Darwin's Illusion

[Valjean]

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.

The experiments show that a hypothesis is likely true.

Science progresses by observation, speculation and hypothesis-making. The hypotheses are then tested, by experiments looking for flaws; trying to disprove the hypothesis. They are then peer reviewed, with an eye to finding further flaws and experimental errors. The experiments are repeated, modified and repeated.
There is no "highlighting."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Wut?

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?

I was just replying to your silly claim that science = experiment. It's not.
Science is based on evidence. Experiment is just one way one can obtain evidence. It is not the only way.

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

I'm just responding to your posts.

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?

That's not my observation at all. Especially not in the sciences, where ideas are informed by evidence instead of subjective opinions and / or a priori faith based beliefs.

Why won't you read my damned posts and respond on topic?

When you claim that science = experiment and I respond by explaining how it's not and how it is evidence based instead and how experiment is just one of many ways to obtain such evidence, then how is that not on topic?

Why don't you answer one question one time? do you really think word games and gainsaying is rebuttal to anything?

Not all questions deserve answers. Some questions only deserve pointing out how they are invalid and wrong by themselves.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evidence and logic serve no function in science other than to invent hypothesis.

Dear me.................................

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You're not supposed to let other people live your life or tell you how.

I don't. Since you were implying that like most others, I was on the wrong track chasing illusions, I wanted to know what you would change and what problem you thought was being addressed and corrected. If I had worded it, "What would you change in yourself if it were you," then I might have gotten a responsive answer that addressed the issue of what you would recommend rather than this one.

I do this whenever posters are forecasting bad outcomes for various ways of thinking that I support or indulge in such as my understanding of what science is and does in this case. The result is always the same. It turns out that the warnings can't be defended, that there is no problem.

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.

Here are more such warnings. I'm not in the business of making contributions to science or technology, but if I were, my current scientific paradigm would facilitate that. It sounds like you're implying that you have a better way than the scientists, whose way impedes their progress.

And I don't know what beliefs you delineated numerous times. With all due respect, your writing is chaotic, and I seldom know just what you are talking about or why. What belief or beliefs do you think hinder scientists, and how have they hurt the progress of science?

Evidence is an illusion, a mirage, that shifts and changes with perspective.

Here's more of this vague language. What are you trying to say? This comment isn't useful by itself. Are you suggesting that evidence should not be evaluated because it is only a mirage? I understand that the evidence of my eyes when circling around a car and looking at it varies with perspective. At various times, I'll be looking at the front, back, or one of the sides. Is this the illusion of perspective to which you refer?

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".

This doesn't help. Avoid poetry if possible when trying to be understood. Those could be song lyrics from Dylan. It's also another warning of a terrible mistake made by Darwin that needs correcting, but no specific problem is identified nor any solution offered. This is simply not useful language. I'm wondering whether your conception is fleshed out better in your mind than what you write, that you actually see problems but can't articulate them, or not.

 

[Valjean]

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.

I don't think science deniers read/watch our links.

 

[cladking]

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

Wut?

If you can't understand so simple a concept no matter how many ways I have phrased it then you will never understand science.

You don't believe what you see. You see what you believe. Indeed, if you don't believe in something it will be invisible to you. How many times and in how many ways have I said this? It lies at the heart of our very reasoning (homo circularis ratio). We reason in circles because we experience what we believe. We are our beliefs. You can not not reason in circles. You will invariably end up at the assumptions you started with unless experiment gets in the way.

This is why science is based in experiment. Everything but experiment is just self congratulatory claptrap. You know everything not because it's shown by science, by experiment, but because you can't experience anything outside your beliefs. When you know everything (homo omnisciencis) it becomes impossible to see the anomalies that always exist and which are the primary means by which hypothesis and experiment arise. Those who believe in science have all the answers anyway so poetically enough, will not find any but what they read in books. Now days they are also the the self appointed guardians of doctrine and call themselves "skeptics" because they believe only in doctrine.

Everyone is different and certainly some individuals must accept the status quo because of their specialties or many other reasons. Holy doctrine and dogma are always "right" by definition in some applications.

Unlike you I'm not trying to tell you how to think. You can think any single thing you want and have any assumptions that suit you. Fine. But if you think science is dependent on evidence, Peers, and the current paradigm; if you think all the answers are known and you understand everything you see, you are simply dead wrong on every single count. If you think science and experiment aren't as entwined and synonymous as life and consciousness then you are mostly wrong again.

 

[cladking]

I don't. Since you were implying that like most others, I was on the wrong track chasing illusions, I wanted to know what you would change and what problem you thought was being addressed and corrected. If I had worded it, "What would you change in yourself if it were you," then I might have gotten a responsive answer that addressed the issue of what you would recommend rather than this one.

I do this whenever posters are forecasting bad outcomes for various ways of thinking that I support or indulge in such as my understanding of what science is and does in this case. The result is always the same. It turns out that the warnings can't be defended, that there is no problem.

I hesitate to answer this at all. But keep in mind that I have a lot of respect for the way you think and express yourself. I never try to change people.

We all have beliefs and this defines our species. I'm suggesting that the mere recognition of this fact as a truism will change your perspective, make you less likely to have unforeseen consequences, and allow you more control of your life while generating positive outcomes. I believe the perspective is far more important in science, especially research for several reasons. It virtually forces you to think outside the box from the beginning.

Again though everyone is different and beliefs are not necessarily compatible. What's good advice for one individual can be the worst possible for another.

Changing your perspective (if it is a change) might not shake your faith in Darwin but it would show most of the support for Darwin has nothing to do with experiment or observation and everything to do with belief.

 

[cladking]

It sounds like you're implying that you have a better way than the scientists, whose way impedes their progress.

There are some changes that should be made to the way science is practiced but this hardly my point.

The differences between me and most scientists is not that my way is different, it's that I have a way that works for me. Rather than being a specialist I am a generalist. I believe every experiment applies to all of reality at all times and that reality isn't beholden to laws but only to logic. It's a different way to see paradigms and evidence and it seems to work well for making some prediction.

It's true that I believe ancient science had a wholly different way of understanding how species change but I've never believed in the "theory" of Evolution. Even as a child it seemed more an expediency than an explanation. My observations and experiments support different causations and means of species change.

Coincidentally the way in which I arrived at my own theories is very similar to the way ancient people did. There's no reason i can't be wrong in good company or bad.

Here's more of this vague language. What are you trying to say?

There's nothing vague here. I am simply saying we never see reality. We see a construct of our beliefs and models. Reality will always be invisible to our species but we will build better and better models with ever more correct beliefs. This will not be a gradual change nor will it always be progress. Right now, this instant, the human race is nearing the end of a 4000 year regress that started at the "tower of babel".

It's also another warning of a terrible mistake made by Darwin that needs correcting, but no specific problem is identified nor any solution offered.

Quit believing is "survival of the fittest" and linear progress. Quit believing that humanity is the crown of creation rather that a believing ape on a 4000 year downward spiral. Darwin did great damage inadvertently and unintentionally. He was wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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



If you can't understand so simple a concept no matter how many ways I have phrased it then you will never understand science.

You don't believe what you see. You see what you believe. Indeed, if you don't believe in something it will be invisible to you. How many times and in how many ways have I said this? It lies at the heart of our very reasoning (homo circularis ratio). We reason in circles because we experience what we believe. We are our beliefs. You can not not reason in circles. You will invariably end up at the assumptions you started with unless experiment gets in the way.

This is why science is based in experiment. Everything but experiment is just self congratulatory claptrap. You know everything not because it's shown by science, by experiment, but because you can't experience anything outside your beliefs. When you know everything (homo omnisciencis) it becomes impossible to see the anomalies that always exist and which are the primary means by which hypothesis and experiment arise. Those who believe in science have all the answers anyway so poetically enough, will not find any but what they read in books. Now days they are also the the self appointed guardians of doctrine and call themselves "skeptics" because they believe only in doctrine.

Everyone is different and certainly some individuals must accept the status quo because of their specialties or many other reasons. Holy doctrine and dogma are always "right" by definition in some applications.

