First fluorescent frog found

The place to talk about fieldtechnics, the stuff you use in the field and everything else

Re: First fluorescent frog found

Postby Michal Szkudlarek » Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:36 pm

Berislav Horvatic wrote:
Ruggero Morimando wrote:Not so complicated as to demonstrate God's or Gods' (plural) existence, but still not an easy task... ;)

God’s (or Gods’) existence can not be proved (or disproved, either) - at least, noone has ever succeeded,
much as they tried, the best minds of humankind, for two millenia... Of course, "affirmanti incumbit
probatio
", but it has never worked, either way.
For the Holy Church, the essential question is not whether God EXISTS, but whether you BELIEVE that He
exists. And that has nothing to do with science and the scientific methodology.
Pardon me for this off- topic.

https://skepdic.ru/wp-content/uploads/2 ... poteza.pdf
User avatar
Michal Szkudlarek
 
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:09 pm
Location: Poland
Hometown: ...
country: Poland

Re: First fluorescent frog found

Postby Ruggero Morimando » Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:06 pm

Thanks Berislav and Michal for the interesting off-topic which I have caused.
Hoping not to break the rules of the Forum, I will say here what I think about this off-topic.
Science has no limits. It can/must investigate everything we perceive and the logic helps science to arrive to things or conclusions that we cannot directly perceive. The problem with Gods and religion is very simple: religions use words. But if a word or a concept or an idea does actually exist (the idea of God) this fact does not mean that something else than an idea must exist.
To demonstrate something or at least the probability of existence of something (i.e. the interactions of frogs using skin fluorescence) scientists must at first give a definition of what they are searching. But if for the word "God" there is no definition, or infinite possible definitions, or a generic definition such as "an unperceivable powerful and conscious being" (as example) it is obvious that the problem cannot be dealt with by science. If we have no definitions or if we have a vague definition which implies already in the words used that the object of our study cannot be investigated ("unperceivable") it is clear to everybody why science cannot "study" Gods.
God is a word, nothing else for the moment, and science cannot investigate words or abstract concepts, even if those words or concepts are "explained" or "defined" by not science people with other words or other abstract concepts (as "invisible good being" or "creator of the universe" or many/infinite other possible ones).
Ruggero Morimando
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 7:15 pm
Hometown: Pavia
country: Italy

Re: First fluorescent frog found

Postby Michal Szkudlarek » Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:49 pm

Ruggero Morimando wrote:Thanks Berislav and Michal for the interesting off-topic which I have caused.
Hoping not to break the rules of the Forum, I will say here what I think about this off-topic.
Science has no limits. It can/must investigate everything we perceive and the logic helps science to arrive to things or conclusions that we cannot directly perceive. The problem with Gods and religion is very simple: religions use words. But if a word or a concept or an idea does actually exist (the idea of God) this fact does not mean that something else than an idea must exist.
To demonstrate something or at least the probability of existence of something (i.e. the interactions of frogs using skin fluorescence) scientists must at first give a definition of what they are searching. But if for the word "God" there is no definition, or infinite possible definitions, or a generic definition such as "an unperceivable powerful and conscious being" (as example) it is obvious that the problem cannot be dealt with by science. If we have no definitions or if we have a vague definition which implies already in the words used that the object of our study cannot be investigated ("unperceivable") it is clear to everybody why science cannot "study" Gods.
God is a word, nothing else for the moment, and science cannot investigate words or abstract concepts, even if those words or concepts are "explained" or "defined" by not science people with other words or other abstract concepts (as "invisible good being" or "creator of the universe" or many/infinite other possible ones).

What demarcation critertia/criterion of science do you use?
User avatar
Michal Szkudlarek
 
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:09 pm
Location: Poland
Hometown: ...
country: Poland

Re: First fluorescent frog found

Postby Berislav Horvatic » Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:29 pm

Michal Szkudlarek wrote:What demarcation critertia/criterion of science do you use?

For God's sake, Michal, don't...
As a natural scientist (in particular, professionally, a theoretical physicist),
I "use" the NORMAL and WIDELY ACCEPTED criteria of science.
What else...?
Let's leave it at that.
Berislav Horvatic
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 4:35 pm
Hometown: Zagreb
country: Croatia

Re: First fluorescent frog found

Postby Michal Szkudlarek » Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:40 pm

Berislav Horvatic wrote:
Michal Szkudlarek wrote:What demarcation critertia/criterion of science do you use?

For God's sake, Michal, don't...
As a natural scientist (in particular, professionally, a theoretical physicist),
I "use" the NORMAL and WIDELY ACCEPTED criteria of science.
What else...?
Let's leave it at that.

I asked Ruggero. He might have different definition.
User avatar
Michal Szkudlarek
 
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:09 pm
Location: Poland
Hometown: ...
country: Poland

Re: First fluorescent frog found

Postby Ilian Velikov » Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:45 pm

Well, it's an interesting discussion and one which I'm not shy to talk about at any time but I agree that it's not the right place to do so, and maybe it's better to leave it for obvious reasons.

I would only say this - yes, we don't have a scientific definition for it but if we follow the definitions/depiction of the ones who believe and insist on its existence in any form (whether an old white bearded man living in the sky or a blue humanoid with many arms, etc.) which is the only thing we can go by as this is one of the two sides of the argument we definitely have 0% scientific proof that it exists and 99% that it doesn't...So, there you can make your choice.
Ilian Velikov
 
Posts: 1211
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 12:19 pm
Hometown: Pravets
country: Bulgaria

Re: First fluorescent frog found

Postby Ilian Velikov » Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:49 pm

Jeroen, very cool find by the way! Did you have the equipment to observe its fluorescence?
Ilian Velikov
 
Posts: 1211
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 12:19 pm
Hometown: Pravets
country: Bulgaria

Re: First fluorescent frog found

Postby Jeroen Speybroeck » Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:09 pm

Ilian Velikov wrote:Jeroen, very cool find by the way! Did you have the equipment to observe its fluorescence?

If only they'd published sooner ;)
Would be fairly easy to test this on all species and fairly productive in species-rich areas such as near Iquitos.
Jeroen Speybroeck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3150
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:18 am
Hometown: Merelbeke
country: Belgium

Previous

Return to FIELDHERPERS CAFE´

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest