Murchison Meteor Questions

I'm impressed with your dedication to the cause - reading through a science paper is not the most exciting of tasks .But what do you think your analysis has proven? To me the paper looks like good science. They've started off trying to prove that the meteorite contains the chemicals they're looking for, but have come to the conclusion that, despite all their attempts at extraction, they can't conclusively state that the chemicals are present. There's no trying to fix the results to prove what they want.Anyway, the theory that adenine was formed from basic chemicals in early earth history is only one of the theories about the origin of life. The theory isn't proven yet, and even if it's disproven, that doesn't disprove the general theory of natural biogenesis.For example, some scientists believe that adenine must have been created later in the evolution of life, when there were already complex molecules capable of catalysing its manufacture. If this is the case then we wouldn't expect to find adenine in meteorites (except as part of some complex life form).By the way, do you have a theory about where adenine came from? Did God create all this biochemical machinery at some point in time and then just let it run?

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

They are saying that other people have found these chemicals in water and formic acid extracts and they provide the references for this previous work (the [3,4] at the end of the sentence).This is pretty standard form for a scientific paper. The introduction talks about the previous work that's been done in the field and quotes the appropriate references, then the authors explain what new work they're doing. In this case they're trying to improve extraction and isolation techniques for these chemicals:

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

From my cursory reading of the literature available, it looks like the question of whether the Murchison meteor contains biological compounds is still a matter of controversy. Some scientists still believe that the compounds that have been found are contaminants.So, if molbiogirl claimed that adenine has definitely been found in the meteor, then she's overstating the scientific case.Now, let me ask you some questions. You've seen a bit of what goes on in scientific research now (especially how dull it can be ). So what do you think of this methodologically naturalistic approach to answering the question, 'Does the Murchison meteor contain adenine?'? Do you think it's likely to find the answer one way or the other? Or do you think there's a better way of asking the question? Or maybe you don't think we should be asking the question at all?

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

Don't get bogged down in terminology, Rob. 'Empirical' and 'empiricism' are just two grammatical forms of the same word. The first is an adjective, the second is a noun - that's the only real difference. 'Empiricism' is the belief that we acquire knowledge only through the senses. It contrasts with 'Rationalism', which is a belief that knowledge can be acquired through reason alone. Hume is dismissive of scholastic metaphysics because it is based entirely on logic - he's not necessarily being dismissive of 'the supernatural' as such.The reason why I think that the contrast between 'empiricism' and 'rationalism' is interesting in your case is that you have a tendency to argue like a 'Rationalist'. Firstly, you spend whole topics arguing about the intricacies of word etymology, as though the meaning of a word were something separate from the way people use it.And secondly, you have a tendency to counter arguments by turning them back upon themselves, as though creating a logical paradox somehow invalidated them. A perfect example is your argument against Hume in the post you reference, which is, to paraphrase you: 'Hume is making a metaphysical argument when he argues that metaphysics is worthless, therefore his argument is invalid.' Amusingly, it's just this kind of spurious logical jiggery-pokery that Hume is criticising.

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

Yes, of course. And a philosophical treatise such as Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding is precisely that, a rational argument for empiricism. But 'Rationalism' (with a big R) is not just reasoning and logic; it is a philosophical position.A Rationalist believes that one can understand the world entirely through the operation of reason. Generally those who hold such a position believe that knowledge about philosophical truths, about mathematics, and even about God, is something innate in the human psyche. And because such knowledge is innate it is possible to uncover it by reasoning. Plato's dialectical reasoning, for example, is aimed at uncovering this innate knowledge; and Descartes' famous dictum 'I think, therefore I am' was intended to be the starting point of a rational argument that would allow him to work out what was truly certain, including the existence of God.Empiricism, on the other hand, argues that human beings have no innate knowledge, that the knowledge we have is acquired through the senses, and by the operation of reason on the primary ideas that we acquire through the senses. We proceed to knowledge by induction (i.e. by generalising from our particular experiences) rather than by deduction, and so most of our knowledge of the world is based on probabilities rather than on certainty.Science is explicitly an empirical activity, depending on observation and experiment to make inductive generalisations about phenomena. Reasoning has its place in making deductions from observations, but those deductions must be put to the test before they can be treated as science.Hopefully, that will clear up the misunderstanding. Now you can get back to undermining methodological naturalism .

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang