Argumentum ad populum

[ecco]

Yep, many people say....God is truth. The problem is that all these people believe in different versions of God or even different gods. So, they can't all be truth, can they?

many facets to a precious stone

No. Not many facets of a precious stone. Many different cubic zirconias with many different people all proclaiming: "Mine is the real diamond!"

 

[ecco]

"Sudden" simply means in a brief period of time. Of course this depends on perspective. From the perspective of the individual it occurs in moments or seconds and from that of species it means less than two generations.

Without commenting on your "two generations" assertion, I'd still like to see your definition of "species". No Google cut and pastes.

 

[cladking]

Without commenting on your "two generations" assertion, I'd still like to see your definition of "species". No Google cut and pastes.

As I said, there's really not such a thing as "species" and there are merely collections of similar individuals. No two individuals have exactly the same genes. It is this individuality of life and consciousness which leads to change in "species". The concept of origin of species is an absurdity since individuals have origins and are never exactly like their parents and can be so different as to not even really constitute the same "species". New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior.

I seriously doubt that any "definition" of "species" can account for the complexity of the reality of the groupings of life that exist.

I define a "generation" as the length of time required from conception to the average age of reproduction of an individual for that specific "species". Changes require more than a single generation because mating naturally occurs between younger and older individuals. ie- survivors of bottlenecks will typically be of various generations and they'll continue to reproduce for a couple of generations.

"Species" is just a word because every member of a "species" is an individual and has a different (though similar) consciousness. Each has distinctive patterns of behavior which is based on its genes and knowledge.

 

[nPeace]

So spell it out, make it plain ─ what definition of 'truth' are you using? What test, do you say, will tell us whether a statement is true or not?

...when the bible was written, it was true that the earth was flat, and immovably fixed at the center of creation (there being no concept of the solar system, stars, galaxies or the universe as we understand those terms)

I told you that was not true.
Can you prove that to be true? Where did you get it from?

I don't understand your objection. I've already mentioned how science changes over time, and how the concept of what is true changes with it. I've mentioned a number of things that used to be true and no longer are (and If you want examples of the cosmology found throughout the bible, >some are set out here<). If you think about it, the conclusions of science are inductive, and no inductive conclusion can be protected from further facts not presently known.

...the record is clear that science knows more about reality than any alternative system of enquiry, and certainly more than religion, which has no objective test for truth

If that were true, then science would never have to change, adjust, or discard anything, in order to catch up, or meet with anything - any knowledge.
Unless, you agree that before the term science was coined, there was knowledge in advance.

That'd be hard to argue against.
If you've followed the science press ─ I grew up on SciAm and New Scientist, and still keep an eye on Science Daily ─ you'll know that science realizes every day that it doesn't know enough about reality and often enough that something taken as accepted about reality needs to be fixed. Repeatable experiments, peer review, open argument, checking and rechecking are part of scientific method, so that science needs amendment from time to time is hardly surprising. As you know, there are no absolute statements about reality.

You keep saying, "As you know", but I have no idea what you are saying.
I know that much of what scientists agree on, are merely opinions, and not reality.
Do you think the best opinion is somehow reality? Not I.

It's called progress. I've given you examples of scientific ideas that were overtaken by new discoveries ─ and there are plenty more than phlogiston, the lumeniferous ether, &c. Newton wasn't wrong (if we leave the alchemy out of it), but as Einstein showed, his theories were insufficient when difference frames of physical reference were involved.

I know science is an ongoing study, which does not end. I am not going to say something is not wrong, when scientists themselves say, it could be.

You did read my request that you spell out your definition of truth, didn't you?

With that on the table, we can at last have a serious discussion of the OP.

Provided you are willing to consider argument and questions presented to you, and not ignore them, as you are constantly doing, I don't see how else that is possible.

 

[nPeace]

I may have missed your last reply. Will check.
I have clearly laid out my ideas regarding the scientific method and you may quote it if you wish. Don't want to get into a third party conversation without knowing the context.

Okay. Thanks.
You are smart.

 

[nPeace]

Real scientists publish peer reviewed scientific papers or technical monograms on the subject in high-quality science journals. Anything else can't be considered scientifically valid for consideration.

Not trying to drag you into anything... honestly.

So as long as a "scientist" submits papers, that person is a "real" scientist... even if his/her/its papers never ever produces any fruitful results, are always wrong, or are often fraudulent...

Now that you are here - not dragging you into any fight or anything... Just would like your opinion.
Why do you suppose particular persons opposed nPeace's posts where he says, 'There is bad science.' Yet said persons say that they are "scientists", and then they are "REAL scientists"?

Really, I shouldn't be asking you, because you are not said person.
Gotta get something to eat. Be right back.

 

[nPeace]

Except that is NOT at all what happened. Yes, the scientists 100 years ago knew more than anyone else at the time.

No. This is very much not true.

And yes, some of the ideas then have been changed.

I can live with "some". That's true. In the same way that some of the ideas now has changed, and will continue to.

But *in the domains that the scientists then had tested*, the old views still work. What has been changed is in those areas that had not yet been tested or where explanations were still largely in doubt.

I don't understand what you are saying here.
By old views, do you mean those that existed before the scientists came along, or at the time of the scientists?

As a better example, Newton proposed a theory of gravity and dynamics in the 1600's. This theory worked incredibly well. It is now known to be wrong in many details. BUT, Newton's ideas can still be used to send probes to Mars. They can still be used to design buildings and bridges. So, while 'wrong', Newton's ideas were incredibly good *approximations*.

And it is a good idea to understand why Newton's ideas were overturned. When Newton's laws were applied to the orbit of Mercury, they were found to be off by a small, but consistent, amount. Over the course of a *century* Newton's description was off by 43 *seconds* of arc in where Mercury was predicted to be. Now, there are 360 degrees in a full circle, 60 minutes of arc in a degree, and 60 seconds of arc in a minute. So, Newton was off by less than 1/100th of a degree over the course of a century.

No matter how you take this, Newton was incredibly close to being correct here. But that small difference was enough to overturn Newton's ideas and have them replaced by Einstein's, which are even *more* accurate.

This is how science works: we go from one approximation to a *better* approximation. The old ideas still work to a certain degree of approximation. So, even if the explanation is very different, the actual predictions of what will be seen are going to be close in most cases.

In the case of 100 years ago versus now, the differences are even smaller. The explanations from 100 years ago were incredibly accurate for the vast majority of phenomena. The approximations we have today are even more accurate and work for even more phenomena.

Anyone studying something, and not making advancement in understanding... something must be wrong.

What scientists discovered, in some cases, was already known.
What scientists think is right, is not necessarily right, in many cases.
In fact, imagine being incredibly accurate, only to realize you were incredibly wrong.

 

[blü 2]

I told you that was not true.

But again you failed to state clearly what you mean by 'truth', what test will tell us whether any statement about reality is true or not.

Are you actually proceeding here without clear ideas on the subject?

Can you prove that to be true?

The demonstration is easy. Truth is not absolute, merely retrospective. Thus if you place yourself in, say, Babylon at the time of the captivity, and you ask the leading sages of the day whether the earth is flat, they'll reply, Yes, of course it is ─ use your eyes! So the statement 'The earth is flat' was true back then (and a flat earth, shaped either like a rectangle or a circle, is the only model used in the bible). Or go back to 1887 when Michelson and Morley are about to conduct their experiment, and ask the leading physicists of the day, 'Does light propagate in the lumeniferous ether?' and they'd reply, Yes.

Or take 2019. We walk through the physics department of our local university, and we say, 'Is the Higgs boson real?' and they say, 'Yes' ─ and they might add that we know it's real because in 2012 it satisfied the test used by scientists that the odds were less than a million to one that the LHC results on which the conclusion was based were instead due to chance. (That is, it wasn't true till 2012.)

Truth is the best opinion of the best informed people from time to time.

And when I say a statement is true, I mean it accurately corresponds with / reflects reality.

If that were true, then science would never have to change, adjust, or discard anything, in order to catch up, or meet with anything - any knowledge.

