Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 273 (75238)
12-26-2003 5:12 PM


I went into science 40 years ago, to get ideas for living that were closer to the truth. I was taught that science had three purposes:
1. More accurately estimate the plausibility of ideas.
2. Protect us from personal bias.
3. Deepen understanding of ideas.
I was also taught that the best science followed three sets of rules:
1. Hypothetico-deductive method.
2. Strong inference.
3. Bayesian evaluation of posterior plausibility.
Finally, I was taught that "normal" science was frequently:
1. A game, played by liars supported by persons in denial, who wanted to buy lies from "experts" to justify their denial.
2. A disinformation program, generated by enemies of the culture, to suppress useful truths.
3. A con, perpetuating lies that were profitable to those conducting the con.
This was the sixties, you understand. Kuhn's research was before us, as well as the amazing progress of statistical research, and the pressures of the cold war. Did Diogenes ever find an honest man, we wondered? Who could we trust? Why?
I spent the next forty years testing and refining these lessons, and present them here because, so far, I have found them trustworthy. That is, the science I did based on them has been extraordinarily successful. I agree with the architect of the Matrix: denial is the most predictable of human responses. We are all in trouble, and only adherence to some tried and true methodology will protect us from our self-delusion.
By these criteria, of course, almost no scientific studies of evolution are good science. It is, indeed, rare for someone defending the theory of evolution to even show any understanding or use of the three standards of excellence in science that I was taught. Scientific creationists are not much better.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by sfs, posted 12-26-2003 10:11 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 3 by edge, posted 12-27-2003 12:48 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 138 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-21-2004 11:29 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 181 by Brad McFall, posted 01-30-2004 1:24 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 2 of 273 (75263)
12-26-2003 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-26-2003 5:12 PM


quote:
I was also taught that the best science followed three sets of rules:
1. Hypothetico-deductive method.
2. Strong inference.
3. Bayesian evaluation of posterior plausibility.
Finally, I was taught that "normal" science was frequently:
1. A game, played by liars supported by persons in denial, who wanted to buy lies from "experts" to justify their denial.
2. A disinformation program, generated by enemies of the culture, to suppress useful truths.
3. A con, perpetuating lies that were profitable to those conducting the con.
[...]
By these criteria, of course, almost no scientific studies of evolution are good science. It is, indeed, rare for someone defending the theory of evolution to even show any understanding or use of the three standards of excellence in science that I was taught.
Hmm. In my twenty years in two different sciences, I've never directly encountered any of the malign symptoms you ascribe to "normal" science. Of your three criteria for good science, the first two strike me as cartoon versions of how real science, including very good real science, is actually done. Unlike the first two, the third is a formal method that can be applied, at least in some scientific contexts. My observation, however, is that it is applied at least as ofen in evolutionary biology as in other fields. In particular it is applied more often there than in high energy physics (the darling of the Strong Inference crowd), perhaps because many contributors to theoretical evolutionary biology and population genetics have been statisticians, while the average high energy physicist is pretty ignorant of the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-26-2003 5:12 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-27-2003 11:17 AM sfs has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 3 of 273 (75287)
12-27-2003 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-26-2003 5:12 PM


quote:
This was the sixties, you understand. Kuhn's research was before us, as well as the amazing progress of statistical research, and the pressures of the cold war. Did Diogenes ever find an honest man, we wondered? Who could we trust? Why?
I am sorry that the sixties affected you this way. The same thing almost happened to me. I was quite cynical about life until I reached bottom and then found that I loved science.
quote:
I spent the next forty years testing and refining these lessons, and present them here because, so far, I have found them trustworthy.
As have most of us, though I don't remember formal introduction to such principles and methods.
quote:
That is, the science I did based on them has been extraordinarily successful.
Interesting. What did you study? Was it related to evolution or creationism in any way?
quote:
I agree with the architect of the Matrix: denial is the most predictable of human responses. We are all in trouble, and only adherence to some tried and true methodology will protect us from our self-delusion.
Not sure what you are getting at here. Who is in denial? Who is not in denial? Don't be afraid, you can tell us what you really think around here.
quote:
By these criteria, of course, almost no scientific studies of evolution are good science.
I don't quite understand what you mean by this. Most of the science I see out there is really not directed at evolution per se. Are you saying that most of biology, geology etc. are poor science? Exactly why?
quote:
It is, indeed, rare for someone defending the theory of evolution to even show any understanding or use of the three standards of excellence in science that I was taught.
Again the only problem I see here is that, as far as I know, there is no one actually doing science to defend or 'prove' evolution. That was done ages ago. What you see now is simply a debate that occurs largely outside of the scientific arena and, indeed, it is often unscientific.
quote:
Scientific creationists are not much better.
But they are better? Why is that? Could you go down your list of principles and give us examples or some kind of evidence that 'scientific creationist' are better at science than mainstream scientists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-26-2003 5:12 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-28-2003 9:54 AM edge has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 273 (75309)
12-27-2003 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by sfs
12-26-2003 10:11 PM


Strong inference, evolution, evolition
The theory of evolution is that biologic diversity has originated from natural selection operating on random mutations. To apply strong inference to the validation of this theory, we need a comparable alternative, which I will call "evolition." That is, Darwin began by comparing natural selection to artificial selection, the one operating without the intervention of willful choices by a "higher" being, the other operating largely under such choices. So with random mutation, which would be compared with genetic engineering. Thus, biologic diversity in dogs would be generated by evolition, and diversity in wood warblers by evolution. Unless, of course, it can be shown that some other "higher" being, with free will and power, has artificially selected and/or genetically engineered, wood warbler diversity.
Thus, the two terms catch an essential difference: -volution the idea that it is merely out of the life cycle, -volition out of willful choices.
In strong inference, one takes the two theories, comparably expressed, and generates predictions from them, looking for predictions that contradict each other. Clearly, the discovery of lineages confirms both theories, as long as we consider that artificial selection may be a part of "creationism." A decent evolutionary scientist would of course admit that, since natural selection is such an essential part of their theory. The creationist, normally, is coming from a credit angle. What's important to the creationist, who normally has this relationship with the supposed creator, is that this God person get credit for what is created. The evolutionary ecologist doesn't think much about this, just as the creation ecologist doesn't think much about artificial selection as a means God used in creation.
So, if lineages don't discriminate between the two theories, don't really validate natural selection, what predictions ought we test? Now, one fascinating bit of science history concerns the Bible Codes paper in Statistical Science, by Witztum and his colleagues. Put aside for a moment how valid that study is, and consider how evolutionary ecologists, who were real scientists, ought to have viewed it. The study took the hypothesis that there really was some really smart person behind the Genesis account, wherein we find the origin of the idea that biologic diversity was somehow willfully created, was produced by some sort of evolition, not evolution. It generated some really very implausible predictions from this hypothesis (I'm getting Bayesian here), and then tested them. As a control, they set up a "natural selection, random mutation" alternative, scrambling the letters of Genesis at random, and looking for the same willfully, powerfully inserted "codes." They didn't set it all up explicitly (more's the pity), but in essence they set up a strong inference test of the two theories. If a willful, powerful being really is making the statements found in Genesis about the origin of biologic diversity, exclusive natural selection/random mutation cannot be true. It at least must share the field with evolition.
Well, Witztum's paper circulated for nearly twenty years before anyone tried to discredit it. To date, I have yet to hear an evolutionary scientist comment on the implications of the study on their science. Apparently, they just didn't recognize what had happened to their theory by its publication. Those attempting to discredit it, who may loosely be called evolutionary scientists, have behaved horribly in dealing with the study. Witztum, at one point asked what data they would have to see to be convinced. They responded that nothing would convince them. They were not strong inference scientists. They published their criticism without inviting Witztum's review, censored his effort to reply, and mostly attacked a "straw man" a newspaper reporter popularizing Witztum's study. Witztum's main control was a "natural selection, random mutation" comparison, where the letters in Genesis were randomly mixed up. In this control, they failed to find the statistically rare events observed in Genesis itself, events predicted to be willfully placed there by this really smart, powerful person. Person, we should say now, since the probability that they are out there attending to this discussion is now fairly high.
But, evolutionary biologists do not seem to be interested, as they ought to be, in the objective, Bayesian, plausibility of the God as creator idea. They thus neglect all three of the standards I was taught made one a true scientist. Creationists, in my view, are actually ethically worse, although they often are more epistemologically self-conscious in their scientific methodology. That is, they strain harder to do science right. But they lack common sense. Their book, the Bible, clearly states that this God/creator person is available for interviews on any subject. The few creation scientists who have responded to this fact have gotten from such interviews rather sensible perspectives (they were told by God, for example, that the earth was created some 15 billion years ago--they were told this, according to Satinover's report, twice, 2000 years ago, and 1000 years ago.) But most creation scientists ignore this obvious source of information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by sfs, posted 12-26-2003 10:11 PM sfs has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Abshalom, posted 12-27-2003 11:52 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 6 by edge, posted 12-27-2003 12:01 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 273 (75311)
12-27-2003 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-27-2003 11:17 AM


Re: Strong inference, evolution, evolition
Stephen:
Please clarify a few things for me. You say, "(they were told by God, for example, that the earth was created some 15 billion years ago--they were told this, according to Satinover's report, twice, 2000 years ago, and 1000 years ago.)"
Are you referring to the Kabbalistic notion that the first so many verses of the original Hebrew text of Genesis contains a numeric code that establishes the intitiation of the creation of the universe at about 14.8 billion years ago?
Does this "Satinover Report" give "15 billion years ago" as the date of creation of Earth or of the entire universe? Does Satinover discuss the apparent conflict between the approximate 13 or so billion year calculated age of the universe and the approximate 4.5 or so billion year age for Earth? (My figures are by best memory estimates as I don't have time right now to look up this info.)
Does Santinover's interpretation of the "code" jibe with the traditional Kabbalists' interpretation?
Where can I access "Santinover's report" on line.
Peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-27-2003 11:17 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-28-2003 10:17 AM Abshalom has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 273 (75313)
12-27-2003 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-27-2003 11:17 AM


Re: Strong inference, evolution, evolition
quote:
But, evolutionary biologists do not seem to be interested, as they ought to be, in the objective, Bayesian, plausibility of the God as creator idea. They thus neglect all three of the standards I was taught made one a true scientist.
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps they considered the plausible alternative and then rejected it long ago for lack of evidence? It seems to me that you are committing an error common to YECs in that they think history began with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-27-2003 11:17 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 273 (75419)
12-28-2003 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by edge
12-27-2003 12:48 AM


