Critiques of Science as Currently Praticed

Discussion in 'Why Science Is Wrong... About Almost Everything' started by Sciborg_S_Patel, Jan 7, 2016.

  1. Bart V

    Bart V straw materialist Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    603
    This is what i wrote in a previous answer to you.
    Makes it pretty clear, not?

    About that debate, it was organized at Biola University, Which is (no surprise) a private christian university.
    The opponents of ID/creationism were not the most well versed with the DI arguments.
    From the info on the video:
    Only one scientist comes from a scientific field with real relevance.

    More important though, how can you know their arguments are scientific? That has always been my main point in this thread.
    Let me repeat:
    The researcher, institute, publisher, reviewer are all the same entity, an entity that has no further ties with any scientific body.
    How can we trust anything that comes from such a system? Do you?
    To me, that makes everything that comes from that source fatally flawed.

    Of course, they keep their mock science and their religion separated, that is the whole point of starting the DI.
    But that does not mean that their non-religious content is science, it can be bullshit without being religious.

    This is what i repeated on this thread, from another thread:
    As long as they fight for their ideas in the scientific literature, let us wait and see.

    I am all for forgetting about the DI, but whenever the next discussion about evolution comes around, i am sure anti-evolutionists invariably are going to prove their point by linking to DI sources.

    I completely disagree, the discovery of DNA, is what made evolution theory complete, it was the piece that made the puzzle complete.
    He would probably back up what you said backed up by linking to the DI blog "evolution news", or Axe's work, both DI.
    Besides that, given honest criteria for banning, and his tendency for ad hominem he would be very quickly banned.
     
  2. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,014
    So let me reverse this. If a group were attacking the (silly) belief that the earth was made 6000 years ago, and said their aim was:

    "To defeat biblical ideas about the age of the earth, and their destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. To replace biblical explanations with the scientific understanding that nature and human beings are created by random processes"

    You would discount everything that group then said on the basis that they were biassed? No I guess you wouldn't, but isn't that double standards?

    I mean these are people who believe that the evidence isn't there to claim evolution by NS is a viable explanation, and some of them also believe in Yaweh. I agree with them that NS isn't a viable explanation, but I am not too fond of Yaweh!
    If I thought there was a queue of scientists willing to take up this challenge, and they deliberately picked the weakest of the bunch, I'd be right with you, but I guess that isn't what happened.
    Because I think I have enough grasp of the issues involved, to make up my own mind. I explained exactly what the problem is with evolution by NS, and you chose to ignore that. I am not trying to be rude, but I suspect that that is because you don't have enough background in science to discuss the scientific issues themselves

    The threads on Skeptiko that relate directly to scientific matters do actually discuss science, and are popular because a significant number of people here come with a background in technical subjects.
    Fine - but don't hold back, please explain why you disagree!

    David
     
  3. Kamarling

    Kamarling Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    756
    I didn't quote your whole post because that last paragraph sums it up - and all your other posts on this subject: the DI has a religious agenda. Yes, Bart, we all know that. Nobody disputes that. But they remain the only organisation prepared to fund research that shows that what Dawkins calls the "appearance of design" is indeed design and not some hugely unlikely cosmic accident.

    Why is the debate closed down by the neo-Darwinists? Why does Krauss have to stand in for his friend Dawkins who refuses to debate the issue? Why does Krauss get up on stage and attack God and religion and promote atheism and materialism but fail to address the ID science significantly? Both sides have an agenda. Design is denied by the consensus because design undermines materialism. To allow for design there has to be some intelligence and materialism holds that intelligence is an effect arising from evolution, not a cause or driver of evolution. The DI holds that the intelligence is the God of the bible. I and many others disagree because we don't share a concept of such a God but we do allow that there is probably more to reality than is defined by materialism.

