Re: "Algorithms" in Molecular Biology?



"kramer" kodream@xxxxxxxxx wrote:-
Subject: Re: "Algorithms" in Molecular Biology?

snip<
I guess my point is, you can't define the term algorithm, because the
concept subsumes the concept of definition. If you can't sit in it,
its not a chair, if it doesn't fold up into a double helix its not DNA.
If it can't be measured it can't exist. If a cell doesn't produce and
consequently consume ATP it doesn't live. If a virus doesn't rewire
the operation of a cell its not a virus.

JE:-
An algorithm is only a simplified/oversimplified model of a theory i.e. a
proposed theory of either HOW or WHY something observed in nature can be
explained, where respectively, a variable or a constant term has been
artificially deleted from that theory to form the model/algorithm. If you
cannot sit in it then a chair is only non verified, i.e. it is NOT refuted.
The chair may be wrapped in plastic stopping you sitting on it because you
slide off whenever you attempt to do so. Being able to empirically
distinguish between a non verification and a refutation lies at the heart of
any rational epistemology and provides the most common area of
epistemological error.

If you can sit on it this does not mean that it has to be chair. It may be a
table or a keg of beer because you can sit on any of these. Neither a
verification of a non verification is definitive. Any concept that provides
MEANING must be able to be:

1) Verified.

2) Non Verified.

3) Refuted.

The Platonic square of opposition that I posted to sbe a while ago is
ancient. It provides a logical description of these three basic tests. The
test to refutation as to what a chair is supposed to be, can be any
contradiction as to what a chair has been defined to be, i.e. what a chair
is defined NOT to be. In the sciences BOTH must be empirically verifiable
(be able to be documented within nature as a non random and not just a
random, pattern). If a chair is not a table or a keg of beer by simple
definition where all of these objects form a non random pattern as a percept
(sensory information) then a verification of any of these refutes that the
object in question is a chair. If the definition of a chair is now changed
to include a table or a keg of beer then a verification/non verification of
any of these remains NON definitive. If no contradiction as to what a chair
is supposed to be is allowed (IOW your epistemology becomes 100% relative to
just nothing specified by you) disallowing any empirical contradiction of a
chair to even exist then "anything goes" because what a chair is becomes
reduced to irrefutability, i.e. it becomes reduced to just a dictate. This
means it can be anything that you say that it is. Witch hunts and their
attendant horrors are based on it as is today's popular reincarnation:
racialism. The epistemological base of both is popular Post Modern
relativism summed up by the ditty "everything is relative". The opposite is
true: everything remains based on CONTESTING absolute ASSUMPTIONS. Please
note that because MORE and just one such assumption is always required,
these are not just absolute DICTATES.

The oldest con trick in the book is to expand what you say a chair is via a
continuous ad hoc redefinition so that the meaning that is supposed to be
provided now includes its own refutation, continuously evading any test to
refutation. Here intellectual anarchy replaces the evolution of theories via
their refutation allowing group orientated intellectual thuggery to replace
individual based learning and inquiry. When this happens within a tribal
based species like our own within which selection has favored tribal
conformity over non conformity and the creation of a warrior class of mostly
hyped up younger males to protect the tribe as a whole and enforce (at the
direction of mostly older males) tribal mores, then what we call
"civilization" is just dumped resulting in mass violence. The larger the
group the more the devastating the violence will be to all because it will
destroy critical interdependency within that group.

The problem with evolutionary theory over the last 50 years or so is that it
has become almost entirely dominated by mathematicians who have no need for
refutation simply because mathematics is not a science. The consistent
misuse of the many _useful_ but sadly, _misused_ simplified/oversimplified
models that they produce has allowed heuristic gene centricity and/or ill
defined polycentric theories to contest and replace Darwin's refutable
mono-centric fertile organism centric theory of evolution by natural
selection. It can easily be proven that all of these models/algorithms are
simplified/oversimplified from just this ONE theory.

Yet again I call reader's attention to Waddington's empirical research and
models he produced over 50 years ago. I posted Waddington's "Post
Neo-Darwinian" model within the thread "Waddington's Revision of Haldane"
without comment, some time ago. Not one single professional that posts here
has commented on it and I do not know of a single reference to this model
within the literature. This proves to any rational and unbiased person that
Waddington's model was and remains, chronically evaded. It is easy to see
that this remains the case: it corrects the misuse of Haldane's heuristic
gene centric population genetics model which remains the basis of today's
population genetics. Without gene centricity Neo Darwinism fails. I would
like to thank Jim Menegay who alone has demonstrated the necessary integrity
to discuss Waddington's model. Evasion is simply not an option for the
sciences.





Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxx














.

Relevant Pages

  • Towards A Self Consistent Epistemology
    ... empirical refutation which distinguishes empirical or scientific theories. ... distinguish between these propositions, if and only if, A is defined as a ... reversal of cause and effect relative to the parent theory under test. ... The difference between a non verification and a refutation remains critical. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Misrepresentation of Popper
    ... Popper defines the quantitative verisimilitude which a statement ... The above was not a test to refutation, just a test to non verification. ... > falsification of a high-level scientific theory is never brought about ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Sex for diversity or diversity repression?
    ... Non verification. ... When these non refutable beliefs are adopted by the sciences they have to be ... enforced BECAUSE they cannot be tested to refutation. ... or allow popular irrefutable theories to replace older refutable ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Mathematics Is Not a Science
    ... >> to verification or refutation without ... You cannot have a prediction without ... life without any mathematics being required. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Batch verification via Pippengers algorithm
    ... Let's look at a typical elliptic-curve signature system within the ... which provide much faster verification but need ... v public keys n_i B (or fewer if some public keys ... if v = 32 then the algorithm ...
    (sci.crypt)