Unlike you I'm not trying to tell you how to think. You can think any single thing you want and have any assumptions that suit you. Fine. But if you think science is dependent on evidence, Peers, and the current paradigm; if you think all the answers are known and you understand everything you see, you are simply dead wrong on every single count. If you think science and experiment aren't as entwined and synonymous as life and consciousness then you are mostly wrong again.

I believe whatever can be rationally justified by objective evidence.

And again: science is based in evidence. Experiment is just one way to obtain such evidence. Not the only way.

You continue to double, nay, tripple down on your errors.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are some changes that should be made to the way science is practiced but this hardly my point.

The differences between me and most scientists is not that my way is different, it's that I have a way that works for me. Rather than being a specialist I am a generalist. I believe every experiment applies to all of reality at all times and that reality isn't beholden to laws but only to logic. It's a different way to see paradigms and evidence and it seems to work well for making some prediction.

It's true that I believe ancient science had a wholly different way of understanding how species change but I've never believed in the "theory" of Evolution. Even as a child it seemed more an expediency than an explanation. My observations and experiments support different causations and means of species change.

Coincidentally the way in which I arrived at my own theories is very similar to the way ancient people did. There's no reason i can't be wrong in good company or bad.



There's nothing vague here. I am simply saying we never see reality. We see a construct of our beliefs and models. Reality will always be invisible to our species but we will build better and better models with ever more correct beliefs. This will not be a gradual change nor will it always be progress. Right now, this instant, the human race is nearing the end of a 4000 year regress that started at the "tower of babel".



Quit believing is "survival of the fittest" and linear progress. Quit believing that humanity is the crown of creation rather that a believing ape on a 4000 year downward spiral. Darwin did great damage inadvertently and unintentionally. He was wrong.

We get it. You are stuck in your religious biblical preaching.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have a lot of respect for the way you think and express yourself.

We all have beliefs and this defines our species.

I'm suggesting that the mere recognition of this fact as a truism will change your perspective, make you less likely to have unforeseen consequences, and allow you more control of your life while generating positive outcomes. I believe the perspective is far more important in science, especially research for several reasons. It virtually forces you to think outside the box from the beginning.

What's good advice for one individual can be the worst possible for another.

Changing your perspective (if it is a change) might not shake your faith in Darwin but it would show most of the support for Darwin has nothing to do with experiment or observation and everything to do with belief.

Thank you for those kind words. I enjoy your good humor and iconoclasm.

The differences between me and most scientists is not that my way is different, it's that I have a way that works for me.

OK, but I get the distinct impression that you have advice for the scientific community, that you think that they are doing it wrong in some sense and could benefit from some kind of revision of their thinking and methods. Is that correct?

I've never believed in the "theory" of Evolution. Even as a child it seemed more an expediency than an explanation. My observations and experiments support different causations and means of species change.

Can you describe them in unambiguous sentence, something like, "Instead of natural selection operating on genetic variation in populations over geologic time leading to the tree of life we find today, yada yada caused it," where yada yada is a clear, distinct statement one wants understood as one might give in an urgent message to a friend.

There's nothing vague here. I am simply saying we never see reality. We see a construct of our beliefs and models. Reality will always be invisible to our species but we will build better and better models with ever more correct beliefs.

OK. I agree, but word it differently.

Quit believing in "survival of the fittest"

Why? To what benefit? Please be concrete here. What's in it for the person who takes that advice?

Quit believing that humanity is the crown of creation rather that a believing ape on a 4000 year downward spiral.

Humanity is the result of millions of years of evolution, which have gifted man alone with a conscience and symbolic reasoning. I'm aware of no 4000-year downward spiral. Once again, I ask you to explain why you recommend this change, and to be meaningful, there needs to be a concrete benefit proposed.

Darwin did great damage inadvertently and unintentionally. He was wrong.

And again. These claims have no value if they're this general. What was wrong in your opinion, and what damage do you say it did?

I had a little fun with a previous post, when I compared vague statements to poetry. Here's what I mean. These are some of the lyrics to Dylan's Desolation Row, followed by a new verse made from that post:

Cinderella, she seems so easy. "It takes one to know one" she smiles.​

And puts her hands in her back pockets Bette Davis style.​

And in walks Romeo, he's moaning, "You Belong to Me I Believe"​

And someone says "You're in the wrong place, my friend. You'd better leave"​

​

All except for Cain and Abel and the hunchback of Notre Dame, everybody is making love, or else expecting rain.​

And the Good Samaritan, he's dressing. He's getting ready for the show​

Einstein, disguised as Robin Hood, with his memories in a trunk​

Passed this way an hour ago with his friend, a jealous monk​

​

******* addendum:​

​

Now Darwin saw mirages and mistook them for oases and life itself,​

and tried to explain them instead of seeking, a better vantage from his shelf.​

Evidence is but illusion - a mirage that shifts in shape​

And a source of optical illusion, from which there's no escape.​

And the scientists are restless, they need someone to show​

Their mistakes that keep them from escaping from Desolation Row.​

After that, I had to listen to the song again. Here are the Grateful Dead covering it if anybody else is interested:

 

[cladking]

I see your Desolation Row and raise you with a funicular;

Or if you prefer lyrics you do not want to miss this;

 

[cladking]

OK, but I get the distinct impression that you have advice for the scientific community, that you think that they are doing it wrong in some sense and could benefit from some kind of revision of their thinking and methods. Is that correct?

We are homo omnisciencis so we are all doing it wrong. Some modern scientists have or have been doing it less wrong than other people since we've been on this 4000 year detour but we are all still doing it wrong and we need to figure out exactly what is right. People like Feynman and Einstein were barely mystic at all but we will never entirely escape our beliefs. We must choose better and more accurate beliefs to progress from this point. While the individual is everything and the source of all consciousness and ideas the fact is that the changes needed are a collaborative effort to find. It will start with new scientific language with many words with a fixed meaning and a common perspective that holds all experiment as virtually being definitional of reality. This forces a perspective from which anomaly can be better viewed. Then we'll also need some individuals trained not as specialists but as generalists. While their input will normally be limited they are critical to the smooth operation of all human systems, IMfO. This includes even science and the dissemination of data and scientific opinion.

Education needs to be revamped for "scientific types" starting at a very young age, even pre-school, to include a great deal more metaphysics.

If nothing changes other than one person learning that opinion is only opinion then it might be worth the effort.

Secondary schools must stop indoctrinating children and go back to teaching critical thinking. The parroting back of "answers" on tests is a silly way to see if a child is learning anything. Kids should be tested to see if they understand the the current curriculum and this means more than just a few story problems in math.

It's going to take time to make changes because up until the future science only changes one funeral at a time. We need a generation of scientists who can actually change their thinking to reflect what's new and to test new paradigms. We've been stuck in a rut since 1920 and now we're digging ourselves in ever deeper and worshipping doctrine, scripture, and Peers.

 

[cladking]

Can you describe them in unambiguous sentence, something like, "Instead of natural selection operating on genetic variation in populations over geologic time leading to the tree of life we find today, yada yada caused it," where yada yada is a clear, distinct statement one wants understood as one might give in an urgent message to a friend.

I've done this many times and can make it even sweeter and shorter iff you want;

No such things as "species" exist and all life is individual. All life is conscious and it is consciousness that individuals use to succeed. All significant change in "species" is sudden just like all change in life and occurs at population bottlenecks which select for "deviant" behavior. The more unusual the behavior selected the greater the change in "species". Bottlenecks that select for typical behavior results in little or no change in species. All species adapt to fit their niche and changes within that niche, and individuals adapt some.

Behavior in all individuals at all times is driven primarily by the interplay of its highly specific genes and its experience and knowledge. In humans it is driven by beliefs because e use an analog language to operate a digital brain.

 

[cladking]

Why? To what benefit? Please be concrete here. What's in it for the person who takes that advice?

There's no much in it for the weak. But the weak will prosper and help the species if the strong would quit killing them.

 

[cladking]

Humanity is the result of millions of years of evolution, which have gifted man alone with a conscience and symbolic reasoning. I'm aware of no 4000-year downward spiral.

"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation".

At least they do if they aren't trampled by the wealthy, sent to war, or starved.

There was a golden age where the good prospered and the evil faded away. There was a time when all lived in nation where "they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"." There was a time when most people were happy for their entire lives.

Crime and disease are increasing as longevity decreases. We are told most people are bad because of the color of their skin. We are expected to maintain the status quo. Our economy wastes more than it consumes and when you buy groceries or supplies much of it is effectively pre-digested. One gets rich by picking the bones of what once was great economy and through corruption.

We are rushing headlong to extinction. The status quo is about death.

 

[cladking]

Humanity is the result of millions of years of evolution, which have gifted man alone with a conscience and symbolic reasoning. I'm aware of no 4000-year downward spiral.

There is no such thing as "Evolution" and never was. there is only change; some for the good and some for the bad. But just like real life these changes are sudden. The "tower of babel" didn't float down to earth over many thousands of years. One moment it stood and a moment later everyone's life changed to be far far worse. Yes, science has raised us above the rubble but this doesn't seem to help anyone but the few and there is little correlation with these few being in any way at all more fit or better than others.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We are homo omnisciencis so we are all doing it wrong. Some modern scientists have or have been doing it less wrong than other people since we've been on this 4000 year detour but we are all still doing it wrong and we need to figure out exactly what is right. People like Feynman and Einstein were barely mystic at all but we will never entirely escape our beliefs. We must choose better and more accurate beliefs to progress from this point.

These kinds of answers contain no useful information for me. I still don't know why you believe these things or what problems you think they are causing.

Education needs to be revamped for "scientific types" starting at a very young age, even pre-school, to include a great deal more metaphysics.

Why?

No such things as "species" exist and all life is individual. All life is conscious and it is consciousness that individuals use to succeed. All significant change in "species" is sudden just like all change in life and occurs at population bottlenecks which select for "deviant" behavior. The more unusual the behavior selected the greater the change in "species". Bottlenecks that select for typical behavior results in little or no change in species. All species adapt to fit their niche and changes within that niche, and individuals adapt some.

You wrote, "My observations and experiments support different causations and means of species change," and I asked you if you had an alternative mechanism to that proposed by the theory. I don't see the answer in that. That seems consistent with natural selection applied to genetic variation, the mechanism Darwin proposed to account for evolution. What drives evolution if not natural selection applied to genetic variation? I'm losing hope of getting an answer.

There is no such thing as "Evolution" and never was. there is only change

Those are synonyms for me.

The "tower of babel" didn't float down to earth over many thousands of years. One moment it stood and a moment later everyone's life changed to be far far worse.

I don't know if you mean this literally. If not, I don't know what you mean by it. If so, I don't believe that myth.

Yes, science has raised us above the rubble but this doesn't seem to help anyone but the few and there is little correlation with these few being in any way at all more fit or better than others.

There's plenty of evidence that science has improved the human condition and helped many live longer, more functional, more comfortable, easier, and more interesting lives in the process. You seem unaware or dismissive. More people are living better lives than ever before.

And thanks for the Grateful Dead link. Jerry and the band frequently played that tune as they were tuning up before a set.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Experiments are evidence, but not all evidence are experiments.

Regardless, if the evidence are obtained in the labs (eg experiments) or in the fields, they are all tests and observations that fit in the requirements of Scientific Method.

A scientific experiments are also observations, just like those non-experimental evidence. The only difference whether you control the variables or not.

Natural Sciences cannot be confined in the laboratory. Ideally, you would have evidence both in the lab or to find them out in the fields.

Natural Sciences is about nature, so if you can observe evidence in nature, then that even better than lab experiments.

For instance, if you were to studying the reproduction of certain species of wild animals, then it is better to observe their habits in their natural environments. Wild animals that were confined in cage, like in labs or in zoo, often fail to reproduce healthy offspring.

And there are some things that cannot be replicated in the labs, like you cannot put a whole star, star system or galaxy inside the labs. Observations and evidence can only take place from afar.

As @TagliatelliMonster and @Valjean have already informed you, experiments are just another form of observed evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think science deniers read/watch our links.

I agree. Given the state of their posts, I see little or no evidence they have the knowledge and technical skill to understand the linked sources. Certainly no apparent interest to understand.