|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 559 days) Posts: 31 From: Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Relevance of origins to modern science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2534 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:And the point I was trying to make in my previous response is that genetic similarity is not all that is necessary to make certain kinds of very useful inference. Only common ancestry works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2534 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:That's not how science works. We don't just say, "Hey, if these conditions had been around, then amino acids could have formed." That idea presents a hypothesis, not a conclusion; the hypothesis is that those conditions really did exist on the Earth when life first appeared. The scientist will immediately look for ways to test that hypothesis: What kinds of traces would those conditions have left behind that we can observe today? If it can't be tested, then it remains nothing but a hypothesis. Belief is not required; evidence is. The other thing scientists look for is consistency: Would those conditions have permitted the formation of the other chemicals needed for life to start? Can a consistent, plausible scenario for all the data be worked out?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ra3MaN Member (Idle past 559 days) Posts: 31 From: Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa Joined: |
Yeah but.... fuck 'em. haha, wow that is distasteful Scientific language. I guess the goal of the origin studies is to allow people to be answerable to no-one. You are already well on your way
Thus in support of my original statement, The scientist has to apply belief - which is not a solely religious word but also forms the basis of religion. Meh, I don't see how that it matters? Consider the god of the gaps argument. Religious people single out the gaps to justify why whole evolutionary thoery is inaccurate and built on assumptions. While non-relgious say that we don't know how, but it happened that way. Furthermore, a gap such as "what cause the big bang?" could remain unanswered. Saying that "we are trying to find out" is a useful defense to state, but it is also a cop-out and be compared to the the notion that rainbow ponies kicked nothing out of equilibrum and formed the universe via big bang.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I would think that it is slightly biased. The reason being, in the discussion of most Scientific literature you would try to either relate (or appose) the empirical data to a current model, which you (the Scientist) may or may not be in favor of. So when Scientists infer according to how well the model fits with the darwinist ideal, this already prevents the inclusion of any other possibility. I think I see what you're getting at, though you have a rather vague style of writing. Your complaint, I think, is that each new piece of data is found a place and fitted into it according to evolutionary principles. We are, then, you suspect, in danger of circular reasoning --- we arrange the data in a Darwinian way, and then proudly point to how Darwinian the data looks. Now, a few points: (1) You talk as though this is unusual. It isn't. This is what Big Theories are for. Consider chemistry, for example. Chemists think that stuff is composed of molecules which are in turn composed of discrete units (atoms) which come in a finite number of known flavors (elements). So when you give an analytic chemist an unknown substance, what he does with it is try to find out how it fits into this Daltonian paradigm. That is, he tries (at the very least) to find out how many atoms there are, and which elements they are. How much time does he spend trying to find out if its actually continuous rather than discrete? None. Nor does he (nowadays) even dream of the possibility that it contains a previously unknown element. To take another example, how much time do you think physicists spend checking that inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass? Do you suppose any physicist sits about worrying: "Well, this morning I've tested my favorite coffee mug, two pieces of toast, and the postman ... but is it enough?" (2) Nonetheless, these Big Theories are tested --- not explicitly, but implicitly. They're tested by being used, which is what they're for. For example, the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is tested --- by people using the principle to do engineering. Precisely because people regularly assume that if they know the weight of an object, they know what force will give it what acceleration, they'd find out if they were wrong, because the machines they built using that principle wouldn't work how they were supposed to. Now in the same way evolutionary principles are tested by being used. It is perfectly true that when (for example) a paleontologist finds a new fossil, he tries to fit it into the evolutionary narrative. But the reason that he always succeeds is that the narrative is correct. If the fossils weren't consistent with evolution, paleontologists wouldn't be able to fit each fossil into the narrative, and in fact there wouldn't be a narrative. If in Haldane's famous words, there were "rabbits in the Cambrian", then that could not be fitted in, try as one might. So although paleontologists don't think of themselves as testing evolution, they in fact implicitly do so with every fossil they unearth. Precisely because the paleontologist assumes that every fossil can be fitted into the evolutionary narrative, he always tries to fit it into the narrative. If he kept on failing, he'd know that there was a problem with evolution. (By analogy, if I tried to interpret a book on the assumption that it was written in English, and it was actually written in Afrikaans, I'd find out my mistake pretty damn quick, wouldn't I? And the same would be the case if paleontologists tried to read the fossil record on the assumption that it was "written" by evolution, and it wasn't.) (3) And in this respect evolutionary biologists are peculiarly gifted. Physicists don't have a large religious sect hell-bent on proving that inertial and gravitational mass aren't the same, do they? But the lucky, lucky biologists have a large, powerful, well-funded group of opponents who would spend millions of dollars or give their eye-teeth to prove that there's something wrong with evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I would like to pose, what i feel are two of the most important questions that determine whether scientifically explained origins are religious pursuits or not. 1) What significance does Cosmic/Chemical/Biological origins (And there connection) have, in our endeavors for modern Science?-A case study for example: Can modern pharmacogenetics progress using genetic similarity alone? -Also, Vaccine products can be identified using relatively short cladograms in e.g. viral genomes, why is it then necessary to have a whole tree of life? But this is obviously a bad test. To see why, consider this. Would you agree that it's a scientific fact that Saturn has rings? Or would you consider study of its rings to be a "religious pursuit"? Obviously, you think it's science. And yet the fact that Saturn has rings has never done anyone any good and probably never will. So it would be simplistic and false to classify useful propositions as scientific, and useless propositions as religious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
haha, wow that is distasteful Scientific language. Huh? Its not scientific at all
I guess the goal of the origin studies is to allow people to be answerable to no-one. Then you guess wrong. The goal of studying is to learn.
You are already well on your way You don't know me. You judge too quickly and based on what? Because I typed a naughty word
Consider the god of the gaps argument. Religious people single out the gaps to justify why whole evolutionary thoery is inaccurate and built on assumptions. While non-relgious say that we don't know how, but it happened that way. Furthermore, a gap such as "what cause the big bang?" could remain unanswered. Saying that "we are trying to find out" is a useful defense to state, but it is also a cop-out and be compared to the the notion that rainbow ponies kicked nothing out of equilibrum and formed the universe via big bang. No, its not a cop-out. That's just the way science is performed: Its an empirical evidence-based approach. Its why science has been kicking so much ass. If it ain't got evidence then it'll remain ignored. It doesn't matter what kind of fancy nonsense you want to make up and believe in. And you know what: an empirical evidence based approach works extremely well and is the best we've ever have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Consider the god of the gaps argument. Religious people single out the gaps to justify why whole evolutionary thoery is inaccurate and built on assumptions. While non-relgious say that we don't know how, but it happened that way. Furthermore, a gap such as "what cause the big bang?" could remain unanswered. Saying that "we are trying to find out" is a useful defense to state, but it is also a cop-out and be compared to the the notion that rainbow ponies kicked nothing out of equilibrum and formed the universe via big bang. Well, no. There's no comparison. Suppose I've lost my spectacles, so I look for them. Someone comes along and asks "Where are your spectacles, Dr A?" Now, if I reply: "I don't know, but I'm trying to find out", is that really to be compared to the notion that rainbow ponies kicked my spectacles into nonexistence? Of course not. Because "I don't know, but I'm trying to find out" is a known, verifiable truth. Whereas the bit about rainbow ponies is a bit of crazy speculation. --- P.S: If you really didn't know that the Big Bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, then you do now, because I just told you. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ra3MaN Member (Idle past 559 days) Posts: 31 From: Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa Joined: |
How about if scientists leave religion out of their considerations entirely? Why? Religion is conducted about 180 opposite from the way science is conducted. --Religion relies on belief, scripture, dogma, revelation and the like, while science relies on evidence.--When there are disagreements within religion you end up with wars (e.g., Sunni/Shiite, Protestants/Catholics in northern Ireland) or schisms (ca. 40,000 different sects or denominations of Christianity). Disagreements among scientists are decided using evidence. --Finally, science deals with the real world. I wouldn't say 180degrees though, The audience for in ancient times required less information and more instruction. I can admit that their proposed facts are significantly more vague statements e.g. "god created the heavens and the earth" or "multiply according to their kinds'' seen in the Torah and Bible, even that requires assumptions and inferences. Science also relies on Belief, (scientific) Scripture, dogma, revelation (Primordial soup became us). The Jewish lineage is alive today and their account is too, the arabic people are around, so is there historical artifacts... there has to be evidence in order to substantiate your belief otherwise why would anyone believe it? Wars yes, however Hitler's war was based on (race issues among others) Slavery in the US led to segregation, and revolt, additionally, there were countless land grab wars... currently there is violent strike action because of money. Wars are not specific to religious beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ra3MaN Member (Idle past 559 days) Posts: 31 From: Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa Joined: |
Well, no. There's no comparison. Suppose I've lost my spectacles, so I look for them. Someone comes along and asks "Where are your spectacles, Dr A?" Now, if I reply: "I don't know, but I'm trying to find out", is that really to be compared to the notion that rainbow ponies kicked my spectacles into nonexistence? Of course not. Because "I don't know, but I'm trying to find out" is a known, verifiable truth. Whereas the bit about rainbow ponies is a bit of crazy speculation. haha , relative to a big bang, if your spectacles are outside of your reality, then I bet you would not be able to find them, no matter how hard you looked. Who can know what is outside of matter, time and space?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2107 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I wouldn't say 180degrees though, I would. The difference is evidence vs. belief, dogma, scripture, divine revelation, etc.
The audience for in ancient times required less information and more instruction. I can admit that their proposed facts are significantly more vague statements e.g. "god created the heavens and the earth" or "multiply according to their kinds'' seen in the Torah and Bible, even that requires assumptions and inferences. Irrelevant.
Science also relies on Belief, (scientific) Scripture, dogma, revelation (Primordial soup became us). False. You clearly do not know how science works, and seem to be attacking it for religious reasons. It seems as if the more doubt you can create in your own mind about science, the more faith you can have in your unevidenced religious beliefs.
The Jewish lineage is alive today and their account is too, the arabic people are around, so is there historical artifacts... there has to be evidence in order to substantiate your belief otherwise why would anyone believe it? Irrelevant.
Wars yes, however Hitler's war was based on (race issues among others) Slavery in the US led to segregation, and revolt, additionally, there were countless land grab wars... currently there is violent strike action because of money. Wars are not specific to religious beliefs. Irrelevant.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ra3MaN Member (Idle past 559 days) Posts: 31 From: Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa Joined:
|
But this is obviously a bad test. To see why, consider this. Would you agree that it's a scientific fact that Saturn has rings? Or would you consider study of its rings to be a "religious pursuit"? Obviously, you think it's science. And yet the fact that Saturn has rings has never done anyone any good and probably never will. So it would be simplistic and false to classify useful propositions as scientific, and useless propositions as religious. Good point
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hello Ra3MaN,
1) What significance does Cosmic/Chemical/Biological origins (And there connection) have, in our endeavors for modern Science? Significance is assigned as theories are developed.
Could the current origin theories, in this argument, biological, be biased inferences fundamentally based on Darwinist ideas? Absolutley. If all you have is a hammer then every problem begins to look like a nail.But I do not believe science works this way. Confirmational bias is something science attempts to avoid. "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Science also relies on Belief, (scientific) Scripture, dogma, revelation (Primordial soup became us). The Jewish lineage is alive today and their account is too, the arabic people are around, so is there historical artifacts... there has to be evidence in order to substantiate your belief otherwise why would anyone believe it? Well, quite. And this is the difference between scientific and religious belief. I believe (scientific belief) that lead has a greater density than water. And I can test this belief. If, on the other hand, someone comes up to me and says "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet", then how do I set about testing it? I can just choose to believe or not believe, whereas I can't choose to believe that lead floats in water.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
haha , relative to a big bang, if your spectacles are outside of your reality, then I bet you would not be able to find them, no matter how hard you looked. Who can know what is outside of matter, time and space? And it is also true that we may never know what made the Big Bang go bang. Nonetheless, the statement: "We don't know, we're trying to find out" is not equivalent to the statement: "It was caused by rainbow ponies". Because the former is definitely true, and the latter is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Ra3MaN writes:
That's a common misconception - or maybe wishful thinking on the part of True Believers. I guess the goal of the origin studies is to allow people to be answerable to no-one. We're already answerable to our own consciences and to the other members of our society. For that matter, we're answerable to the flu bug too. We're answerable to real things. Answerability has nothing to do with origins.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024