Continued from: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1127045

I didn't get a chance to comment on the last thread before it closed. As as science teacher, I cringe every time I hear someone discount evolution because it's "just a theory."

Steve Benson was dead on with his definitions of 'theory' and 'hypothesis,' something the general public at large doesn't understand. I think this misunderstanding of the definitions hurts the perception of science.

This is a little analogy I use with my students. Let's say that you are trying to figure out why something in nature is the way it is. You come up with 1000 different possible explanations. Methodically, you are able to eliminate 999 of the possibilities. The one that's left is more than likely correct.

Einstein came up with some cool ideas that weren't directly testable in the 20's and 30's. But scientists ever since then have been coming up with stuff that might be an alternate explanation, but they usually turn out to fail. It doesn't mean Einstein was infallible, just that it's most likely correct. In fact, all the years of scientists trying and failing to prove something wrong only makes the case more strongly that it's probably correct.

Does science have all the answers? No, absolutely not, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. But the methods science uses will inch us closer and closer to the facts about nature. Nature is like a giant game with a bajillion rules, and a scientist's job is to methodically figure them out.

Will we learn new things? Absolutely. Will some of what we learn shed new light and make us think about something a little differently than we did in the past? Definitely. Science is not a repository of knowledge that is absolute and shouldn't be contradicted. Scientists change their view to reflect the evidence. It's a far cry better than what TSCC and a lot of religions do when they deny facts and observations to preserve belief, to paraphrase Tim Minchin.

Too often, the media reports on preliminary findings as if they were final results. Then a few years later when more studies suggest a similar but slightly different result, the public perceives it as science being flip-floppy.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174

Finally, Happy Hare Krishna mentioned physics is different from chemistry, which is different from astronomy, etc.

Chemistry, Geology, and Astronomy are each sub-topics of Physics, which is the general analysis of nature. The so-called "soft" sciences, such as social sciences are really more of applied psychology.

http://xkcd.com/435/

Evolution is just a theory the same way Gravity is just a theory. I have not heard anyone claim that the whole of science is just a theory although the more ignernt ones continue to say you can't trust it because it's manmade. So I say back to them think about what you said the next time you reach for an antibiotic or get in your car to drive. Science and technology have made all that possible and you're an ungrateful teen brat for benefitting from it while you disrespect it.

Gravity is not a theory, it is a law. It has been proven to be true.

The Law of Gravity is the rule that governs gravitational force: that the force is directly proportional to the size of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

The Theory of Gravity is the "why". Why do masses attract each other? Why does the force depend on how far apart they are?

The theory and the law are two different things, but they are related to each other.

This is the explanation I give in the science classes I teach, and it also correlates with evolution.

And this behavior is related to the exact nature of our universe. In another universe it would be different. But the point is, it is observable, verifiable and consistent.

My point was is that there is a

1. Theory of Gravity

AND A

2. Law of Gravity

They are separate but related. Gravity is not a law "because it has been proven." The Law of Gravity is the rule that governs our observations.

The theory of gravity is the explanation of WHY the law exists. Gravity did NOT start out as a theory and then become a law once enough evidence was gathered.

Ah, I see what you're saying.

It is amusing that in 2014, certain pockets of dedicated medieval resistance
are doggedly replaying "1633: Galileo Galilei vs. The Holy Office."


It's like a Civil War reenactment - using sticks and stones.

I just read the original thread and I'm floored by someone who claimed: a balance between the two is best.

Pardon me, crazy pants?

A balance between skepticism and science? Or between faith and science? If the former, please remove head from anal orifice and read up on the scientific method, might pick up a few pointers on what it actually is. If you meant the latter, I don't...there just is... good luck in life is all I can say.

Why is being a theory a bad thing?

If a current theory doesn't explain something, then any new theory has to explain that and everything the old theory does explain. Newtonian physics works find until you get to the atomic level or near the speed of light. Theories also makes predictions. This is what is wrong with intelligent design. It doesn't make predictions or explain the things that are not "intelligently" designed.

Physical sciences and life sciences - repeatable, tested, and subject to change or revision when a better explanation is found.

Religion - Stone age shepard's campfire stories. Not repeatable, subject to test, or refined.

Social sciences - dunno. Not interested.

Well if science is a theory (and yes there are areas where scientific method is used to test a theory that is unprovable, at least at this point in time).......................WHAT the HELL is Mormonism??? It is LESS PROVEABLE than the worst of science!!!

Give me strength!!!!

Science isn't theory, it's a method.
Their claim is analogous to saying: "Ford Motor Company is just this Model T."

Which is a ridiculous leap but, Mormons could do it.

This topic has fascinated me to the extent that I
called up my old friend in Utah, to ask more about
her husband's views on Science, and which authority
in the Church has voiced this "Science is a theory"
counsel to the members.

Unfortunately nobody was at home -- so that's a dead
end for the moment.

I asked one other acquaintance, who might have the
answer. He didn't -- but he gave me this analysis:

"The scientific theories of biological evolution,
age of the universe, dynamics of planetary climate,
etc. are so widely accepted and partake of such a
vast amount of intertwined scientific research and
discovery, that to reject evolution (for example)
necessarily entails rejecting the scientific method."

He actually said all of that in many more words, but
I think I got the jist of his meaning.

If an LDS General Authority begins with the counsel
that the biblical creation story and associated stories
in Genesis are literally true, and stand at a higher
level of perfected knowledge than anything "man-made,"
then the LDS member who accepts that counsel and
doctrine is probably going to have to reject a whole
lot of "Science."

Not just the scientific discoveries that support a
different explanation for the origins of life and the
changes life has gone through on the earth --- but all
that is "attached" to those explanations.

And a great deal is "attached" to the scientific inquiry
into biological evolution. If that part of "Science" must
be discarded, in order to conform to religious dogma,
then it will be a very large part indeed.

And, if all of that -- all that in any way contributes
to evolution theories, or supports them, or relies upon
them -- must be discarded, then what might the sum total
of all that has been thrown out be called?

The precepts of men? Human error? Satan's teachings?

Theory?

I think I understand why that particular guy in Utah
dismisses the scientific method as a theory -- because
to him, "theory" is just another word for false opinion.

He misuses the word -- probably has never spent two
seconds considering what the term actually entails.

UD

Science has theory in the extreme. Science in basic form can replicate outcomes over and over again to prove high probability of outcomes.

Religion falls more into the category of philosophy based on emotional needs of humanity. Also, religion lives in the extreme and based on the observation of a few select narrators. No one can replicate claims of seeing god and prove the event was fact. Religion IMO was founded by illusionist with followers that are easily fooled.

JS was an illusionist at best:

1. He is the only one to see god

2. The plates were covered

3. The witnesses had a vision of the plates

4. JS was the only one able to translate.

5. All core doctrine came from JS

6. He was a self proclaimed prophet

7. The stone in the hat only worked for him

8. JS was the only witness of Moroni

9. JS dug the plates up by himself

10. JS used the stone and hat for monetary gain

11. JS claimed angels told him to have multiple wives under threat of death

12. JS claimed people changed colors from righteous or unrighteousness behavior

13. JS claimed he could read Egyptian scrolls and published stories from them


14. JS claimed a pile of rocks was the alter of Abraham

So there is religion...one mans claims of truth and facts repeatable only by righteous individuals. ( like JS was righteous in any sense of the word) you can't go to the grove of trees and pray and see god...

Science is truth claimed by many and has repeatable outcomes.

This is just my opinion...based on faulty education.

Why isn't it the law of evolution?

There's a ton of evidence to support it.

There's a perception that something starts out as a hypothesis, and if it gains support is re-branded as a theory. And if a theory has enough support, it's upgraded to a law.

But that's not actually how it works.

From NASA's website:

Fact: A basic statement established by experiment or observation. All facts are true under specific conditions. Some facts may be false when re-tested with better instruments.

Law: A logical relationship between two or more things that is based on a variety of facts and proven hypothesis. It is often a mathematical statement of how two or more quantities relate to each other.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement such as ‘if A happens then B must happen’ that can be tested by direct experiment or observation. A proven hypothesis can be expressed as a law OR a theory. A disproven hypothesis can sometimes be re-tested and found correct as measurements improve.

Theory: An explanation for why certain laws and facts exist that can be tested to determine its accuracy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2014 09:55AM by utahstateagnostics.

Much of the confusion between what constitutes a "hypothesis," a "theory," or a "physical law," comes from equivocation on these terms by science itself. Notwithstanding NASA's helpful definitions, the science literature--particularly popularist science literature--confuses these terms; as is evident from some of the responses to this post.

For example, a law, e.g. the "law of gravity," is, as NASA suggests, a confirmed relationship between phenomena, usually described in mathematical terms. But, of itself, it allows only for prediction--not explanation. Notwithstanding Newton, Einstein, and modern attempts to develop a theory of quantum gravity, gravity is not even now fully understood within an established theoretic framework. Einstein's theory of relativity offers a "theory" of gravity as part of his general theory of relativity (curved space), which works on one level only. Several alternative "theories of gravity" have been suggested to incorporate quantum mechanics into the theory ("quantum gravity"). So far, unsuccessfully.

