The Science Delusion. 10 dogmas of modern science

[Rin]

I don’t see why you couldn’t verify (…)

According to the scientific method, you find a hypothesis (antecedent), then you deduct which conditions will be true if that hypothesis is correct (consequent). Let’s say the hypothesis is that it rained this morning. If so, the streets will be wet. The streets are wet. It rained.

But that’s a logical fallacy, called “confirming the consequent”. The streets could be wet for another reason. Hence, verification from observation is formally impossible.

(…) at the least its actually scepticism (…)

Yes, it is a form of skepticism; but skepticism follows from logic. Even believing the world exists is a leap of faith; I could be a brain in a vat, connected to a machine feeding me a simulation. Depressing, but logically valid. I choose to believe the world exists, and in science. But still, I know that knowledge is imperfect.

?

Let’s go back to the rain example:

The main hypothesis is that it rained this morning, &c. But another, auxiliary hypothesis, is that no one dried the streets. Now let’s say it rained, but someone did dry the streets. So we conclude there was no rain. This is obviously wrong - we falsified our auxiliary hypothesis.

This is actually very common. Regularly, if measuring equipment is needed, there are numerous auxiliary hypotheses regarding that equipment. So when the experiment fails, that could be the cause.

Now if we could identify all the auxiliary hypotheses, we could root out the faulty ones. But there are always ones we don’t know about. Which is why even falsification is imperfect.

(…) science at some point in such a system must admit, (…) certain things before proceeding (…) how you can say that falsification is both possible and not possible (…) This is just ridiculous(…)

It’s not ridiculous - it’s an acknowledgement that we can’t grasp the world “as it is”. It not only makes us strive to improve our methods, it provides an essential sense of humility. Logical positivism lacked this humility. Its heyday was the first half of the 20th century.

Even though true falsification is practically impossible, it’s the best option we have, combined with consensus, albeit not definitive. In many ways, definitive knowledge is only possible within the domain of Divine Revelation, in the sense that “if Catholicism is true, then its dogma are true”. The same could be said about Mathematics.

So yes, axioms are necessary. The scientific method is such a set of axioms. But since it is logically invalid, it results in probability, not “true” knowledge.

(…) Again at some point you need some definitions or else (…)

Well, with the current method, the results are probabilities. Axioms are assumptions. Some philosophy comes closer to actual knowledge, perhaps especially with basics like the principle of noncontradiction. But even those are assumptions.

It either happens or it doesn’t: (…)

Of course it either happens or it doesn’t &c. I said it can happen, but that it probably won’t. There’s no contradiction in that.

I addressed this allegation in another post.

Yes, but you still don’t seem to acknowledge the differences between “use”, “reason” and “purpose”.

While I won’t write off teleology in nature as such, Aristotelian teleology as explanation for natural phenomena has been discredited. We needed too many ad-hoc hypotheses to support it. That said, one would be a fool to disrespect Aristotle. But that said, the current, non-teleological scientific method has proved to be superior in predictive ability.

I still think teleology is important, though, but not in the sense that “water seeks ocean”, “a chair is for sitting” etc. The first is simply an early attempt to describe gravity. The second is about use, not purpose.

Purpose is about God’s will for us. I don’t think God assigned specific purpose to our hands. I do, however, think He gave us, and our actions, a purpose. Teleology plays an important role in the description of our being, of things like sexuality, &c. But these are matters of theology and philosophy.

A difference largely only of procedure (…) I’m not ready to admit multiple “knowledges” (…)

No, it’s far more than a difference of procedure, it’s a difference of category. Science is unable to study ontology, teleology, &c. Philosophy and theology are unable to study the material world. It’s a difference of domains, not a matter of multiple and conflicting knowledges.

(…) There’s a reason why(…)

Still, if you put a log of wood in a fire, it will also be destroyed. Is wood not meant to be put in fire?

It’s not hard to see how being oriented to one thing precludes the possibility of doing others. It’s like taking(…)

That is true. But still, the reason we use hands for grabbing instead of fuel, is mainly one of usefulness. We have more wood, fewer hands, and then there’s the pain aspect.

I’ll readily admit I’m arguing for the sake of argument here, though But as I said, the scientific method can’t, by its very nature, tell us anything about purpose. I prefer to discuss science within the bounds of science. And when scientists try to teach teleology, it gets as embarrassing as when theologians try to teach biology.