On the exact contrary, science is always a work in progress; or as Brian Cox put it, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified. Since science examines reality using empiricism and induction, nothing protects its conclusions from new information we may discover tomorrow ─ or never discover.

You keep saying, "As you know", but I have no idea what you are saying.
I know that much of what scientists agree on, are merely opinions, and not reality.

We're talking about the best informed opinions.

Do you think the best opinion is somehow reality? Not I.

No, the map is not the territory, but the best opinion available to us from time to time is the standard for truth. We're not talking about 'mere' opinions, and there are no absolute statements, so what's the option?

Do you say we can instead make absolute statements about reality? I don't. Science doesn't. If you do, give me an example of an absolute statement relevant to what we're talking about.

Provided you are willing to consider argument and questions presented to you, and not ignore them, as you are constantly doing,

What argument did you present that I ignored? What question of yours did I ignore?

Please don't forget to provide the test you use to determine whether statements about reality are true or not.

 

[Thief]

I confess the book of Job didn't spring to mind, no. I must have missed the bit in Job about the caves of ice and a few other things.

but you caught that one liner......wherein God draws down on the devil....

What are YOU doing here?

 

[Thief]

No. Not many facets of a precious stone. Many different cubic zirconias with many different people all proclaiming: "Mine is the real diamond!"

seems you have a gem of your own

and you think no one else has a better one

 

[blü 2]

but you caught that one liner......wherein God draws down on the devil....

What are YOU doing here?

Wondering about your interpretations, amongst other things.

Here's another one, from Jack Keats:

They glide, like phantoms, into the wide hall;
Like phantoms, to the iron porch, they glide;
Where lay the Porter, in uneasy sprawl,
With a huge empty flaggon by his side:
The wakeful bloodhound rose, and shook his hide,
But his sagacious eye an inmate owns:
By one, and one, the bolts full easy slide:—
The chains lie silent on the footworn stones;—​

The key turns, and the door upon its hinges groans.

And they are gone: ay, ages long ago
These lovers fled away into the storm.
That night the Baron dreamt of many a woe,
And all his warrior-guests, with shade and form
Of witch, and demon, and large coffin-worm,
Were long be-nightmar'd. Angela the old
Died palsy-twitch'd, with meagre face deform;
The Beadsman, after thousand aves told,​

For aye unsought for slept among his ashes cold.
​

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We don't know what causes "gravity" so the statement is devoid of meaning. So long as you remember that "gravity" is merely a word for the attraction rather than the cause you'll be OK.

You seem very confused. Do you or do you not understand that "evolution" is the word we give to the process of allele frequency changes over time in living populations, and that this is an observed, proven phenomenon?

"Sudden" simply means in a brief period of time. Of course this depends on perspective. From the perspective of the individual it occurs in moments or seconds and from that of species it means less than two generations.

Okay. So can you provide evidence that dramatic evolutionary changes only occur over periods of less than two generations?

No. "Evolution" is a word with only connotations and no definitions. Change in Species is not driven by "survival of the fittest".

Again, you seem confused. Evolution simply refers to "change in allele frequency over time in living populations". What you are referring to is natural selection, which is one of the driving forces OF evolution. To use my earlier metaphor, it's like you're confusing gravity and mass.

He did in the first edition.

Care to provide a quote?

It's not stability in the number of individuals that lead to change. It is near extinctions where few individuals survive.

That's how punctuated equilibrium occurs, but can you give any evidence that this is the ONLY circumstance under which evolution occurs?

This is exactly how we breed plants and animals; selection of a few individuals. When we select on the basis of behavior then the species changes.

True, but this process also occurs in nature - just not normally as quickly. A natural, selective process results in less favourable (for survival) traits being gradually removed from the gene pool, and more favourable traits pervading.

The "theory" of evolution is approaching the reality and it is much different than Darwin already.

Yes. For example, we now know that genes exist - Darwin didn't. We are also aware of punctuated equilibrium and horizontal gene transfer - both things that Darwin couldn't have known. But that doesn't mean his theory of gradual change doesn't apply or can be thrown out entirely. Gradual changes DO occur. Evolution is not exclusively driven by punctuated equilibrium.

