Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

"Ouija boards are not science, and using them IS experimenting. Unfortunately, the experiment confirms the null hypothesis."

And I don't believe this is true. If you hand a monkey a Star Trek tricorder and he learns nothing at all from it then you can not conclude the tricorder is broken or has no function. Do you remember many pages back that I mentioned "facilitators" (technicians) were using ouija boards to successfully communicate with severely autistic non-verbal adults? Autistic people were writing books and selling copies. Of course it turned out that it was all nonsense. Humans are capable of deluding themselves about anything at all and all manner of nonsense (like survival of the fittest) can come to be widely believed and the basis of widespread atrocities. Everything can be perfectly normal to people.

To be an "experiment" there should be only two possible interpretations of something in terms of the prevailing paradigm. However it must ALWAYS be remembered that the prevailing paradigm can be in error and a better one possible. There are always multiple ways any experiment can be interpreted correctly in terms of metaphysics. No experiment was ever performed by Darwin. There was no real scientific paradigm in effect when "Origin of Species" was written. He created a paradigm out of wishful thinking and thin air.

I consider all issues resolved when the last plausible, unsuccessfully rebutted claim is made.

I might be the only one who agrees with you here. God knows most of my arguments are simply ignored. I do not believe Darwin's opponents have really won any arguments in this thread. I believe I and others have presented numerous arguments in support of other hypotheses. I've tried to address every argument no matter to whom it is addressed if it affects my theory. I believe Darwin and his supporters are all on the ropes.

Maybe the solar system is a hologram and will be reconfigured.

Math nor logic precludes the possibility that the sun revolves around the earth but the math is easier if we define terms such that the sun is central.

There are no laws in nature. There is only simple math and complex math; simple definitions and convoluted definitions. Common sense axioms and axioms that seem to make no sense.

You only need to know that if it worked, the science must have been correct.

I find the logic here as facile as many of the explanations for why things are as they are observed. Where is the science that says only our science could have put a man on the moon? Where is the math that takes apart the very nature of gravity that we might overcome it?

Action/ reaction is a concept so simple a caveman can understand it. Landing on the moon was very ancient science in its most fundamental aspects. Even cavemen knew they had to take food, water, and air with them.

 

[cladking]

If you're correct, you can demonstrate the failure and the adverse consequences. If you're incorrect, that will be impossible.

This has been done in depth by others. It has been taken apart through logic by others as well.

The technology must be flawless as well. Great job Houston did getting those boys home - a human triumph.

I don't want to go off topic but the astronauts as well deserve tremendous credit and the wishes and prayers of six billion people you must agree didn't hurt them one bit. The astronauts endured the training, did the work, implemented every plan, and suffered great deprivation. It was a miracle they got home.

Would you call sterile technique in surgery settled science? I would.

No!!! Not at all!!! I'm sure there are many aspects being done improperly. I'm sure I could list dozens that might be problematical. But like surgeons today and me, I simply don't know. Come back in a hundred years and bright school kids will be able to laugh at what we do now and how much more is known then.

Wasn't polio a product of being overly sterile? Perhaps I'm confused. Isn't drug resistance a product of being too sterile? What leads you to believe everything in the operating theater even approaches being sterile? Why is cdif and other infections running wild in hospitals (this one even I can answer)

 

[cladking]

There are not countless ways to model experiments

Dust off any old paradigms and any experiment at all can be reinterpreted to fit. This doesn't mean obsolete paradigms are correct or any obsolete paradigm is correct; it merely implies existing paradigms will all fall by the wayside.

 

[cladking]

You will need to provide a basis for your non-reductionist science because, without a process of confirmation, it offers nothing more than a philosophy of maybes.

I've done this a few times and likely in this very thread but it's not fully on topic so will avoid the repetition.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course. But things like "time" show up in the equation for gravity and it is not understood (as you go on to say). But more relevantly the nature of gravity, its the cause, is still unknown.

The above is false:

Why does gravity pull us down and not up?

Gravity is something every person on Earth intuitively understands: It is what keeps you on the ground. But how come gravity pulls down, rather than pushes up? Einstein came up with the answer.

theconversation.com

In 1915, Albert Einstein figured out the answer when he published his theory of general relativity. The reason gravity pulls you toward the ground is that all objects with mass, like our Earth, actually bend and curve the fabric of the universe, called spacetime. That curvature is what you feel as gravity.

What is spacetime?​

Before getting into the complicated world of gravity, you need to understand spacetime.