Nature and human nature research
Edge,
You ask: "Interesting. What did you study? Was it related to evolution or creationism in any way?"
My overriding research interest was happiness, and why humans behave as they do. My tactic was to first understand territorial and dominance behavior in birds, especially as these affected habitat distribution. But, in the process, I wanted to test what I was being taught was effective scientific epistemology, and wanted as well to get understanding that would help us conserve bird populations. You can see some of where this all went, by a search under my name and topics such as ideal free distribution, populations in a seasonal environment, optimal balance between size and number of offspring, and food chain dynamics.
The main findings that satisfied my personal quest were:
1. Happiness is an emotional state related to "habitat selection" (sensu latu), by which an organism knows that it is in a habitat that is part of the niche to which it is adapted. The way to be happy, therefore, is to determine the niche to which one is "adapted," and then to choose to reside in that niche.
2. The scientific methodologies I was taught work really well, judging from the continued interest in the discoveries I made using them.
3. The ecologies or niches of almost all species are influenced by top-down (predatory, parasitic) factors, and by bottom-up (resources, environmental structure) factors, in variable proportions.
4. All species that humans know of live in ecosystems with other species that are more powerful than they are, have sensory systems that detect environmental information that they cannot sense, and are more intelligent than they are. To suppose that this is not true of humans as well is a priori foolish. (the law of succession persuaded me of this. If virus's have bacteria, and bacteria protozoa, protozoa micro-invertebrates, and so on up the scale of organic complexity, power, and intelligence, why should we stop at humans?)
5. Between black holes, dark matter, dark energy, vacuum energy, and a host of "spiritual" research efforts, it is plausible that our ecosystem is inhabited by other species that are as inconspicuous to us as, say, we, or robins, are to earthworms. Certainly to assume otherwise because we lack experience based on our limited sensory capacity, is epistemologically foolish. Worms that don't "believe in" robins because they have never tasted or touched one, don't survive as well as those who have behaviors that make sure that untouched, untasted robins are avoided. Thus, earthworms extend their setae when pinched, and humans pray in foxholes when bombs are dropping around them.
6. Really well adapted (which would include really smart) parasites influence the minds of their hosts, so that those hosts behave in ways profitable to the parasites. The parasite that causes hydrophobia in dogs, for example, makes the infected dog behave in ways that result in transmission of the rabies infection. If we consider demons as spiritual parasites, we can expect them to try to make us behave in ways that work to their agenda, not ours.
7. Humans at war with one another often attack each other's livestock. Whereas in peaceful conditions, humans tend to be symbiotic with their livestock, in war one group of humans will simply exploit or destroy another's livestock. We ought therefore to expect that spiritual beings at war with one another might do the same. Humans domesticate lower biological beings, and it is claimed and widely believed that spiritual beings domesticate humans ("The Lord is my shepherd...."). There are also groups of spiritual beings at war with one another, or so many have supposed. Humans are supposed to be pawns in this war, which is a not unreasonable possibility, given what we know of the ecology and behavior of humans. If we do it, why not them? It is of course possible that humans have abilities and ways that spiritual beings do not have (virus's do things that bacteria don't do), but robins not only taste and touch, they see and hear. Anyway, the hypothesis that humans are pawns in a war between spiritual beings is moderately plausible, a priori, and certainly worthy of testing.
8. I did a lot of research on adaptation and niches, related to behavior and to morphology. I am quite pleased with my efforts to show that variability in morphology is adapted to what I call ecotypic selection, as opposed to archetypic selection. That food generalist species squeezed by competitors are adapted to be less morphologically variable than food specialist species in competitor free settings. At first, I attributed this to evolution. But, as I came to consider the hypothesis that this "God" person was husbanding the world's ecosystems, artifically selecting and genetically engineering most of the various "natural" species out there, I began to look for ways to see which hypothesis was more plausible.
9. So, I and some others began some prayer experiments on various species. For one, we chose (late 70's) the California Condor, that none of us had on our life-lists, and which had very dim prospects for continued survival. We got remarkable responses to our prayers, and felt that God very well could be artifically selecting and otherwise intervening in the course of "natural" selection. Of course, so is man, but this God person has made it clear that, if men are handy, He will use them. I also took on the problem of the Dickcissel, my favorite bird species, which had been declining in population for as long as BBS data were available. That was a more expensive prayer experiment, requiring me to give up my tenured university position in order to reverse this trend. (The Condor experiment only took corporate fasting). But it worked. The species stopped declining in population, the problems causing it to decline were reversed, and it all took place within a year or two of my resignation.
I have tried to climb onto Newton's shoulders, to see further than he saw, and if possible to share in the glory of excellent science. I am hoping that my contributions to food chain dynamics will earn for me an honored place in the history of science, and argue that that theory is in fact the central theory of all ecology, or questions pertaining to the distribution and abundance of species and ecosystems. Questions pertaining to form and function of organic biology, which heretofore have been answered in an evolutionary context, I am now convinced, will require a different answer which includes a spiritual ecological or historical component.
Newton led the way, by taking on the Bible problem, spending, so I hear, more of his research energy there than on gravity. I have tried to follow him in this, looking into the Bible scientifically, to understand how the unseen, spiritual world has influenced our human experience.
As things now stand, in my scientific experience, the theory of evolution is implausible insofar as it stands on natural selection and random mutation. It served us well, however, by addressing the process of creation, confirming the idea that a great deal, even most of creation took place through selection on lineages, over a longish period of time. But, it is time for the paradigm to shift. We need to give God His due credit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by edge, posted 12-27-2003 12:48 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Andya Primanda, posted 12-28-2003 10:11 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 12-28-2003 1:20 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 273 (75421)
12-28-2003 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-28-2003 9:54 AM


