Irony of the evolutionary belief

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's just sad, but it confirms so many things. Thanks.

What is it about?

 

[YoursTrue]

What is it about?

"It" is the deadset side.

 

[McBell]

 

[Pogo]

Well it is not Cornell 77 where I heard it the first time and I don't think it will be snowing on the ENG quad when it is over, but just what I thought of @YoursTrue's posts too.

 

[Pogo]

Well it is not Cornell 77 where I heard it the first time and I don't think it will be snowing on the ENG quad when it is over, but just what I thought of @YoursTrue's posts too.

Which is being followed by King Crimson from 1982. I think they may have evolved.

But the ancestry is obvious though there has been some horizontal transfer in the form of Adrian Belew and Tony Levin.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

KING CRIMSON: 21st Century Schizoid Man | The PODIUM Sessions #26​

 

[Pogo]

KING CRIMSON: 21st Century Schizoid Man | The PODIUM Sessions #26​

This is your follow up to how beautiful your life is?
I'm hoping the last video was past the date discontinuity.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

This is your follow up to how beautiful your life is?
I'm hoping the last video was past the date discontinuity.

They coexist.

And they've coexisted here in America, for the last five centuries, since the time of the conquista.

There's been a lot of cultural evolution during these last 500 years, since the first cimmarones ran away from their masters.

Some Historians take a cyclical view, where the last 500 years is merely a single lifecycle (ciclo de vida).

Like the tune says, "Married in a hurricane. What a joyous day, but anyway."

We Don't Talk About Bruno (From "Encanto")​

Bill Clinton on Illegal Immigration at 1995 State of the Union​

The law that broke US immigration​

The disastrous, forgotten 1996 law that created today's immigration problem​

The immigration reform Hillary Clinton wants could be limited — or even undermined — by a law her husband signed.

The disastrous, forgotten 1996 law that created today's immigration problem

The immigration reform Hillary Clinton wants could be limited — or even undermined — by a law her husband signed.

www.vox.com

 

[F1fan]

But you haven’t supported that assertion……………what you are expected to do is to quote my words (and the peer reviewed article) and show that I misrepresented something

You must have memory problems. You don't remember posting a link about non-random mutations, and then interpreting this as meaning that some mutations are intentional? That went on and on for a while until you got tired of it.

Well most of my arguments on FT where taken from Luke A. Barnes and Roger Penrose…so your accusation is a lie, because these people are experts in the relevant fields

All controversial. None of this is accepted by science. That isn't my opinion, it is the consensus of experts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"It" is the deadset side.

Well, I understand what you are saying.
But I have learned over the years that to divide a debate into 2 side where one is wrong and the other right is not how it actually happens, because the different sides are not really sides. Further sometimes a religious person has a point and sometimes a non-religious.

So it could be that you are deadset on there being sides and that the other one is deadset. But here is how it works.
Explain how you understand what is going on in the actual debate. And we can check if any are deadset.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Absurd. More suggests without any plausible mechanism. So thoughts (which form in brains) occurred without brains so that brains could self-create? Is there a reason to take you seriously instead of laughing?

If it doesn't accept facts and reasong then it will be just like other superstitions that don't offer truth.

There is no scientism. Those who think science is scientism are examples of theists who have bias against science and reason.

Well, as long as we can agree that both science and reason currently have limits and can't be used on everything about the human life, then okay.
But if you claim they work on in effect everything then it is scientism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, as long as we can agree that both science and reason currently have limits and can't be used on everything about the human life, then okay.
But if you claim they work on in effect everything then it is scientism.

I do not think that anyone on the science side here has claimed that science is the answer to everything. In fact more than one has argued for nonoverlapping Magisteria and other such concepts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not think that anyone on the science side here has claimed that science is the answer to everything. In fact more than one has argued for nonoverlapping Magisteria and other such concepts.