Spacetime is exactly what it sounds like: the three dimensions of space – length, width and height – combined with the fourth dimension – time. Using some very brilliant math, Einstein was the first person to realize that the laws of physics work in a universe where space and time are merged together.

What this means is that space and time are connected – if you move really fast through space, time slows down for you compared to someone who is moving slowly. This is why astronauts – who are moving very fast in space – age a tiny bit more slowly than people on Earth.



Earth curves spacetime so that you fall toward Earth instead of away from it. Tokamak/WikimediaCommons, CC BY-SA

Matter makes gravity wells, not gravity hills​

Remember, gravity is the idea that objects in the universe are attracted to each other because spacetime is bent and curved. When Einstein came up with general relativity, he showed that all stuff in the universe can curve spacetime – in physics terms that stuff is mass and energy.

works similarly to how objects will roll toward your feet if you stand on a trampoline. MoMo Productions/Stone via Getty Images

Since your brain usually thinks about the world in three dimensions, it is really hard to think about the four dimensions of spacetime as a single idea. So to make it easier to visualize, imagine the surface of a trampoline. If there is nothing on it, it is flat. But if you stand on the trampoline, it stretches around your feet and creates a valley with you at the center. If there is a ball on the trampoline, it would roll toward your feet.

This is a two-dimensional example of how spacetime works. Your mass stretched the trampoline, creating what is called a gravity well that the ball rolls into. This is very similar to how the gravity of a heavy object – like the Earth – pulls things like you and me toward it.

To make things even weirder, since space and time are connected, time is also stretched by heavy objects!

 

[cladking]

Poor understanding of the work of Charles Darwin and the sciences of evolution. Science never claims"perfection" if falsifies theories and hypotheses based on evidence.

Yet people still refer to gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest as settled science; gospel for all practical purposes.

There are no math laws.

Most "laws of nature are expressed mathematically; F = M * A, etc. Cosmologists now believe all of reality should be expressible in terms of equations or even a single simple equation. I seriously doubt there is any single mathematics in which all of reality can be reduced. More likely we will never be able to reduce much of reality with current science and what can be expressed mathematically will require more form of math.

Reality is sublimely complex so simple answers like E = M * C ^ 2 and evolution is caused by selection very slowly are probably always at best a piece of the reality. Pieces of answers can be wholly misleading or provide great insight.

 

[cladking]

Egyptian science was devoted to engineering. temples and shipbuilding, and practical trial and error everyday life like most ancient cultures. Religions then and now have little or nothing to offer science.

Says you and every single Egyptologist yet no experiment shows this. The SOLE reason it is believed is that it is axiomatic that all ancient people were stinky footed bumpkins. I believe they made perfect sense in terms of their premises exactly like all consciousness. Our job isn't to try to understand their superstitions. ^This is mysticism. Our job is to deduce their premises. This is science.

Trial and error science progressively replaced with Methodological Naturalism which was first proposed in Islam.

There is no such thing as trial and error science. This is mainstream belief but it is obviously wrong since all science requires both metaphysics and a means to communicate results to others if it is to grow over the generations. Egyptology has never identified any metaphysics nor did it even notice there are almost no words in Ancient Language and those that exist break Zipf's Law.

If they understood the ancient writing they'd see that it contained their own version of "change in species" which is similar to my own and admonitions against spreading germs to others. They erred. They erred on a Biblical scale. They got nothing at all right about anything and we are still paying a heavy price for their beliefs and misapprehensions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's not an accurate depiction of what I wrote, which related to your "Ouija board science" claim about Darwin's work and the fact that I had already given you a counterargument: "Ouija boards are not science, and using them IS experimenting. Unfortunately, the experiment confirms the null hypothesis." You didn't comment on that then or since, but you did repeat yourself, so I pointed that out: "Already refuted, which refutation went unaddressed. I consider all issues resolved when the last plausible, unsuccessfully rebutted claim is made. You make a claim about all science is experiment. I falsify that with examples of purely observational science. You disregard that and repeat your rebutted claim, and we're done." And then that non sequitur above.

That's incorrect. Observation and valid reasoning are sufficient. One can win an argument with nothing but reason and evidence. It's how it's done in a courtroom. No experimenting, just evidence, argument, and a verdict.

Correct, but only in the sense that we must always retain a modicum of philosophical doubt. The heliocentric theory seems pretty firmly established beyond reasonable doubt, but we can still entertain unlikely hypotheses (unreasonable doubt). Maybe the solar system is a hologram and will be reconfigured. Not a very reasonable thing to actually worry about, so it's not wrong to call that settled science in that sense.

