Page 11 of 50 FirstFirst ... 10111221 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 385 of 1746

Thread: Scientific knowledge

  1. #351
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,275

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    As to this mythical 'braying crowd of bilgers who have bullied all the normal people into silence', that would be you, the braying bully.

    You wield your considerable ignorance like a cudgel.
    The point I was making is that the way that people post here (see above for several examples today alone) frightens normal people into silence. I'm thicker-skinned than most people, and I can ignore it and generally find a way to rebuke the bullies in a way that gives them pause.

    The effect of the usual course of events is that the normal people aren't vocal, and the impression is that wooden boat people nearly all lean left from the ankles, are rude and arrogant, and aggressively unkind to anybody who disagrees with them. What we have is a smallish band of loud-mouths who intimidate the majority into silence.

    You can respond, as you have, with a tu quoque as frequently and as forcefully as you like, but that will only appeal to the bullies. Objective observers will assess whether my style is bullying, and also whether it silences decent people. Actually, it seems to do the opposite - it emboldens decent people to have a say who would otherwise not do so.

    Now, David G., again you offer nothing of substance and instead just pose as a superior being who is laughing at the shenanigans so far beneath you. I don't particularly care, especially since it seems that you are not hiding anything, you really do have nothing of substance to offer, but I wanted to make the observation.

  2. #352
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Helensburgh NSW
    Posts
    505

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    So what you are saying is god purposely designed a parasite that would burrow out of a child's eye and blind them in the process? That he designed the Ebola virus?
    The problem there is, that is too hard to answer - so it will be soundly ignored.

    God is - All Powerful, All Good, and All Knowing.
    If you take away any one of those the entity left is not God.

    So in the case of the parasite you mention, either;
    - God can't do anything about it - therefore he is not all powerful.
    - God doesn't care about the suffering of the children - therefore he is not all good.
    - God doesn't know its happening - so he is not all knowing.
    And for the parasite to thrive, even in the past, one of those must be true.
    “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” - Charles Darwin (1809–1882)

    Nutshell Pram Build pictures ; https://photos.app.goo.gl/1GdBcckcgBAWsbVg1

  3. #353
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Helensburgh NSW
    Posts
    505

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    The point I was making is that the way that people post here (see above for several examples today alone) frightens normal people into silence. I'm thicker-skinned than most people, and I can ignore it and generally find a way to rebuke the bullies in a way that gives them pause.

    The effect of the usual course of events is that the normal people aren't vocal, and the impression is that wooden boat people nearly all lean left from the ankles, are rude and arrogant, and aggressively unkind to anybody who disagrees with them. What we have is a smallish band of loud-mouths who intimidate the majority into silence.

    You can respond, as you have, with a tu quoque as frequently and as forcefully as you like, but that will only appeal to the bullies. Objective observers will assess whether my style is bullying, and also whether it silences decent people. Actually, it seems to do the opposite - it emboldens decent people to have a say who would otherwise not do so.

    Now, David G., again you offer nothing of substance and instead just pose as a superior being who is laughing at the shenanigans so far beneath you. I don't particularly care, especially since it seems that you are not hiding anything, you really do have nothing of substance to offer, but I wanted to make the observation.
    Clearly only those who agree with you are 'normal' and 'decent'?

    I can't see anywhere where you have caused anyone to pause. You haven't spoke a single word of sense since you started the thread, you talk in convoluted circles, invent insult where there is only disagreement or disbelief, and use aggressive language in your attempt to silence dissent. Your entire post here is written to aggressively insult and silence. I have no idea what it is you hope to achieve, clearly those disagreeing with you will continue to do so. Your style of making a case is so unintelligible that it can never succeed in turning anyone around.

    You believe in God, that is a matter of your faith; it is a choice you make.
    Simply believing in God does nobody any harm - but when it starts to be wielded like a baton it is a short step before it does create real harm. You have happened upon people who refuse to tolerate zealot ideologies. They may not be the majority, i doubt you are either, but history has shown nothing good comes from either ignoring or appeasing zealots. Zealots are rarely either 'normal' or 'decent', and are universally incapable of self awareness.
    “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” - Charles Darwin (1809–1882)

    Nutshell Pram Build pictures ; https://photos.app.goo.gl/1GdBcckcgBAWsbVg1

  4. #354
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,275

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    But, Aquinas, you started the thread using evolution as a example of belief, when you know next to nothing about evolution, including complete ignorance on speciation.

    How you can emerge virtuous, 12 pages later, is remarkable.
    12 pages, mostly consisting of jerk comments without any real content, and you want to bring attention to that? Are you trying to highlight how vacuous your efforts have been?

    Did you notice, as I did, that nobody was bold enough to state what the theory of evolution is, and then point to the evidence proving it? We both know why that is. And you're doing the same rhetorical trick with speciation. I replied to you on that, and you carry on as if I had said nothing.

    The logical situation is this:

    I am saying I'm unconvinced about evolution. You guys laugh yourselves silly and engage in all manner of diversions. You don't like somebody not believing in your dogma. You would like me to say something, anything, against one of the theories of evolution, so that you can leap on some purported error or imprecision and yell, "He knows nothing about this! Haha! See, everybody, that's the only kind of man who would not believe fervently in evolution!" But I'm not playing. How annoying. So you're back to where you were - you state the theory, and you provide the evidence, and I'll discuss it with you. You don't have to say anything, you could ignore me. I wouldn't mind. But you can't, you're like a bunch of moths drawn to a light, unable to resist commenting, and unwilling - or unable - to engage seriously.

    Did anybody provide even a link to an article stating the theory (let's pretend there's only one theory)? I didn't see one, and none of you has stated the theory in your own words. I haven't emerged "virtuous" (whatever you're saying there), I have emerged unscathed. How annoying!

    Cheers!

  5. #355
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in Oz
    Posts
    53,013

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    12 pages, mostly consisting of jerk comments without any real content, and you want to bring attention to that? Are you trying to highlight how vacuous your efforts have been?

    Did you notice, as I did, that nobody was bold enough to state what the theory of evolution is, and then point to the evidence proving it? We both know why that is. And you're doing the same rhetorical trick with speciation. I replied to you on that, and you carry on as if I had said nothing.

    The logical situation is this:

    I am saying I'm unconvinced about evolution. You guys laugh yourselves silly and engage in all manner of diversions. You don't like somebody not believing in your dogma. You would like me to say something, anything, against one of the theories of evolution, so that you can leap on some purported error or imprecision and yell, "He knows nothing about this! Haha! See, everybody, that's the only kind of man who would not believe fervently in evolution!" But I'm not playing. How annoying. So you're back to where you were - you state the theory, and you provide the evidence, and I'll discuss it with you. You don't have to say anything, you could ignore me. I wouldn't mind. But you can't, you're like a bunch of moths drawn to a light, unable to resist commenting, and unwilling - or unable - to engage seriously.

    Did anybody provide even a link to an article stating the theory (let's pretend there's only one theory)? I didn't see one, and none of you has stated the theory in your own words. I haven't emerged "virtuous" (whatever you're saying there), I have emerged unscathed. How annoying!

    Cheers!
    Well, since you are the equal most prolific commentator, with 41 posts, what are we to make of that evidence?
    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem

    I'd rather look back at my life and say "I can't believe I did that" instead of being there saying "I wish I'd done that"

  6. #356
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,275

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by gypsie View Post
    They may not be the majority, i doubt you are either, but history has shown nothing good comes from either ignoring or appeasing zealots. Zealots are rarely either 'normal' or 'decent', and are universally incapable of self awareness.
    You sound a little, um, zealous about this...

    "Appeasing" (well entrenched emotive term) "zealots" (people that fail to agree with you) is not to be tolerated? So now you're not merely intolerant of people who fail to follow the intellectual fashions, you're preaching intolerance of the people who don't condemn us sufficiently energetically? Wow.

  7. #357
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    63,685

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  8. #358
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Helensburgh NSW
    Posts
    505

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    You sound a little, um, zealous about this...

    "Appeasing" (well entrenched emotive term) "zealots" (people that fail to agree with you) is not to be tolerated? So now you're not merely intolerant of people who fail to follow the intellectual fashions, you're preaching intolerance of the people who don't condemn us sufficiently energetically? Wow.


    i like the zealous quip!

    I at no stage preached intolerance of people who don't condemn 'you' ('us'?).
    Neither am i nor have i ever been a member of the communist party.

    as i said
    incapable of self awareness
    “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” - Charles Darwin (1809–1882)

    Nutshell Pram Build pictures ; https://photos.app.goo.gl/1GdBcckcgBAWsbVg1

  9. #359
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Helensburgh NSW
    Posts
    505

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    I might point out 2 glaring omissions;

    - How do you 'infer' god exists
    - Why do parasites that eat children's eyes from the inside exist?

    (By infer i mean deduce, not assert or project)


    Scientifically;
    You cannot infer god exists.
    Parasites exist because there was an evolutionary niche.

    Religiously;
    ?
    ?
    “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” - Charles Darwin (1809–1882)

    Nutshell Pram Build pictures ; https://photos.app.goo.gl/1GdBcckcgBAWsbVg1

  10. #360
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Helensburgh NSW
    Posts
    505

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    Did you notice, as I did, that nobody was bold enough to state what the theory of evolution is
    The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.
    Phew - at least that is out of the way..........
    “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” - Charles Darwin (1809–1882)

    Nutshell Pram Build pictures ; https://photos.app.goo.gl/1GdBcckcgBAWsbVg1

  11. #361
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    10,577

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    I follow traditions that predate the existence of the father of Israel. Some of the same Ram Abram took his name from. Then he became Abraham. Then all the other stuff happened, you know?

    How then, if Christianity is based on previous religious practices and traditions, and is predated by completely different and separate religions and traditions, can Christianity be "the" truth?

    What makes the Bible any more true than the writings and traditions it is based on, or those of any other religion or science?

    If the Bible were the literal truth, and the entire truth, there would be no iffy grey area at the beginning of time. We would have a perfect and exact record, because it would be the ENTIRE story from the very beginning.


    Nobody knows. We are all grasping at straws, trying to figure it out.

    Peace,
    Robert

  12. #362
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Helensburgh NSW
    Posts
    505

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by amish rob View Post
    We are all grasping at straws, trying to figure it out.
    Peace Robert.

    I don't think we are grasping at straws.
    I think we have found a sincere and enlightening method through scientific investigation that goes well beyond grasping at straws.
    Clearly there's a lot to learn, but we are beyond groping in the dark.
    Science is more truthful than the Bible because it demands its conclusions are based on evidence, conclusions must be demonstrable/observable/verifiable.

    Respectfully, I think religions were born from groping in the dark, science is a thoughtful response to it.

    Trev
    “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” - Charles Darwin (1809–1882)

    Nutshell Pram Build pictures ; https://photos.app.goo.gl/1GdBcckcgBAWsbVg1

  13. #363
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    10,577

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by gypsie View Post
    Peace Robert.

    I don't think we are grasping at straws.
    I think we have found a sincere and enlightening method through scientific investigation that goes well beyond grasping at straws.
    Clearly there's a lot to learn, but we are beyond groping in the dark.
    Science is more truthful than the Bible because it demands its conclusions are based on evidence, conclusions must be demonstrable/observable/verifiable.

    Respectfully, I think religions were born from groping in the dark, science is a thoughtful response to it.

    Trev
    It is beyond foolish to think we know anything. Our collective understanding and knowledge of the world is growing, but it is still a pitiful thimbleful of information based on the limits of our observational capacities as earth bound hominids, compared to the limitless amount of knowledge that exists in the Universe.

    You've no need to explain science to me. I practice it regularly.

    Peace,
    Robert

  14. #364
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    23,539

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    In science we are encouraged to question why and how. In religion we are not required to ask why or how, for it is written...accept and obey. For hundreds of years to question was heresy.
    My take is that if you poke someone with a sharp stick they'll get annoyed, if you smile and shake their hand they will be your friends.

    John Welsford

  15. #365
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    35,198

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    The how is so complicated that you need powerful programmes running on computers to do the analysis
    so we do know how, but it would take months to teach you, if you were mentally up to the maths.

    After all if someone did not know how, they could not have written the programme code, now could they?
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    Exhibit B: The modern mind at work.

    Math doesn't explain "why" Nick, it just tells us "what" in one narrow aspect - i.e. "number" or "quantity". It's incredibly useful, of course. It just isn't everything, it's only something. Partial truth.
    That went so far over your head I wonder whether;
    You were so discourteous as to not to bother to read it.
    You cannot comprehend plain English.

    If you do not understand the physics, you cannot write the formulae that need to be included in the code that then crunches the numbers. Got that?
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  16. #366
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    35,198

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Originally Posted by Daniel Noyes
    evolution is the cumulative effect of "Chance Mutations" over time... Chance... aka LUCK... Evolution is the theory that Humans happened by Luck... but Christians read in their holy book that there is no such thing as "luck"... Christians say that Luck is what unbelievers who do not know any better call the workings of God in the world, this is why many Christians have no problem with evolution...

    the Theory of evolution essentially says all creatures came to be by the workings and will of GOD.
    Not just luck Daniel, it is a phenomena driven by well understood biological imperatives. Dawkin's books set out the hows and whys in clear easy to follow writing.
    If you feel that God controlled the process OK, that is your problem in that you then have to reconcile the fact that your God created some truly horrible parasites and pathogens.
    However the process functions perfectly well without supernatural tweaking and poking, so you may apply Occam's Razor and find that no gods were necessary.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  17. #367
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,275

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    That is fine. We have no problem with that.

    But, you additionally commented, in your opening post:

    "...think its popularity owes more to the desire for something that will make religion redundant than it does to rational, considered, analysis based upon hard evidence..."


    I do think that, and I notice that frequently in this thread the posts are on why belief in God is not tenable, which is off-topic and demonstrates my thesis nicely. For too many "believers" in evolution, your "faith" underpins your atheism. People like me saying out loud that we are not convinced, make you nervous, apparently.

    We even had a couple of posters explain to me that as a Catholic I don't need to reject evolution, which of course is there in black and white in the OP, and which I have repeated since when it became clear that posters had not read the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    Here you are inflicting your own ignorance on evolution upon people who understand it orders of magnitude more than you.
    Maybe you could point me to a couple of posts in which somebody said that they are expert int he subject and proceeded to define it and point to the evidence? I didn't see one such post. I see a whole lot of dodging and bluster. Are you an expert in evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    And then, 12 pages later you feel virtuous and persecuted.
    I'm sorry, but you're judging by your own standards. I'm not a victim, have no desire to be one, and don't feel persecuted. I am laughing.

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    There are mountains of evidence on the relationships of the extant species, and mountains of evidence on transitional forms.
    In your opinion. What's the value of your opinion? Are you an expert?

  18. #368
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,275

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    That went so far over your head I wonder whether;
    You were so discourteous as to not to bother to read it.
    You cannot comprehend plain English.

    If you do not understand the physics, you cannot write the formulae that need to be included in the code that then crunches the numbers. Got that?
    Nick, I'm sorry, but you don't get it at all. Maybe somebody else can explain it to you better than I can.

    Think about it this way. Prior to Newton people asked, why do things fall? Newton came along, and said, who cares why they fall, let's just note that they do, measure the acceleration, and define the relations, and get on with making stuff. He didn't answer the question, he essentially erased it. But he didn't really erase it, he only told us not to bother trying to answer it, and we don't, we get on with making stuff instead. And we're good at making stuff, very good indeed.

    Likewise with the flight of an arrow. Prior to Newton, people asked what makes the arrow continue to fly? Newton just erased the question by postulating the purely mathematical solution of declaring that a body in motion tends to stay in motion, and then got on with the maths. He didn't explain the problem, he didn't solve the problem, he wrote it out of the picture by neatly constructing a framework which made it unimportant for practical purposes.

