
>If the decision is negative, or in other words if the conclusions have been falsified
falsified how? How is the falsification determined in an objective fashion?
ah yes, we use statistical methods to produce a universal metric....
>what is the frequency of an event? (statistics)
Occam's razor is just an expression regarding truth and frequency. Math if you will.
>>2012528
So now we have come from "you dont know popper" to "its cute that you seem to know so much about philosophy"
Very good. Far step from your original accusations and arrogance.
Again, if you dont know when a theory is falsified, pardon, "debunked" or "rekt", wasnt it, you dont need to tell me about how unscientific certain studies and fields of science are.
I might aswell ask a medicine man or a priest, i sure they will tell me. Alot about practicality, too.
So continue being practical anon, while actual scientists agree with popper
>>2012534
>expression regarding truth
Lol
>falsified how
It literally just described it. Read the link. By experiments that provide different empirical data than predicted by the conclusions logically dderived from the theory under the correct frame conditions.
Read this if you are interested in frame conditions
https://books.google.de/books?id=0a5bLBbe_dMC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq=popper+frame+conditions&source=bl&ots=14gvGa6Bb1&sig=fmCKd8xCdn8KJ02Ie3hJnsN5Pvg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidtdCvx8jJAhWE2RoKHe7yAU8Q6AEIIDAC#v=onepage&q=popper%20frame%20conditions&f=false
>>2012539
>Far step from your original accusations and arrogance
my opinion of you hasn't changed.
I assume you're a woman.
I realize you're stupid.
I doubt you've studied philosophy and I'm certain you haven't studied science.
most of this is well beyond you, even after I explain it. You may have a learning disability, I don't know.
you're pretty good at quote-mining and appeals to authority, I'd assume you're a creationist. Probably Christian but perhaps muslim.
your misunderstandings aren't really new, or interesting. Just childish. Not really funny, more sad. Your vitriol is understandable, but if you get angry at everyone that knows more than you, you're going to live bitter and die young.
>>2012540
Or observations not from experiments.
>>2012540
how are those data measured for comparison?
>we count how often they occur in a sample
isn't that a statement of statistical frequency?
>yeah, I guess.
is that statistical statement used to falsify?
>erm, maybe
is Occam the main rule we use to falsify statements by statistics?
>>2012541
Your continous claims to know more, followed by admitting to know less, followed by stating to know more, all the while providing no evidence whatsoever are not helpful for the discussion.
I have gone so far as to actually lsearch for an english ebook of Logik der Forschung to supply you with actual primary material of popper to underline my positions.
You have done nothing but personally assault me and have not given a single reference or even argument regarding how i am missunderstanding popper.
And in fact your dogmatism and unwilligness to argue with proper form and your personal insults mand ad hominem attacks not only rather belong to /b/ but also are much closer to the fundamentalist word iew you are accusing me of. You also blatantly made false claims and changed your opinion several times.
So again, im waiting for arguments and citations of popper
>>2012541
Also top kek at that level of personal insults +sexism
>>2012545
>So again, im waiting for arguments and citations of popper
and I'm waiting for examples from reality.
I suspect neither of us is going to get what we want.
>>2012543
This still has nothing to do with dismissing theories prima facie, which was why we were arguing about this.
Also occam only talks about hypothesis with the same explanatory power. Kolmogorov-chaitin is not the same as occam.
So another useless point. You are quiet good at hiding your original points.
>>2012547
So you do accept that you now nothing about popper?
>>2012546
no insult intended.
your thought process is interesting only in how childish it is.
you misunderstand Popper and then note that most scientists agree with him, and thus conclude that most scientists agree with your misunderstandings.
you demand quotes from me that I think disagree with you, and spew quotes that you think disagree with me. By so doing you concentrate on seemingly simple details while ignoring the gestalt.
also you appeal constantly to authority even going so far as to ignore reality.
finally you pretend the map superseded the terrain. You pretend a philosophy to explain reality trumps the reality it attempts to explain. You think somehow that when science and philosophy of science disagree, it must be the science that's wrong. And really you're trying to understand the philosophy of something that's way over your head. If you don't understand science, reading popper isn't going to help.
>>2012549
>Also occam only talks about hypothesis with the same explanatory power
yes, you said your infinite hypotheses were equally explanatory.
>>2012549
>This still has nothing to do with dismissing theories prima facie,
Occam describes the metric we use to falsify.
it is literally how we falsify things. True and False aren't real, empirical things. They are statistical interpretations of real data according to Occam's razor. Nothing more or less.