That's also true with the theory of evolution. It's settled science beyond reasonable doubt. Yet we can entertain unreasonable doubt: perhaps some great deceiver and intelligent designer planted the evidence we think confirms the theory, and we somehow discover that. That's the degree of doubt there - vanishingly small. We can call that settled science as well in the same sense.

You were arguing to me that all science is experiment. Citing experiments doesn't establish that. You need to demonstrate that there is no other kind of science.

If you're correct, you can demonstrate the failure and the adverse consequences. If you're incorrect, that will be impossible.

I see it the other way around. I address your comments clearly and directly like I am now, but I don't get clarifying answers from you when I ask for them.

Hardly. The success of those missions to the moon speaks for itself. The science that made that possible is correct. You don't need to see it. You don't need to be able to understand the math or physics. You don't need to do any experiment. You only need to know that if it worked, the science must have been correct.

I have to discount the last part. I don't know what it means beginning with "and the simple fact." The fire was tragic, but doesn't speak against the validity of rocket science. And Apollo XIII showed us that the science isn't enough. The technology must be flawless as well. Great job Houston did getting those boys home - a human triumph.

OK. And now we know better.

Would you call sterile technique in surgery settled science? I would. The germ theory of infectious disease is another one not going away any time soon.

I've never understood the claim that real science is only through experiment. It makes no sense at all, because it is inconsistent with the facts.

What is it that experiments produce? Evidence.

Can you get evidence by other means? Yes!

Observation.

The nonsense notion that the only true science is through experiment flies in the face of the evidence and reason.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yet people still refer to gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest as settled science; gospel for all practical purposes.

Gospel for all practical purposes?!?!?! Over the top miscomprehension of basic science continues.

Most "laws of nature are expressed mathematically; F = M * V, etc. Cosmologists now believe all of reality should be expressible in terms of equations or even a single simple equation. I seriously doubt there is any single mathematics in which all of reality can be reduced. More likely we will never be able to reduce much of reality with current science and what can be expressed mathematically will require more form of math.

Reality is sublimely complex so simple answers like E = M * C ^ 2 and evolution is caused by selection very slowly are probably always at best a piece of the reality. Pieces of answers can be wholly misleading or provide great insight.

Science does not claim at present a universal theory of everything, but that is very very different from the achievements of the sciences of evolution and consciousness which are well understood.

Expressed mathematically is very very different from the claim Laws of Math that do not exist. The above is a bit confusing. The same Methodological Naturalism that falsified the Theories you mention is the same method that falsifies the theories and hypothesis that confirms the sciences of evolution. ALL theories and hypotheses are subject to change when new information is discovered or confirmed in research.

 

[shunyadragon]

I've done this a few times and likely in this very thread but it's not fully on topic so will avoid the repetition.

It remains subjective of the mind-only philosophy if there is not a defined process to confirm theories and hypotheses by non-reductive processes.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't want to go off topic but the astronauts as well deserve tremendous credit and the wishes and prayers of six billion people you must agree didn't hurt them one bit. The astronauts endured the training, did the work, implemented every plan, and suffered great deprivation. It was a miracle they got home.

I felt it important to respond to this selective subjective description of 'the wishes and prayers of six million people.' First, a number of astronauts perished in the programs, and it is pretty much documented that the success and failures in the various space programs were specifically the success and at times failure of the design and engineering of the space vehicles.

 

[cladking]

It remains subjective of the mind-only philosophy if there is not a defined process to confirm theories and hypotheses by non-reductive processes.

Humans (homo omnisciencis) are wholly incapable of doing natural science as is done by bees, bears, and beavers. I hate using the word but natural science is "holistic" in nature and based in the logic of consciousness just as was ancient science on which religion is based. I believe computers can be programmed to do this natural science possibly giving rise to machine intelligence which would take over reductionistic science. These sciences would be performed simultaneously and act as a check on one another. This could come much sooner than might be imagined and would result in an explosion of new science, new knowledge, and new truth. Natural science can identify truth within its metaphysics and this can be interpreted into reductionistic science.

The chief reason this is so hard to see is people, science, uses erroneous axioms and poor definitions. The former leads to bad paradigms and the latter to bad communication and bad modelling by individuals who must use language as formatting for models.