Notice that the word "theory" is used, even though no complete and final explanation has been established. Thus, "theories" have supporting evidence, but remain tentative. Their degree of confirmation varies greatly. "String theory" is almost entirely speculative, without direct confirming evidence at all.

Thus, calling evolution a "theory" does not tell us anything about its status in science. Its status is established solely by the evidence supporting the theory, which, of course, is substantial. So, when people claim that evolution is "just a theory," the error is in the assumption implicit in the word "just." "Just" being a theory also does not provide any information as to its merit or lack of merit. What is important is the overwhelming evidence that supports it.

Thus, as qualitative term in science, "theory" is useless. This can be seen by the NASA definition as, "An explanation for why certain laws and facts exist that can be tested to determine its accuracy." However, the suggestion that a theory "by definition" must adhere to scientific testing is also questionable. In any event, a theory is only a proposed explanation having some evidentical (or mathematical) merit.

Finally, the word "hypothesis" in science generally identifies a proposed explanation within a theory that is framed in scientific (materialist) terms, whether actually testable or not. Although NASA's definitions work well for classical physics, they break down when applied to the more theoretical sciences, like cosmology and particle physics, where testing theories and hypotheses, beyond mathematical models, is more difficult.

It is the anti-evolutionists who, in their uneducated state, tend to confuse how science actually defines and employs the terms in the process of using scientific methodology in empirical undertakings.

Please don't blame professional scientists for the wilful ignorance of the unscientific crowd, the latter wouldn't know science if it rose up and bit them in their proverbial Biblical butt.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2014 02:09PM by steve benson.

I've spent the last 5 years teaching HS Chemistry as a second career. One of the topics I start with each year is exactly this topic: the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law.

It is a consistently misunderstood concept. Students across the board believe first you have a hypothesis, then once you get evidence it becomes a theory, and then once you prove it correct it becomes a law. I spend an entire class period fixing this misunderstanding, and then I reaffirm it for the rest of the school year.

And it blows their mind every year. Every year I am told I am wrong and that this isn't what they were taught in middle school, etc. And then I start with examples: Law of gravity - stuff falls when you drop it. Theory of gravity - why does it fall?

Law of definite proportions - Hydrogen and oxygen combine in a 2 to 1 ratio to make water. Theory of reactivity - why do hydrogens donate electrons to oxygen in such a way that leads to a 2 to 1 ratio?

Etc.

The reason why it is so easy for the anti-evolutionists are able to bamboozle so many people is that the general population completely misunderstands the most basic principles of scientific language.

"The reason why it is so easy for the anti-evolutionists are able to bamboozle so many people is that the general population completely misunderstands the most basic principles of scientific language."
_____


The anti-evolutionists are, plain and simple, out of their league, as is most of the general public. Most scientists concentrate on doing their empirical research, although science educators, along with a number of field scientists themselves, are becoming increasingly aware that enlightening the dismally ignorant on the elemental realities of science is essential to honing critical thinking skills, as well as to helping people function rationally and competitively in the physical world.

Survival of the fittest includes survival of the best educated. Bible thumping doesn't help get us there, nor does so-called "intelligent design" (which, in reality, is nothing but religious propaganda wrapped in pseudo-scientific language, as was clearly made evident in the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/education/21evolution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2014 02:56PM by steve benson.

"The reason why it is so easy for the anti-evolutionists are able to bamboozle so many people is that the general population completely misunderstands the most basic principles of scientific language."

I think this is true, but a minor point. The main reason anti-evolutionists are able to convince some people that evolution is a flawed theory is: (1) they place evolution in opposition to religious faith, knowing that people are generally not willing to compromise their religious beliefs for a scientific principle; and (2) they play upon the more controversial fine points of evolution in an attempt to undermine the theory as a whole; for example, the proper "unit of selection," the application of group selection, the viability of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, and the legitimacy of specific "just so" stories as explanations of specific phenotypes. Some of these issues have generated heated discussions within the scientific community. But, of course, that does not undermine the basic fact of evolution, which is not controversial.

One final point. The scientific community must bear some responsibility for public confusion. As indicated, scientific terms, particularly as applied to methodology, are not well defined--if defined at all--within the scientific community. As a preparation for this reply I checked several university science textbooks that I own, including Physics, Biochemistry, Biology, etc. They almost always fail to include definitions of "theory" "hypothesis," or "law." In fact, they rarely address the scientific method at all. I did find one Biology textbook that defined "theory," as follows:

"In scientific terminology, a theory is a hypothesis that has been supported by so many cases that few scientists seriously doubt its validity. Take a trivial example: Each time an apple falls down to Earth rather than up into the sky, the theory of gravity is supported. Thus, a scientific theory is similar to what we would call a 'law' or 'fact' in common English usage."