Re: Nature and human nature research
quote:
9. So, I and some others began some prayer experiments on various species. For one, we chose (late 70's) the California Condor, that none of us had on our life-lists, and which had very dim prospects for continued survival. We got remarkable responses to our prayers, and felt that God very well could be artifically selecting and otherwise intervening in the course of "natural" selection. Of course, so is man, but this God person has made it clear that, if men are handy, He will use them. I also took on the problem of the Dickcissel, my favorite bird species, which had been declining in population for as long as BBS data were available. That was a more expensive prayer experiment, requiring me to give up my tenured university position in order to reverse this trend. (The Condor experiment only took corporate fasting). But it worked. The species stopped declining in population, the problems causing it to decline were reversed, and it all took place within a year or two of my resignation.
WHile I am skeptical of your methods, your experiment, if can be demonstrated, might be useful. Try praying to prevent the Javan rhinoceros from extinction, would you? At present there are approx. 40 individuals left in the wild, and only miracles can save them from extinction. So please help them. I believe rhinos have more ecological impact than birds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-28-2003 9:54 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-29-2003 3:05 PM Andya Primanda has replied
 Message 16 by Abshalom, posted 12-29-2003 4:11 PM Andya Primanda has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 273 (75422)
12-28-2003 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Abshalom
12-27-2003 11:52 AM


Re: Strong inference, evolution, evolition
Abshalom,
Quite right, thank you for correcting me so gently.
All my books are boxed in storage, so I'm a bit handicapped, but right, Satinover's report (in his book on the Bible Codes) does refer to the Kabbalistic studies of the name of God in the beginning of Genesis. And does refer to the age of the universe, the creation at the beginning.
Reading Satinover's book, I got the impression that he saw much truth and integrity in the Kabbalistic efforts. It is my own impression, however, that sees those efforts as intentionally spiritually directed, requiring insights from outside the scriptures to properly interpret the scriptures. I don't actually read much creationist literature any more, but when I last did, I tried to look closely for any sign that the author was engaged in listening prayer as they proceeded. And, when I ask God to tell me what happened, I hear Him telling me that the Kabbalists asked, and He told them what to do to get those figures. Derek Prince, more recently, reported that He asked God what happened at creation. He didn't get any numbers, but was told that the "In the beginning..." referred to a long, long time ago, and that the generation of stars, earth, life, etc proceeded over all that time. He, however, also heard that, in the war with Satan, there was a lot of devastation ("formless and void" really means "laid waste and destroyed"), which was rather quickly (seven days?)and recently repaired to the state that it had developed over the eons. So, both concepts are "true." There was an old earth creation, and a young earth restoration, the latter more conspicuously miraculous. I found Prince's report after I had asked God to tell me what happened. When first I asked, He told me that I wasn't prepared (ok, "smart enough") to understand the answer, but that I should stick around and He would explain it all to me. That was 30 years ago.
That the recent, miraculous restoration was restored to look "old," makes sense to me. It's what I pray for, when, say I asked for someone with skin cancer to be healed. I want the healed skin to be the right age for the body it is covering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Abshalom, posted 12-27-2003 11:52 AM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Abshalom, posted 12-28-2003 11:43 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 273 (75433)
12-28-2003 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-28-2003 10:17 AM