Well, yes, we have at least 2. But the rules mean I can't tag them. But it is about that the universe is physical and real and that is in effect a fact and not just a belief. But rather only that external objective evidence is real and relevant in the end.

Now yes, it is not science per se, but rather it is in effect overall the same epistemology for evidence, proof, truth and all those words.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Now yes, it is not science per se, but rather it is in effect overall the same epistemology for evidence, proof, truth and all those words.

Anthropologists have some interesting things to say about epistemology, since epistimologies fall within their scientific purview.

So it’s hard to seriously talk about epistemologies without consulting with anthropologists.

 

[F1fan]

Well, as long as we can agree that both science and reason currently have limits and can't be used on everything about the human life, then okay.
But if you claim they work on in effect everything then it is scientism.

I see some theists say that science and reason has limits, which is true because both have to follow facts and evidence, and avoid assumptions. Some theists say science and reason have limits as if their religious assumptions can take humans beyond those limits. No they don't. Some of this set will directly claim that their religious beliefs take them to some special knowledge, but can't demonstrate that it actually does. Others of this set will only imply their religious beliefs are some special knowledge that atheists and religious "others" just don't get. Can any of them explain what non-believers don't get? No. And their attempts only reveal that they have adopted ome tradition of belief that 1. isn't based on evidence and 2. offers no actual knowledge of a reality exernal to the imagination.

The irony of those who use the term "scientism" do so as derogatory, as if when science reveals about ow the universe works is some ideology. It's another word that had multiple definiotions (like the word faith) where theists will interchange the definitions. Ironically the rare definition of scientism, that it is excessive confidence in science, is very seldom seen in the well educated. It tends to be seen as excessive by some believers because the well educated defer wholey to science to explain how things are, and reject creationist claims.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see some theists say that science and reason has limits, which is true because both have to follow facts and evidence, and avoid assumptions. Some theists say science and reason have limits as if their religious assumptions can take humans beyond those limits. No they don't. Some of this set will directly claim that their religious beliefs take them to some special knowledge, but can't demonstrate that it actually does. Others of this set will only imply their religious beliefs are some special knowledge that atheists and religious "others" just don't get. Can any of them explain what non-believers don't get? No. And their attempts only reveal that they have adopted ome tradition of belief that 1. isn't based on evidence and 2. offers no actual knowledge of a reality exernal to the imagination.

The irony of those who use the term "scientism" do so as derogatory, as if when science reveals about ow the universe works is some ideology. It's another word that had multiple definiotions (like the word faith) where theists will interchange the definitions. Ironically the rare definition of scientism, that it is excessive confidence in science, is very seldom seen in the well educated. It tends to be seen as excessive by some believers because the well educated defer wholey to science to explain how things are, and reject creationist claims.

Well, I am not a theist.
But I am aware that science is based on axiomatic assupmtions without evidence themselves as for the concepts of evidence and naturalism.
And in effect I get that you do pjilosophy in part and are not aware of that.
In short you do a version of realism for which you give no evidence for it. Just as some theists give no evidence for god.

 

[F1fan]

Well, I am not a theist.

You hold some sort of odd philsophical framework that is as flimsy as religion. There are a number of folks who do. In my experience these frameworks only act to blur what a human can understand about what is real in life experience. These frameworks don't filter out assumptions, they add material that can confuse and distort explanations. This is why it is good to develop skill at discerning science from meaning in life.

But I am aware that science is based on axiomatic assupmtions without evidence themselves as for the concepts of evidence and naturalism.

See, here's an example. Science doesn't make any more axiomatic assumptions than any ordinary person does waking up, feeding the cat, taking a shower, eating breakfast, and going to work. In science we learn that expriemnts have to make the least number of assumptions as possible, and the axiomatic assumptions are set for all science, and all humans living everyday life. We can't effectively eliminate these assumptions without coming to a complete standstill. And that won't pay the bills, or get results in science.

If your criticism above has a better solution, you don't offer it.

And in effect I get that you do pjilosophy in part and are not aware of that.

As noted, it is a functional approach to aware living that does not need a philosophical label or expalantion. It is learned socially because we humans need to function in every day life, and not get burdened by pondering alternatives. And let's note, these alternatives aren't evidenced in stable and healthy minds. You might insist that we are blind, as some who have tripped on drugs have claimed, but humans can't live in altered states of consciousness. Try driving to work drunk and stoned, and hope that you don't kill anyone before you get there.

In short you do a version of realism for which you give no evidence for it.

What do you think my version of realism is, and how is it incorrect?

Do you think driving drunk, and really killing someone, is not evidence of the realism I acknowledge? Do you reject cause and effect?

Just as some theists give no evidence for god.

This is a completely different perspective. My "version of realism" acknowledges that what I see, touch, smell, hear is actually real. I am talking about sensory data, not how my mind might interpret sensory data. If I smell curry cooking I understand it is actual curry, and not imagined. But If I hear a sound in the next room I can acknowledge I heard a noise but unsure if it's the cat or an intruder. Most theists assume a God, and attribute real things to it. It's similar, but completely different than sensory data informing a human what is real in the environment.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You hold some sort of odd philsophical framework that is as flimsy as religion. There are a number of folks who do. In my experience these frameworks only act to blur what a human can understand about what is real in life experience. ...

Yeah, real has not objective external sensory experince. It is in your mind just like God.
That is how simple your belief system is.

Now how I cope in my life, is different than you do to our brains being different in effect. That even has a namr and that is neurodiversity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure explained in plain English…

Once you make a hypothesis the next step is to make and test predictions.

For example if the hypothesis is that you have a dog, some predictions could be:

1 you buy dog food

2 barking sounds in your house

3 a dog leash in your house

Etc.

These are all predictions that if true………..will make the hypothesis more likely to be true (therefore these predictions are valid)

Any disagreement at this point?

..

The only point that I am making is that these are valid predictions, despite the fact that these predictions don’t *have*to be true in order for the hypothesis to be true.

It is at least logically possible that the predictions are true and the hypothesis false or that the hypothesis is true and the predictions are false. (but these doesn’t invalidate the validity of these predictions)

This is not supposed to be controversial; there are no hidden agendas, the only reason why I made that point is because Tag said the opposite (that predictions must follow)…………. I was not expectgn this mess, my expectation was that Tag would admit that he made a mistake (a typo or something)

Your problem is equivocation fallacies and / or oversimplification
Your silly example here is not comparable to scientific models of how phenomenon in the universe work (or don't work).
It doesn't have the required level of detail and the so-called "predictions" are hopelessly undetailed also, with no caveats and / or controls or alike present whatsoever.

Let's just cut this short:

prediction - Understanding Science

In science, a possible outcome of a scientific test based on logically reasoning about a particular scientific idea (i.e., what we would logically expect to observe if a particular idea were true or false). This website generally uses the term expectation in place of prediction. To learn more...

undsci.berkeley.edu

In science, a possible outcome of a scientific test based on logically reasoning about a particular scientific idea (i.e., what we would logically expect to observe if a particular idea were true or false).


In other words: the prediction / expectation follows logically from the idea / model / hypothesis.
If it does not follow logically, then it is not a scientific prediction / expectation of the model / hypothesis.


A more detailed deep dive into the jargon:

Hypothesis and Prediction: Definition & Example | StudySmarter

Hypothesis and Prediction: ✓ Definition ✓ Examples ✓ Difference ✓ Science ✓ Research ✓ StudySmarter Original

www.studysmarter.co.uk

Accepting or Rejecting the Hypothesis​

The conclusion shows the results of the experiment - have you found evidence to support your prediction?

• If your results match your prediction, you accept the hypothesis.
• If your results don’t match your prediction, you reject the hypothesis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

A perverse and wicked generation asks for signs, but no sign will be given save that of Jonah

Total cop out answer.
You should have just said you can't support your claims.