“Evolution is not a fact. Evolution doesn’t even qualify as a theory or as a hypothesis. It is a metaphysical research program, and it is not really testable science.” --Karl PopperTake for example, this common "experimental proof of evolution" with antibiotic resistance.Slam-dunk, case closed, right?Not so fast. This is actually a *demonstration* not an experiment.To build on Popper's point: suppose, hypothetically, that the bacteria DIDN'T develop antibiotic resistance.Would we then conclude that Evolution is FALSE? Of course we wouldn't!People would come up with excuses about how you can't prove a negative; however that is, in fact, Popper's entire point.Your theory is therefore not falsifiable, if you cannot reject it if it fails to prove a negative.You can either have Popper or Darwin, but not both.
>>16916992Retarded take and that kike actually backpedaled on his views later on. The random mutation + natural selection fairytale is scientific and testable under his criteria because we now know empirically that it's wrong. What's unscientific is the set of arguments used to defend macro-evolution, which remains unchanged despite its previous use in defending a demonstrable falsehood.
>>16916999>Retarded take and that kike actually backpedaled on his views later on.Popper backpedaled and never elaborated.Meaning his Rabbi had a word with him.Meanwhile, his earlier logic is sound, if you accept the falsifiability criterion.Alternatively, it is also perfectly acceptable to simply reject the falsifiability criterion.
>>16917009>his earlier logic is soundIt clearly isn't because the "unfalsifiable" theory he was challenging has in fact been falsified.
>>16917011What is the empirical evidence you are referring to?
>>16917013It's been known since at least the 90s that mutation has a underlying logic behind it, some aspects of which have been studied and partially explained. Now it's unclear how much of the remaining "randomness" is just scientific ignorance.
>>16916992evolution is a bigger religion than christianity since they claim mutations are completely random and that only god can know how they happen
>>16917023Yeah, mutations are about as random as lightning strikes.
>>16916992Claim made by the theory of evolution:>Offspring inherit most of their traits from their ancestorsThis can be falsified by demonstrating that the offspring are unrelated to their parents.>traits do not replicate perfectly This can be falsified, at least to a statistically relevant degree, by demonstrating that a sufficiently large number of generations will not produce a trait which did not exist in the founding population.>things that reproduce more have more of their traits present in the next population This can be falsified by demonstrating a mechanism for non-reproductive transfer of traits which is statistically relevant in the next generation.Those three claims are all evolution needs.
>>16916992>Take for example, this common "experimental proof of evolution" with antibiotic resistanceThey are to dumb to see that the replicability of that experiments prove that the resistance is an characteristis of that species. It's hard if you do not see it at a first glance and hopeless if you can't find it in decades.
>>16916992>Karl PopperIsn't he the guy from that "We need to violently repress thought criminals in the name of tolerance" web comic?
>>16917476Populations of what?Population by itself is a trait that is required before evolution can be discussed, which means that it is possible for traits to exist that are not from evolution. The same mechanisms you conveniently left out of the necessary conditions for evolution. Because the only mechanism is just story telling. Because evolution doesn't need physical mechanisms because it isn't science.Under your delusion, offspring are also have no traits in common with their ancestors. P v ~P. Fail.
I took a picture of this fish that almost looks like a crocodile
>>16916992>suppose, hypothetically, that the bacteria DIDN'T develop antibiotic resistance.>Would we then conclude that Evolution is FALSE?You wouldn't conclude anything because your scenario fails to include any hypothesis pertaining to evolution, brainlet.>Population by itself is a traitToken salad.
>>16917601It works if you define intolerance purely as seeking censorship. It doesn't factor in the whole "words are violence" idea that got extremely popular.
>>16917631>Populations of what?Anything that self replicates.>it is possible for traits to exist that are not from evolution.Has anyone ever implied otherwise?>The same mechanisms you conveniently left out of the necessary conditions for evolution.I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. What necessary claim for evolution did I leave out?>Under your delusion, offspring are also have no traits in common with their ancestorsIncorrect. Offspring inheriting most of their traits from their immediate ancestors is an essential component of evolution. To demonstrate otherwise would actually falsify evolution.
>>16916992Nah popper is wrong about science. If it can be made into a reproducible pattern that has utility in other domains (aka made and described into a math with utility) than there is truth to it. Genetic algorithms have value outside the domain of genetics, evolution, and biology. This indicates there's some level of true natural pattern to those axioms. This is why those without formal or applied math training should just stay out of the science game. You gotta know the mother of science before you begin talking about it. It's why social sciences are so full of imbeciles until you talk to the single quantitative person in the group who actually gets it and does interesting work.
>>16917903I am inclined to agree that Science should accept Darwin and reject Popper.However, without Popper, you could easily argue that Social Sciences (e.g. Economics) is Real Science, for example.It also opens the floodgates for pseudoscience, without having a proper criterion like falsifiability.Whereas, of you accept Popper and reject Darwin, you just have to deal with Christians.
>>16916992I think there could be a non-biological principle of evolution that can be applied to anything, like you can have a stock portfolio where the survivors survive and losers get cut, and maybe that's not falsifiable.but this is right >>16917476 if evolution is a change in allele frequency overtime, a change in heritable fitness, then you should be able to poke one of those terms to falsify it. (you can't)
>>16917476The hole in this analysis lies with the lack of a definition for "trait"Darwin himself acknowledged Lamarckism, but this merely highlights the problem of "nature" versus "nurture" of "traits"It puts evolution at odds with tabula rasa, which suggests this is a philosphical, or social science debate, not science in a Popperian sense
>>16918366>lack of a definition for "trait"For the purposes of this discussion, we can run with "any innate characteristic of a living thing." For simplicity we'll exclude learned behaviors and muscles developed through training. Though we will include the capacity to learn and grow muscles as traits.>Darwin himself acknowledgedDon't care.>It puts evolution at odds with tabula rasa, which suggests this is a philosphical, or social science debateNobody who matters takes tabula rasa seriously. Morons attempting to to make it a philosophical debate does not make it so. Empirical evidence unilaterally supports evolution.
>>16916992In and of itself, Evolution is not a scientific hypothesis but a logical principle that applies wherever you have some kind of mutation, some kind of selection and the possibility for trial and error. It only goes as far as to show that given heritability and natural variation in traits, it's possible for life forms to develop some adaptations to the environment without any external intervention or explicit intelligence driving the process. This is "unfalsifiable" in the same way that 1+1=2 is unfalsifiable.The real problem is that instead of spawning testable hypotheses about specific mutation and selection mechanisms producing specific adaptations over specific time spans, it all degenerates into just-so stories about how Current Theory surely accounts for Current Observations given A Very Long Time. And no, we can't test the full extent of this "hypothesis", but we can observe stuff happening in petri dishes over a decade, so surely it adds up over time (to whatever we want).
>>16916992>Evolution is not a factAnd he's completely right. The idea of evolution is a model. The way we describe it and use it is entirely our construct, not a 1:1 reflection of the dynamics of biological life as it has played out since its inception.This idea is not some gospel that should be unwaveringly adhered to. The people that do are no different than people who outright deny the genetic selection process the term "evolution" attempts to describe (whether it's for religious reasons or otherwise).
>>16918398>And he's completely right. The idea of evolution is a model. The way we describe it and use it is entirely our construct, not a 1:1 reflection of the dynamics of biological life as it has played out since its inception.And Christians are completely right. The idea of genetics is a model. The way we describe it and use it is entirely our construct, not a 1:1 reflection of the dynamics of biological life as it has played out since its inception. This idea is not some gospel that should be unwaveringly adhered to.
>>16918387>specific mutation and selection mechanisms producing specific adaptations over specific time spansEvolution makes no such claims. One can argue that the practical unknowability of these things is a claim that evolution makes. To show that these adaptations are predictable and non-chaotic would imply some mechanism outside of natural selection is at play.Specific testable predictions have been made, just not in the specific way you're naively asking for. See: endogenous retroviruses.If two animals share common ancestry more recently than a third, then we should expect to see the remnants of retroviruses shared between the two that aren't present in the third. This prediction was tested and validated multiple times.
>>16918409>Evolution makes no such claimsQuote the part of my post where I implied that it does.
>>16918411>The real problem is that instead of spawning testable hypotheses aboutThis implies that you think it *should* make these sorts of predictions for it to be scientifically valid.
>>16918415>This implies that you think it *should* make these sorts of predictions for it to be scientifically valid.Another reading comprehension failure on your part. Try again?
>>16918424That is the most plain reading of what you posted given the context. Now that I have expounded on my interpretation of what you said, it's on you to clarify the apparent misinterpretation.In what way is it a "problem" that evolution isn't claiming something that is mutually exclusive to its own precepts?