This definition--by scientist authors--is confused at best, and flat out wrong at worst. Thus, my point.

And thus the reason I became a science teacher after a career in research. :)

I constantly find mistakes in textbooks. I would argue that the textbooks are part of the problem. Most general textbooks are written by several authors for a company which then sells it to an administrator or paper-pusher in the education community. The scientists who actually know what they are talking about are so far removed from the outreach part of science education that the message is garbled up and wrong by the time it gets to the layman.

I got in quite a nasty argument this year with a "trainer" from our new online "techbook." It is riddled with mistakes, simultaneously written too low and too high for an average high school chemistry student, and mostly filled with garbage. I asked several pointed questions to the trainer and was then scolded for questioning the PhD scientists that were responsible for the content. I responded that I, too, had a PhD in chemistry, and I maintained that they were asking me to force feed my students a steaming pile of manure. If this is the type of education that the majority of US children receive in science, is there any reason why they SHOULD understand the scientific community?

Which is why I think that the anti-evolutionists (and anti-climate changists, and anti-Big-Bangologists etc.) are able to convince people that the scientific community is simply another faith-based institution. If you can't even get the proper definition of "Theory" into a textbook, how is a student supposed to know what that means?

I would suggest you try emphasizing the responsibility and opportunity of the general public to think rationally, as well. This would involve introducing them to widely-accepted explanations with the scientific community of scientific terms, processes and methodologies. You can, for instance, assist in leading people to sound definitional sources on matters of science. Rather than pounding on scientists as obsessively as you do, I recommend that you show some pro-activeness in steering regular non-science folks to easily-locatable general knowledge sites that explain the various aspects of science.

As an example, this article by Kim Ann Zimmerman, entitled, "What is a Scientific Theory?," on the "LiveScience" website, published 10 July 2012:

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step--known as a theory--in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

"When used in non-scientific context, the word 'theory' implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

"Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

"A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

"A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

"Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.

"A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon."

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html


And here's another highly-educational article entitled, "Using Appropriate Terminology," located on the "Understanding of Evolution for Teachers" website--which was created by the University of California Museum of Paleontology with support from the National Science Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute:

"In casual conversation we might say, 'I think the Niners are gonna’ win the big game,' rather than, 'I’ve got a hypothesis about who is going to win the football game this weekend.' Socially, the second version may seem stilted, but etymologically it is quite correct. While in the classroom, in contrast to our time off-campus, we should use appropriate terms, particularly when words have both popular and scientific definitions that are not necessarily in synch.

"Function Not Purpose

"The purpose of a hammer is to pound nails. One function of a hand is to hold a hammer. Designed tools have purposes. Structures and behaviors of living things have functions. This is an important distinction in the science classroom.


"Evidence Not Proof

"We often hear news stories in which the narrator refers to having 'enough proof.' This is an example of confusing the terms, 'proof' and 'evidence.' In addition, the term, 'proof,' is used in geometry and in courts of law, but does not belong in science. Scientists gather evidence to support or falsify hypotheses. Hypotheses and theories may be well supported by evidence, but never proven.


"Primitive and Advanced

"The average person might see an opossum as more primitive than a cat. Life forms that are more highly specialized tend to be viewed as more advanced. However, even though opossums retain some conspicuous ancestral features, they are well adapted to their omnivorous habit and are every bit as successful and modern as cats. Saber-toothed cats were even more narrowly adapted than present-day cats and a change in their environment put them on the fast track to extinction.


"Theory vs. Hypothesis

"A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth.

"A hypothesis is a testable idea. Scientists do not set out to 'prove' hypotheses, but to test them. Often multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses and to describe evolution as 'just a theory' is inappropriate.


"Believe or Accept

“'Do you believe in evolution?' is a question often asked of biology teachers by their puzzled students. The answer is, 'No, I accept the fact that the Earth is very old and life has changed over billions of years because that is what the evidence tells us.' Science is not about belief—it is about making inferences based on evidence."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/Iterminology.shtml
_____


This is not that hard, Henry. I recommend that you start engaging in realistic and productive ways of shedding light on basic scientific terms and principles--as they are readily and accessibly defined and explained--instead of getting bogged down, as you so often do, in the tedious exercise of straining at gnats and swallowing camels, which are largely of your own creation. (By the way, gnats and camels weren't "created': they organically evolved over long periods of time, through basic observable, testable, authenticatable processes involving mutation and natural selection).

Ya with me? Good.

Next.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2014 07:36PM by steve benson.

"I recommend that you start engaging in realistic and productive ways of shedding light on basic scientific terms and principles--as they are readily and accessibly defined and explained--instead of getting bogged down, as you so often do, in the tedious exercise of straining at gnats and swallowing camels, which are largely of your own creation."

My interest on this Board is to promote critical thinking, not subvert it. This involves precisely the opposite of what you are suggesting here.

Educating people by introducing them to "widely-accepted explanations" (of whatever source) involves at least two false assumptions: First, that such widely-accepted (uncontroversial) explanations exist, along with their "sound definitional sources," which is very often simply not the case; Second, that even if there are uncontroversial scientific sources, they are above criticism in all their particulars and implications, which is rarely the case.

Moreover, attempting to influence people through long and selective quotations supporting a particular point of view, coupled with intense and focused rhetoric, is counter to the encouragement of critical thinking. It is reminiscent of the claim that such thinking is unnecessary because "All of the thinking has been done."

When evaluating an argument, or statement, or scientific position, critical thinking involves setting aside favored viewpoints--even with respect to established science like evolution--and analyzing the argument on the merits of its own terms. It involves dissecting and scrutinizing the fine points of the argument, and understanding its logical and evidential implications. In short, it involves "straining at a gnat." This is precisely what good scientists do. Revolutionary insights in science often occur because an inspired scientist rejects the status quo--often to his or her academic peril.

A lay person without scientific training can still direct his or her attention to a critical evaluation of scientific theories. It just takes more work. If a person wants to understand evolution, for example, they can start with a basic biology textbook and work into the more subtle and controversial topics, including arguments for and against intelligent design. But you do not start with Richard Dawkins' book "Climbing Mount Improbable" (one of his best books in my judgment) and then think you understand all you need to know about evolution.

So, in my posts I constantly push back and challenge statements, thoughts and positions that a poster seems to accept uncritically, often because of either a limited scientific knowledge, and/or a tendancy to search out and accept ideas simply because they are consistent with rejecting Mormonism or religion generally.

Hopefully, my comments are helpful to some, including you, Steve, notwithstanding the natural irritation involved in having one's firmly held ideas challenged.

Afternoon, Henry.

Clear definitions are important. Birdie gives a good anecdotal account of how this problem begins with Science textbooks; and so the problem carries on in most American's lives because most Americans do not and need not keep up with Science. That's what scientists do. Like math, unless you use it in your profession, the knowledge stops at high school. Much of what science is doing going forward will be gleaned from headlines along the way. And it isn't controversial to say that popular Science writing is at best a very mixed bag.

But what is far more important, especially at the high school level, is to inculcate in students an ability to have "one's firmly held ideas challenged." Part of this is critical thinking, but only part. Another part is psychological and social. As you say, it naturally irritates, which is exactly what moves inquiry in general and scientific inquiry specifically forward. We must, if we are to keep our Democracy for one, foster a culture that incorporates "having one's firmly held ideas challenged."


Not many irritated the scientific community last year more than did Thomas Nagel and his *Mind and Cosmos*. For example:

"The world is an astonishing place, and the idea that we have in our possession the basic tools needed to understand it is no more credible now than it was in Aristotle's day. That it has produced you, and me, and the rest of us is the most astonishing thing about it. If contemporary research in molecular biology leaves open the possibility of legitimate doubts about a fully mechanistic account of the origin and evolution of life, dependent only on the laws of chemistry and physics, this can combine with the failure of psychophysical reductionism to suggest that principles of a different kind are also at work in the history of nature, principles of the growth of order that are in their logical form teleological rather than mechanistic. I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science."

There's much in that to irritate those who think the thinking is done. For example, that "if" in "If contemporary research in molecular biology leaves open the possibility of legitimate doubts…" irritated many; but that "if" is vital to discovering "principles of a different kind" working in "nature". To think we know all the principles already, even if just in principle, is not merely hubristic but unscientific.

(On a personal note, Henry, much of my groping with the ideas of Univerals was a result of thinking about Nagel's neutral monism. I found this diagram from wikipedia quite thought provoking:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Dualism-vs-Monism.png

One problem I encountered was that like the basics Hypothesis, Theory and Law, Dark Matter, a possible idea for a 3rd Substance, seems to be confusedly delineated by the scientific community. Obviously, necessarily so --for the time being? Not if we insist that the thinking is done. Cheers.)

Human