Bad science: Forked Thread: Heroes: (Volume Three: Villains) The Second Coming

[Rackhir]

I am afraid it is a very bad theory. I have an other theory to offer, which is only slightly less useful as this 10 % of brain use.

The "Only Use 10% of the brain" theory was disproved decades ago. It's unclear exactly where it comes from, but seems most likely to be based on as scientifically valid information as Phrenology (ie. not at all).

Many species do not evolve but humans have evolved, so it is reasonable to believe that we have not quit evolving. Oddly enough this is something that the heroes show has touched on plenty of times, so its not odd that Mohinder believes in this theory.

It is completely and totally incorrect to claim that living organisms "don't evolve". Pretty much by definition anything that is subject to survival pressures of any sort is going to be evolving at some rate. If only due to random mutations. Change might be slow, might be fast, but they are inevitably going to change to some degree. Crocs might be largely unchanged from what they were a couple hundred million years ago, but they are not identical and there is always a chance that something is going to happen that is going to force more significant changes or drive branches extinct. The mega crocs aren't around any more for example.

We debated it in my theoligical philosophy class 8 years ago. I've learned that with theories, because they can't be proven you either believe or you don't beleve. I believe that humans can't possibly be done.

You are getting the common english language usage of theory confused with the scientific meaning of the word "Theory". The word "Theory" in science is not simply an opinion or a guess. It isn't simply "I believe X". It's "I have facts x, y and z. Theory N, for reasons a, b and c, accounts for these facts and further more predicts h, k and j should be the case given Theory N". Theories are based in facts, attempt to explain why those facts are what they are and also generally attempt to make predictions that can be used to further test the theory. If it can't be tested, repeated and checked at least to some degree, its not a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

For this reason, there is a vast difference between philosphy and science. In no small part because science deals with things that can be tested, repeated and verified. Where as philosophy is almost completely fact free.

Actually this whole discussion does raise an interesting point though. IMHO, the really radical "evolutionary" step for man is that we have essentially gone from depending on "hardware" evolution (ie. physical changes) to "software" evolution (ie. ideas/technology based "evolution"). Software can change much more quickly and be spread far wider in a much shorter period of time than any physical changes. So in a sense shows like "Heroes" where everyone is manifesting "physical" changes is in a sense kind of a backwards step. While it might be cool that Nathan can fly, it's really not as flexible or as useful as aircraft are, nor as easy to change or adapt.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Err... one of the defining characteristics of a scientific theory is that it can be proven (possibly not with tools and techniques that currently exist, but it's not a valid theory if it's unproveable).

No, that is not the defining characteristic. The defining characteristic is that it makes predictions you can test. In essence, the fact that you could go and try to falsify (disprove) is its defining characteristic.
For example, Newtons Laws make predictions about planetare movement. We can measure them and see if the predictions fit. They did in most cases, but some differed, so it meant the theory was either wrong or we missed something. (And both was true - we missed something, explaining some measurements consistent with the theory once we accounted those objects, but there were still errors we couldn't explain, until Einstein provided us with a new theory that could also explain these measurements. And then he predicted even more, and those predictions where also tested, one requiring a Solar Eclipse to allow us to observe something his theory predicted)

That's one of the problems of the string theories - they give models to describe something but they don't give us predictions we could test.

It's not possible to prove scientific theories. You can prove math, but not science. Math starts with a set of defined axioms and rules that are defined as true, and from there you don't make predictions, you use rules of logic to gain new formulas.
In science we don't have this fixed point. We use math to model the world, but there we have to make assumptions on what the axioms of our model are. (Most basic assumptions are stuff like "conversation of energy and momenum"). From there we create a formula and use that to predict something in the real world. If the prediction holds true, the assumptions we used might be correct. But maybe the next experiment will show an error, and we have to revise our assumptions (the model axioms).

 

[Umbran]

--Better thread for this convo--
Hey I'm just the messanger. It's a theory because it can't be proven. Else it will fall into the fact realm (if it were measurable).

If it cannot be proven, because it is not measurable, or otherwise cannot be tested, it is an "hypothesis". After it has been tested, it is a "theory". After it has been heavily tested, such that we take it to be reliable, it is a "fact".

Many species do not evolve but humans have evolved, so it is reasonable to believe that we have not quit evolving.

Well, this sentence... I don't see how one thing follows from another.

Many species do not evolve... Says who?
Humans have evolved... Okay, I can accept that.
So, it is reasonable to believe that we have not quit evolving... Does not follow. If I accept your first phrase (I don't, but say I do), then I have to accept that evolution can stop - and having evolved in the past then does not imply we are still evolving.

Bringing things around to the original topic - just because we are evolving, does not imply that our mental capacities are growing. Evolution could decrease our capacities, or we could evolve in other areas, leaving our mental capacities unchanged..

 

[F5]

Bringing things around to the original topic - just because we are evolving, does not imply that our mental capacities are growing. Evolution could decrease our capacities, or we could evolve in other areas, leaving our mental capacities unchanged..

See HG Wells' The Time Machine for an example of this. The Morlocks and Eloi are perfect examples of "evolved humans" whose mental capacities degenerated as the need to use them vanished.

 

[Grymar]

Back on the original topic, I have to actively work to suspend my disbelief with Heroes. As much as I love the show, it is far more fantasy than scifi. Just for a moment, consider the conservation of energy...where does the power of flight come from? There has to be a measurable force that Nathan is emitting in order to fly. What about Elle and the electricity? Where does the energy come from that she then emits as electricity? Is she hungry after a large blast? That doesn't even begin to touch the questions like how Micah can evolve an ability (through hormones?) to speak with technology.

The really far out ones like phasing through walls and stopping time are far enough out of reality that somehow I find them easier to accept, but every time I see someone fly I have to swallow my urge to yell at the TV.