But teleology is classically supposed to be an operative cause in natural phenomenon.

True. And as I had to admit, teleology has a place. But the scientific method can’t even determine whether causation exists, far less purpose. What people need to realize, is that modern science is extremely limited in terms of “true” knowledge. It just has amazing predictive power.

Thanks for this discussion.(…)

Likewise! Rest assured I see your points.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

According to the scientific method, you find a hypothesis (antecedent), then you deduct which conditions will be true if that hypothesis is correct (consequent). Let’s say the hypothesis is that it rained this morning. If so, the streets will be wet. The streets are wet. It rained.

But that’s a logical fallacy, called “confirming the consequent”. The streets could be wet for another reason. Hence, verification from observation is formally impossible.

That sounds like another philosophically loaded assumption that reminds me of Hume: Hume saw cause and effect as a relationship between event ‘A’ then another event (presumably following almost immediately after), ‘B’, where ‘A’ is B’s cause and ‘B’ is A’s effect. The philosopher Edward Feser in his book, “The Last Superstition” (if I recall correctly), does a pretty good job of bringing out some of the serious problems in Hume’s causality.

I would argue that more properly we should look for the cause behind an event (presumably a phenomenon) ‘A’ or that explains ‘A’. Cause and effect are not temporally disjointed in the phenomenal world but are simultaneous with each other; if cause ‘A’ is removed or ceases, then immediately its effect ‘B’ should also cease without a passing of time; otherwise, it is arguable that ‘A’ does not fully explain or cause ‘B’ or we need to do a better investigation into the causes of ‘B’ or, perhaps, take a closer look at ‘B’ itself or maybe review our definitions or whatever.

Whatever causes explain an avalanche, for instance, will be causing it from beginning to end: the causes will be simultaneously operative with the effect of the avalanche. Looking at causality as a temporal sequence is deeply problematic.

Yes, it is a form of skepticism; but skepticism follows from logic.

Well, Scepticism certainly does not follow from logic. Classically proper logic was the cure of Scepticism. Aristotle saw Scepticism as an indefensible error and in the Metaphysics defends the Principle of Non-Contradiction -the basis of logic and philosophy- from Sceptical objections.

Even believing the world exists is a leap of faith;

No it really isn’t; but let’s take a look.

If the (or a) world doesn’t exist then, necessarily, neither do we. But if I didn’t exist I couldn’t experience, even subjectively, anything. But I experience things. Therefore I exist. Therefore something exists. Therefore there is some sense of a world or reality in existence; if not, then I could not experience or even be aware of anything at all: i.e., I would be nothing, as there would be no reality whatsoever, but only nothing. But evidently this is false.

I could be a brain in a vat,

But then there would have to exist a world capable of containing and sustaining brains in vats.

connected to a machine feeding me a simulation.

And machines that could feed brains in vats with the possibility of manipulating your consciousness… that’s a good deal of reality.

Depressing, but logically valid.

Yet still admitting that there is a reality with all of the implications that flow from it.

 

[Rin]

That sounds like another philosophically loaded assumption that reminds me of Hume: Hume saw cause and effect as a relationship between event ‘A’ then another event (presumably following almost immediately after), ‘B’, where ‘A’ is B’s cause and ‘B’ is A’s effect. The philosopher Edward Feser in his book The Last Superstition, if I recall correctly, does a pretty good job of bringing out all of the problems with Hume’s causality.

Of course it is a philosophically loaded assumption, but it is simple and irrefutable logic. Absolute verification (and absolute falsification) through the hypothetico-deductive method is impossible, and I have yet to see a post-Popper philosopher disagree with this. Doing so would contradict the most basic rules of logic.

And even though Hume’s argument (which is a completely different area again, since the scientific method simply assumes causation) has weaknesses, no one has been able to prove causation philosophically yet. But then again, if we reject causation, science is useless. So we decide to believe it exists.

We should look for the cause behind an event (presumably a phenomenon) ‘A’ or that explains ‘A’. Cause and effect are not temporally disjointed in the phenomenal world but are simultaneous with each other; if cause ‘A’ is removed or ceases, then immediately its effect ‘B’ should also cease without a passing of time; otherwise, it is arguable that ‘A’ does not fully explain or cause ‘B’ or we need to do a better investigation into the causes of ‘B’ or, perhaps, take a closer look at ‘B’ itself or maybe review our definitions or whatever.

Whatever causes explain an avalanche, for instance, will be causing it from beginning to end: the causes will be simultaneously operative with the effect of the avalanche. Looking at causality as a temporal sequence is deeply problematic.

This still doesn’t prove causation, it simply presumes it.

Well, Scepticism certainly does not follow from logic. Classically proper logic was the cure of Scepticism. Aristotle saw Scepticism as an indefensible error and in the Metaphysics defends the Principle of Non-Contradiction -the basis of logic and philosophy- from Sceptical objections.

Skepticism developed further after Aristotle, though. Classically proper logic is the foundation of the “brains in a vat” example, which again is based on Descartes. I rarely see people criticize Descarte’s argument for skepticism - the weak part of his argument is when he tries to “get back out”.

No it isn’t. If the world doesn’t exist then neither do we. But if I didn’t exist I couldn’t experience, even subjectively, anything. But I experience things. Therefore I exist. Therefore something exists. Therefore there is some sense of a world or reality in existence.

But then there would have to exist a world capable of containing and sustaining brains in vats.

And machines that could feed brains in vats with the possibility of manipulating your consciousness… that’s a good deal of reality.

Yet still admitting that there is a reality with all of the implications that flow from it.

You confuse “the/this world” with “a reality”, or even “a world”, though.

Of course I exist, or that is, my mind exists. My body, however? There’s no way to prove it’s there materially. Of course it exists at the very least as a “virtual” thing, since I sense it. But there’s no way to prove that it exists materially.

Regarding the machines and the worlds in which they would exist, it’s also possible to imagine that I’m an immaterial mind that went crazy and constructed a fantasy world to live in. Far fetched, but imaginable. In that case, there’s really nothing other than the mind and the fantasy.

But let’s say we’re in a simulation, and hence there exists a material world, but our own world is immaterial. In that case, if the machines feeding (at least one of) us are programmable, the system administrator could conceivably change the rules of physics at any time. That’s the point of the argument - in a simulated world, our observations won’t reflect a material and/or permanent phenomenon. And since it’s impossible to prove that we’re not in a simulation, it’s impossible to view observational knowledge as definitive.

Still, though, I believe the world exists, and I believe science reflects real phenomena, at least most of the time. But it’s error prone and never definitive - there will be paradigm shifts, as there always have been. And the choice to believe in the existence of this world, and to believe in causality, purpose, and so on, are leaps of faith, more than the results of reason.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I sent him the link last night for Epiphany. He is a human factors engineer doing work and research on the human-machine interface, figuring out the whys of planes crashes, power plant nukings, car accidents, patients dying from their medication etc (proud dad here).
Among the interesting things that the video demonstrates is that God, in eternity, through events that happened over two thousand years ago, speaks to us by means of our technology, today.

Yes, I was struck by that, that is the whole point.

Linus2nd

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Of course it is a philosophically loaded assumption, but it is simple and irrefutable logic.

I think you’re missing the objection.

The argument was that temporally ordered causation ( t1 (causes)->(effect) t2 ) seems itself to be the source of the problems in the verification example that was provided.

Absolute verification (and absolute falsification) through the hypothetico-deductive method is impossible,

Assuming (what I will call) an “eventualist” causation (where causation is understood strictly as a sequence of temporally related events) then of course it will be “impossible” to verify because the cause and its effect have been disjointed.

And even though Hume’s argument (which is a completely different area again, since the scientific method simply assumes causation)

But Hume’s causation at times appears to be a root of some of the problems here when the nature of causation is assumed similarly as Hume conceived of it. Hume’s causation actually disjoints causes from their effects by arranging them as temporally independent phenomena.

if we reject causation, science is useless.

Agreed.

So we decide to believe it exists.

“We”? I’m pretty confident most people don’t accept causation based on your reasoning but accept it as a fact of reality. The success of science and specifically technology gives us confidence that we do have some basically correct understanding of the nature of the world, thus verifying our conception of causation. I don’t think people believe causation exists because we couldn’t do science without it but rather that science is possible because nature actually operates causally.

Skepticism developed further after Aristotle, though.

I don’t believe it has.

If a Sceptic refuses to acknowledge that he can’t deny the principle of contradiction or possibly fails to understand it, for example, then that is no credit to his Scepticism as such. No one has refuted Aristotle’s Principle of Non-Contradiction (it’s not actually even possible to). Neither Sextus nor Descartes refuted it and it’s not even conceivable how they actually could.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Classically proper logic is the foundation of the “brains in a vat” example,

It most certainly is not. Classic Philosophy = the tradition that historically traces itself to the doctrines of the ancient Greek thinkers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle; not Descartes, Hume, Kant et al. When people think of classic philosophy they are thinking of those noble men I mentioned and their intellectual heirs distinguished from the moderns, among whom are the latter gentlemen from France, England and Germany.

I rarely see people criticize Descarte’s argument for skepticism - the weak part of his argument is when he tries to “get back out”.

There are a lot of people who criticize it for all sorts of reasons. Descartes’ philosophy results in dualism; those who do not want to accept immaterial substance(s) will criticize Descartes and those who don’t accept dualism (e.g. Aristotelians, Thomists) will also criticize it.

You confuse “the/this world” with “a reality”, or even “a world”, though.

But what if you are assuming (contrary to the evidence) that “this world” is not "a reality”. What evidence can you produce for believing that this world is not truly real?

Of course I exist, or that is, my mind exists.

And that’s all my argument requires to demonstrate that there is a real world.

My body, however?

Would be beside the point.

There’s no way to prove it’s there materially.

Extremely debatable.

Of course it exists at the very least as a “virtual” thing,

And this just affirms reality…

since I sense it.

I think you’re starting to think along the right track here…

But there’s no way to prove that it exists materially.

Perhaps you should ask yourself whether or not there is actually good evidence to deny what your senses and the common testimony of the human race affirm in the first place.

Regarding the machines and the worlds in which they would exist, it’s also possible to imagine

But imagination can imagine all sorts of things. I can imagine pink unicorns with Martians on them flying through the universe at light speed. Many have imagined faster than light travel and wrote books about it, made television series and movies about it. That doesn’t make it actually the case.

that I’m an immaterial mind that went crazy and constructed a fantasy world to live in. Far fetched, but imaginable. In that case, there’s really nothing other than the mind and the fantasy.

Of course that would be the case because you are defining the parameters. But I assure you I am not a construct of your mind; if anything, the fact that people recorded in history and your contemporaries frequently wonder about the same things should give you reasonably evidence that they are not a product of your own imagination (and if they thought it first, why wouldn’t you actually be the product of their imagination in that case?).

But let’s say we’re in a simulation,

Okay my willingness to entertain admitted fantasies is at an end here.

At the very least, you need to admit that you can’t mentally control all the phenomena you see around you and you aren’t the one determining them. You already admit that your self-awareness necessitates that there must be something that exists and hence a reality.

You need to ask yourself what grounds or reasons –aside from your productive imagination– you have for denying what your senses report to you and what the common testimony of man affirms.

Now at this point you’re stuck at the interface for all of these selves; i.e. what we commonly call the real (and physical) world, through which we interact with one another and come to know each other.

In reality, I think, you have added an unnecessary middle-man to your conception of reality.

You trip, fall and experience pain as a consequence and this is immediately present to you. What grounds do you have for assuming there’s some nebulous interface generating this sensation –contrary to your actual experience– so as to reduce it to an illusion?

Would you be surprised if I saw in this something of a desire on man’s part to fancy himself as not being a man (a rational animal) but rather as an angel (a spirit) unnaturally stuck to a body?

We are not angels, my friend. The angels are immortal. We are mortal. The angels don’t have bodies; we, however, do. We are human because of our bodily (or animal) nature.

 

[Rin]

The argument was that temporally ordered causation (…)

No, it doesn’t rely on temporally ordered causation. It relies on formal logic (which is something the Aristotelian-Thomist tradition is rather fond of, by the way - note that modern, analytical philosophy is often accused of “neo-scholasticism” by its critics):

If A, then B.
A, therefore B.

The above is valid, and is how science develops the conditions for testing a hypothesis. But then there’s the actual experiment:

If A, then B.
B, therefore A.

This is a fallacy, and it would be so whether causation was temporally ordered or not - it would even be there if we removed time as such, or introduced reverse causation. The consequent can never be used to prove the antecedent. While I may have been arguing for the sake of argument with teleology, I’m starting to suspect you do on this subject - this is extremely basic logic.

But Hume’s causation at times appears to be a root of some of the problems here (…)

While Hume definitely has weaknesses, the problem with verificationism has nothing whatsoever to do with Hume. It’s a matter of formal logic.

“We”? I’m pretty confident most people don’t accept causation based on your reasoning but accept it as a fact of reality. (…)

By “we”, I mean philosophers who study the scientific method, and scientists (and others, which would include me) that are aware of basic epistemology. Causation is assumed, but people are well aware that it can’t be proved. It’s simply that without which nothing makes sense, and hence it is assumed.

(…)If a Sceptic refuses to acknowledge that he can’t deny the principle of contradiction or possibly fails to understand it, for example (…)

A Sceptic doesn’t deny the principle of noncontradiction. Actually, the (modern) Skeptic argument is a result of the rules of logic.

It most certainly is not. Classic Philosophy = the tradition that (…)

You, and I, did not say Classic Philosophy. We said “classically proper logic”. Modern skepticism follows the rules of logic.

There are a lot of people who criticize it for all sorts of reasons. Descartes’ philosophy(…)

Descarte’s philosophy at large, yes. But I have yet to see anyone effectively refuting his skeptic argument. I’ve seen a few, poor attempts, but they’re all based on common sense, which is not reason.

But what if you are assuming (contrary to the evidence) that “this world” is not "a reality”. What evidence can you produce for believing that this world is not truly real?

I didn’t say “truly real”. I said “exists materially”. It is of course real, either materially or immaterially. But if it only exists immaterially, it has vast consequences for the reliability of scientific discovery.

And that’s all my argument requires to demonstrate that there is a real world.

Again, I said “material world”, and “external world”. Not “real world”.

Would be beside the point.

Definitely not. Whether or not my body is material, imaginary or simulated is part of the point.

Extremely debatable.

Then give examples. How do we prove the world exists materially? I have yet to see anyone even try, other than through arguments like “When I decide to lift my hand, it’s lifted, hence it exists materially”. Non sequitur.

And this just affirms reality…

Again, I didn’t say reality doesn’t exist. But this material world is impossible to prove. I can only know my own mind exists. Likewise, you can only know your own mind exists.

I think you’re starting to think along the right track here…

If by that you mean accepting commonsensism, then no. My sensory impressions could be a simulation, and there is no way whatsoever I or anyone else can prove that’s not the case. But do the sensory impressions exist, one way or the other? Yes, of course. That still doesn’t prove the material existence of my body, or anything else.

Perhaps you should ask yourself whether or not there is actually good evidence to deny (…)

There is extensive evidence, namely logic and reason. That said, I don’t deny what my senses affirm - I admit it can’t be proved. My sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, and hence everything that follows from it, is evidence transcendent. Hence, certain knowledge doesn’t exist, other than (at best) the basic rules of logic, and whatever follows from them. The material existence of this world most certainly does not.

But imagination can imagine all sorts of things. I can imagine (…)

You seem to be unaware of the philosophical instrument of “possible worlds”. It’s useful, and is there to prove that if something is conceivable, it has ramifications for our “real world” knowledge. The brain-mind identity hypothesis within philosophy of mind was refuted through an argument involving an imagined alien.

Of course that would be the case because you are defining the parameters. But I assure you I am not a construct of your mind;

Yeah, yeah, you all say that

if anything, the fact that people recorded in (…)

Problem is, I can’t know that they recorded it, and I can’t know that they exist. And I could very well be a product of your imagination - from your perspective, there is no way to prove that I exist.

(Have to split this post, forgive me)

 

[Rin]

Okay my willingness to entertain admitted fantasies is at an end here.

“Admitted fantasies”, also known as “possible world arguments”, is an essential part of modern philosophy. Of course you could decide everything went overboard after the Classics (or the Middle Ages), but that would refute the very faith in human reason the Classics exhibited. It would also be a denial that the Classics also engaged in thought experiments.

At the very least, you need to admit that you can’t mentally control all the phenomena you see around you (…)

I admit that it’s probable. I never denied the existence of “a reality”, but it would be plausible to claim that my mind is the only thing that exists in that reality. If so, the phenomena could be caused by my unconscious, and hence just be seemingly uncontrolled by my mind.

In that case, my mind would truly be insane, however

You need to ask yourself what grounds or reasons –aside from your productive imagination– you have for denying (…)

Logic, reason, and humility regarding my potential of knowledge. Note again that I don’t deny what my senses report to me, however. I admit there is a possibility of it being an illusion. There are nuances here that you seem to ignore; it’s possible to admit the possibility of something while still believing otherwise.

Now at this point you’re stuck at the interface for all of these selves (…)
In reality, I think, you have added an unnecessary middle-man to your conception of reality.

The middle-man only exists if we all exist. If only I exist (or only you, for that sake), the middle-man does not exist. And whether the middle-man exists or not, just like whether there is only one mind or many minds, can’t be proved.

You trip, fall and experience pain (…) What grounds do you have for assuming there’s some nebulous interface generating (…)

As I’ve said numerous times now, I assume the material world to exist. But I’m aware this is simply an assumption, a matter of faith. It is evidence transcendent.

Would you be surprised if I saw in this something of a desire on man’s part to fancy himself as not being a man (a rational animal) but rather as an angel (a spirit) unnaturally stuck to a body?

Yes, I would be surprised, simply because I have no desire, and have neither expressed a desire, to not exist materially. Actually, I have a desire to exist materially, because it’s central in my Catholic faith that we do. If we don’t, my faith isn’t true. I’m simply aware there is a possibility, and that neither reality can be proved. It’s as simple as that.

We are not angels, my friend.

Thank you, I’m aware we’re not angels. You’re putting too much into this. As I said, I’ve emphasized all along that I choose to believe the world exists materially. But I can’t prove it. As Pascal said:

Pascal:

How absurd is reason, the sport of every wind! . . . Anyone who chose to follow reason alone would have proved himself a fool. . . .
Man is nothing but a subject full of natural error that cannot be eradicated except through grace. Nothing shows him the truth; everything deceives him. The two principles of truth, reason and sense, are not only both not genuine, but are engaged in mutual deception. . . . We know the truth not only through our reason but also through our heart. It is only through the latter that we know first principles, and reason, which has nothing to do with it, tries in vain to refute them. The sceptics have no other object than that, and they work at it to no purpose. We know that we are not dreaming, but, however unable we may be to prove it rationally, our inability proves nothing but the weakness of our reason, and not the uncertainty of all our knowledge, as they maintain. For knowledge of first principles, like space, time, motion, number, is as solid as any derived through reason, and it is on such knowledge, coming from the heart and instinct, that reason has to depend and base all its argument. The heart feels that there are three spatial dimensions and that there is an infinite series of numbers, and reason goes on to demonstrate that there are no two square numbers of which one is double the other. Principles are felt, propositions proved, and both with certainty though by different means. It is just as pointless and absurd for reason to demand proof of first principles from the heart before agreeing to accept them as it would be absurd for the heart to demand an intuition of all the propositions demonstrated by reason before agreeing to accept them. Our inability must therefore serve only to humble reason, which would like to be the judge of everything, but not to confute our certainty. As if reason were the only way we could learn! Would to God, on the contrary, that we never needed it and knew everything by instinct and feeling! But nature has refused this blessing, and has instead given us only very little knowledge of this kind; all other knowledge can be acquired only by reasoning.

Pure reason is simply not enough. Without religion, and without “the heart”, we end up in absurdities like determinism and skepticism - that’s what I’m trying to point out here. Modern science doesn’t take either into account, and hence its only way to get around some of those problems is to assume certain axioms to be true, even if they can’t be proved. It’s effective, and it works, but it’s not necessarily true according to reason alone. And it means the axioms may change in the future, if more effective ones are found - which has happened before, and will happen again.

 

[Catolico65]

Three attempts in a row at an appeal to authority! What is your background in evolutionary biology?

This question is relevant to the discussion given that so many people accept pseudo science as science. For the record I am an engineer with a masters and did research and statistical analysis.

I belong to a group (atheists) that makes up 5% of the U.S. population and is frequently targeted by the 80% Christian majority as if we were monsters. Tell me more about how I succumb to the majority’s whims.

With all due respect atheists are responsible for almost 1,000,000,000 deaths in the last century, more than all wars in the history of mankind due to atheist socialism and legalized child sacrifice. Furthermore, Atheist have done/are doing their very best to get prayer and all references out of school and public institutions so you guys as a whole aren’t exactly innocent pacifists to say the least.

In all fairness, most people don’t understand the studies they cite. I’m sure an individual such as yourself, the pinnacle of human perfection, has never once made a generalization or oversimplification whilst referencing vague studies and decisions, like Supreme Court cases.

I am not perfect, I am a broken sinner and I don’t believe in twisting God’s Word nor purposely misinterpreting science for my own benefit.

And I am willing to concede that it could be temporary (as for the frequency of its transience, that’s debatable). The human body changes with ageing, after all.

There is nothing to concede my friend.

So basically you’re admitting that you have nothing.

A google web search would clear that up for you.

BTW, regarding humanist “atheists”, I’m sure they exist. I am also sure that they are quite uninformed as to what followers of this ideological system are responsible for during the last 100 years. Nonetheless, to be considered a real humanist, one needs to value life, and that would mean opposing the killing of children in the womb because there is no scientific evidence that life does not begin at birth and “fetal viability” is an absurd term that varies with advances in technology. Peace.

 

[Catolico65]

Even evolution, which is seen by most (including me) as a fact, could be disproved some time in the future. It probably won’t happen, however.

With all due respect evolution has already been “falsified” beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Area_Man]

With all due respect evolution has already been “falsified” beyond a reasonable doubt.

WOW! I didn’t know that. You should publish the evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt and then collect your Nobel Prize. This knowledge that you have that falsifies evolution will no doubt effect the human understanding of genetics, zoology, bio medicine, agriculture, and most of the rest of the biological sciences in profound ways! Please don’t keep the falsification of evolution to yourself.

 

[Catolico65]

WOW! I didn’t know that. You should publish the evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt and then collect your Nobel Prize. This knowledge that you have that falsifies evolution will no doubt effect the human understanding of genetics, zoology, bio medicine, agriculture, and most of the rest of the biological sciences in profound ways! Please don’t keep the falsification of evolution to yourself.

1. Gene mutation is degenerative and cannot create complexity, that is a fact which you can certainly verify.
2. Evolution has not been proven, that is a fact you can verify.
3. Logic should do the rest, especially for a freethinker.

BTW, given that I have a masters and have done research and statistical analysis I would rather not believe in theories just because they are popular. You should understand this being a freethinker.

 

[Area_Man]

1. Gene mutation is degenerative and cannot create complexity, that is a fact which you can certainly verify.
2. Evolution has not been proven, that is a fact you can verify.
3. Logic should do the rest, especially for a freethinker.

BTW, given that I have a masters and have done research and statistical analysis I would rather not believe in theories just because they are popular. You should understand this being a freethinker.

I’m tempted to link to scientific papers that refute your conjectures. They do exist. I’m tempted to discuss your use of the word “proof” in regards to a scientific theory, but I don’t really want to get pedantic. It might be enlightening to talk about the difference between an argumentum ad populum***, ***and agreeing with the majority view of the scientists who are in the best position to study the theory.

Neither of us hold a Ph.D. in a biological science. I’m willing to lend credibility and trust to the theory that is endorsed by the majority of scientists who actually do the science, publish the papers, and revise the theories. You choose to side with a small minority of scientists who reject the theory of evolution.

What is the theory that you accept that best explains the diversity of life on planet earth? What theory (or theories) should we be teaching students in science classes in our high schools?

 

[davidv]

I’m tempted to link to scientific papers that refute your conjectures. They do exist. I’m tempted to discuss your use of the word “proof” in regards to a scientific theory, but I don’t really want to get pedantic. It might be enlightening to talk about the difference between an argumentum ad populum***, ***and agreeing with the majority view of the scientists who are in the best position to study the theory.

Neither of us hold a Ph.D. in a biological science. I’m willing to lend credibility and trust to the theory that is endorsed by the majority of scientists who actually do the science, publish the papers, and revise the theories. You choose to side with a small minority of scientists who reject the theory of evolution.

