What's the difference between a Coral Glow and a Banana?

[Pythonfriend]

Philosophy is for people who don't want real jobs. If they cut Phil out of all colleges, nothing would be different.

That being said, OWAL is right and you are splitting wrong hairs.

unfortunately the scientific method is a part of philosophy, so, if you cut it out, you can no longer explain why Karl Poppers concept of falsifiability is so damn important, or why Occams Razor makes sense. thats the one thing science cannot explain: why the scientific method works and is useful in the first place. deprive students of that, and your university will have a hard time when it comes to producing top research scientists. if you want students to be able to differentiate between good scientific theories and weak theories, science cannot do it. without philosophy, you can teach students all you want to teach about science, but you cannot explain why homeopaths or 9/11 truthers are wrong and why their theories are less valid than general relativity or the standard model of particle physics.

and OWAL was wrong when he said that it is proven that CG and banana are the same morph - it cannot be proven. (at least not without genetic sequencing of BPs, bananas, and coral glows, and careful analysis of the resulting data). explaining why that is the case is not possible with science alone.

take away philosophy, and in the worst case you get "scientists" that waste their time trying to prove or disprove hypotheses that cannot be proven or disproven.

[Kodieh]

unfortunately the scientific method is a part of philosophy, so, if you cut it out, you can no longer explain why Karl Poppers concept of falsifiability is so damn important, or why Occams Razor makes sense. thats the one thing science cannot explain: why the scientific method works and is useful in the first place. deprive students of that, and your university will have a hard time when it comes to producing top research scientists. if you want students to be able to differentiate between good scientific theories and weak theories, science cannot do it. without philosophy, you can teach students all you want to teach about science, but you cannot explain why homeopaths or 9/11 truthers are wrong and why their theories are less valid than general relativity or the standard model of particle physics.

and OWAL was wrong when he said that it is proven that CG and banana are the same morph - it cannot be proven. (at least not without genetic sequencing of BPs, bananas, and coral glows, and careful analysis of the resulting data). explaining why that is the case is not possible with science alone.

take away philosophy, and in the worst case you get "scientists" that waste their time trying to prove or disprove hypotheses that cannot be proven or disproven.

There's been no new ideas in a long time. Base Phil is fine, degrees are not.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

[satomi325]

Both founders of the CG and Banana have already officially stated that both are the same mutation.

Both can be crossed to produce the same homozygous form as their 'pure' counter parts.

Super CG, Super Banana, and CG Banana are the same.


Both have the same effects on different morphs and have the same strange offspring sex ratios, which occurs to no other morph to date.

Many people who sell CG and Banana no longer differentiate between the two and just call them 'Coral Glow/Banana'.

CG and Banana are just different imports of the same genetic mutation.

Lesser/Butter any one?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[OhhWatALoser]

and OWAL was wrong when he said that it is proven that CG and banana are the same morph - it cannot be proven. (at least not without genetic sequencing of BPs, bananas, and coral glows, and careful analysis of the resulting data). explaining why that is the case is not possible with science alone.

Just semantics, if someone said they are the same gene, same mutation, same piece of DNA, ect. you could stick to your claim. Keep using the ambiguous word "morph" tho.....

I don't know if the pastel my pastel produced is actually the same, but I'm sure as hell going to claim it is. Are the "ifs and buts" even worth talking about, until something is actually observed?

[Badgemash]

not semantics, its all about ontology.

for me, on the specific issue, the thread is pointless anyway: banana and coral glow are identical until PROVEN otherwise. that they are identical CANNOT be proven. (well, with genetic sequencing actually its now possible, but to do that beyond reasonable doubt would require us to sequence the genome of quite a lot of ball pythons). but that they ever turn out to be dissimilar is extremely unlikely. i delivered the tools that are required to understand why that is the case. but the tools i delivered have other uses as well, you can apply them to questions like: did aliens visit earth? does god exist? does homeopathy work? should i or should i not vaccinate my children against diseases that could kill them? is Uri Geller for real? what really happened on 9/11? is global warming / climate change for real?

what i did is nothing more or less than a decent reality check. if you want to argue, and we all like that, better be properly prepared.

basically, tools for correct thought, that were missing in this thread and were necessary to settle the issue on hand.

No, I meant semantics - the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. We are not discussing the existence of god, vaccines, or aliens, nor are we discussing philosophy. We are discussing whether there are any known differences between two groups of snakes called coral glows and bananas, no one has to date shown any evidence that there are. The generally accepted definition of the term "morph" within the bp community is a set of visual characteristics that are passed from parent to offspring, therefore coral glow and banana are the same morph until the time the definition of the term "morph" is either more tightly constrained or changed.

unfortunately the scientific method is a part of philosophy, so, if you cut it out, you can no longer explain why Karl Poppers concept of falsifiability is so damn important, or why Occams Razor makes sense. thats the one thing science cannot explain: why the scientific method works and is useful in the first place. deprive students of that, and your university will have a hard time when it comes to producing top research scientists. if you want students to be able to differentiate between good scientific theories and weak theories, science cannot do it. without philosophy, you can teach students all you want to teach about science, but you cannot explain why homeopaths or 9/11 truthers are wrong and why their theories are less valid than general relativity or the standard model of particle physics.

and OWAL was wrong when he said that it is proven that CG and banana are the same morph - it cannot be proven. (at least not without genetic sequencing of BPs, bananas, and coral glows, and careful analysis of the resulting data). explaining why that is the case is not possible with science alone.

take away philosophy, and in the worst case you get "scientists" that waste their time trying to prove or disprove hypotheses that cannot be proven or disproven.

