Murchison Meteor Questions

Which is precisely why you are equivocating.Javaman calls you a rationalist in message 68.
You respond to that by saying: .Here you are using the term "rationalist" and its derivatives in the manner meant by Javaman. That is, someone who relies exclusivily on logic and reasoning to build knowledge.Two sentences later you use "rational" in a completely different manner. In the manner meaning "reason, logic" without the connotation of "knowledge is solely based off of reason and logic".You do this without mentioning you are using the term differently. Thus you are equivocating. Equivocation is, you might recall, a logical fallacy.If you weren't equivocating (that is, if you actually did mean to say that empiricism's claims have to be based on rationalism (understood as being the philosophy laid out by Descartes and others) you have stated a contradiction.If you equivocated, you committed a logical fallacy.
If you did mean "rational" in the philosophy of Descartes you have stated a contradiction.I'm betting on equivocation, though, because you continue to argue that you meant "rational" as "logical, by reason".

Precisely. You were arguing that the difference between the rock and self-replicating molecules in his analogy is that the rock is naturally occuring. You try to bolster your case by pointing out other things that we have created but that don't exist in nature. In this list you put nuclear bombs and self-replicating molecules.Clearly, nuclear fission and fusion occur naturally (and Oklo was even predicted). We discovered how nuclear fission and fusion work before we discovered where they actually happen. So if nuclear fission and fusion can be found naturally (and they do follow the laws of physics), then why not the same, eventually, for self-replicating molecules?After all, the only difference according to you is that one is found naturally and the other hasn't (and that is readily debatable). Both follow natural laws. So why won't self-replicating molecules ever be found?

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

No Rob, your "defense" had nothing to do with it. What you claim is that "empiricism" follows observation of natural phenomena and that the replicating molecules don't qualify because we don't have the observation of natural phenomena, while the rock does.The problem for you is that our nuclear technology was also developed without observation of natural phenomena -- which would put it in the same class as the replicating molecules in your mind -- but now we DO have observation of the natural phenomena -- so NOW it is in the same class as the rock. The (false) dichotomy that you have in your mind does not in fact exist. It is a fantasy that is contradicted by the Oklo reactors.This is what demolishes your argument. Both logically and rationally. ... which is what the rest of your post entails: predicted behavior Rob. Your failure to accept the absolute and utter failure of your argument leaves you no option, because logic and rationality have refuted you. Your song and dance is amusing, but a false portrayal of reality.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Rob, get a grip and try to focus on what we're talking about. You've been told now by almost all the primary participants in this thread that, in effect, the fly in the pants of your logic and understanding is open. Zip it up.Rationalism with a capital "R" (Javaman's term, and I'll follow his lead now since it improves clarity) is a philosophy, and all Javaman was telling you was that your position sounds like Rationalism, and that science is not based upon Rationalism. He did not say science isn't rational.As I said before, the bottom line is that there are a large number of possible sources for adenine, but even if in the end we have to say that we just don't know where adenine came from, that doesn't mean no natural pathways exist."I don't know" is a valid answer that is not synonymous with "God did it." Each day journals come out with papers that add incrementally to our knowledge. Things about which yesterday we said, "I don't know," today we can say, "Now I know." Concluding that God is responsible for everything science doesn't know is to be in continual retreat.AbE: I think you missed my Message 86. It contains some explanation of the difference between Rationalism and rationality, plus it provides some information about spellcheckers.--PercyEdited by Percy, : More info.

Perhaps this new meteor will hold interesting information... Even if it sounds like the lead into a cheezy 50's zombie flick. Mystery illness strikes after meteorite hits Peruvian village
Should we place bets on virus or bacteriological pathology, or is it just olfactory overload from aromatic hydrocarbons?Edited by EighteenDelta, : No reason given.

---

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

Javaman:Well, I am still somewhat unclear as to this equivocation business Kuresu is talking about. Saying that science (empiricism) is also just philosophy is not an equivocation. As I said they are inseperable. This is not a new observation btw... ( Error 404 Document /db/apps/newtondev/texts/viewtext.php not found )

Yes, it is.That's why you're getting nowhere with this repetitious line of 'argument', Rob. The premise is bogus. You fail to distinguish between the methods of science and the methods of philosophy.The two are not the same. That's reality. Another equivocation. 'Inseparable' they may be, but it still does not follow that a relationship between two things makes one word a synonym for the other. It is simple-minded to think this way.On the computer you're running now, the software is 'inseparable' from the hardware. Apart from the hardware the software does not function. Does that mean computer software and computer hardware are 'the same thing'? That the two words are interchangeable? That a hardware engineer and a software engineer do the same job? No. To speak that way would confuse two different things and deny reality. The result is nonsense.To show a relationship is not to prove a synonym.I congratulate you on your interest in Einstein. You're in deep water there, though. To understand him you'll have to make an effort that goes far beyond mining his writings for useful 'God-sounding' propaganda bits. But the effort is worth making.First you need to learn how empiricism works. You need to learn its methods. The methods differ from those of philosophy. You need to learn how.Science and philosophy are both worthwhile pursuits. Both use logic and both seek to apprehend reality. But the two are based on very different premises and set very different criteria for evidence. You must take account of these differences, Rob, if you are to have anything meaningful to say on this subject.Once you get a handle on these difference in method between science and philosophy, you have mastered some of the basics. Working toward 'philosophy of science' is more advanced stuff and it can come only after this work is done. You have to possess a solid understanding of both terms before you can speak of relationships. Einstein, needless to say, had mastered the basics.'Philosophy of science' is an exploration of the question of why empiricism works as well as it does. It is necessarily a philosophical question because empirical methods alone cannot sufficiently address it. Other methods must therefore be brought to bear. One can do plenty of valid science, as Einstein himself observed, and never wonder why the method works. But Einstein was one who liked to wonder.Value questions. Seek to understand.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

Archer: Well you're right, it doesn't follow, and that is not what I intended to say. My apologies for mixing terms and especially, the terribly offensive misspellings. I am grateful that such educated fellows as yourselves even take the time to talk to a dunderhead like me. Your patience and understanding is beyond comprehension. I am truely blessed...You mentioned the differences between software and a hard drive. I would like to show what they have in common. It takes software and a hard drive to make a computer. And they must cohere or they don't work. In the same way, it takes the empirical and the philosophical to bring knowledge to life. And they must cohere...When the philsophical and the emperical do not match, we have a problem. And the strength of science to me, is in the assumption that it is the philosophy that is in error, not the emperical. And not always the 'whole philosophy' mind you, but often only a part or parts of it (that's an important point to note).I did not say that they are synonymous. I meant that they are the same thing in terms of the 'whole system'. And that they are inseperable. If they are seperated, it is because of a failure in the philosophy.Btw, your argument is a philosophical one no?That is the confusion... I was never equivocating rationalism with empiricism (and I meant 'rational' as another term for philosophy, that was not wise...). They are merely inseperable, because we cannot speak of the empirical without doing so philosophically.And that is why any definition of science is undeniably a philosophical position. There is no such thing as science apart from philosophy. And you cannot disagree without invoking a philosophical argument. As you said, the empirical tells us nothing on it's own. It must engage our intellect, and we must assume (philosophically) that logic is valid and reflects reality.Archer:Both are meant to be logical, since both deal with knowledge. The illogical cannot be known by definition, since it is incomprehensible. And I think that is why Einstein found the comprehensibility of the universe to be incomprehensible. It is because it forces us to ask 'why'? Because how can we know anything without all knowledge? What is the difference between the illogical and the incomprehensibilty that logic allows? The scope of logic is potentially endless, yet we must meet our end!So do we reject what is comprehensible because we cannot fully comprehend? That wouldn't make sense either unless we knew all and that ultimately, all things were meaningless.Both history and philosophy are arguments (or interpretations) for an epistemology. And the situation is no different with science. That's why Einstein said they deal with the same subject. And that's why he believed there was such a thing as a bad philosopher. He's quite right, as he often was...The methodology of science was invented because of a philosophical notion of what empirical means, and what knowledge is; general truths about the world we live in. And that is accepted as a truth! But is that itself an empirical notion? no...They're inseperable...Archer:Well that's just obvious... it works because it reflects reality to one degree or another. If it didn't then what would be the point?And that is why it is so important for people to prove certain things be it myself, or Razd. Because it has tremendous effects upon the 'meaning' of life itself. And we all have an interest in life's meaning being a particular thing or the other, predominantly for personal moral reasons.But we have to do it philosophically...We don't want reality to hold us accountable. But we end up holding others accountable if they get in our way of escaping it. Either way there's no free lunch! Somebody has to pay. At the moment, I feel it is me...I don't have a problem confessing ignorance on some things. or confessing that I really read too much into the definitions of empiricism and empirical. But I do understand what it is I am trying to say. And I think I have said it.Now, can we get back to Murchison? You guys have succesfully drawn away from my criticism of molbiogirls source. We aught to get back on topic.I particularly would like to engage Razd on his analogy.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