    So, when the guy in the video says that science is only about materialism (he calls it methodological naturalism) he is speaking for the consensus. He is saying that they will never allow intelligence into the debate, much less the classroom, because they have commitment to materialism. Once again, to quote Lewontin:


    But a few scientists (other than those at the DI) are critical of this a-priori assumption of materialism. Here's former NASA scientist, Dave Pruett, writing in the Huffington Post:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-pruett/sciences-sacred-cows-part_1_b_2948321.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-pruett/toward-a-postmaterialistic-science_b_5842730.html

    Finally, there was he book that toppled Thomas Nagel from his position as the atheists' darling when he wrote "Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False". Not only that but he went on to nominate Stephen Meyer's book, Signature in the Cell, for the Times Literary Supplement book of the year in 2009.
     
  4. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,965
    Methodological naturalism doesn't assume materialism. It is just a method of trying to figure out how nature behaves. It presupposes nothing.
     
  5. Kamarling

    Kamarling Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    756
    I was referring to what the guy in the video said and I am in no doubt that he conflated materialism and methodological naturalism (as, I'm sure, do most materialists). I suggest you look again at the video at 1h 14m 40s and hear his own words, quote "to go outside of [methodological naturalism] is to invoke something non-material". How clear can he be?
     
  6. Bart V

    Bart V straw materialist Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    603
    First of all, the DI being a religious advocacy group, as shown by their founding document, does not bother me the most.
    In fact, if they left it at that, and would not claim science supports their viewpoint, i would not react at all.

    What bothers me most is the way they rely on a system of pretend science.
    The researcher, the "scientific" institute, the publisher, the reviewer, the are all members of the the same organisation.
    That is the elephant in the room, that is what everybody in this exchange is conveniently ignoring.
    And that is the more important reason why i would say that everything coming from the DI is fatally flawed on a scientific level.

    All that said, your reverse analogy is not very realistic, is it?
    If an organization existed with such founding principles, i would be very suspicious about them. I really can not see why somebody would feel the need to go from that founding principal. Already, this makes your analogy very contrived.

    But, for argument's sake, let us assume some philosophically inspired group like that existed, they would not have to go very far to find evidence for proving the world older than 6000 years old, would they? The fossil record would do nicely, or basic geology.
    More important though, they would not have to go mock research to prove their point.

    This inability to come to an apt reverse analogy, actually proves my point.

    I get that, but this is not about your, or Kamarling's, spirituality.
    But if you do not agree with the motivation of the DI, why not be more critical of their "science".
    Would you be so accepting of this sort of self generated, self published, self vetted cargo cult approximation of science, if it was about anything you disagreed with?

    As i said before, that might be because a lot of well known scientists in relevant fields, make it clear they do not like to debate ID/creationism, they feel it might give it the legitimacy it does not deserve.

    The panel on the evolution side had three members from the same institution, also local to the area of Biola university, so it seems they did not look very far.

    I doubt that.
    You seem to be at the wrong end on almost every subject that comes up, be it climate change, cosmology, cold fusion, various conspiracies, and lots and lots more.

    To do that you have to claim you know more than the combined expertise of almost every field of science.
    Do you realize how incredibly arrogant that sounds? I can not believe the hubris expressed here.

    No you didn't, you loosely quoted some DI trope. It even made me doubt you actually understand what evolution by NS is saying.
    You that could be right, but since you did not bring any real scientific evidence to the discussion, we can not know that, can we?
    So if you think what you said about the ABC's of ID/creationism made sense, why do you not make that argument again, this time with quoting some science (real science, not the DI kind).
    Preferably in a thread that is already about evolution, there are enough of these.

    Oh, and about that not trying being rude thing, really David, try harder.


    I disagree because DNA is the mechanism for inheritance that was predicted by E by NS, without DNA, it would not have been the scientific fact it is now.
    It is the best evidence for common ancestry, it helps us to assess points of diversion between species, etc..
    But if you want to contend that DNA proves E by NS is impossible, see previous paragraph.
    In both cases you seem to go against everything evolutionary biology says, so the burden of proof is on you.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2017
  7. Silence

    Silence Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    332
    The motivation for any individual's research seems largely, if not completely, irrelevant. In DI's case, while they may try to deny it, there is clearly a desire to conduct research that leaves room for God (generically speaking). So what? Is there a single scientist anywhere free from bias? Should an atheistic scientist's work be summarily dismissed due to their metaphysical worldview?

    I have no idea if this type of discrimination is occurring or not. Perhaps the broader scientific community has considered some of DI's research and concluded its lacking merit. I'd understand that and would hope the consideration given was in good faith. However, cutting them off at the knees because they have a theistic foundation just seems weak to me.
     
  8. Brian_the_bard

    Brian_the_bard Lost Pilgrim Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    552
    What on earth do you expect when the mainstream are so zealously biased against their research!!??? It'sprobably the only way they can get their research out in the open. If this is the only reason you believe that the DI research is flawed and can't even attempt to answer the difficulties that their research brings up with regards NS (which, BTW, is the only real issue) then may I suggest that you have absolutely no ammunition to debate with?
     
  9. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,965
  10. Statistics Hint There is Much More Scientific Fraud than Reported

     
  11. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    First - DNA being understood as a mechanism - is flat wrong. A mechanical engineer will not be able to measure and model natural inheritance.

    Inheritance is a bio-system that relies on information science. Bart - you are mimicking political ideas and haven't a clue as to how good archaeology research is trashing the bullsh_t of neoDarwinism.

    Let me ask -- if a mechanical engineer was off by 200% from his prediction - to the the actual - would you hire him.

    How old are the oldest humans? How long have humans been in the America's. (answers just out this year!)
     
  12. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21171/

    Humans may well be over 300,000 years not 80 -100k old. Humans in North America (although maybe a cousin) have evidence they crossed a land bridge 130K years ago and not 13,000 years ago. error factor 10X.

    Evolution, in the future of science, may see NS as secondary factor in how living things evolve.
     
  13. Bart V

    Bart V straw materialist Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    603
    You misunderstand my use of the word "mechanism" in my answer to David.
    Darwin's theory of evolution relied on inheritance of acquired characteristics, the mechanism of how these characteristics hold over to the next generation was not known at the time.
    So, the discovery of DNA more or less cemented evolution by NS.
    In no way, was i trying to draw a parallel with mechanical engineering, although that is also much more an evolutionary process than most people think.

    So, inheritance cannot be a system that relies on both information and evolution?
    My discussion with David was about the DI, an openly religious/political organisation, so i am not the one defending a political viewpoint.
    Also i do not see how new archaeological discoveries would refute evolution by NS? I am a bit confused about the point you are making here.
    Both of these are very new, the one about humans being 100K years older than we thought is very interesting.
    The one about hominids coming to the America's possibly that early, is much more iffy, if you ask me. I sure hope they find some fossil remains, otherwise this one is always going to stay controversial.

    But in both cases i am not sure what you are saying, The figure of 200K years for the origin of modern humans was always based on archaeology, never on prediction.
    Even now, it is logically almost impossible that these new findings are going to be the oldest ones.

    If you are claiming there were predictions that were wrong, you are fighting a straw man.

    Again, as so often in this thread, you are giving examples of the self correcting nature of science.
     
  14. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    The recent discoveries of how DNA/RNA/Ribosome interacts with environmental signals has completely refuted the Weismann Barrier as a real physical thing. DNA is not a "master control" and epigenetic activity is now seen as equal to or more active in the creative variation observed in inheritance. I am committed to the self-correcting of science based on data! Hence, I feel obligated to correct your comments about the politics of evolutionary dogma and how it tries to support dogma from the 20th Century.

    The discovery of DNA in no way supports the false premise that RM and NS are the drivers of changes in species. Remember, some in science hear the word evolution, such as the evolution of a gas, and know the word simply means an observed process of change. Bio-evolution has become politically connected to a false meaning. Bio-evolution can be measured in terms of selection events. "Natural" is simply an outcome. Bio-evolution includes mental processes and selection by intent of individuals making up a species. You seem to be unaware of the ground shifting under your feet.

    As to logic - since 80-100k years ago was set as the inception of modern humans - has been the prior prediction; how you can say it wasn't a prediction is surely confusing. I just see it as the language of true-believers who have trouble imagining the science facts from research and data. The belief in RM and NS has been sold as an analytic theory for a long time. That bio-evolution works in other completely different ways - is coming as a shock to folks like you.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/does-the-weismann-barrier_b_7289146.html
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2017
    Kamarling and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  15. Bart V

    Bart V straw materialist Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    603
    Stephen, if you quote a post from me, or any other forum member, please do not alter the content of what is literally quoted, i would very much appreciate you change what you quoted to what i originally wrote.
    Besides that, if you quote from some article or other source, it is also very helpful if you provide a link to that source.

