Horta

[stitch626]

It is also foolish to assume that they do not.
Have you heard of Mount St. Helens? It hadn't blown in a while. They assumed it wouldn't. They died (at least some died), and/or lost their homes.

BTW, congradulations on the promotion Rochey.

[Captain Seafort]

It is also foolish to assume that they do not.

Why? Occam's Razor, as has already been pointed out, favours the simplest solution consistent with the evidence. In this case it's that the Horta seen in "Devil in the Dark" is representative of the species, and they don't go through various metamorphoses. If we see a Horta in a future episode that looks significantly different then we may have to revise conclusion, but until such time there's no reason to do so.

Have you heard of Mount St. Helens? It hadn't blown in a while. They assumed it wouldn't. They died (at least some died), and/or lost their homes.

In that case there was strong evidence that the mountain was building up to an eruption, and measures were put in place to protect life from the effects of that eruption. The problem was that they assumed it would blow upwards, rather than sideways - an assumption that seems, at least in hindsight, somewhat dubious given the nature of the bulge.

[Sionnach Glic]

It is also foolish to assume that they do not.

Incorrect. The logical assumption is that it does not drasticaly change form. Until we see a canon shot of a Horta that looks different, Occam's Razor says they stay the same.

Have you heard of Mount St. Helens? It hadn't blown in a while. They assumed it wouldn't. They died (at least some died), and/or lost their homes

False analogy, and Seafort pretty much dismantles this point.

BTW, congradulations on the promotion Rochey.

Thanks.

[stitch626]

In that case there was strong evidence that the mountain was building up to an eruption, and measures were put in place to protect life from the effects of that eruption. The problem was that they assumed it would blow upwards, rather than sideways - an assumption that seems, at least in hindsight, somewhat dubious given the nature of the bulge.

Ok, bad example.

The Titanic was assumed to not be sinkable. It sank.
What I'm saying is any assumption without sufficient evidence (and lack of evidence is not evidence of it lacking. It just means you haven't found it yet.), is a bad idea.


BTW, can someone provide me with the actual text of what Occam's Razer says?

[Sionnach Glic]

I don't know of any official definition for the Razor, but here's a good article on it that helps you understand it.

The Titanic was assumed to not be sinkable. It sank.

Actualy, there was plenty of evidence to suggest at the time that the Titanic could be in trouble. People simply didn't pay any attention.

What I'm saying is any assumption without sufficient evidence (and lack of evidence is not evidence of it lacking. It just means you haven't found it yet.), is a bad idea.

Why? There is no evidence of it, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

[stitch626]

Why? There is no evidence of it, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

But absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In the 1600's, there was no evidence that blackholes existed. Does that mean that blackholes do in fact not exist in that time. No. Just because you do not have evidence that something exists or is a certain way does not mean that it isn't or doesn't.

[Sionnach Glic]

But absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, it is. If there's no evidence to suggest the existence of something, the logical conclusion is that it does not exist.

In the 1600's, there was no evidence that blackholes existed. Does that mean that blackholes do in fact not exist in that time. No. Just because you do not have evidence that something exists or is a certain way does not mean that it isn't or doesn't.

At that point in history it would have been perfectly logical to assume there were no such things as black holes. Why? Because there was no evidence to suggest they existed. Then evidence came along that they did exist, and people accepted their existance.

It's the same here. Until we get evidence that this metamorphisis does happen, there's no reason to assume it does. Doing so would fly against Occam's Razor.

[Captain Seafort]

But absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes it is - a fundamental part of the scientific method is that a theory must be falsifiable. If it isn't falsifiable then it isn't a theory, and to claim that something might exist, without any means of proving that it doesn't, means that your theory is not falsifiable.

In the 1600's, there was no evidence that blackholes existed. Does that mean that blackholes do in fact not exist in that time. No. Just because you do not have evidence that something exists or is a certain way does not mean that it isn't or doesn't.

Bad analogy. If, in the 1600s, someone had claimed that black holes existed despite the lack of evidence, then that position would have been unscientific and logically indefensible. The fact that their existence is widely accepted now is because new evidence, which supports that existence, has come to light. Whether or not something actually exists is not relevent to the scientific method - only the evidence in favour of it is.

[stitch626]

Ah now I understand. What we have here is a misinterpretation. Everything you have been discussing is all intended as theoretical, and as such falls under Occam's Razor. I was taking it to involve actual exhistance, which cannot be proven or disporven by such methods.

Ok. I concede. BTW, thank you for the link.

[Sionnach Glic]

No problem.

[Mark]

Hey, I just had a thought (morning coffee is wonderful). If I recall correctly, the Horta disolved the words "No Kill" onto the cave floor, right? And the lettering looked pretty neat as well. I wonder if they DO have appendages UNDERNEATH their bodies! That would explain several things, as well as contributing to their locomotion. What do you all think?

[Mikey]

In the 1600's, there was no evidence that blackholes existed. Does that mean that blackholes do in fact not exist in that time. No.

There was evidence that black holes existed; the reason that their existence was not sound as a theory in the 1600's was because of the fact that WE didn't have the capability to observe that evidence.

[stitch626]

In the 1600's, there was no evidence that blackholes existed. Does that mean that blackholes do in fact not exist in that time. No.

There was evidence that black holes existed; the reason that their existence was not sound as a theory in the 1600's was because of the fact that WE didn't have the capability to observe that evidence.

Mikey, I already conceded, but...
Maybe we don't have the capability to observe such evidence of Horta limbs. For all we know, they may show one in the next movie (I hope not. I like the Horta the way it is.).

But anyway, I've conceeded, so it don't matter. Though Mark brings up an interesting thought.

[Mikey]

Hey, I just had a thought (morning coffee is wonderful). If I recall correctly, the Horta disolved the words "No Kill" onto the cave floor, right? And the lettering looked pretty neat as well. I wonder if they DO have appendages UNDERNEATH their bodies! That would explain several things, as well as contributing to their locomotion. What do you all think?

Oh sure, bring observation and logic into it, why don't you?

[Mark]

Oh, yeah.....sorry. Should have waited till page 13 or so before I did that, huh?