Darwin's Illusion

[Audie]

Where is the winner frube when you need it.

Guess we have to write in: W.F.!

 

[Audie]

YOU said "evidence" lies as the basis of science.

I said "evidence" is what you expect to see.

I said there is no science without experiment.

I am not responding to you further twisting and contorting of words.

" ...further, twisting and contorting"

You left out the comma. It makes all the difference.

 

[Audie]

Making such silly statements doesn't change how science actually works.

WF

 

[Valjean]

It's more a way to avoid the grim spectre of thought

Yes. When the answers are given you in a book or by your peers, there's no need to puzzle them out by yourself.

 

[Valjean]

Sure, and with enough letters after your name and enough doting admirers you can just Look and See Science.

No! You don't understand the scientific method at all.
Experiments are done to try to disprove a hypothesis; to test it for flaws. Peer review is similar. A scientists expects his colleagues to attack his ideas and try to find flaws or disprove them. That's why the scientific method has been so fruitful. Bias is eliminated, and errors are weeded out,

It makes no different how prestigious a scientist is. Her ideas will be rigorously scrutinized, and every attempt will be made to find fault in them.

YOU said "evidence" lies as the basis of science.

I said "evidence" is what you expect to see.

I said there is no science without experiment.

I am not responding to you further twisting and contorting of words.

Evidence is what survives experimental attempts to disprove a hypothesis, and criticism by peers.

 

[Audie]

Yes. When the answers are given you in a book or by your peers, there's no need to puzzle them out by yourself.

What's that creo-"documentary" ,
"No intelligence needed"?
About the creoemployee who got fired.

 

[Audie]

No! You don't understand the scientific method at all.
Experiments are done to try to disprove a hypothesis; to test it for flaws. Peer review is similar. A scientists expects his colleagues to attack his ideas and try to find flaws or disprove them. That's why the scientific method has been so fruitful. Bias is eliminated, and errors are weeded out,

It makes no different how prestigious a scientist is. Her ideas will be rigorously scrutinized, and every attempt will be made to find fault in them.

Evidence is what survives experimental attempts to disprove a hypothesis, and criticism by peers.

Creationists are the final word in strawman
arguments.
They actually have ZERO to argue against except
their own imaginary "problems" with deep time
and evolution.

 

[cladking]

Experiments are done to try to disprove a hypothesis; to test it for flaws.

Experiments are designed to highlight some aspect of the nature of reality. Frequently this will be disprove something. But ask yourself, if experiment can never show anything then how can science progress.

 

[cladking]

They actually have ZERO to argue against except
their own imaginary "problems" with deep time
and evolution.

Oooohhh... "deep time".

I suppose now we're to believe the "laws of nature" don't apply over long time periods so even though all observed change in life is sudden then over deep time there must be new rules that apply, up becomes down, and inside comes out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

YOU said "evidence" lies as the basis of science.

I said "evidence" is what you expect to see.

I said there is no science without experiment.

I am not responding to you further twisting and contorting of words.

Is that a promise? You keep dodging any question that shows you to be wrong. I agreed that all science is based upon experiment if one defines an experiment as any test of a hypothesis or theory. Here, I will even give you a version of the scientific method that uses that definition:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oooohhh... "deep time".

I suppose now we're to believe the "laws of nature" don't apply over long time periods so even though all observed change in life is sudden then over deep time there must be new rules that apply, up becomes down, and inside comes out.

Nope, changes are not "sudden" that is a claim that you cannot support.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

YOU said "evidence" lies as the basis of science.

I said "evidence" is what you expect to see.

I said there is no science without experiment.

I am not responding to you further twisting and contorting of words.

Yes, we know what you said. You repeat it ad nauseum.

We've corrected you multiple times now.
But you insist on being wrong.

 

[cladking]

Yes, we know what you said. You repeat it ad nauseum.

How can you be blind to not being able to see that you can't see anything until you believe in it first?

How can you be blind to the fact that this is the root of our disagreement and your misunderstanding of the nature of life and science?

Why don't we discuss this rather than you just repeating your vacuous claims as though they are revealed truth?

What do you think causes everyone to see something different and to have a different understanding of every utterance, every event, every cycle, and every process? Why do you think people make simple mistakes?


Why won't you read my damned posts and respond on topic? Why don't you answer one question one time? do you really think word games and gainsaying is rebuttal to anything?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can you be blind to not being able to see that you can't see anything until you believe in it first?

How can you be blind to the fact that this is the root of our disagreement and your misunderstanding of the nature of life and science?

Why don't we discuss this rather than you just repeating your vacuous claims as though they are revealed truth?

What do you think causes everyone to see something different and to have a different understanding of every utterance, every event, every cycle, and every process? Why do you think people make simple mistakes?


Why won't you read my damned posts and respond on topic? Why don't you answer one question one time? do you really think word games and gainsaying is rebuttal to anything?

I guess if o ne does not understand evidence that "reasoning" may sound rational. It really is not. If one understands the concept of evidence one does not have to believe first.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't believe that science is run by Peers, evidence, or the funding only of research approved by doctrine. I don't believe genius, intelligence, or hard work lie at the heart of science. I don't believe 'opinion" matters in the least whether it is held by crackpots or peers. I don't believe anyone can look and see reality whether they think they can or their fawning admirers think they can or not. I don't believe we can escape our own beliefs and prejudices to see what's right in front of our individual nor collective noses.

I further don't believe all of reality can be expressed in some simple equation and many of the aspects of reality will never be reduced to equation. It is only because reality is logic manifest and math is logic quantified that any of its aspects can be reduced to equation at all.

I don't believe that even in aggregate homo omnisciencis knows even the tiniest fraction of 1% of what can be known about the universe. or even things closer to home like the human heart.

I don't believe that with current paradigms that science will progress much further than it already has. I'm not sure I believe we can survive our technology without a dose of humility and and a better way of understanding what we already know.

I don't see an argument against the validity of the scientific method or the output there.

Science is a tool not a means to format finance, industry, and the human heart or brain.

Agreed. It's a means of deciding how the universe works and predicting its evolution.

Most who believe in science do so because they don't understand it.

My confidence in science is based in its stellar success. No other understanding is necessary. It works.

I do believe only one single thing makes science work; experiment.

Not by itself. Nor is it always possible if by experiment you mean arrange elements in a laboratory under controlled circumstances before observation. Astronomers, for example, perforce observe stars and galaxies without manipulating them.

Belief in science hides reality from you because all beliefs hide reality.

I'm satisfied with my understanding of reality and the results of life choices made under that understanding. Yours is another of the warnings we see about perceived problems that don't actually cause problems. Sometimes, it's science in crisis where there is no crisis. Sometimes, it's a claim of something being missed for having strict criteria for belief, as when that's called myopic or scientism. Ask people what problems they see, and they can't name any. What problem do you imagine my beliefs about science are causing me? How would my life be better if I let you decide how it should be lived or what I should believe instead of what I believe now?

 

[cladking]

How would my life be better if I let you decide how it should be lived or what I should believe instead of what I believe now?

You're not supposed to let other people live your life or tell you how. You're only supposed to think for yourself. Even here far be it from me to impose thinking for oneself onto anybody since many are very ill suited to any kind of thought. This apparently does not apply to you however.

You and everyone can think about science any way you choose but if you do it wrong like adopting the beliefs I've delineated numerous times then you'll probably never make a significant contribution to theory or technology. Everyone gets to do as he pleases but this doesn't change the fact that science isn't dependent on anyone's opinion and the way it works is a question of metaphysics NOT of opinion. Science metaphysically is Observation > Experiment within the confines of it axioms and definitions. This is a fact. Like ALL English words you can use an infinite number in an infinite number of ways to correctly define "science" just as there ae an equal number of ways to define it incorrectly as so many and Darwin has done here.

The simplest explanation appears above.

Evidence and logic serve no function in science other than to invent hypothesis. Obviously logic underlies reality and math so is important to understanding the meaning of observation and experiment. Evidence is an illusion, a mirage, that shifts and changes with perspective. Darwin saw mirages and mistook them for oases and life itself. He saw illusions and tried to explain them instead of seeking a better vantage. We are still living with the optical illusions he saw in the "fossil record".

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're not supposed to let other people live your life or tell you how. You're only supposed to think for yourself. Even here far be it from me to impose thinking for oneself onto anybody since many are very ill suited to any kind of thought. This apparently does not apply to you however.

You and everyone can think about science any way you choose but if you do it wrong like adopting the beliefs I've delineated numerous times then you'll probably never make a significant contribution to theory or technology. Everyone gets to do as he pleases but this doesn't change the fact that science isn't dependent on anyone's opinion and the way it works is a question of metaphysics NOT of opinion. Science metaphysically is Observation > Experiment within the confines of it axioms and definitions. This is a fact. Like ALL English words you can use an infinite number in an infinite number of ways to correctly define "science" just as there ae an equal number of ways to define it incorrectly as so many and Darwin has done here.

The simplest explanation appears above.

Evidence and logic serve no function in science other than to invent hypothesis. Obviously logic underlies reality and math so is important to understanding the meaning of observation and experiment. Evidence is an illusion, a mirage, that shifts and changes with perspective. Darwin saw mirages and mistook them for oases and life itself. He saw illusions and tried to explain them instead of seeking a better vantage. We are still living with the optical illusions he saw in the "fossil record".

Strange, I did not see any links to reliable sources. All I can see are the claims of a science denier.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Strange, I did not see any links to reliable sources. All I can see are the claims of a science denier.

Winner Frube (WF)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Strange, I did not see any links to reliable sources. All I can see are the claims of a science denier.

It has been my experience that science deniers do not cite prior art or post links. Those that do post anything, usually are quoting it out of context or they ignore valid correction of the poor use information they repeat over and over and over and over.

Three times I have posted a link to a paper that explains how natural selection has been mistaken as directed mutation. Three times it was ignored.

I have posted links to papers that demonstrate natural selection and other concepts of evolution. The best that I saw was some pointless, ham-handed responses that went no where and then nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Guess we have to write in: W.F.!

I've been writing it out, but I like your way better.