    And the same things are true of electricity (they told me in high school physics that little particles called electrons ran along the wires, which is nonsense - the reality is, we just don't know), of magnetism, of all of the fundamental forces and phenomena that make physics actually interesting. They are all mysterious. And yes, this applies to how sails work as well. I've read about two theories, and for all I know there are dozens of them. It's an interesting question.

    You can retract and apologise for your rudeness about this stuff any time you like. Thanks.

  19. #369
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,275

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by amish rob View Post
    It is beyond foolish to think we know anything. Our collective understanding and knowledge of the world is growing, but it is still a pitiful thimbleful of information based on the limits of our observational capacities as earth bound hominids, compared to the limitless amount of knowledge that exists in the Universe.
    How refreshing!

    You sound like a scientist, not a magazine-educated populist.

  20. #370
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,275

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    How many of you agree with this article?

    https://www.thoughtco.com/modern-evo...thesis-1224613

    Definition:The Theory of Evolution has itself evolved quite a bit since the time when Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace first came up with the theory. Much more data has been discovered and collected over the years that have only helped to enhance and sharpen the idea that species change over time.
    The modern synthesis of the theory of evolution combines several different scientific disciplines and their overlapping findings.

    The original theory of evolution was based mostly upon the work of Naturalists. The modern synthesis has the benefit of many years of research in Genetics and Paleontology, among other various subjects under the Biology umbrella.
    The actual modern synthesis is a collaboration of a large body of work from such celebrated scientists as J.B.S. Haldane, Ernst Mayr, and Theodosius Dobzhansky. While some current scientists assert that Evo-Devo is also a part of the modern synthesis, most agree it has so far played a very slight role in the overall synthesis.
    While most of Darwin's ideas are still very much present in the modern evolutionary synthesis, there are some fundamental differences now that more data and new disciplines have been studied. This does not, in any way, take away from the importance of Darwin's contribution and, in fact, it only helps support most of the ideas Darwin put forth in his book On the Origin of Species.

    The three main differences between the original Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection proposed by Charles Darwin and the most current Modern Evolutionary Synthesis are as follows:


    1. The modern synthesis recognizes several different possible mechanisms of evolution. Darwin's theory relied on natural selection as the only known mechanism. One of these different mechanisms, genetic drift, could even match the importance of natural selection in the overall view of evolution.
    2. Modern synthesis asserts that characteristics are passed down from parents to offspring on parts of DNA called genes. Variation between individuals within a species is because of the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
    3. The modern synthesis of the Theory of Evolution hypothesizes that speciation is most likely due to the gradual accumulation of small changes or mutations at the gene level. In other words, microevolution leads to macroevolution.

  21. #371
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    23,539

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    Nick, I'm sorry, but you don't get it at all. Maybe somebody else can explain it to you better than I can.

    Think about it this way. Prior to Newton people asked, why do things fall? Newton came along, and said, who cares why they fall, let's just note that they do, measure the acceleration, and define the relations, and get on with making stuff. He didn't answer the question, he essentially erased it. But he didn't really erase it, he only told us not to bother trying to answer it, and we don't, we get on with making stuff instead. And we're good at making stuff, very good indeed.

    Likewise with the flight of an arrow. Prior to Newton, people asked what makes the arrow continue to fly? Newton just erased the question by postulating the purely mathematical solution of declaring that a body in motion tends to stay in motion, and then got on with the maths. He didn't explain the problem, he didn't solve the problem, he wrote it out of the picture by neatly constructing a framework which made it unimportant for practical purposes.

    And the same things are true of electricity (they told me in high school physics that little particles called electrons ran along the wires, which is nonsense - the reality is, we just don't know), of magnetism, of all of the fundamental forces and phenomena that make physics actually interesting. They are all mysterious. And yes, this applies to how sails work as well. I've read about two theories, and for all I know there are dozens of them. It's an interesting question.