I get that you like natural history and are a self proclaimed science geek, but I am an actual scientist at a tier 1 research university, so I'm going to go ahead and clear up some of your apparent confusion. The scientific method is NOT a part of philosophy, it a set of procedures and methods which ensure that experimental results are measurable and repeatable. The scientific review process actually does a very nice job of differentiating between quality work and shoddy work, that is why journals are peer reviewed. No one in my department, or any other department that I'm aware of encourages our students to take philosophy, we do however stongly encourage developing writing skills. If you want an education or job at a top research institution you'd better be able to write grant proposals, because getting consistant funding and getting published are the keys to success.

Science is based on empirical, measurable evidence, philosophy and religion are the diciplines that involve the impossible to prove or disprove theories.

[Mr Oni]

"What's the difference between a Coral Glow and a Banana?"

One is a fruit. :thumbup:

[CD CONSTRICTORS]

Both founders of the CG and Banana have already officially stated that both are the same mutation.

Both can be crossed to produce the same homozygous form as their 'pure' counter parts.

Super CG, Super Banana, and CG Banana are the same.


Both have the same effects on different morphs and have the same strange offspring sex ratios, which occurs to no other morph to date.

Many people who sell CG and Banana no longer differentiate between the two and just call them 'Coral Glow/Banana'.

CG and Banana are just different imports of the same genetic mutation.

Lesser/Butter any one?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Ding, ding..... on the mark

[Dave Green]

Both founders of the CG and Banana have already officially stated that both are the same mutation.

Both can be crossed to produce the same homozygous form as their 'pure' counter parts.

Super CG, Super Banana, and CG Banana are the same.


Both have the same effects on different morphs and have the same strange offspring sex ratios, which occurs to no other morph to date.

Many people who sell CG and Banana no longer differentiate between the two and just call them 'Coral Glow/Banana'.

CG and Banana are just different imports of the same genetic mutation.

Lesser/Butter any one?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Has anyone produced a coral glow x banana super?

[Pythonfriend]

I get that you like natural history and are a self proclaimed science geek, but I am an actual scientist at a tier 1 research university, so I'm going to go ahead and clear up some of your apparent confusion. The scientific method is NOT a part of philosophy, it a set of procedures and methods which ensure that experimental results are measurable and repeatable. The scientific review process actually does a very nice job of differentiating between quality work and shoddy work, that is why journals are peer reviewed. No one in my department, or any other department that I'm aware of encourages our students to take philosophy, we do however stongly encourage developing writing skills. If you want an education or job at a top research institution you'd better be able to write grant proposals, because getting consistant funding and getting published are the keys to success.

Science is based on empirical, measurable evidence, philosophy and religion are the diciplines that involve the impossible to prove or disprove theories.

thats very interesting, but still.... when you look at the history of modern science and the history of the scientific method, many important aspects were developed and added by philosophers. For example, the last important piece was added by Karl Popper no sooner than 1934. before that, there were some good and legitimate scientific theories that are still valid, but there were also theories floating around in the scientific mainstream that are now completely discredited as pseudoscience. with his concept of falsifiability, he added the last of the characteristics that a modern scientific theory must fulfill, and he was a philosopher. also, science itself started out as natural philosophy, a branch of philosophy that made certain assumptions (for example: reality can be understood) and developed a set of guidelines (for example: empiricism is the way to understand reality) that need to be followed. this specific subset of philosophy eventually evolved into modern science, and the assumptions and rules these natural philosophers worked out evolved into the scientific method.

based on that history, a strong case can be made that science still is a specific philosophy, and that the adherents of that specific philosophy are called scientists.

im not saying that people studying science should also study philosophy in general, (i agree that much of it is a waste of time), just the history of science, that would be helpful, and half of that history is philosophy. heck, the royal society was founded by groups of physicians and natural philosophers that attempted to learn more about the world by doing tabletop experiments and live demonstrations. today its made up of top research scientists and theoretical scientists. these philosophers also started the first scientific journal in 1665, the philosophical transactions of the royal society, since 1800 known as the proceedings of the royal society, today the royal society still publishes a number of prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[MrLang]

An awful lot of self-proclaimed intelligence here being proclaimed with an awful lot of logic gaps and terrible spelling errors.

It's quite likely they are the same. It's likely beyond reasonable doubt. It will be very shocking if someone does in fact prove out that they are different by showing that they occur on different alleles.


Lastly,


*I put on my robe and wizard hat*