Re: Strong inference, evolution, evolition
Stephen:
I think it is very important to take into consideration the intricate explanations of creation by Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides) [EDIT: The person to whom I should be refering regarding this issue is Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (Nachmanides) or "Ramban" rather than Maimonides (Rambam)]when examinining this theory of the 42-word Name found in Torah. For example, how could Maimonides [EDIT: Again, I mistakenly refer to Maimonides (Rambam) here, when it was Nachmanides (Ramban) to whose Kabbalistic interpretation of the structure of the universe I am refering] be so divinely informed as to the 15 billion year age of the universe by HaShem, and then be so wrongly informed regarding the structure of the same universe? These are the kind of things that cause one to question "divine information." This whole Satinova thing is based squarely on the work of Maimonides [EDIT: Nachmanides] and subsequent Kabbalistic theories.
More detailed argument will have to wait. I, like you, have a lot of my reference material either in storage or at the office; and I have some end-of-the-year bookkeeping that must be submitted by the 31st. I do look forward to continued discussion of the various "divine" calculations of the age of the universe, whether in this thread of another.
Peace.
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-28-2003]
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-28-2003 10:17 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-28-2003 11:52 AM Abshalom has replied
 Message 18 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-30-2003 1:20 AM Abshalom has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 273 (75435)
12-28-2003 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Abshalom
12-28-2003 11:43 AM


Re: Strong inference, evolution, evolition
Abshalom,
We are advised by New Testament writers that prophesy is always incomplete, and subject to judgment. It's a lot like science. We report what we believe God is saying, but there is a need for replication, confirmation, and deepened understanding. The OT requirements on prophecy, to be infallible at least about the future, seem to have been modified by the availability of grace for error.
It sounds as if I can learn a lot from your more thorough examination of this, and that I will enjoy.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Abshalom, posted 12-28-2003 11:43 AM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Abshalom, posted 12-29-2003 1:04 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 12 of 273 (75440)
12-28-2003 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-28-2003 9:54 AM


Well here's a couple points where you have deviated from science in your method:
1) Why is the Xian God the default God, and the Bible the default religious text for understanding the world? There are other Gods and other texts. How is it anything but arbitrary choice to choose that one cult over others?
2) How does your praying prove that it was the Xian God which answered your prayers to help the species you talked about? We'll leave aside the fact that you admit humans actually solved the issue, and assume you are right that their was a connection between prayer and something being corrected.
Why could it not have been any number of Gods that stepped in, either in answer to your prayer (not being particular to who you are praying to, rather than the emergency message), or in answer to some other people's prayers (were you the only group praying or caring)?
Or why does it involve Divine entities at all? Why could your prayer not be creating life energy which attracts human attention to solve a problem, or perhaps attracting a general "Gaia" lifeforce to produce a result?
There are simply too many unsupported assumptions you are making and with very few controls to your experiments.
I guess you can boil it down to this, even if you have proven that prayer may work, what makes prayer work?
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-28-2003 9:54 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-29-2003 2:52 PM Silent H has replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 273 (75602)
12-29-2003 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Stephen ben Yeshua
12-28-2003 11:52 AM