    You can retract and apologise for your rudeness about this stuff any time you like. Thanks.
    So, consume, be silent, die.
    My take is that if you poke someone with a sharp stick they'll get annoyed, if you smile and shake their hand they will be your friends.

    John Welsford

  22. #372
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    35,198

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    Nick, I'm sorry, but you don't get it at all. Maybe somebody else can explain it to you better than I can.

    Think about it this way. Prior to Newton people asked, why do things fall? Newton came along, and said, who cares why they fall, let's just note that they do, measure the acceleration, and define the relations, and get on with making stuff. He didn't answer the question, he essentially erased it. But he didn't really erase it, he only told us not to bother trying to answer it, and we don't, we get on with making stuff instead. And we're good at making stuff, very good indeed.

    Likewise with the flight of an arrow. Prior to Newton, people asked what makes the arrow continue to fly? Newton just erased the question by postulating the purely mathematical solution of declaring that a body in motion tends to stay in motion, and then got on with the maths. He didn't explain the problem, he didn't solve the problem, he wrote it out of the picture by neatly constructing a framework which made it unimportant for practical purposes.

    And the same things are true of electricity (they told me in high school physics that little particles called electrons ran along the wires, which is nonsense - the reality is, we just don't know), of magnetism, of all of the fundamental forces and phenomena that make physics actually interesting. They are all mysterious. And yes, this applies to how sails work as well. I've read about two theories, and for all I know there are dozens of them. It's an interesting question.

    You can retract and apologise for your rudeness about this stuff any time you like. Thanks.
    Gravity? You are correct, we are still working on that, Einstein took us a step closer, but there is still work to be done.
    Electricity, I think that you are wrong on that one, we do understand why that works, and you are correct that the electrons do not move very far along a wire. The electric field passes through the conductor, not the electrons themselves.
    Perhaps you are asking about the subject at the level of the Fundamental Forces which are above my pay scale. So I do not know which are the "known knowns" and which are the "unknown unknowns".
    However I do trust the competence of the experts in the field, which is where we seem to differ.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  23. #373
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    35,198

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    How many of you agree with this article?

    https://www.thoughtco.com/modern-evo...thesis-1224613
    It seems OK as far as it goes.
    There is no mention of Punctuated Equilibrium so it is only a partial analysis. You need an expert in the field to discuss how many other aspects of the complexity are also not covered.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  24. #374
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,275

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    On the controversy that existed before Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species (and Darwin was neck-deep in it, but secretly): https://www.britannica.com/biography...-years-1836-42

    I mentioned this earlier in the thread, and somebody suggested it was untrue.

    << Darwin said that believing in evolution was “like confessing a murder.” The analogy with that capital offense was not so strange: seditious atheists were using evolution as part of their weaponry against Anglican oppression and were being jailed for blasphemy. >>

    Evolution was a political theory from the beginning.

  25. #375
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,275

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    Perhaps you are asking about the subject at the level of the Fundamental Forces which are above my pay scale. So I do not know which are the "known knowns" and which are the "unknown unknowns".
    However I do trust the competence of the experts in the field, which is where we seem to differ.
    I trust the expert, but I want to know what his expertise is, what weight he has, and then read or listen carefully to what the expert is saying, and whether he's operating within the field of his expertise or extending himself outside of it.

    Dawkins fails on the latter scores. I wouldn't know what his real value is in biology, and it's irrelevant to me. But when a fellow makes bold claims outside of his area of knowledge, which are manifest nonsense, you do wonder about his training and the resulting habits of intellectual rigour or otherwise...

    Darwin was a Malthusian; Malthus was a crank, certainly no scientist. But he was a political​ crank, presenting ideas which appealed to a certain type of theorist of the day. Follow the dots.

  26. #376
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,275

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    Incorrect. Evolution is an explanation of the diversity and relatedness of life.

    You are trying to politicize it, using events of 150 years ago.
    Mate, I'm not politicising it, I'm aware of its political origins. And you can read all about them, all over the 'net, if you care to look. This is not a controversial claim. Don't make yourself a goose by disputing it.