    For the rest of your post, i find it hard to parse what is the science, what is the conclusion, and what is your opinion about it. If you could provide some sources that would make, what you are trying to say, more clear, maybe we would have something to discuss.
    If, on the other hand, you just want an opportunity to rant about whatever irritates you, by all means don't hold back, but please do not expect me to answer.

    The only concrete point i can react to, is the first appearance of modern humans.
    I quoted the previous estimate of the first evidence for modern humans at 200 000 years ago from memory, because of this article i read last week.
    From the article:
    So i do not know where you got the figure of 80 to 100K years, but that estimate must be a few decades older i guess.
    I also still do not understand how, and why, you would want to characterize these estimates as "predictions"? These estimates are based on what is found in the fossil record, and are therefore inherently provisional.
     
  16. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    The scientific reference points are in this quote.
    link provided in prior post

    The conclusion: Evolutionary science is moving too quickly for the narratives of the "modern synthesis" to remain as peer-reviewed theory.

    My opinion: This is a valid conclusion and that the narrative of twenty years ago, is no longer relevant to the data. Yet ideas from the old narrative are still embraced with a earnest feelings, in the general public and entrenched in the science community.

    I readily concur with your comment that my 100K years prediction for homo sapiens emergence was from the time of the old narrative and being 20 years old or more. It dates to a tipping-point in evolutionary science, a time when the "blind watchmaker" thesis falls apart. I had befriended Ted (Edward) Steele who was being restricted from teaching and had been a focus of rejection for challenging the status quo. He published Lamarck's Signature in 1998. Steele paid a price for it, in his academic status (as usual). I first discovered Spadafore, as his research (as well as others) was able to demonstrate that information was transferred from the somatic cells to germ cells and that inherited characteristics are free to be transmitted in ways that the neo-Darwinian narrative vehemently denies (and still does). Spadafore and others supported Steele and what followed is a steady stream of evidence and new research.

    The narrative where a single RM (happening maybe just once) separates modern humans from all more apelike creatures becomes obscure. It seems there was a Cambrian-like output of new human types over a brief time. If modern humans are 300,000 years old - then we predate Neanderthals and maybe any number of growing homo-something species. The line of skulls going from little to big - ending with us - is deceptive. Again, as you have asked, I want to separate my opinion, from the science. My opinion is the advent of our comprehending mind transcends race, subspecies and phenotype. We have ignored mental evolution and the information processing it exhibits for too long. We need to know it rose up in the first organisms, how it works for plants and how we understand abstractions at all?

    I hope to hear back comments on Spatafora's statements or on my opinions about a new narrative being needed to explain the genetic and fossil evidence.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2017
  17. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/news/margulisdawkins-debate/158

    Evolutionary research is 5 more years down the line from the time of the debate. Margulis and McClintock's research has won the day in science and the selfish gene's narrative status sells books. There is not shred of evidence for Dawkin's armchair pronouncements and hence, Wilson has come around to the actual data.
     
  18. Stephen Wright

    Stephen Wright New

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    898
    This has gone quiet. My beef is with science narratives that won't wither in the face of overwhelming data. NeoDarwinism is one of these. You cannot get any more more "cold" and spiritless than Wilson's sociobiological worldview. Yet, he contradicts the selfish gene and acknowledges mental evolution because it is obviously factual and data based.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/books/edward-o-wilsons-the-meaning-of-human-existence.html
    In context, this sentence is seen by a reviewer as "difficult" to parse. From my humble point of view, it is a professional attempt to report that nature is mindful and that mind effects evolution.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel and oleo like this.
  19. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,965
    Palaeontology busted!

     
  20. Kamarling

    Kamarling Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    756
    Not sure what your point is there, Malf. Are you suggesting that the girl in the video represents the views of people here?
     

Share This Page