Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

tactics, semantics, and insults

 

[Subduction Zone]

tactics, semantics, and insults

A very apt description of your posts. You could still learn the basics. You would have to throw away almost all of your unsupported beliefs.

 

[Valjean]

The problem isn't what you don't believe is real. The problem is what you do believe is real. You believe in Evolution because this is how Peers interpret data. You believe in science because you don't understand metaphysics or the meaning of any experiment. Real scientists don't "accept" anything, they invent experiment and interpret it in terms of what they understand.

What is this obsession with "peers?" What do you think the peers are, if not ordinary, fellow scientists?
Peer review is the attempt to find flaws in a researcher's findings or interpretation. It undermines bias.

You feel science has an agenda, and seem to think it a clever attempt to justify individual bias and personal beliefs. It is not, hence the safeguards like peer review and testing.
Science is not like religion.

 

[Valjean]

This is the type of answer I have come to expect from believers like you.

Believers? Are you saying the statement isn't factual?

If we were to sit you and Subduction Zone down and give each exams on biology, evolution or science in general, I have no doubt about who would get the higher marks.
You know not whereof you speak.

 

[Ella S.]

What is this obsession with "peers?" What do you think the peers are, if not ordinary, fellow scientists?
Peer review is the attempt to find flaws in a researcher's findings or interpretation. It undermines bias.

You feel science has an agenda, and seem to think it a clever attempt to justify individual bias and personal beliefs. It is not, hence the safeguards like peer review and testing.
Science is not like religion.

When I was deeply religious, I was told similar notions of science not being like religion. I dismissed that as wishful thinking, too good to be true, and a clear indication of the bias of those who saw science as somehow infallible and a superior way of knowing than faith.

Peers being other scientists seemed to me to be an obvious case of bias because I didn't trust the peers to not just agree with the results that conformed to their worldview. Quite simply, I didn't view scientists as honest people. I suspected that they were lying about the results of many of their experiments that weren't easily replicated by the public or else somehow skewing them due to their commitment to a particular model of reality.

The "proof" was that they denied the truth of the Bible, which was a telltale sign that they were either mislead by Satan or taking part in his deception. It was essentially a religious conspiracy theory.

This was years and years ago, before I converted out of mainstream Christianity, but the way I finally began to erode the spell was by admitting that I should be just as skeptical about church authorities. After all, how easy would it be for a member of the clergy to twist scripture to his own ends? That's how I got into actual Biblical scholarship, and through that I ended up dropping my belief in the Bible completely since it does not stand up to scrutiny.

I don't think you will get anywhere trying to argue in favor of science with a lot of creationists. I don't think you will get anywhere by arguing with them about God. The creationists that I've seen leave creationism almost always did so on the grounds of scripture or theology first; before then, they simply can't fathom that science is really about objective truth-seeking. It's too far outside of their Overton Window.

 

[YoursTrue]

Believers? Are you saying the statement isn't factual?

If we were to sit you and Subduction Zone down and give each exams on biology, evolution or science in general, I have no doubt about who would get the higher marks.
You know not whereof you speak.

Not a problem, I am sure both of you would "know more" about the suppositions and terminology than I do. But notice this: "The truth makes things a little more complex," he said. "Our understanding of biology is continually changing, constantly making advances that overturn previous assumptions—and it just takes awhile for textbooks to catch up. " Researcher points finger at inaccuracy in most biology textbooks (phys.org)
What you learned yesterday may not be "true" today. Either way, <smile> no contest insofar as your "knowledge" of what scientists say and make changes sometimes on if you keep up with things. Bye for now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not a problem, I am sure both of you would "know more" about the suppositions and terminology than I do. But notice this: "The truth makes things a little more complex," he said. "Our understanding of biology is continually changing, constantly making advances that overturn previous assumptions—and it just takes awhile for textbooks to catch up. " Researcher points finger at inaccuracy in most biology textbooks (phys.org)
What you learned yesterday may not be "true" today. Either way, <smile> no contest insofar as your "knowledge" of what scientists say and make changes sometimes on if you keep up with things. Bye for now.

To bad that you are still quote mining. That is not a proper way to debate. Does the fact that the Bible says that "there is no God" over twelve times refute it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is this obsession with "peers?" What do you think the peers are, if not ordinary, fellow scientists?
Peer review is the attempt to find flaws in a researcher's findings or interpretation. It undermines bias.

You feel science has an agenda, and seem to think it a clever attempt to justify individual bias and personal beliefs. It is not, hence the safeguards like peer review and testing.
Science is not like religion.

No, no, no. It is "Peers" with an upper case "P". From his many posts it appears that he thinks that there is some sort of conspiracy afoot. The Peers tell us what we have to believe. It is not as if the endless articles supporting evolution aren't filled with evidence and how the authors came to their conclusions

 

[cladking]

What is this obsession with "peers?" What do you think the peers are, if not ordinary, fellow scientists?
Peer review is the attempt to find flaws in a researcher's findings or interpretation. It undermines bias.

I don't expect believers to read my posts and think at the same time any longer.

It is believers in science who are obsessed with Peers. They believe that if all the top scientists agree then it reflects reality by definition. They believe "Peer review" is a part of and virtually part and parcel of reality.

I NEVER SAID "peer review" has no purpose. I said ALL Peers can be wrong. But believers can't imagine such a thing. They mistakenly believe that Peers are infallible when they agree and define reality. They don't believe in paradigms or metaphysics only Peers.

But few believers do much science. Most science is being done by scientists who try not to be certain of too much of anything at all. And of all the things they try not to be certain, the opinion of others lead their lists.

But you won't be able to see the meaning of these words either. You'll see what you want.

 

[cladking]

You feel science has an agenda, and seem to think it a clever attempt to justify individual bias and personal beliefs. It is not, hence the safeguards like peer review and testing.
Science is not like religion.

The only "agenda" of science is the attempt to discover the nature of reality through experiment.

Unfortunately "science" is an abstraction especially in this usage of the term. Real science is composed of individuals and some are doing it wrong. All those people who ignore my arguments about change in species are at least arguing incorrectly and might well have models that are wholly in error because the science has excluded consciousness, suddenness, and individuality. It has ignored important pieces of evidence and can not perform key experiment.

So just ignore me and everything I say when I claim that ALL experiment and ALL evidence support a different interpretation of the so called fossil "record". When you already know everything you can't learn more by reading heresy.

 

[wellwisher]

What is this obsession with "peers?" What do you think the peers are, if not ordinary, fellow scientists?
Peer review is the attempt to find flaws in a researcher's findings or interpretation. It undermines bias.

You feel science has an agenda, and seem to think it a clever attempt to justify individual bias and personal beliefs. It is not, hence the safeguards like peer review and testing.
Science is not like religion.

One way science is a more like a religion and unable to police itself is connected to too much use of statistical methods. Statistics uses a black box approach, with a math oracle thinking for you. How can you rationally review anything derived from a black box approach? It requires faith in a technique, more than it does one's own reason. If the scientist faithfully follows procedure the results are accepted.

As an analogy, say a magician places a cat in a black box and covers it so you cannot see it. We waves his magic wand and opens the box and the cat is gone. It is hard to know how he did his trick, if the box has to stay shut during the trick. Reason is handicapped by the black box and imagination becomes active. We need to take the word of the magician and his faithful use of the magic procedure. Magic is based on finite odds and its effectiveness is based on the story of Schrödinger's cat, which is also the hallmark of the statistical method. We set odds and take bets.

This is not much different from the faithful of religion, which also have faith in things not seen. Their God is sort of in a white box, which they can sense, even if most cannot see him with their eyes. Science cannot see into their black box. It too requires faith, feelings and imagination to sense. We infer from outside the box, things that happen, but inside the box the how's and why's are hidden.

For example, a few days ago there was lottery in the USA worth over $2 billion. When lotteries get that high more and more people get sucked into the fantasy of winning Schrödinger's $2 billon cat. One will not know until the box outputs the winning numbers the next day. It is hard not to get sucked into this since reason is blocked and there is inner feelings of hope and faith based on something defined as possible by statistics and Heisenberg.

This use of the black box can be used as a lure via a statistical carrot. It can also bar used to control, via a statistical Schrödinger's lion of fear. All science bogeyman use black boxes. In both cases, the black box causes reason to become handicapped, and then the odds makers in the media open the imagination to Schrödinger's cat scenarios. We also need to take the word of those; scientists, who also cannot see inside the black box.

I am not convinced one can have genuine peer review of science that use statistical models. There is not enough room for logic and reason, when handicapped by the black box and blind testing. Could science function without the black box or is faith needed to do science?

Science has advanced due to technology that comes from the more rational areas of science like physics and engineering. We get to see farther and closer to dispel myths of black box science. These tools are then used in conjunction with the black box, to define theory, which due to the black box, still leaves everyone in the dark, force to accept via prestige and the consensus opinion.

I would feel better is we require no closed black boxes in science. Or we can put an asterisk next to black box science theory, so we can point out where reason falls short, so rational people can help these area become mature; age of reason.

 

[cladking]

I am not convinced one can have genuine peer review of science with statistical models. There is not enough room for logic and reason, when handicapped by the black box and blind testing. Could science function without the black box or is faith also needed to do such science?

I'd take this a step further and say all statistical and computer modelling is nonsense. Certainly they can form a solid basis for hypothesis formation but of themselves they are merely a means to seek concurrences and correlations. Experiment must underlie theory. Counting the number of microbes that survive the introduction of ever more cyanide is not "experiment" and not "science". Even if it were there's no reason to believe results can be extrapolated to apply to all life; every species and every individual.

Darwin's Illusion is that such knowledge can be extrapolated to apply even to the deadest fossils. Darwin's Illusion is Look and See Science.

 

[gnostic]

You understand that without causality as a fundamental principle, the entire scientific method collapses, even our argument now would be meaningless. Except for the first cause, every entity is caused even if the cause is not known.

And that "first cause" being what, exactly?

And if the “cause” is not known, then how do you possibly even know there is a “cause” in the first place?

Or is this “cause” some supernatural entities?

God? Creator? Designer? Or whatever title or name you want to give this imaginary and nonexistent entity.

And there are numbers of issues with your claims above.

First of all.

Scientific Method don’t collapse because it ignore all supernatural causes, because there are never any evidence the existence of the supernatural.

Scientific Method can only be applied to natural phenomena and to natural events, not supernatural ones, because the supernatural isn’t testable, hence not falsifiable.

So the Scientific Method don’t collapse, what you claimed about causality - there being the “first cause”, if you re suggesting supernatural being as he first cause, then it is actually your argument, concept or claim that falls apart.

The fault lies with your first cause argument. If there are no physical evidence of this first argument, then it is your own argument that’s baseless and meaningless speculation.

The whole purpose of Scientific Method is being able to “test” a “testable“ model, whether that model be a hypothesis, theory, theoretical framework or logical statement.

It is a concept that’s both untestable and untested that are considered to be pseudoscience concept, speculation.

But please, define or explain what this “first cause” is?

 

[cladking]

But please, define or explain what this “first cause” is?

This is hilarious on steroids. You do realize that from every atomic collision there is a virtual infinite number of possible outcomes. You can't see back in time even the tiniest fraction of a second and you believe some day there might be an experiment that can see all the way to the "beginning"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Until that day comes the one thing we know is that it wasn't caused by God. We know there was no supernatural and apparently we know that it mustta all fit into a point!!!

There are a virtually infinite number of possibilities for how reality began or what it is but we won't discover the answer by looking backward in time, discounting possibilities, or making assumption that are untestable. There are severe limitations for reductionistic science. It works only on experiment and many things apparently can not be subject to experiment.

 

[gnostic]

It is believers in science who are obsessed with Peers. They believe that if all the top scientists agree then it reflects reality by definition. They believe "Peer review" is a part of and virtually part and parcel of reality.

I NEVER SAID "peer review" has no purpose. I said ALL Peers can be wrong. But believers can't imagine such a thing. They mistakenly believe that Peers are infallible when they agree and define reality. They don't believe in paradigms or metaphysics only Peers.

This is nothing more than conspiracy theory and paranoid delusions.

But worse of all, it is your overweening pride.

You have never said it, but most likely, you have tried to publish your own works, and perhaps in archaeology journals or ones for Egyptology, and they rejected your works.

If your ideas are anything like what you post in the Ancient Reality thread, I don’t blame them. You wrote:

“I said ALL Peers can be wrong. But believers can't imagine such a thing. They mistakenly believe that Peers are infallible when they agree and define reality.”​

I certainly don’t think Peers are infallible or inerrant. I think that just “projection”, because I think that you believe yourself to be infallible.

It is clear you have hatred for Peer Review, especially if those peers were “Egyptologists”, because you blame them whenever you in number of threads.

But not all peers are Egyptologists. We can discussing or arguing over something not related to ancient Egypt and nothing related to Egyptologists or Egyptology, for instances, we could be talking about physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc, but you would blame all Peers regardless if those peers are not Egyptologists, nor archaeologists.

The peers in physics or in biology are not Egyptologists, and yet you treat one group the same with peer-review journals for Egyptologists.

It is most certainly conspiracy theory and delusions.

I am not a believer or follower for any groups of Peers, but I have read some of your concepts on Egypt, and I must say they are absurdly pseudo-archaeology and pseudo-history. Your writings, I means what you like to write about, are similar to the garbage that Ken Ham or Kent Hovind or Graham Hancock (you seems to be fan of Hancock) or Immanuel Velikovsky or Erich von Däniken.

 

[cladking]

But not all peers are Egyptologists. We can discussing or arguing over something not related to ancient Egypt and nothing related to Egyptologists or Egyptology, for instances, we could be talking about physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc, but you would blame all Peers regardless if those peers are not Egyptologists, nor archaeologists.

No, you are mistaken yet again. I have absolutely no problem with peers in physics, for instance and am not qualified to know if any opinion is valid or not. I suspect a lot of opinion in physics is wrong but I have no means of knowing. But Peer opinion is just as meaningless in physics as it is in Egyptology where every peer is wrong. My only real problem with Peers is that BELIEVERS believe that "Peer review" is part of the scientific method. This isn't really a problem with peers at all, it is a problem with the errors of believers. Peer review has its place but not as part of the scientific method.

You have never said it, but most likely, you have tried to publish your own works, and perhaps in archaeology journals or ones for Egyptology, and they rejected your works.

I would NEVER try to get something published in an Egyptological journal or present any paper to any Egyptologist. This is chiefly because they simply will not read it or comment on it. Additionally I have no respect at all for Egyptology though there are some Egyptologists whom I do respect. Even these would not read my paper. Egyptology is set in its ways and more moribund than the authors of the "book of the dead". As scientists studying pyramids they are much less than worthless because they always stand in the way of progress, science, and testing of any sort. They charge real scientists money and artefacts to get licenses and disallow broad swathes of non-destructive testing. They do nothing themselves and severely limit both what does get one and then stop publication of the data. These are not scientists but rather they ae linguists. We somehow have allowed linguists to determine not only what's real but even architecture and reverse engineering of pyramids.

I have eMailed numerous scientists for data and opinions about my theories and every single one has helped or tried to help. I have eMailed Egyptologists as well and not one single one of them has even responded!!! Why should I waste any time on them except to alert people that Egyptology is simply a set of assumptions that great pyramids are tombs dragged up ramps by ignorant superstitious bumpkins? They stand in the way of progress and spend their days parsing the Pyramid Texts. No. I have never and will never write a paper for Egyptological review. In a few years "Egyptologist" will be the punchline of every joke. For years I believed they could have straightened me out with a few minutes of their time but now it is quite apparent I am right and they are wrong. Again, as individuals many command my respect it is as a group that they are a joke. Again, I have no problem with peers or peer review, I have a problem with those who believe Peers are infallible and theory is sacrosanct. Most wouldn't recognize a paradigm if you gave them four nickels in exchange.

I am not a believer or follower for any groups of Peers, but I have read some of your concepts on Egypt, and I must say they are absurdly pseudo-archaeology and pseudo-history.

You believe in Peer review. I do not. I believe in peer review to study complex experiment seeking flaws, illogic, and chicanery.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not a problem, I am sure both of you would "know more" about the suppositions and terminology than I do. But notice this: "The truth makes things a little more complex," he said. "Our understanding of biology is continually changing, constantly making advances that overturn previous assumptions—and it just takes awhile for textbooks to catch up. " Researcher points finger at inaccuracy in most biology textbooks (phys.org)
What you learned yesterday may not be "true" today. Either way, <smile> no contest insofar as your "knowledge" of what scientists say and make changes sometimes on if you keep up with things. Bye for now.

Translation:

Science constantly makes progress, so let's just ignore everything it discovered to date because progress 'might' overturn it tomorrow.


Do you really consider that to be a reasonable approach to learning?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't expect believers to read my posts and think at the same time any longer.

It is believers in science who are obsessed with Peers. They believe that if all the top scientists agree then it reflects reality by definition. They believe "Peer review" is a part of and virtually part and parcel of reality.

Who are these "believers"?
Personally I know of nobody who looks at peers that way.
I also don't understand your obsessive need to capitalize that word.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One way science is a more like a religion and unable to police itself is connected to too much use of statistical methods. Statistics uses a black box approach, with a math oracle thinking for you. How can you rationally review anything derived from a black box approach? It requires faith in a technique, more than it does one's own reason.

I'll happily trust statistics over my own intuition any day of the week.

For example. Consider this statement:

'If the height of steps on a stair deviates by +2mm of the standard, most people will trip'.

My intuition tells me that this is unlikely. I mean 2 mm seems like nothing.
However. Suppose we do an experiment.
We put 2 stairs next to eachother in say, a mall.
1 use standard heights for the steps and the other deviates by +2mm.
We don't tell the shoppers. They are clueless about the experiment and don't even realize it's going on.

We observe 1000 people going up stair 1 and 1000 people going up stair 2.

Suppose the results show that 2 people tripped on stair 1 and 723 tripped on stair 2.
The 2 people tripping on stair 1 would be consistent with random tripping.
The 72% of people tripping on stair 2 would not be consistent with random tripping.
It would be a clear statistical signal in favor of the proposotion.

This clear statistical would take precedence over my intuition.

Wouldn't it?

If the scientist faithfully follows procedure the results are accepted.

Yes.

Consider the above experiment again.
Suppose there is no control stair to compare the modified one to.
Suppose the set of people going up the stairs consists of just 1 person instead of 1000.
Suppose the deviation doesn't match the deviation in the proposition.
Suppose the deviating stair has a warning sign "BEWARE! Steps deviate from the standard height!"
Suppose someone spilled something on the control stair causing it to be slippery.
...

All those things would skew the results. A big part of peer review is to review and detect such things.

As an analogy, say a magician places a cat in a black box and covers it so you cannot see it. We waves his magic wand and opens the box and the cat is gone. It is hard to know how he did his trick, if the box has to stay shut during the trick. Reason is handicapped by the black box and imagination becomes active. We need to take the word of the magician and his faithful use of the magic procedure. Magic is based on finite odds and its effectiveness is based on the story of Schrödinger's cat, which is also the hallmark of the statistical method. We set odds and take bets.

The difference is that a magician goes out of his way to trick you. And as a member of the audience, you KNOW that. Yes, it's amazing and you don't understand how he did it. But you KNOW there is a trick to it.

I am not convinced one can have genuine peer review of science that use statistical models. There is not enough room for logic and reason, when handicapped by the black box and blind testing. Could science function without the black box or is faith needed to do science?

No faith required.

Science has advanced due to technology that comes from the more rational areas of science like physics and engineering. We get to see farther and closer to dispel myths of black box science. These tools are then used in conjunction with the black box, to define theory, which due to the black box, still leaves everyone in the dark, force to accept via prestige and the consensus opinion.

False. Take my example. You can repeat this experiment in a different setting with different people and see if it matches the results of the original experiment, see if you get the same kind of clear statistical signal.

I would feel better is we require no closed black boxes in science. Or we can put an asterisk next to black box science theory, so we can point out where reason falls short, so rational people can help these area become mature; age of reason.

To be honest, I'm still not sure what you mean with this "black box".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Experiment must underlie theory.

It does.

Counting the number of microbes that survive the introduction of ever more cyanide is not "experiment" and not "science". Even if it were there's no reason to believe results can be extrapolated to apply to all life; every species and every individual.

Darwin's Illusion is that such knowledge can be extrapolated to apply even to the deadest fossils. Darwin's Illusion is Look and See Science.

Evolution makes predictions that can be tested at any time.