  27. #377
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,275

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by twodot View Post
    More interestingly, do you agree with the article? Can you preface with that?
    I found it interesting that the means of speciation, certainly the heart of evolutionary theory, is reduced to the status of "hypothesis"...

  28. #378
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    35,198

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    I trust the expert, but I want to know what his expertise is, what weight he has, and then read or listen carefully to what the expert is saying, and whether he's operating within the field of his expertise or extending himself outside of it.

    Dawkins fails on the latter scores. I wouldn't know what his real value is in biology, and it's irrelevant to me. But when a fellow makes bold claims outside of his area of knowledge, which are manifest nonsense, you do wonder about his training and the resulting habits of intellectual rigour or otherwise...

    Darwin was a Malthusian; Malthus was a crank, certainly no scientist. But he was a political​ crank, presenting ideas which appealed to a certain type of theorist of the day. Follow the dots.
    OK, broad brush statements like that must be backed up by facts,
    So bring on your links where those statements are documented please.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  29. #379
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    35,198

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    I found it interesting that the means of speciation, certainly the heart of evolutionary theory, is reduced to the status of "hypothesis"...
    Bit of a non issue.
    That is how the scientific method works.
    Hypotheses until sufficiently tested to justify "Theory"
    Evolution is now a Theory. How self replicating molecules began are hypotheses (plural) and are likely to remain so for a while. Similarly with some of the building blocks that go to make up the totality of the science of evolution.
    Last edited by Peerie Maa; 09-14-2017 at 05:55 AM.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  30. #380
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    23,539

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    IFor too many "believers" in evolution, your "faith" underpins your atheism. People like me saying out loud that we are not convinced, make you nervous, apparently.
    Faith = blind acceptance.
    You believe god made everything and exists in some form and you take this on as an act of faith as there is no way to prove god exists.
    the theory of evolution came about through observation of specialisation in species due to isolation. Evolution is driven by environment, species either adapt to change or die out. This is observable. Humans have been taking advantage of this ability to change for a couple of thousand years...we call it breeding.
    My take is that if you poke someone with a sharp stick they'll get annoyed, if you smile and shake their hand they will be your friends.

    John Welsford

  31. #381
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Bangor, ME
    Posts
    22,163

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    "Apart from the pulling and hauling stands what I am,
    Stands amused, complacent, compassionating, idle, unitary,
    Looks down, is erect, or bends an arm on an impalpable certain rest,
    Looking with side-curved head curious what will come next,
    Both in and out of the game and watching and wondering at it.

    Backward I see in my own days where I sweated through fog with
    linguists and contenders,
    I have no mockings or arguments, I witness and wait."

    Walt Whitman

    Whew, twelve pages! Do realize that you are ALL emotionally bound up in this "God v. science" argument. Hence there are going to be strong statements made that offend the other side, often without even realizing it--or at least not understanding how what you've said is offensive.

    I'm a natural scientist by training, and a believer in God and father Abraham and Jesus as extensions of the human mythos, which if looked at in a different way than the traditional are of inestimable value for understanding ourselves more fully. I also believe, nay am quite certain, without proofs, that there is a mystery which transcends all our mythologies, and which scientific traditions, in their materialistic fervor and self-satisfaction, have heretofore largely dismissed. That, thankfully, is changing.

    Esoteric physics of time and space and matter are beginning to echo some of the more obscure religious writings in all traditions. Being only perennially satisfactory at and not good at math when I studied science, I don't begin to understand the physics except in their layman's implications. Even they are beyond the scope of this post, but suffice to say that issues of matter and consciousness are no longer the same as of our scientific forbears of even a generation ago.

    A common misunderstanding when a scientist uses the word "myth" is that it means something incorrect.
    That's also the common parlance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our mythologies are the poetry of the mystery I spoke of earlier, and as such are attempts at explaining the ineffable. They, far from being easily dismissed, should be engaged in new ways--also beyond the scope of this post.