There is no defined process at this time because no relevant work has been done in any of these fields. Believing you know the characteristics of consciousness without the ability to identify, define, or measure any aspect of it is simply irrelevant. If we really knew what it is it would be very easy to say which species and which individuals possess it. We lack even a definition for it so understanding it is impossible. Cutting edge research in every single field suggests consciousness is universal in living things. Individuals are conscious or they are not alive. All living things are conscious.

Such definitions will more easily explain observation, experiment, and evidence IMO. It will also show that consciousness is fundamental to change in species because change in species results from behavior which is mostly determined genetically as expressed through consciousness.

 

[cladking]

I've never understood the claim that real science is only through experiment. It makes no sense at all, because it is inconsistent with the facts.

If all words apply to science, if science is looked at using every word in the language then there are many ways to define it that each are both accurate and inaccurate. This is the nature of language; the more words you use the more different ways they can be parsed. Obviously "evidence" is of primary concern to science (scientists) but the reality is "evidence" is always interpreted and usually seen in terms of the prevailing paradigm. You can not create theory through hypothesis, evidence, or observation alone. You can not create theory through funding only one hypothesis nor through consensus.

When you boil science down to the fewest possible words with the fewest possible meaning and the fewest possible parsings then science is "Observation > Experiment" and is expressed as theory which by use of language is modelled by individuals. Theory does not really exist independently of individuals and every individual homo omnisciencis has unique models caused by unique beliefs and unique thinking. Beliefs, abstractions, and thought do not exist in any other species on earth (though I agree with itaintnecessarily that dogs may well have some highly limited understanding of a few abstractions).

If you believe in complex models of the nature of science and the applicability of these definitions to the real world then Darwin circumventing experiment might be a virtual irrelevancy. All of his erroneous assumptions can just appear to be beside the point since he nailed the nature of life and how it changes. This is our nature. We see patterns and when a new pattern is identified it looks like truth or reality to us. New patterns like "survival of the fittest" can persist for centuries despite being wrong where they aren't supported by experiment.

I am fully aware all experiment has aspects of observation and evidence as defining characteristics. But people are not aware that language is NEVER precise and every word has many definitions which all include words with many definitions in a massive daisy chain of confusion. Reality and logic can't be expressed in our language just as Ancient Language can't be translated into our language and these things will always be true. It is simply the nature of our language and modern metaphysics. We can always improve models but this tends to be far more the result of the adoption of new paradigms than better definitions or new axioms. Usually these new paradigms arise not from evidence, not from Peers, but from experiment.

Science is "experiment" but unless you include "observation" in this simple definition then you can't understand the importance of metaphysics and experiment interpretation.

 

[cladking]

I felt it important to respond to this selective subjective description of 'the wishes and prayers of six million people.' First, a number of astronauts perished in the programs, and it is pretty much documented that the success and failures in the various space programs were specifically the success and at times failure of the design and engineering of the space vehicles.

I merely implied that these wishes and prayers did not hurt their chances. Do you really want to argue this point? It would be largely magical thinking to believe well wishes in any form are detrimental to people or processes. I've always believed that people are buoyed and more likely to succeed when praised and encouraged by any means at all. Are you sure these three astronauts were all atheists even?

 

[cladking]

I've always believed that people are buoyed and more likely to succeed when praised and encouraged by any means at all.

Research even shows such is beneficial to plants. Isn't life grand?

 

[shunyadragon]

I merely implied that these wishes and prayers did not hurt their chances.

In your post you more than implied. The prayers were obviously neutral to the outcome of space missions.

Do you really want to argue this point?

Yes

It would be largely magical thinking to believe well wishes in any form are detrimental to people or processes. I've always believed that people are buoyed and more likely to succeed when praised and encouraged by any means at all. Are you sure these three astronauts were all atheists even?

No religious belief was implied, nor that prayers were detrimental. My response to your post was specific concerning your claim that they had a positive effect on their success.

 

[shunyadragon]

And I don't believe this is true. If you hand a monkey a Star Trek tricorder and he learns nothing at all from it then you can not conclude the tricorder is broken or has no function. Do you remember many pages back that I mentioned "facilitators" (technicians) were using ouija boards to successfully communicate with severely autistic non-verbal adults? Autistic people were writing books and selling copies. Of course it turned out that it was all nonsense. Humans are capable of deluding themselves about anything at all and all manner of nonsense (like survival of the fittest) can come to be widely believed and the basis of widespread atrocities. Everything can be perfectly normal to people.

To be an "experiment" there should be only two possible interpretations of something in terms of the prevailing paradigm. However it must ALWAYS be remembered that the prevailing paradigm can be in error and a better one possible. There are always multiple ways any experiment can be interpreted correctly in terms of metaphysics. No experiment was ever performed by Darwin. There was no real scientific paradigm in effect when "Origin of Species" was written. He created a paradigm out of wishful thinking and thin air.

Your anti-science view of evolution is in full bloom here. Darwin simply proposed a theory based on existing knowledge and his observations of nature at the time. There volumes of research, discoveries, and experiments since to confirm the evolution of life on Earth beyond any reasonable doubt. What is your alternative explanation can you offer based on the known physical evidence? What better paradigm is possible?

What education and experience in the sciences do have to make these outrageous anti-science claims?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I've never understood the claim that real science is only through experiment. It makes no sense at all, because it is inconsistent with the facts. What is it that experiments produce? Evidence. Can you get evidence by other means? Yes! Observation.

Agreed. Science is the proper interpretation of evidence, and evidence is whatever is evident to the senses, whether that be the contents of a flask in a lab or a galaxy. Only one of these two involves experiment, but both require observation, and both are science. It would be nice to see an attempt at rebuttal there, but its absence is just as useful.

I don't believe this is true

I wrote, "Ouija boards are not science, and using them IS experimenting. Unfortunately, the experiment confirms the null hypothesis." OK, but the rest of your comment doesn't attempt to refute either clause.

I believe Darwin and his supporters are all on the ropes.

Yes, you've said so before, but the theory is doing fine.

There are no laws in nature.

Nature behaves in predictable ways that can be summarized verbally and often mathematically.

Where is the science that says only our science could have put a man on the moon?

There is none. Did you want to address the correctness of the science that accomplished that? Do you think the science used was incorrect? Remember, my point is that if it worked, one doesn't need to know the science himself to know that it was correct.

This has been done in depth by others. It has been taken apart through logic by others as well.

I wrote, "If you're correct, you can demonstrate the failure and the adverse consequences. If you're incorrect, that will be impossible." I'm sure that you realize that your answer looks like an unwitting admission that you can't do that. I call belief by faith a problem, and I have concrete examples of where it caused a problem. You refer to problems, but produce no illustrative examples.

No!!! Not at all!!! I'm sure there are many aspects being done improperly

I wrote, "Would you call sterile technique in surgery settled science? I would." Once again, you confuse the science and technique. The science is settled. Bacteria must be kept out of surgical wounds. How to do that may evolve, but there is no dispute about the principle of antisepsis or the efficacy of proper sterile technique, hence I called it settled science.

people still refer to gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest as settled science

Agreed. Yes, they do. And you haven't rebutted the claim, just dismissed it and offered some idea about consciousness driving evolution, but haven't defined or supported what you mean.

 

[cladking]

Your anti-science view of evolution is in full bloom here.

I am anti-superstition and I fight it wherever it appears. There just happens to be more espoused now day among believers is science than believers in God. Homo omnisciencis has no choice but to hold all our knowledge in terms of belief but it is incumbent on each of us to identify and recognize beliefs and try to keep them out of our models. This will aid in the identification of anomalies as well as anomalous paradigms.

Identification of anomalies is the chief means by which every science progresses. All real scientists always investigate anomalies and when their cause is discovered it often leads to changes in paradigms which is the very nature of most scientific progress. If our ancestors were a small fraction as superstitious as we are we'd still be living in caves or swinging in trees.

Darwinian evolution is the most superstitious "hard" science that I know. There are far more superstitious sciences but they are soft sciences or pseudo-sciences.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am anti-superstition and I fight it wherever it appears. There just happens to be more espoused now day among believers is science than believers in God. Homo omnisciencis has no choice but to hold all our knowledge in terms of belief but it is incumbent on each of us to identify and recognize beliefs and try to keep them out of our models. This will aid in the identification of anomalies as well as anomalous paradigms.

Identification of anomalies is the chief means by which every science progresses. All real scientists always investigate anomalies and when their cause is discovered it often leads to changes in paradigms which is the very nature of most scientific progress. If our ancestors were a small fraction as superstitious as we are we'd still be living in caves or swinging in trees.

Darwinian evolution is the most superstitious "hard" science that I know. There are far more superstitious sciences but they are soft sciences or pseudo-sciences.

Unanswered questions still remain . . .

What is your alternative explanation can you offer based on the known physical evidence? What better paradigm is possible?

What education and experience in the sciences do have to make these outrageous anti-science claims?