Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Subduction Zone]

• A Strawman is when you address or challenge a misrepresentation of an argument .
• You misrepresented my argument (I didn’t say that tags definition is bogus nor invented)
• Therefore you made a strawman

I am Ready for your 100+ nonsense excuses for not admitting your mistake

No, I did not. You did not understand my argument. I cannot think for you.

You need to remember that you are on corrections only status. Change your ways and then you can demand evidence.

 

[Pogo]

Do you even read my posts. I've listed hundreds of them from linear progress to survival of thew fittest.

I've seen you complain about a lot of things nebulously but I asked for a list of assumptions that have been demonstrated false, which is not the same same as asking for areas where science has progressed. hypothesis and even theories are not assumptions but steps in the scientific method.
Are you unwilling or unable to answer the question as written.

Every new experiment that confirms an hypothesis that runs counter to theory changes the basis of science.

Not if as you have stated and I even went so far as to locate and read at least the beginning of Burrt's essay so as to understand your definition of metaphysics.
If, metaphysics is the basis of science, it doesn't change even if our knowledge base does.

Metaphysics IS the definitions, axioms, and experiment. The "scientific method" is a loosely defined process used by most practitioners. "Paradigms" are loosely defined summations of existing theory and these change at funerals.

An interesting mangling of a non-scientist philosophers quote that to many use in their ignorance to justify their position of desiring acceptance of their religious beliefs.

Science works because of experiment. Scientists work best when they understand metaphysics and keep a scientific perspective to their observations.

People today are confused about the nature of science.

Not even by Burrt, metaphysics is more a general pattern of thoughts that may include some of those loosely defined processes. You appear to be experimenting with some particle collider and throwing off thoughts without analysis.

Reality always lies right beyond our beliefs. Understanding reality and making predictions are the primary reason to use science at all. Technology springs from the ability to make prediction.

Yes. It is fundamental to an understanding of science that there is more to reality than that which we currently know, and " Understanding reality and making predictions are the primary reason to use science at all. Technology springs from the ability to make prediction." is also agreed so why all the semantic gymnastics?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So sorry, but strawman has nothing to do with it. Either fish came out of the water to be land animals by "natural selection" or they did not. And there is absolutely no verification of "natural selection..." of the fish to apes. Recognizing that many will stick to the assumption that's how it works (natural selection), that's how it's going to be for some.

That was not what was being discussed. Please follow along.

 

[Pogo]

That was not what was being discussed. Please follow along.

No, but it is a good example of finding any tiny doubt so as to not deal with the entirety.

If we don't know everything, we don't know anything and my supposition is equally valid. sad.

 

[cladking]

Technology springs from the ability to make prediction." is also agreed so why all the semantic gymnastics?

Thing you say are not consistent with the way science works.

I believe many of your beliefs about science are as false as Darwin's assumptions. You are ignoring many of the experiments done in the last half century. Most importantly all of reality affects all of reality in the here and now and forever and by the exact same token every experiment applies to all of reality. You and nobody else gets to pick and choose which experiments support current beliefs. All experiment is supposed to apply to every scientists' beliefs and models.

I'm sorry reality is so complex but it's not my fault and it's above my pay grade to to understand all of it.

 

[cladking]

If, metaphysics is the basis of science, it doesn't change even if our knowledge base does.

"Metaphysics" includes every experiment ever performed. Normally I'm referring more to the definitions and axioms but science is much more than just its processes and methods.

 

[cladking]

1923, The metaphysical foundations of modern physical science; a historical and critical essay : Burtt, Edwin A. (Edwin Arthur), 1892- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
You can get a paper copy still.
We will see if he can make a case for his interpretation in terms of current practice.

I find Burtt captivating. I believe this marks the highest point physics achieved in the mid-'20's. Certainly some progress has been made but little substantive and some modern work is probably on the wrong track but I lack the expertise to know this.

 

[Pogo]

"Metaphysics" includes every experiment ever performed. Normally I'm referring more to the definitions and axioms but science is much more than just its processes and methods.

So, the bottom line is you can't explain any of it, but we are all wrong.
the standard answer of the person whose assumptions have been demonstrated to be invalid.

Are you attempting the KJV apologists translators conflation of science with knowledge?
I have gone out of my way to even access Burrt's book, but you have done nothing more than deny without explaining.
I think there is a simple reason for that.
Maybe you can provide some of the relevant definitions and axioms?

 

[Pogo]

I find Burtt captivating. I believe this marks the highest point physics achieved in the mid-'20's. Certainly some progress has been made but little substantive and some modern work is probably on the wrong track but I lack the expertise to know this.

some modern work is always on the wrong track, that is a feature not a bug as the idiom goes, but to make a more general statement that it all is or that specifically evolution is requires more justification.

 

[leroy]

No, I did not. You did not understand my argument.

What an normal person w0oudl usually do in your place, is explain where the mistake is

You need to remember that you are on corrections only status.

ok the correct my mistakes

**mod edit**

 

[YoursTrue]

No, but it is a good example of finding any tiny doubt so as to not deal with the entirety.

If we don't know everything, we don't know anything and my supposition is equally valid. sad.

It's not a tiny doubt. It's an inexplicable in real time, real life, unobservable claims. You know you can't explain it beyond conjecture and neither can anyone else.

 

[Pogo]

What an normal person w0oudl usually do in your place, is explain where the mistake is

Well maybe you have driven us beyond normality.

ok the correct my mistakes

to what end?
**mod edit**

 

[Pogo]

It's not a tiny doubt. It's an inexplicable in real time, real life, unobservable claims. You know you can't explain it beyond conjecture and neither can anyone else.

It is perfectly explained if you understand the theory and the rest of your claims are only denial in service of your maintainance of your tiny doubt. they are transparent avoidance, not legitimate arguments with rational backing.
We are not even bothering to ask you for the video of the earths history, but you seem unwilling to even discuss that history without a video.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well maybe you have driven us beyond normality.

to what end?

Besides being unintelligible, nevermind, I won't even guess.

Good for you ! Because from what I have seen, few bolster their remarks with fact. That includes you... So...have a nice day again.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is perfectly explained if you understand the theory and the rest of your claims are only denial in service of your maintainance of your tiny doubt. they are transparent avoidance, not legitimate arguments with rational backing.
We are not even bothering to ask you for the video of the earths history, but you seem unwilling to even discuss that history without a video.

You can't explain it, it's all conjecture based on presumption, so be it and once again -- have a nice day...

 

[YoursTrue]

Hi, Hockeycowboy.

With bees, some are workers, some are drones, and some are queens. That statement doesn't imply that it's 1/3 each: "Honey bees are social insects that live in colonies. Honey bee colonies consist of a single queen, hundreds of male drones and 20,000 to 80,000 female worker bees."

And yes, there are inconsequential mutations. You seem surprised at the claim (you used an exclamation mark).

Who wrote this? Somebody who was correct.

Who peer reviewed it? That term refers to scientific research. The passage you cited might have been reviewed by nobody, or perhaps an editor.

Yeah, well, I guess it is presumed that the alleles separated them to workers, queen, and drones, etc.

 

[Pogo]

Good for you ! Because from what I have seen, few bolster their remarks with fact. That includes you... So...have a nice day again.

Yes we have learned, no matter how much evidence we supply, you cannot see it. That we do it less frequently is in response to learning as unrewarded behaviours decrease over time.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, well, I guess it is presumed that the alleles separated them to workers, queen, and drones, etc.

Interesting claim, can you show us where it came from, it rather runs counter to the understanding of bee evolution to my knowledge but maybe you didn't just make it up. You do after all claim to understand. Here is a chance for you to demonstrate your understanding of that which you claim to have reason to disagree.

 

[Pogo]

some modern work is always on the wrong track, that is a feature not a bug as the idiom goes, but to make a more general statement that it all is or that specifically evolution is requires more justification.

@cladking , in answer to another query about current understanding of terms I consulted a source that bases its answers on the many conversations it has read, I do not grant it knowledge, only a perspective on common answers. Anyhow here is what chat GPT had to say when queried with:

"what does metaphysics mean in regards to science today?

In contemporary science, the term "metaphysics" is not typically used in the same way as it is in philosophy. In philosophy, metaphysics refers to the branch of philosophy that deals with the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance, causation, existence, and the nature of being.
In contrast, in science today, metaphysics does not have a direct application as a field of study. Scientific inquiry focuses on empirical observation, experimentation, and the development of theories that can be tested and verified through evidence and reproducible experiments. Science operates within the framework of naturalism, which seeks to explain phenomena in terms of natural causes and laws, without invoking supernatural or metaphysical explanations.
However, certain concepts in science, such as the nature of time, the origins of the universe, the fundamental constituents of matter, and the implications of quantum mechanics, can touch upon philosophical questions that overlap with metaphysical concerns. For instance, discussions about the nature of space and time in the context of relativity theory or the implications of quantum entanglement may raise philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of reality.
In summary, while science does not engage with metaphysics as a formal discipline, some scientific inquiries may intersect with philosophical questions that fall within the realm of metaphysics, particularly in exploring the nature of reality, causation, and existence."


It seems to generally agree with my position but as I admit to being no fan of philosophy, I would like to offer you the chance to present your position.
I have already gone as far as looking up Burtt and read part and as I said, will read further if you can give me direction or I can upload it to a more amenable format where I can bookmark etc.

Your historical perspective is interesting and valuable, I would like to trade that with my more recent perspective.

Pogo.

 

[Pogo]

You can't explain it, it's all conjecture based on presumption, so be it and once again -- have a nice day...

While conjecture may imply incomplete information, that is rather a lame horse to ride.
It of course inspires the question of just what do you base your position on?