Re: Strong inference, evolution, evolition
Stephen:
Please note the edits of Post #10. I incorrectly referred to Maimonides (Rambam) when I should have been referring to his contemporary, Nachmanides (Ramban).
I still maintain the basic premise that we should question how Nachmanides could have been so divinely inspired with regard to the 15.6 billion year age of the universe when his intricate description of its structure is so far off base. Did he not use the same Source for information regarding both the age and the structure of the universe? (For Rabbi Moses ben Nachman's (Ramban's) structure of the universe see: Error 404 | Emory University | Atlanta GA from which one can see that Ramban takes a very Kabbalistic view of creation and structure.)
Nachmanides further asserts that one can determine the age of the universe if one properly knows how to use the 42-letter Name, which some Kabbalists believe is composed of the first 42 letters of Torah, in the original Hebrew alphabetic characters of course.
Somehow or another, Nachmanides and other Kabbalists factor the 42-letter Name to have a value of 42,000 Divine Years. First of all, Stephen, I question this because I am not privy to the method by which the "42,000 Divine Years" is deduced from 42 Hebraic letters. I thought each letter of the Hebrew alphabet was assigned a numeric value, and not necessarily "1,000." Or, is there some hidden equation by which the Kabbalist arrived at the 42,000 product?
But, for the moment, let us accept the 42,000 factor and multiply it times 365,250 of our years (1,000 years "God-years" for each "man-day" per Psalms 90:4 -- a document whose historic relationship with Torah remains a question), and VOILA! 15.3 billion years is assigned as the Kabbalistic age of the universe circa de Adam.
Now, it astounds folks that in Nachmanides (1194 CE - 1270 CE) could calculate an age for the universe that so closely matches it currently accepted age calculated by modern cosmologists. Nachmanides ideas regarding the universe expanding rapidly from a mustard seed sized pinpoint of light into a primordal whorl of non-corporal substance that eventually took on the tangible aspects of matter further intrigues modern people because it sounds like an enlightened, Medieval Big Bang theory.
Stephen, I ask the following questions:
1) Why if Nachmanides and other Kabbalists are able, with divinely provided mathmatic information, to calculate the age of the universe are they not able to provide an equally valid, non-Terracentric structure of the universe?
2) Does the coincidental same or similar dating of the age of the universe by the 42-letter Name factor and by the speed of light calculations of modern cosmologists automatically validate the Genesis creation story? Does it validate some or all of the other literalist renditions of natural science? Is it more than a coincidence?
3) If the coincidental dating validates any part of Judeo-Christian theology or Creationist science, then would the accurate dating of the Earth's age, the universe's age, or a universal apocalypes by say the Mayan calendar, just for an example, likewise validate Mayan religious practices and beliefs? Same question relative to any other non-Judeo/Christian religion.
4) If a meditating supplicant of some other god were to hear a voice say, "Listen to the Clock of your Corporal Temple and count its measure ...an hour to a man is like 10,000 days to God," does that mean that 70 beats per minute times 60 minutes times 3,652,500 equals 15,340,500,000 validates another path?
5) Does grace erase all error?
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-28-2003 11:52 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 12-30-2003 7:22 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 273 (75623)
12-29-2003 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Silent H
12-28-2003 1:20 PM


authority
Holmes,
You ask:
1) Why is the Xian God the default God, and the Bible the default religious text for understanding the world? There are other Gods and other texts. How is it anything but arbitrary choice to choose that one cult over others?
Praying is a lot like going before a judge as a lawyer; it helps to be recognized and authorized. When I came to this study, even though I was a practising atheist, I had been raised Christian, and had behind me many of the elements needed to effectively pray. So, that's the direction I went in. In incorporating strong inference into this science, as you suggest, bringing in the prayers of other Gods, I say Amen. But I would need colleagues working on the companion hypotheses. I did pray a bit to the Gods behind the I Ching, and behind horoscopes, with disastrous results personally. But, that may have been because I was already in a relationship with Jehovah, and He was manifesting His jealous nature.
We're dealing, so the hypothesis goes, with real persons here.
2) How does your praying prove that it was the Xian God which answered your prayers to help the species you talked about? We'll leave aside the fact that you admit humans actually solved the issue, and assume you are right that their was a connection between prayer and something being corrected.
Science proves nothing, only confirms predictions that makes ideas more plausible. I sincerely hope that someone who prays out of another religious foundation will challenge me to a test of powers. We should have this data at hand. Do people get better faster when Hindus pray?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 12-28-2003 1:20 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2003 6:40 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 273 (75626)
12-29-2003 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Andya Primanda
12-28-2003 10:11 AM


Re: Nature and human nature research
Andya Primanda,
Let us do this together. Let's agree to fast together one day, and make Jehovah this promise: If He will do a conspicuous miracle to save these rhinos, you and I will commit ourselves to any life or mind changes needed to make us more effective at ruling over the rhinos so that they manifest their Creator's glory. At the least, we will learn to point out the rhinos to others as an honor to God, who we affirm, made them. And, we will be called "to believe in Him who He sent." so that we can become powerful in prayer to fix whatever troubles rhinos and other living things.
OK?
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Andya Primanda, posted 12-28-2003 10:11 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Andya Primanda, posted 12-30-2003 2:18 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024