Occam itself isn't some grand law of nature. It's just the tautological statement that less-common things happen less-commonly.
>>2012552
None taken.
the gestalt? This is too metaphysical for me. If my miss understandings are so basical it should be simple for you to show them to me. I never heard popper talking about the gestalt of science.
Your notion of me misunderstanding popper appear weirder and weirder to me, every time you fail to formulate what i misunderstand or give a citation.
I have argued on my own and explained the logic behind every single of my arguments but i use popper for simplicty and because of your beloved practical reasons: most scientists agree with him.
All i can see in your post are further evasions and further personal insultsand other uncouth maneuvers.
Admit that you dont understand popper or give evidence. Simple as that. I have not quote mned but given whole passages of text and even link you the page and surrounding pages. I also explained everything in posted in depth. In fact i have explained most things first, before having quoted them.
Admit or argue. Stop hiding.
>>2012553
If we are talking about that again it c on the link i posted above. Its not falsification but prima facie preferrence. For the hundreds time.
>>2012554
Occams razor just tells us to use the simplest heory with the same explanatory value shpuld be chosen.
Falsification of popper has nothing to do with that. I explained poppers definitiom of falsification again and again. You just using another definition is not arguing its useless. If we are talking about different things it makes no sense. Falsification in the popperian sense has nothing to do with prima facie preselection.
C and d in the text above.
Read it.
I am getting tired of this
>>2012555
>Admit or argue. Stop hiding
there's nothing to admit or argue.
if I make a basic statement about how science works and you disagree and cite Popper, we're not even discussing the same subject.
I think we started off with you saying falsification is impossible and selection of the best is the only way to advance science.
I said selection is arbitrary and falsification is the only metric available to advance science.
which one popper agrees with doesn't actually matter.
in modern science a theory has to be falsifiable. If it can't be falsified science can't use it. Conversely, just taking the theory you personally think is best doesn't help science because you could be an idiot.
the infinite possible theories don't matter to science, they don't exist. I admit philosophy might find them interesting, but science doesn't care.
your understanding of how science works is exactly backwards, and I'm pretty fucking certain Popper doesn't agree with you on that. No matter how selectively you choose to read him.
and again, these are pretty broad ideas. If you can't even get them right there's not much point in discussing it. I might as well be teaching chimps to predict the weather.
>>2012558
>Its not falsification but prima facie preferrence
they are the same thing.
>>2012558
>I explained poppers definitiom of falsification again and again.
no, you did nothing of the sort.
you took quotes out of context and pretended they don't rely on any a priori assumptions.
the assumptions underlying your definition of falsification are expressed in science as statistics.
you don't seem intelligent enough to see the problem. Words aren't the things they describe, and even if they were, there's no such thing as a "true" or a "false" in reality.
true and false aren't empirical statements.
>>2012559
So you do admit that you now nothing about popper, good.
Also nice strawmen again, i never said any of those things.
I never said that one can take whatever theory one likes.
I said there are two phases c, prima facie arguments for exclusing theories and phase d attempts at falsification.
I am literally saying the opposite of what you are implying here.
nice argument.
You are either trolling me hard or have zero reading comprehension
>>2012560
True and false arent empirical statements. a theory can be true or false if its empirical predictions match the data later observed
>>2012560
They are not.
Popper distinguishes the two, this is without question.
There is no sense in arguing about definitions.
>>2012562
>So you do admit that you now nothing about popper, good
I know essentially nothing about popper.
You appear to know even less.
>I never said that one can take whatever theory one likes.
that is exactly how I read it when you said the theory that best explains is chosen.
This fails to address the problem of induction, which popper spent his entire life on.
science can't choose a best theory, it can only discard the ones that don't work. It can't produce facts, it can only reject falsehoods.
rejecting enough falsehoods does advance knowledge, even if you never find any truth.
in science, rejecting or not rejecting a hypothesis is done with statistics. Occam's razor is a statement of the factual basis for that rejection or failure to reject: A is A.
>>2012563
>a theory can be true or false if its empirical predictions match the data later observed
yes, and those data are expressed as statistics and judged in the manner expressed by Occam.
>>2012566
The best theory is chosen = prima facie preferrence to filter out relevant theories from unplausible ones out of the infinite number of theories.
Chosing the best theories means using occams razor, predictory power and empirical value
So the same thing you think is part of falsification.
This s what the atticle calls step c
It vreates a finite number of theories out of the infinite number of theoretical theories.
This is followed by step,d, falsification through empirical observation. Here applies what you write:
It cant produce facts it only corre ts falsehoods.
These are two differemt steps with completly differemt justification and status.
Have you understood my point now?
>>2012566
This is wiki but maybe you can understand it better than my wordings:
In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic technique (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models, rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[1][10][11]
Inb4 wiki hate or "quote mining". It just so you can understamd my point better
>>2012572
>Have you understood my point now?
I have understood your point all along.
My first complaint is that the metrics and methods used to falsify an hypothesis are the exact same ones used to reject much less likely hypotheses. (Data are presented as statistics, Occam's razor can be reduced to exactly the same statistics.)
Secondly, your approach elects a "better" truth and implies that it's dogma.
you say a theory has been chosen.
science prefers to say a theory has not yet been rejected.
science doesn't produce truth or knowledge, (problem of induction), it merely finds things that can't be disproven.
the upshot of this is we don't need to offer a better theory to reject one that simply doesn't work. In reality scientists have offered a better explanation for crocodiles feeding together, but that isn't necessary to reject the idea of pack hunting. The simple fact that the crocs don't communicate or socialize on the levels required for pack hunting is enough to debunk the pack hunting idea.
Science doesn't require a better truth be offered in order to declare a lie false.
>>2012582
and again, trying to understand how science actually, mechanically works by reading philosophy of science is like trying to understand how Baptists change the oil on their cars by reading the bible.
you're going about this backwards. If you want to actually understand philosophy of science you might start with understanding how science works. Scientists don't look to philosophy of science for direction. The exact opposite is true.
>>2012748
no, but that's funny.
that has to be at least the fifth time I've told her she thinks like a woman.
It doesn't matter, I think she's perhaps starting to grasp that we're describing the same process from two completely different angles.
She sees science as the arbiter of truth. Real scientists understand that nothing we produce is fact, we just try to reject falsehood. This is the problem with ethology (and sociology and much of evo-devo), it IS explanatory but it doesn't rule out other better explanations.
And to disprove a conclusion you don't need to provide a better one, you just need to attack the methodology of the thing. If the 'scientist' didn't consider other possibilities and design an experiment to exclude them, they aren't doing science. We call these explanations "just-so stories." They aren't science, just a sort of plausible mythology that people invent to explain the universe without checking to see if they're true.
Crocodiles probably don't hunt in packs, tool use looks pretty iffy as well. Also the human penis isn't shaped to scrape sperms out of the vag and homosexual behavior isn't a result of overcrowding.
c'est la vie. Scientists move science forward while people pretending to do science move it back. There is a niche there, a bridge between the cold rigor of science and the bleeding hearts of the guilty public. Even that doesn't matter, truth doesn't bend to science or emotion.
>>2012628
No you did not understand you just spouting the same nonsense here.
I stil am not saying that we choose arbitrarily, neither does popper.
I know that you dont understand because your answer is totally non Sequitur.
To answer your ramblings i would have to repeat the exact same thing again.
Its not "my" approach to elect better theories. Its what actul scientist do and its what popper proposes.
I have explained this again and again and your evasion and personal remarks are no arguments.
>>2012768
I am not that person and it doesnt matter. Every further personal insult just shows how weak and childish you are.
>>2012811
>Its not "my" approach to elect better theories. Its what actul scientist do and its what popper proposes.
electing better theories is exactly the same as rejecting worse ones.
the only difference is you think scientists produce truth while in reality all we do is reject falsehood.
thus your mistaken belief that we must produce a better truth before we can reject a lie.
silly bullshit found only in the epistemology of fundamentalist religion and pseudoscience like ethology.
>>2012812
I can't personally insult you, only you can make you look this ignorant.
>>2012814
Cool
>200 post long conversation full of butthurt
Why is /an/ so fucking autistic?
I fucking hate all of you for ruining a potentially awesome croc thread
This thread is dildos. I just wanted to learn about the big ass alligator, but no, you guys go all turbo cunt and want to have a debate on who is smarter. Well, fuck you. Arguing on the internet is like winning the special Olympics. Congratulations, have some Bob Ross.
>>2010719
He's still made a bitch by any average adult hippo
>>2012905
This. Quit being fucking faggots
Fucking Bugguy