What is the theory that you accept that best explains the diversity of life on planet earth? What theory (or theories) should we be teaching students in science classes in our high schools?

What is occuring here is the logical error of equivocation.
Catolico65’s definition of evolution is not the same as that for Area Man.
Neither’s points concerning the other’s comments are valid.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . What is the theory that you accept that best explains the diversity of life on planet earth? What theory (or theories) should we be teaching students in science classes in our high schools?

:twocents:

There is no good, solid scientific theory that explains the existance of life in general and humanity in particular.

There is no force in nature that is behind any “progress” that some people believe is happening. This is all science fiction.

What science holds as a default position is that it is all the result of random chemical combinations. This is a basic view from which we can create hypotheses that can be disproved.

There is no experimental nor statistical validation of this. It is conjecture.

I think we should teach what we observe, that there is diversity and complexity and from there bring in philosophy and theology. One of the problems with science is that it has been disconnected from these and more seriously, morality. We are at risk of creating better demons.

 

[Area_Man]

What is occuring here is the logical error of equivocation.
Catolico65’s definition of evolution is not the same as that for Area Man.
Neither’s points concerning the other’s comments are valid.

You could be right! The most concise explanation for my use of the phrase the theory of evolution is: Scientific theories that explain the diversity of life on planet earth. The mechanics of evolution is natural selection acting on random mutation.

 

[Catolico65]

I’m tempted to link to scientific papers that refute your conjectures. They do exist. I’m tempted to discuss your use of the word “proof” in regards to a scientific theory, but I don’t really want to get pedantic. It might be enlightening to talk about the difference between an argumentum ad populum***, ***and agreeing with the majority view of the scientists who are in the best position to study the theory.

Neither of us hold a Ph.D. in a biological science. I’m willing to lend credibility and trust to the theory that is endorsed by the majority of scientists who actually do the science, publish the papers, and revise the theories. You choose to side with a small minority of scientists who reject the theory of evolution.

What is the theory that you accept that best explains the diversity of life on planet earth? What theory (or theories) should we be teaching students in science classes in our high schools?

Correct, proof is not a technically correct term when discussing theories and I will refrain given your experience in this area apparently.

Seeing that you have done some research and are familiar with the scientific method you would know how very weak the theory of evolution is given that from all observations mutation is a degenerative process where information can only be lost, and not added. Therefore, it is completely impossible to go from a bacteria to a multicellular animal with all it’s complexities. Furthermore, there is definitely a consensus in the field of genetic about the mutation process and no specialty in this area is needed to understand this. Unfortunately, this undisputed mechanism is all but ignored by scientists like Dawkins who propose theories based on emotion and wishful thinking rather than the scientific method.

As far as your question regarding the alternative cause for the origin of life what is clear is that evolution had nothing to do with it. Probably more troublesome is that a singularity could appear out of nowhere violating known principles of thermodynamics and start the universe. Worse still is wackoos like Hawkings promoting all types of foolishness again not based on the scientific method but wishful thinking only. Here is an excerpt from an article about Hawking’s ideas that make Marvel comics look like science:

• He closed by outlining “M-theory,” which is based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another famed physicist, Caltech’s Richard Feynman. Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed.

M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.*

space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

Furthermore, all one has to do is read Hawkings muttering to realize he has a bone to pick with God, and instead of using his brilliant mind he comes up with fantasies that he knows can’t ever be proven. Hawking and Dawkins are two good examples of scientists who have let emotion guide their scientific judgment, how ironic given their constant criticism of Christianity.

 

[Aloysium]

Y . . . The mechanics of evolution is natural selection acting on random mutation.

What is the proof for this?
Could this be dogma?
I have my opinion that there is no proof.
You are trying to convince me and others on what basis? Because you read it in a science text?

 

[Catolico65]

You could be right! The most concise explanation for my use of the phrase the theory of evolution is: Scientific theories that explain the diversity of life on planet earth. The mechanics of evolution is natural selection acting on random mutation.

That would be impossible given that genetic data is lost during the mutation process. FACT.

 

[Catolico65]

What is the proof for this?
Could this be dogma?
I have my opinion that there is no proof.
You are trying to convince me and others on what basis? Because you read it in a science text?

There is no proof of course but since it has become accepted many people feel like it can’t be challenged. A secular inquisition if you will is controlling the minds of people.