    When I was in graduate school studying psychology I dated a Jewish woman. I didn't know at the time that I was a Jew myself by biological heritage, but that's another topic. One time, I attended services with her at a reformed Jewish temple. The rabbi, who had taken a fatherly interest in Jessica, asked me my religion. I told him, "I'm a Judeo-Christian". I wish I could have bottled the look of abject horror on his face. Rather angrily he said, "That is not possible!" We do become attached to our mythologies, including science!, to the point of great offense.

    Science is the dominate prose/mathematical/materialistic mythology of our time. Ideally, it is self-correcting. But as with religious mythology, people become entrenched in a particular stance, and it can be difficult to let it go of.

    I hope my small offering will help the discussion proceed with fewer ruffled feathers.

    Letting go

    Let me go.
    Leave me to wander the pathways of freedom.
    Leave me to explore the rivers that entwine my thoughts.
    Leave, and perhaps one day I'll return,
    Neither knowing myself any better
    Nor wishing to any longer.

    Mine(at fifteen)



    "Dreams are personal myths, and myths are collective dreams."
    So many questions, so little time.

  32. #382
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    How many of you agree with this article?

    https://www.thoughtco.com/modern-evo...thesis-1224613
    Agree???

    Yes it laid out the state of play - and did you note that nowhere did it assert that there was a definitive proof?

    In fact, in setting out the current avenues of the theory, it was all "might", "possibly", etc - hardly the mark of a theory as solid as gravity....

    {Therefore I ask that posters be a little more restrained and cease the refer to Evolution as "proven".}

    Furthermore until the theory? / hypothesis? can produce some validation in the form of something scientifically or technologically or practically useful, lets not get too excited about it.

    Note, as the article shows, natural selection operating within the Kind is NOT the concern of Evolution. Evolution is concerned with the development of the Kinds - ie the process whereby the Kinds arrived.


    Dawkins admits as much in "Greatest Show....." where in the introduction he admits that "nowhere in my previous books have I set out the evidence for Evolution". (!!!)

    He asserts that he intends to rectify that with this book (G.S.) - but he doesn't! He very eloquently and with great literary prowess and scholarship(?) and many beautiful examples, expounds on Natural Selection. But, near the end of the book where he has to address the problem of how the Kinds arose, he admits "I don't know" (What! I thought he claimed in the intro that this was the book's purpose......) Furthermore he says that nobody knows.......

    When he has been asked to speculate how evolution might have come about he suggests "Aliens" - because "they have had 10 billion more years to evolve". (???)

    Sigh...,

    Frank

  33. #383
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    35,198

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by ishmael View Post

    Whew, twelve pages! Do realize that you are ALL emotionally bound up in this "God v. science" argument.
    Not at all.
    It is just more interesting that the incessant GOP DEM bickering, Dolt 45, and the US Luuuurve of guns.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  34. #384
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    35,198

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Agree???

    Yes it laid out the state of play - and did you note that nowhere did it assert that there was a definitive proof?

    In fact, in setting out the current avenues of the theory, it was all "might", "possibly", etc - hardly the mark of a theory as solid as gravity....

    {Therefore I ask that posters be a little more restrained and cease the refer to Evolution as "proven".}
    That ain't going to fly. Evolution happens, get used to it. See post # 431 WRT haemoglobin and malaria.

    Furthermore until the theory? / hypothesis? can produce some validation in the form of something scientifically or technologically or practically useful, lets not get too excited about it.

    Frank
    There are lots of those. That is how we develop gene therapy and associated medical advances.
    Here is one http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21799534
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  35. #385
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,451

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    I trust the expert, but I want to know what his expertise is, what weight he has, and then read or listen carefully to what the expert is saying, and whether he's operating within the field of his expertise or extending himself outside of it.
    So if you don't believe an expert who is operating outside his field of expertise, why should we believe anything you say when you are operating outside your field of expertise?

    Why shouldn't we trust biologists and those who work in related fields, who are working inside the field of their expertise, when they tell us how evolution works?

    I have read your posts, by the way, and I know that they contain untruths that you have been told of but have not acknowledged. That indicates the extent of your bias.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •