Can Corrys Hybridize?

[jollysue]

Ok, Gazo. Sorry, I should be less heavy handed. I disagreed with a statement you made and said I would term it differently. Nevertheless we both and others can learn from the exchange.

I am sorry I offended you.

In general albinism in humans is considered to be an undesirable condition. I am still not convinced that it is a genetic mutation. It is part of the gene pool and in some environments it might be a positive. There are critters that live in caves in the dark that are more like albino than not. (An unresearch statement, I admit.)

But there were 2 issues in this thread--at least. Albinos and hybrids. You were absolutely correct that albino is not a species.

 

[Gazo]

I apologise too if I stepped over any lines.

Ah now we are getting somewhere. Unfortunately, this is what the world classifies it as and the media (from whatever source this takes) is making us believe it is.

I personally, don't see it as a mutation or a defect (maybe I got too involved in my original sweeping statement!), but a beautiful difference that makes a human or any living creature unique in a good way.

Isn't it true that something different is frowned upon because it is seen as not normal - why is it not?

Ah the wonderful world we live in eh

Oh ye and tis true NO TUXEDO ALBINO CORYS

 

[jollysue]

Gotta love Cory people!

I have looked into the wonderful world of Noah, The National Oraganization of Albinism and Hypo-somethingorother They use the terms defect and disorder. But I still am not convinced. I actually remember when there were separate drinking fountains. There was a time when women were not allowed education.

Never mind now, fellas. No sport about the ladies!

In my perspective and philosophic understanding, science is biased by the scientists' assumptions. Once the data is in, the scientist must interpret the data. That requires an assumption.

On the other hand, just to be difficult, it now appears that there are a wide variety of albinisms. Some are not pink eyed and white skinned and can not be diagnosed by appearences. LOL!

NOAH: What is albinism?

 

[Cory_Dad]

[] Well, I'm glad you two are playing nice now, I was going to tell you both to go to your rooms if you didn't!

Jollysue, per your appendix statement, I seem to recall reading something in the last few weeks that they've determined that the appendix IS useful; it stores bacteria used in the body to process food or some such thing. I wish I could find that article..

Gazo, I don't think it's unreasonable to be asked for a source. There is so much mis-information out there (NOTE: I AM NOT IMPLYING THAT ANYTHING YOU STATED WAS MIS-INFORMATION) that is used to argue a case. My wife runs into exactly this constantly in her line of work where people either deliberately or through ignorance make statements that have absolutely no grounding in science. When asked where the scientific evidence is she gets anecdotal evidence (my neighbour's daughter took this natural remedy and she got much better), hearsay (people say that...), marketing (remember snake oil salesmen? or windows 2000 (tm) is so secure it should be called kevlar (ya, against an abrams tank)) or mumbo jumbo (you're an idiot if you don't think my way).

Thats not to say the scientists can't be wrong, they have been wrong in the past; eggs are good for you, no they're bad, etc. But what the good scientist does is she/he runs studies on a large population using double blind methods over a long period of time, charts the TRENDS then publishes the results to be PEER reviewed.

I'm not a geneticist but one person's defect is another's advantage. It's called evolution (my apologies to all you creationists out there).

And again, this concludes todays sermon. [/]

 

[jollysue]

[] Well, I'm glad you two are playing nice now, I was going to tell you both to go to your rooms if you didn't!

Jollysue, per your appendix statement, I seem to recall reading something in the last few weeks that they've determined that the appendix IS useful; it stores bacteria used in the body to process food or some such thing. I wish I could find that article..

Actually, that is what I was trying to say in my muddled way per the appendix example. What is one day considered disposable or a defect or a terrible mutation may one day be considered valuable, just as the appendix now is. The appendix is no longer removed as a matter of course, I understand, as it was "back in the day." As a philosophy buff (and philosophy is the mother of the sciences--ask any philosopher ) it is still true that even with a double blind study, the results have to be interpreted. World view and fundamental beliefs still are the basis of that. For instance, if you give a creation scientist and an evolution scientist the same data/facts, they will come to different and valid conclusions. You can not prove either wrong, because these preconcieved biases and assumptions are at the basis of all thought. The scientist that assumes a divine creator will interpret the data differently than one who assumes there is no divine creator. Better men and women than we have tried to make this proof.

Regarding adaption and genetics, it actually may only be the "gene pool" and not evolution or mutation. (Not to say that mutation and some form of evolution don't exist.) Have you heard of the little frog that made a home at one end of the pond? His progeny in each generation moved further on around the pond with each generation, adapting to each new ecological niche. When the froggie offspring one day reached the starting place of the line, those frogs at the start of the journey could no longer breed with those at the end of the journey. It all came from the gene pool and adaption to the environment in this case.

By capturing and placing fish in our aquariums, we are already changing them. The ones that adapt will survive and the ones that don't will not. So the fishie line will change, just as it does in the wild.

 

[Cory_Dad]

As a philosophy buff (and philosophy is the mother of the sciences--ask any philosopher ) it is still true that even with a double blind study, the results have to be interpreted. World view and fundamental beliefs still are the basis of that. For instance, if you give a creation scientist and an evolution scientist the same data/facts, they will come to different and valid conclusions. You can not prove either wrong, because these preconcieved biases and assumptions are at the basis of all thought. The scientist that assumes a divine creator will interpret the data differently than one who assumes there is no divine creator. Better men and women than we have tried to make this proof.

By capturing and placing fish in our aquariums, we are already changing them. The ones that adapt will survive and the ones that don't will not. So the fishie line will change, just as it does in the wild.

I don't disagree with any of this. One of the points I tried to make was that the scientist must submit her/his work for peer review. That opens it to discussion.

Of course, all of our theories and 'facts' should be constantly under review (guess what, the world is no longer flat).

The other MAJOR point I was trying to make is that when making a decision we need to know if the information we are using to make the decision is hearsay, uneducated opinions, etc. or scientifically studied and peer reviewed. It's not that I don't listen to hearsay, opinions etc. but I place a greater weighting on certain sources that others. Of course it also depends on WHO did the study; an independent scientist or a scientist who has something to gain from the outcome.

As for evolution/devolution, it is what it is.

Disclaimer: The above is my opinion.

Cheers.

(This thread is getting pretty deep).

 

[jollysue]

All granted, Cory Dad. What is the saying? When you ask 10 ____ for an opinion, you get 12 answers? How does that go?

 

[Cory_Dad]

All granted, Cory Dad. What is the saying? When you ask 10 ____ for an opinion, you get 12 answers? How does that go?

Umm, "Cory_Dad is an idiot" ?

 

[jollysue]

LOL no no

But I was tempted to debate "evolution/devolution is what it is" with you. I'm a creationist, so my take on the data is generally different than the Darwinist's. At this point I am also inclined to side with devolution.

Thanks for the deep. Nice for a change. Not many can venture there.

I wonder if all the questions of the thread were addressed?

 

[pastabake]

Oculocutaneous albinism type 1 (OCA1 or tyrosinase-related albinism) results from a genetic defect in an enzyme called tyrosinase

So it seems that even by the standards of their own organisation they are defective.

This aside, I think albino fish are ugly (thankfully in the wild they at least provide a nice snack for the local piscovore) and when I mentioned getting more corys the first item on my list will be a Panda.

As for science, sure data can be interpreted in any number of ways depending upon the questions you ask, but bias and opinion aren't science - that's one of the the points of peer review

 

[Cory_Dad]

As for science, sure data can be interpreted in any number of ways depending upon the questions you ask, but bias and opinion aren't science - that's one of the the points of peer review

You're pretty much bang on with that (that's what I was, hopefully, trying to say) but I just realized that a lot of scientists DO express opinions but they are 'educated' opinions based on facts (I always have to laugh whenever I say/write that; refer to Peter Sellers and Elke Sommers, Shot in the Dark, (spoiler: 'Facts Hercul, facts') but I digress ( vs de-evolve ) ).

When a scientist looks at the results it's not alway an all or nothing proposition so he may express his opinion based on trends or his interpretation of the results.

There are very few black and white things in this world (except black and white paint) but many shades of gray. And even those shades can change based on ones perspective.

So why the heck don't I just shut up now because this is way off topic. This is after all Tropical Fish Forums TFF and not the Center for Rehashing Analytical Philosophy (CRAP).

Hmm, maybe we should start our own top level thread.... naw .......

Cheers.

 

[jollysue]

It's called epistemology or the study of the theory of knowledge.

Paul Feyerabend " held that deciding between competing scientific accounts was complicated by the incommensurability of scientific theories. Incommensurability means that scientific theories cannot be reconciled or synthesised because the interpretation and practice of science is always informed by theoretical assumptions, which leads to proponents of competing theories using different terms, engaged in different language-games and thus talking past each other. This for Feyerabend was another reason why the idea of science as proceeding according to universal, fixed laws was both historically inaccurate and prescriptively useless."

copied from here

It is impossible to remove bias completely. All thought procedes from a priori assumptions.