Genes drive behavior just like everything else in the individual. Life is conscious and individual just like change in species. Yet we can't even define consciousness and now days reality is determined by committee.

Now you're just rambling. Do you or do you not accept that there are aspects of our biology that don't affect behaviour but may affect our likelihood to survive and/or pass on our genes?

No theory is without anomalies.

We're not talking about anomalies. The theory of evolution is universally supported by the facts.

The fact is that except in the lowest species no experiment has ever shown a gradual change in species as a result of "survival of the fittest".

Ring species - Wikipedia
Natural selection at work
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

 

[Polymath257]

No. This is very much not true.


I can live with "some". That's true. In the same way that some of the ideas now has changed, and will continue to.

Yes, of course. But that doens't mean we will suddenly discover that the Sun orbits the Earth.

I don't understand what you are saying here.
By old views, do you mean those that existed before the scientists came along, or at the time of the scientists?

I am certainly NOT talking about the views before the scientists came along. For the most part, those were just completely wrong. Folk ideas tend to be a bizarre mix of imagination, a few insights, and mythology.

I am talking about how scientific ideas are changed over time. So, we have an initial scientific thoery A and it gets changed to a new scientific theory B.

When this happens theory A gives a good approximation to what we observe for a certain range of phenomena. But, we have found a situation where A doesn't give an accurate description. The theory B is proposed and adopted because it explains everything that A got right and *also* explains what A got wrong. Furthermore, B typically even explains what A got right to a better approximation.

Anyone studying something, and not making advancement in understanding... something must be wrong.

OK, and science does this in every area it studies.

What scientists discovered, in some cases, was already known.

Usually false.

What scientists think is right, is not necessarily right, in many cases.
In fact, imagine being incredibly accurate, only to realize you were incredibly wrong.

Well, in those things where you were incredibly accurate, that accuracy won't change. If we have 5 decimal places of accuracy, then any new thoery will be expected to have at least 6 decimal places of accuracy. That is an improvement.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He did in the first edition.

You mean, in the first public incarnation of the idea of evolution, centuries ago?
Owkay. Even if he did, or even if he did in the 25th version - it doesn't really matter as it's a teeny weeny outdated by now.

It's not stability in the number of individuals that lead to change. It is near extinctions where few individuals survive.

No.
For example, the e-colli in lenski's experiment that evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, most definatly weren't under threat of extinction. At all.

This is exactly how we breed plants and animals; selection of a few individuals.

Ha. That's called artificial selection and it is why in breeding programs, accomplishing evolutionary changes goes (or can go) much faster then in nature. Nature doesn't care about change. Nature cares about reproduction and survival. In artificial selection, we focus on a single trait, or a handfull of traits, and we completely zoom in on that - regardless of consequences.

This is why plenty of fruits and dogs are actually no longer able of natural reproduction - because of our selection for specific traits with no regards to other things which in nature wouldn't happen.

When we select on the basis of behavior then the species changes.

And the exact same happens when selection is done on the basis of survival and reproduction - which includes behavior and anatomical traits. You seem to forget that the environment in which species must survive is also ever-changing. Today it's for example, on average, cold in places where it used to be hot and vice versa.

Species living in those area's must necessarily adapt to such environmental changes. Another option for them is to migrate to places with similar climate - but at that point, they'll STILL be confronted with a change in environment... they'll move into territories with new natural enemies (or lack of them!), new pathogens, new insects, new diets,........

I have no clue how you can understand that (artificial) selection drives changes, but (natural) selection for some reason doesn't?

Why does it matter what the parameters of selection are? As long as there is selection, there is selection.... regardless of humans deciding the parameters of the "fitness test", or if it is the environment that does it.

The "theory" of evolution is approaching the reality and it is much different than Darwin already.

There's a lot that Darwin didn't know, sure. There are things he got wrong, sure.
But to say that what we know today is "much different" - that is just wrong.

The core of the matter is still pretty much identical: reproduction with modification followed by natural selection. Pretty much the entire field of inquiry can be summed up and simplified to those 7 words.

Darwin realised the core of the idea, smack on.

Genes drive behavior just like everything else in the individual. Life is conscious and individual just like change in species. Yet we can't even define consciousness and now days reality is determined by committee.

That made no sense to me at all.

No theory is without anomalies.

What anomaly is there in evolution theory, in your opinion?

The fact is that except in the lowest species no experiment has ever shown a gradual change in species as a result of "survival of the fittest".

[/QUOTE]




Denial. Not just a river in egypt.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I said, there's really not such a thing as "species" and there are merely collections of similar individuals. No two individuals have exactly the same genes. It is this individuality of life and consciousness which leads to change in "species". The concept of origin of species is an absurdity since individuals have origins and are never exactly like their parents and can be so different as to not even really constitute the same "species". New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior.

I seriously doubt that any "definition" of "species" can account for the complexity of the reality of the groupings of life that exist.

I define a "generation" as the length of time required from conception to the average age of reproduction of an individual for that specific "species". Changes require more than a single generation because mating naturally occurs between younger and older individuals. ie- survivors of bottlenecks will typically be of various generations and they'll continue to reproduce for a couple of generations.

"Species" is just a word because every member of a "species" is an individual and has a different (though similar) consciousness. Each has distinctive patterns of behavior which is based on its genes and knowledge.

So..... what is a species?

Try to make sense this time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So as long as a "scientist" submits papers, that person is a "real" scientist...

No. If you work according to the scientific method. And that work, includes publishing your work in appropriate channels. That is to say, peer reviewed scientific journals.

even if his/her/its papers never ever produces any fruitful results, are always wrong, or are often fraudulent...

 

[tas8831]

The problem here is that words like "skeptic" and "consensus" have changed their meanings over the last fifty years.

"Skeptic" used to mean someone who doubted claims of all sorts until they were established by cold hard fact. Now it means any individual who latches on to and parrots the latest soup of the day science.

"Consensus" used to mean the state of the art in terms of theory and best guesses about the nature of something. Now it means "Reality" as determined by the opinion of "Peers".

Says the fellow that thinks "mutations" are like birth defects and "survival of the fittest" means "might makes right" and that a creature can just grow a "broccas area" if they need it and that carbonated water geysers were used to transport the blocks used to make the pyramids.

 

[tas8831]

The thing about the mountains of evidence, is that whenever one "piece" is presented, it is shown to be based on speculation, and assumptions.

Why lie like this?

Surely you are not referring to your feeble attempt to rebut molecular phylogenetics?

 

[tas8831]

What you say was once true but the educational system has failed because there is no responsibility. It takes a village. Cumbaya, and all that, rot.

Good Science


You can find this phrased better and more in keeping with sanity but the fact is this is what most people and most scientists believe now. The "scientific community" is irrelevant to reality. It is irrelevant to experiment, hypothesis, and even observation because only individuals can invent experiment, observe, or hypothesize. It's not only individuals who "may individually be swayed by some prevailing worldview to favor certain results over others" but entire groups and committees. Did you never wonder how Congress can be wrong consistently? Why did EVERY surgeon once believe hand washing was a waste?

Consensus science is not science.
Look and See Science is not science.
Soup of the day science is not science.
Peer review is nonsense.

Observation and experiment are real science and nothing else is even window dressing.

Right - but fantasy and 'make it up as needed' science - the sort you engage in - is totally awesome!


I mean, you seem to think just making things up as needed is Okie Dokie - like when you wrote that the phrase "survival of the fittest" was invented to poke fun at Darwin, though you have been using it all along to mean "might makes right" with your dopey little slogans about how this was used to oppress people throughout history (inquisition-like, I suppose?).

Or when you wrote about neuroanatomy and it came across like a 5th grader, complete with incorrect spellings and the notion that creatures can just up and decide to grow a part of their brain. Or when you are asked for evidence and you write 5 paragraphs of unsupported assertions.

But sure - you tell us all about what "science" really is...

 

[tas8831]

the term for God is Spirit

no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment

many people say....God is truth

you would test God?

I think it's the other way around

Sounds like....

.....

Special
Pleading...

to me....