>>16918429American public schoolers make the absolute worst pseudointellectuals. Your kind really manages to take pseudery to a level deserving of mandatory state sterilization.
>>16918432>still can't elaborate on his own statement >starts crying when called out on itI accept your concession.
>>16918439I accept your severe mental retardation, but there's nothing I need to elaborate on. Your failure at basic reading comprehension doesn't point to any blanks I need to fill.
>>16918403looks pretty straighforward to me anon
>>16918444>still crying
>>16918448>looks ... to meNo one cares. Your vacuous take applies to just about anything and doesn't help distinguish valid from invalid theories or valid from invalid criticisms.
>>16918454Notice how your impotent rage is forcing you to reply repeatedly and beg my (You)s instead of asking ShatGPT or something to spoonfeed you how to read a post.
>>16918383>For the purposes of this discussion, we can run with "any innate characteristic of a living thing." For simplicity we'll exclude learned behaviors and muscles developed through training. Though we will include the capacity to learn and grow muscles as traits. This is not a sufficiently broad definition, its merely a bandaid over the immediate critique.>Empirical evidence unilaterally supports evolution.Show me the evidence.
>>16918457Notice how you're still crying. >>16918459>This is not a sufficiently broad definitionA narrow definition is more useful than a broad definition. Your complaint is invalid.>Show me the evidence.Exhibit A:>>16918409>See: endogenous retroviruses.>If two animals share common ancestry more recently than a third, then we should expect to see the remnants of retroviruses shared between the two that aren't present in the third. This prediction was tested and validated multiple times.
>>16918429anon, you're retarded. he literally said it's a scientifically valid principle. what he's saying is that it's not a scientifically valid hypothesis for explaining all the variety of life, even though most evolutionists try to use it that way, because it makes no testable predictions on that scale
>>16918462>A narrow definition is more useful than a broad definition. Your complaint is invalid. No it is not. You definition only immediately addresses the immediate critique and I cannot use it to figure out if a given characteristic is "innate" or "nurtured".For example, according to your definition, is human height a "trait"? You definition is simply not useful enough for me to even decide if basic characteristics meet it or not.Ergo: your definition is insufficiently broad, to the point of being useless.>See: endogenous retroviruses. How do you know, before looking at retroviral DNA, that two species are more closely related?If your answer is "because of retroviral DNA" then your whole epistemology is circular, and the "empirical evidence" cannot ever falsify it.
>>16918463>what he's saying is that it's not a scientifically valid hypothesis for explaining all the variety of lifeAnd that is what I'm saying is incorrect. >it makes no testable predictions on that scaleExcept it does, just not in the naive way you're asking for it to. >>16918467>I cannot use it to figure out if a given characteristic is "innate" or "nurtured".Because that's not the purpose of that definition. Innate or nurtured are qualifiers that define whether it is a "trait" in this context. What you're doing is like complaining that the definition of a circle being "the set of all points which are a constant distance from a single point" can't be used to determine if the set of all points in a shape are, indeed, constant from a single point. It's backwards thinking.>>16918467>How do you know, before looking at retroviral DNA, that two species are more closely related?Taxonomy is an older field than genetics, anon. And ERV's are a relatively recent discovery within genetics. If we found that ERV's were shared between apparently unrelated taxa while not shared within apparently related taxa, then it would upend a lot of our understanding of evolution.
>>16918474i don't care why you think he's incorrect. your replies were retarded regardless
>>16918474So does human height meet your definition of a "trait"? Yes or no.I would say strictly speaking, yes it meets your definition.Yes, human height is also nurtured. Humans were shorter 200 years ago not because of Evolution, but rather diet.So either you have to go and patch your definition again while I come up with another counterexample, or make your definition broader.
>>16918474>Except it does, just not in the naive way you're asking for it to.Name one.
>>16918479>So does human height meet your definition of a "trait"?See:>>16918383>exclude learned behaviors and muscles developed through training. Though we will include the capacity to learn and grow muscles as traits.Apply the same to height. The range where you're capable of growing to is innate. But environmental factors impact the end result.Nothing about this definition needs to be "patched.">>16918480ERV's
>>16918482>ERV'sWhat about them?
>>16918482It's not worth responding to spam bots, and certainly not worth bumping a bot thread or it.
>>16918482And how does one measure "capacity to grow"?I can measure someone's height with a meter stick, but I cannot measure "height capacity".
>>16918483They are one example of a testable prediction which helps to demonstrate the relative familiarity of species across taxa.
>>16918486I didn't say every single trait was measurable, did I?
>>16918488If it's not measurable, it's not empirical.Your definition of trait is therefore not subject to empiricism, and therefore not a falsifiable criterion.
>>16918491Many traits are measurable. Therefore they are empirical. Do you have anything to offer other than word games?
>>16918492what about if the jewish god cast a magical spell and created everything out of its breath?
>>16918487>They are one example of a testable predictionThat's funny. Evolution by Divine Grace theory makes the same prediction.
>>16918494Karl Popper is a jew, Charles Darwin is AryanReject jewish "science"Embrace Aryan Science
>>16918492>Many traits are measurable. Therefore they are empirical.Name one. We've already established that height isn't a trait, muscles aren't a trait.I'm genuinely not sure what real, tangible, measurable thing you consider to be a trait.
>>16918579>>16918492Is gender a trait?
>>16918487>>16918495Still waiting for the retard to suggest a testable hypothesis on the full scale his belief system, whose confirmation won't equally support Evolution by Divine Grace theory. :^)
>>16918579>Name oneEye color at birth. Any more dumb questions?>>16918580Sex certainly is.>>16918592I thought you were just being a memeing retard with your earlier post.No. "Evolution by divine grace" never suggested any predictions involving ERV's. Do you need the difference between "making predictions" and "overfitting a model" spelled out to you? I'd be glad to talk your ear off about it.
>>16918673>Sex certainly is. You xir, are a bigot.Transwomen are women.Men can get pregnant.
>>16918673>"Evolution by divine grace" never suggested any predictions involving ERV's.Yes, it did. If two animals share common ancestry more recently than a third, then we should expect to see the remnants of retroviruses shared between the two that aren't present in the third. This prediction was tested and validated multiple times. This is proof of Evolution by Divine Grace. If animals didn't evolve, you wouldn't see this pattern. Without God's grace, animals wouldn't evolve.
>>16917009Rabbis don't believe in evolution https://youtu.be/-aevi48yFmYhttps://youtu.be/OgGWAmgJD9Yhttps://youtu.be/78T4ecRwEnE
>>16916992Too bad, artificial human Speciation is inevitable anyway
>>16918831>Without God's grace, animals wouldn't evolve.And how have you empirically proven that? Is it even falsifiable?
>>16918831So you don't understand the difference between a prediction and overfitting.Show me where anyone supporting "evolution by divine grace" ever predicted the association between common ERV remnants in the genome and interrelatedness *prior to* the observation already being made.
>>16919095>>16919112>And how have you empirically proven that?No. How have you empirically proven that random mutation and natural selection are responsible? Imagine being so brown you get repeatedly filtered by a simple point.
>>16919138How shit is your reading comprehension?Show me where a proponent of EBDG made any prediction regarding ERV's before the observation was already made.
>Show me where a proponent of EBDG made any prediction regarding ERV's before the observation was already made.Imagine being such a brown NPC you still don't get it and mumble this retarded shit about imaginary proponents of an imaginary theory.
>>16919147So your imaginary theory is an example overfitting. Which is what differentiates it from evolution by natural selection. If you don't understand why this invalidates your point then idk what to tell you. You need an education or a lobotomy.
>>16919138>>And how have you empirically proven that?>No.So don't state it as fact then. Your entire claim rests on this baseless assumption. You also ignored the point about fallibility. "Obviously god dun it" is not falsifiable, it's not scientific.
>>16919152>>16919155Let's see if you're dumber than a mindless bot. > A: Neo-Darwinism makes specific testable predictions. e.g. :>If two animals share common ancestry more recently than a third, then we should expect to see the remnants of retroviruses shared between the two that aren't present in the third. This prediction was tested and validated multiple times.>B: If two animals share common ancestry more recently than a third, then we should expect to see the remnants of retroviruses shared between the two that aren't present in the third. This prediction was tested and validated multiple times. This is proof of Evolution by Divine Grace. If animals didn't evolve, you wouldn't see this pattern. Without God's grace, animals wouldn't evolve.>Assuming B is being facetious to demonstrate a flaw with A, what does B demonstrate? As pic related shows, you are indeed dumber than a mindless machine, which managed to get the gist of it even without the context of the entire exchange.
>>16919162I understand the point you're attempting to make, retard. It's not complicated. Do you understand the point I'm making and why your substitution is invalid?
>>16919168>I understand the point you're attempting to makeYour psychotic illness causes you to think you "understand" simple points but then you shit out incoherent drivel about "invalid substitutions", which proves otherwise.
>>16919162>Assuming B is being facetious to demonstrate a flaw with A, what does B demonstrate? It doesn't demonstrate a flaw in A. Because A doesn't depend on a huge unfalsifiable assertion. >Without God's grace, animals wouldn't evolve.
>>16919182>A doesn't depend on a huge unfalsifiable assertion.Then how come when I ask you to suggest a testable hypothesis on the full scale of your neo-Darwinist belief system, you give me one that's inherently agnostic as to whether it's Divine Grace or mutation+natural selection driving evolution?
>obvious thinly veiled christcuck propaganda thread>retards engage in itsame happened to /his/, keep taking the bait and you'll have a dead board in 2 years tops, don't say we didn't warn you
>>16919181The point you're making is that the data point provided can be used to validate either model. So using this data point as evidence for anything is a scientifically weak argumentI actually agree with you, 100%. Given a set of arbitrary data points, even completely random noise, there are infinitely many models that will match. This is exactly why overfitting is bad science. What your dumb ass doesn't undersand is that's not what the Neo-Darwinian model did in discovering this data point. It predicted the data point would be there and then went looking for it. If you want this "divine grace" model to have the same relative strength, then you must use its precepts to make a falsifiable prediction *before* performing the experiment.
>>16919188>using this data point as evidence for anything is a scientifically weak argumentI accept your concession. Still waiting for a testable hypothesis on the full scale of your neo-Darwinist belief system.
>>16919185>you give me one that's inherently agnostic as to whether it's Divine Grace or mutation+natural selection driving evolution?Before Darwin could you have written down exactly how life evolved from this "God" hypothesis? No. It doesn't make any unique predictions. It can explain anything, so it has no predicative power. It is not scientific. It's not falsifiable. So it will never be invoked in science. Evolution by natural selection on the other hand is not consistent with any observation. It is predictive and testable, and falsifiable. God is unnecessary, but feel free to bring your own.
>>16919189>still demonstrates he doesn't understand the argument.You lost.
>>16919190>Evolution by natural selection ... is predictive and testable, and falsifiable.Then how come when I ask you to suggest a testable hypothesis on the full scale of your neo-Darwinist belief system, you give me one that's inherently agnostic as to whether it's Divine Grace or mutation+natural selection driving evolution?
>>16919187This shit's been going on for a decade. Evolution vs Schizophrenia threads are a recurring feature here.
>>16919192It seems your chatbot blew a fuse. I'll take that as a capitulation.
>>16919193if you were right, /his/ wouldn't be "a christian board" now, just fucking saying
>If two animals share common ancestry more recently than a third, then we should expect to see the remnants of retroviruses shared between the two that aren't present in the third. This prediction was tested and validated multiple times.Where morons stumble is understanding that this only validates a hypothesis about species being related. It doesn't validate a Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian mechanisms as explanations for that relatedness. Anyone who accepts Genetics and believes that two animals are related, can use this to test that hypothesis, regardless of what mechanism they think drives evolution.
>>16919209>mentally ill retard still demonstrating he doesn't understand prediction vs. overfitting.More to the point: ERV's are explicitly just viral remnants. We see retroviruses infect people today. This "divine grace" model sounds like it would be saying "God made that virus infect something's germline" which is just another assumption layered on top of the model. Parsimony would suggest we drop the unnecessary assumption.
>>16919209yep>>16919221unironically filtered
>>16919221I like how your biobot psychosis makes you repeatedly shit out irrelevant stray tokens. I can tell you've been watching a lot of ML for Dummies lately.
>>16919208Different boards have different cultures, anon. IDK what /his/ is like but I've been browsing here long enough to know what the cyclical spam threads have been for the past decade. >evolution vs creation>physics hasn't progressed in the past century (also include various alt-physics theories here)>race realism>consciousness/free will>various apocalypse scenariosNone of this is anything new.
>>16919224Demonstrate that you understand prediction vs overfitting. If you cannot do that then your concession is forever accepted.
>>16919231Overfitting means a relationship you've inferred from your observations generalizes poorly beyond those specific observations. It has nothing to do with anything here. If Darwin had been a deist, he could have made the same observations, inferred that the species are related, that life forms change gradually, that the changes they undergo are adaptations to the environment, etc. but then concluded it's all thanks to the Logos embedded in the fabric of reality, subtly driving creation towards perfection or whatever, instead of guessing that nature operates through blind trial and error. 150 years later, retards like you would be likewise arguing against mutation+natural selection "schizos", claiming that ERVs prove Darwin was right, mumbling some incoherent nonsense about "overfitting" etc.If your theory inspires some hypothesis, but there's an entire class of conflicting theories that the same hypothesis could have come from, you should try to do some basic pattern recognition and figure out what all such theories have in common, because that would encompass the aspects of your theory that your hypothesis directly depends on, and thus the only ones to be validated by a confirmation. Other aspects would require other hypotheses that actually depend on them being true.
>>16919231>>16919249And since you're extremely dimwitted, let me give you an example: suppose I have a theory that a green clown car occupies my parking spot every day while I'm at work, then leaves just before I get back home. Now let's say it's snowing and I hypothesize there will be fresh tire tracks leading from my spot when I get back. I get back and that's exactly what I see. This supports my hypothesis. But it also supports the hypothesis of a purple clown car. It also supports the hypothesis of a normal car. It also supports the hypothesis that snow arranged itself in that pattern by random mutation and natural selection. Let's say you point this out to me and I start making retarded gurgling noises about overfitting. Which psychiatric hospital would you drive me to?
>>16919249>Overfitting means a relationship you've inferred from your observations Yes.>generalizes poorly beyond those specific observations.Drop this part. Any relationship infered from present observation is an overfit regardless of whether other observations corroborate it.The distinction being made is explicitly whether you are actively inferring what the next data point is going to be.No matter what, regardless of how many data points or what the nature of that data is, there will always be infinitely many models that match it. It's a mathematical certainty. When you use that model to predict the next data point, the chances of accurately doing so by chance drops to near infinitesimal. But once that new data point is found, there's still infinitely many models that match.>If Darwin had been a deist, he could have [...] concluded it's all thanks to the Logos embedded in the fabric of realityThe whole problem is that is *not* the hypothesis that spawned these predictions. >150 years later, retards like you would be likewise arguing against mutation+natural selection "schizos", claiming that ERVs prove Darwin was right, mumbling some incoherent nonsense about "overfitting" etc.And all it would take to invalidate my criticism is to show an example of evolution by natural selection independently making a prediction that turned out to be true. Understand yet?
>>16919259>Any relationship infered from present observation is an overfit regardless of whether other observations corroborate it.You really are a mouth-breathing cretin who gets filtered by the most basic concepts. Not reading the rest. I know I'm right and I know I laid it out well. Anyone who breathes through the nose instead of the mouth should be able to see my point.
>>16919250The fact that your initial hypothesis was that it was a green clown car indicates you probably had prior data points indicating that. Which is why you accurately predicting that there would be tire tracks is pretty solid evidence of your other claims about this car taking your space. I'm free to present my alternative hypothesis but until I can independently make an accurate prediction with it then your hypothesis is the best one.
>>16919267>I know I'm right and I know I laid it out well.And now I know you're genuinely delusional.
>>16919275>The fact that your initial hypothesis was that it was a green clown car indicates you probably had prior data points indicating that.Darwin had no "prior data" for the aspects of his theory under dispute. He just had his philosophical presuppositions. Anyway, see >>16919267
>>16919278Go tell your handlers, mentally ill retard. I'm sure they'll be interested to hear what overfitting means in your psychotic hallucinations, how everyone else is delusional etc.
>>16919279>He just had his philosophical presuppositions.Which arise from life experience (ie. prior data points). >>16919282I'm sorry you're getting hard filtered by a very basic concept. Don't take your frustrations out on the guy trying to help you understand.
>>16919284Go tell your handlers, mentally ill retard. I'm sure they'll be interested to hear all about how the "data points" from your life experience in a padded cell helped you win this formal reddit debate and filter me so, so hard.
>>16919286Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.I invite you to actually read this post in its entirety whenever you feel like veering away from your delusions: >>16919259It is genuinely fascinating, though, how the thing that got your brain to shut off was me explaining that a lack of generalizability to other data points was not part of the definition of overfitting. The whole description -> prescription leap people make with words is intriguing.
>lack of generalizability to other data points is not part of the definition of overfittingThe thing that convinces me "people" like this are not just stupid, but actually mentally ill, is that it's insanely easy to check this statement given modern technology, and yet it will never occur to this dumb animal to try to do so. It doesn't know, but it doesn't know that it doesn't know, it doesn't know that finding out is a possibility, it doesn't seem to know there's any reality outside of its arbitrary hallucinations at all.
>>16919317Once again, you are making that description-> prescription leap. Lack of generalizability to future data points is a *common problem* that overfitting has. But it is not a *necessary component* of what makes a model an overfit. You are conflating a well known issue with the behavior and the description of the behavior itself. It's like saying "addictive potential" is part of the definition of a drug because having addictive potential is a common problem that drugs tend to have.>it's insanely easy to check this statement given modern technologyYes. It is. And if you had done so you would know I'm correct. At least if you have basic reading comprehension.I highlighted a word in pic related. What does that word mean?
Notice how the mentally ill and obsessed retard keeps trying to (You) me, even though no one is reading its retarded posts. It could instead go and read something about overfitting, but no, it'll keep doing this instead.
>>16919323You lost
>lack of generalizability to other data points is not part of the definition of overfitting>You lost
>>16919325>doubles down on delusions after being proven wrong>accuses others of being mentally illKeep going. This is funny.
>>16919335Looks like I broke the meatbot. What a shame.Maybe it can be convinced to at least look at the screenshot in this post? >>16919322
Looks like the psychotic patient has regressed to a stochastic parrot fallback mode. Every time it regurgitates my insults, it gives me the satisfaction of knowing I actually scarred its mind.
>>16919340I wonder what will happen when you actually read the screenshot and see clear-cut evidence that you're wrong about something so easily verifiable.Truth is, you probably did read it. You know you're wrong. You know you could have just googled "overfitting" like you suggested I do and find out for yourself that you're wrong. But you choose to keep doubling down and ignoring the elephant in the room so you don't have to admit you did a little fucky wucky.
>>16919341>read the screenshot and see clear-cut evidence that you're wrongOk. I just did. Predictably, it only contains clear-cut evidence that you have a psychiatric condition, since it doesn't contradict my explanation and doesn't support your delusion.
>>16919345What does "may" mean?
>>16919346It means nothing in this context. A model either generalizes well to new data or it doesn't. If it does, it's not overfitting. If it's very accurate on the original data set but then fails to generalize, it's overfitting.
>>16919355>It means nothing in this contextIt means it's possible but not necessary to have the quality that follows.>If it does [generalize well], it's not overfitting.Explicitly contradicted by the definition provided.
>Any relationship infered from present observation is an overfit regardless of whether other observations corroborate it>lack of generalizability to other data points is not part of the definition of overfittingThe thing that convinces me "people" like this are not just stupid, but actually mentally ill, is that it's insanely easy to check this statement given modern technology, and yet it will never occur to this dumb animal to try to do so. It doesn't know, but it doesn't know that it doesn't know, it doesn't know that finding out is a possibility, it doesn't seem to know there's any reality outside of its arbitrary hallucinations at all.>muh heckin' wikipedia "definition" only says an overfitted model "may" fail to generalize due to [conditions intended to predict this failure], not that it will!>which means it has nothing to do with generalization>and that means any relationship infered from present observation is an overfitYeah, ok. Go tell your handlers. I'm sure they'll be interested to hear your schizophrenic screeching.
>>16919359so why indulge someone who is either trolling or severely retarded? that doesn't sound mentally healthy either
>>16919359Once again doubling down after being proven wrong. You are clearly exhibiting severe delusions no matter how much you like to fling the accusation on others.
I'd tell the mentally ill retard to read an actual book, but it can't even read the first paragraph of wiki article without hallcinating that it says:>Any relationship infered from present observation is an overfit
>mentally ill retard stops postingGood.
>leave for a half hour>come back to cretin double-posting and prattling on about irrelevancies.Pottery.
>Any relationship infered from present observation is an overfit I wonder what mentally ill retards think relationships are supposed to be inferred from, if not existing observations. Do mentally ill retards ask themselves what the point of such a term is, if it automatically applies to everything (except schizophrenic hallucinations not based on existing observations)?
>>16916992The theory of evolution of current organisms is a theory about deep history. You cannot really "prove" what happened the distant past.
>>16919359>>16919317>>16919147>>16918387