 

[Cory_Dad]

It's called epistemology or the study of the theory of knowledge.

Paul Feyerabend " held that deciding between competing scientific accounts was complicated by the incommensurability of scientific theories. Incommensurability means that scientific theories cannot be reconciled or synthesised because the interpretation and practice of science is always informed by theoretical assumptions, which leads to proponents of competing theories using different terms, engaged in different language-games and thus talking past each other. This for Feyerabend was another reason why the idea of science as proceeding according to universal, fixed laws was both historically inaccurate and prescriptively useless."

copied from here

It is impossible to remove bias completely. All thought procedes from a priori assumptions.

Well, that was just his 'opinion'.

When he states:

Scientific laws such as those posited by Aristotelian or Newtonian physics are regularly proven not only to be locally incorrect, but entirely false, relying on assumptions about non-existent entities.

the same can be said about the 'non-existent entities' like GOD/god/giant spaghetti monster.

I would far rather work on a problem logically than dogmatically <great, he references dogs in a fish forum...>

Are close to being banned here Jollysue?

What the heck: "Born to be wilddddd!".

Man (woman), I love this forum.

Cheers.

 

[jollysue]

Other than being off topic, I am not aware of any forum rules being broken here.

I am certainly not an advocate of this particular philosopher, but he makes some good points.

And there are other ways of "knowing" than the "scientific method." I "know" fundamental "truths" that can neither be proved nor demonstrated. The scientific method will not prove them. They can not be seen any more than the wind can be seen. But I see the effect in my life and others, just as I can see trees bent by the force of the wind. Saying they don't exist does not make it true. Absolute Truth is a given in my life, but I can not prove it is true. Nevertheless, some of the most accomplished scientists accepted the Absolute and made efforts to make proofs of it and demonstrate it. The scientists that most changed our world and understanding of it believed in a Creator. I will take Newton and Einstien before Darwin any day.

Of course, it is just my opinion and preference. I like albinos. I want some blue eyed albino Plecs some day.

I think I argued with my own example!



Descarte of course does an admirable job of making proof of existence after first proving that it could not be proven.

 

[pastabake]

Ok, sorry to be pedantic but when you mentioned a priori and assumption in the same sentence it made me wonder if you actually understood what it means ... philosophically speaking.

For a fact to be a priori it has to be true by definition. Hence most if not all a priori facts are actually tautologies.

It is not an assumption that 2+2=4 and so on.

Now I'm no fan of foundationalism and epistemologically speaking I actually believe in set coherence and paradigms, but I do accept that some knowledge is by its very nature true and immutable across all sets ... Feyerabend basically wants to throw everything up in the air and claim that everything is merely relative ... well he's wrong. Not only that but most of his ideas are nothing more than an extremist extension of Kuhn's work on the scientific paradigm ... Kuhn is also not wholly correct ... the truth in the matter lies somewhere between Popper and Kuhn ... there is no scientific monolith, it is more akin to a multiverse of overlapping paradigms, each one of which has a differing degree of fluidity. Its only an illusion that things are written in stone and that some great new theory over turns the moribund oldster, the reality is one of degrees and gradual growth. The error comes in when one tries to take a snapshot of a moving object and then make claims that qualities of that snapshot represents the whole when in reality it can only convey the movement.

Consider this analogy .. when you have kids you don't see the daily incremental change, likewise you can be blinded to certain aspects of them, conversely the infrequent visitor sees big changes and often finds it hard to reconcile that the present version has any connection to the previous one.

Also, so called paradigm shifts tend not to be as earth shattering and all encompassing as some would suggest ... remember the controversy surrounding tectonic plates? Nor are many of them caused by changes in science as much by changes in the social and political sphere ... The rise of environmentalism for instance had very little to do with scientists and yet it has had a great effect upon the areas of research that are funded ... however, basic scientific research, apart from having a few new tools, hasn't changed much in 100 years. Even Feyerabends assertions regarding Galileo are somewhat misleading because arguably the paradigm shift was not within science as much as it was the beginning of science and the overthrow of the old worldview. Nor was Galileo sole mover, he's just the one that became known. Its unfortunate that history tends to be distilled down to 'historic events' and focussed on individuals, when in fact these are nothing more than the snapshots of a moving target.

PS. As far as I know Einstien was an agnostic and Descartes proved nothing other than he could argue in a circle. In fact Descartes attempt at proving the existence of God is the last real philosophical attempt to do so, and yet it was a failure ...