I wanted to to quickly rewind back to where I went wrong...Percy:The empirical world cannot assume such a thing. And that's why people have concluded all sorts of different things from the empirical evidence. Francis Crick believes in panspermia, and he's a Nobel Laureate!Only a philosophy can assume like that, or define science in such a way as to exclude anything... Philosophies are exclusive; the truth is exclusive, but you keep telling me that science is not truth and not a philosophy.There is nothing wrong with invoking natural causation, but we don't have the necessary evidence to conclude that material causation is the only valid explanation for every phenomenon. Nature cannot be shown to be strictly material. It is a philosophical imposition based on a materialistic philosophy, and not upon empirical evidence.There is no empirical evidence for material abiogenesis because it assumes an evolutionary origin that has supposedly since passed away. Current biological evidence does not show any simplicty that evokes thoughts of de novo material assembly. And the fossil record shows only creatures dependant upon modern chemical energy conversions. But you are right that it is possible. And evolution is the only material response. Yet only creatures capable of self replication can evolve. They pass their genetic information to the next generation. So evolution is dependant upon de novo appearence of life.It's like Razd's analogy...I actually have to give credit to my brother Ken for sorting this out for me. H seems to have lost interest in you boys. But he's kind to me... I personally don't believe our universe precludes intelligence from designing self replicating life. I am very suprised you don't find any evidence for the ability of intellignence to do such things.But if you do succeed, it will not evolve. Just as Razd's source shows a designed replicating system that does not evolve.But that won't be a problem for you guys huh? Because it just means the fomula is not quite right, not to mention that it would take several thousand years minimum to gauge any irrefutable evolution.For those unfortunate enough to be alive in the mean time, we only need to have faith. The savior will come.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

EighteenD:You have a good sense of humor...I hope it's not a 'Wormwood' sample of what's to come! Let's just wait and see...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

That's not what you originally said. Futhermore, something tells me you don't understand waht equivocation is. Equivocation is where you use the same term in an argument more than once, but with separate meanings.Let me lay my argument out for you in as a simple a way I can.Javaman: Rob is a Rationalist.
Rob: Yes, I am. So is science. Science rests its claims on a rational basis.
kuresu:Either you don't know what a Rationalist is, or you are equivocating, or you do know what a Rationalist is and you did not equivocate and therefore are stating a contradiction.
rob:huh? I know what a Rationalist is.
kuresu:let me explain it again.
rob:All I am saying is that empiricism must be argued for... rationally
kuresu:then you are equivocating.Do you understand the difference between rationalism the philosophy and rational as meaning just "by logic, by reasoning"?If you understand the difference, then can you see the contradiction in stating that empiricism basis its claims on rationalism (the philosophy)?If you understand the difference, then can you see the equivocation? That is, if you decide to get rid of the contradiction? You originally said: That is not saying that science is also just a philosophy. That is either an equivocation (because two sentences earlier you claim you are, in fact, a Rationalist as javaman defined) or a contradiction.
Your choice of logical fallacy.

Sorry archer, I have to disagree.My argument about his equivocation is based on his use of the word "rational" in post 77.
EvC Forum: Murchison Meteor QuestionsAnd technically speaking, science is a philosophy. At least, according to several epistomology charts. It really seems like you're using philosophy to mean "Rationalism". Not entirely sure, though.

Really? Just how many biochemical fossils do we have?Oh, and I called it. You do want to bring in god, don't you? So where is you evidence for the divine? How do you tell the difference? Important questions if you're going to start positing "God did it" as a valid response.Further, Ken's missing one thing. You said: Nuclear fusion is one of the types of nuclear bombs.
Also, nuclear fission is following the rules of physics. Turns out we've split atoms as far back as 1917. Rutherford did it--with naturally occuring alpha particles from radioactive material. Real world fission, observed. We didn't create the alpha particles. We didn't create the radioactive material. We didn't create the nitrogen. At best, Rutherford aimed the particles, but if you left radioactive material emitting alpha particles around nitrogen, you'll get fission.
Oklo is interesting because it involves the fission of uranium.
As to nuclear fusion, check out stars. That's how they produce light and "burn" their fuel. They smash hydrogen atoms together, and once hydrogen is out, they smash the next step up. Unless I'm mistaken, our sun is capable of producing iron through fusion.

Just to clarify, I did not say that. And my correction to myself about the by-products of fission being found, not observed, were pertaining to Oklo. Sorry if that was unclear.