"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

[Magic Man]

Originally you proposed it could be scientifically tested "God answers prayers." I still object to this line of reasoning,

It's the same thing. You test it by evaluating what it means and then determining the effects you would expect that can be tested.

 

[Magic Man]

That religion is not just supernatiral.

OK, and what's the relevance of that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK, and what's the relevance of that?

That just as science there is no one defintion of religion.

 

[Magic Man]

That just as science there is no one defintion of religion.

There are different definitions of a lot of words. What's the relevance of that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are different definitions of a lot of words. What's the relevance of that?

Look here:

Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

They are rejecting the conclusions being drawn from the science. You can't understand this because you think science produces conclusions, when it does not. It formulates hypotheses based on data returned from experimentation. Yes, they reject science. That's what I said. Science did the...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are different definitions of a lot of words. What's the relevance of that?

Just leave this thread. I can't separate them and get them mixed up. That is my fault and I answer in this as if it is the other thread. Sorry.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's the same thing. You test it by evaluating what it means and then determining the effects you would expect that can be tested.

Not the same thing as far as Science and Social Science is concerned. God or God caused is not subject to being tested. The phenomena such as prayer, meditation, positive thinking and peer support can be tested.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Science is limited, proven....

 

[YoursTrue]

Not the same thing as far as Science and Social Science is concerned. God or God caused is not subject to being tested. The phenomena such as prayer, meditation, positive thinking and peer support can be tested.

Fish becoming-morphing-evolving into humans isn't being tested either. Would be kind of nice if it were, though. Then at least there'd be some "proof."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Fish becoming-morphing-evolving into humans isn't being tested either.

The evidence supports calling that transition correct beyond reasonable doubt. Active testing isn't part of the process, just observation and application of the rules of inference to the evidence observed.

Would be kind of nice if it were, though. Then at least there'd be some "proof."

It's all been done already. All anybody who wants to know more need do is learn the science. If you can't or won't do that, then you have to remain in the dark, but you don't have to reject the science just because you don't understand it. What you'd need is the ability to recognize expertise and defer to it - something the Covid antivaxxers who would rather listen to Trump than Dr. Fauci. Those are people who not only couldn't evaluate the data themselves, which was quite simple and compelling - we compare pooled morbidity and mortality data of the vaccinated to the unvaccinated as would be done in a controlled clinical trial - but worse, seemed to be unaware that all opinions aren't equal. You probably consider your opinion about evolution as valid as that of the experts in the field. If so, then this describes you as well.

This graph illustrates what is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. It graphs the journey from ignorance to expertise. We begin unknowing and have a high confidence level. This is where the D-K effect is seen:

"Dunning-Kruger effect, in psychology, a cognitive bias whereby people with limited knowledge or competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence in that domain relative to objective criteria or to the performance of their peers or of people in general. According to the researchers for whom it is named, psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the effect is explained by the fact that the metacognitive ability to recognize deficiencies in one’s own knowledge or competence requires that one possess at least a minimum level of the same kind of knowledge or competence, which those who exhibit the effect have not attained. Because they are unaware of their deficiencies, such people generally assume that they are not deficient" (source)

With a little enlightenment, one passes to the next stage (called cultured here, but in this context, we can say educated enough to recognize and defer to expertise). This is the first stage of enlightenment - going from unknowing and unaware of that to unknowing but aware of that fact and the fact that others can and do know. Such a person is much less confident than people still in the first stage, and no longer say that all opinions are equal. Then, with further education, one can approach expertise himself, which is an intermediate confidence stage.

My point is that you don't need to learn the science to progress from the D-K stage (ignorant and unaware of that) to the knowingly ignorant stage, which comes with a big dose of humility. The apex is to have that knowledge yourself. Such people can be correct and know that they are correct, something the enlightened ignorant understand, but unknown to the D-K contingent, hence the frequent, "That's just your opinion; you can't prove it," yet they are correct and know they are.

 

[Balthazzar]

I must say that I can't follow most of what you are saying.

Seems to me that you are misunderstanding the statement alltogether.

All it says is that what one perceives isn't necessarily what is. This is so because our senses can quite easily trick us.
Science, as a methodology of objectively testing ideas, serves as an answer to this trickery of our senses.

To quote another scientist (prof Krauss if I'm not mistaken): Our brains evolved to avoid being eaten by lions in Africa, not to understand quantum mechanics

Do you agree that our senses can, quite easily at times, trick us?
Do you agree that objective methods of testing our perception can reveal this trickery and correct our mistakes?

If so, then you agree to the spirit of what the quote in your thread title is trying to communicate.
If not, then I'll ask you why not.

Perceived threats and defense mechanisms are how we navigate life. I agree with the professor. The lines we walk and our guiding systems are inherently ingrained and learned as we traverse unfamiliar territory as individuals. My subjective reality is no less important than the objective, so science only offers broader truths applicable to all and we as individuals are responsible for our individual ones, based on how we relate to our surrounding environments.

 

[YoursTrue]

The evidence supports calling that transition correct beyond reasonable doubt. Active testing isn't part of the process, just observation and application of the rules of inference to the evidence observed. equal.

I understand your point but I do not agree with the line of descent or ascent, however one sees it, as if it happened by mutations that formed humans from fish in the rather long run.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I understand your point but I do not agree with the line of descent or ascent, however one sees it, as if it happened by mutations that formed humans from fish in the rather long run.

I don't think you understand my point. Did you read the Dunning-Kruger material? Did you understand it? There's no evidence for either of those.

Also, there is no line of ascent.

And I'm guessing that you still don't know why you shouldn't be offering uniformed opinions as if you were some kind of metric, as if those opinions should be seriously considered because they're yours - a status some people enjoy, but not all. There are some people that are so reliable that if they offer an opinion that seems wrong, one should seriously reconsider his position, but others that are wrong so often that their claims and conclusions can be disregarded if they seem incorrect.

The reasons you disagree are all faith-based, which also has no persuasive power. Your doubt is not reasonable doubt. It is faith-based doubt, which is why when you say that, "There is no 'proof' " of this or that, it carries little weight, because you wouldn't recognize a sound argument as such.

 

[Pogo]

shouldn't be offering uniformed opinions as if you were some kind of metric

Obtusity emulation?

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think you understand my point. Did you read the Dunning-Kruger material? Did you understand it? There's no evidence for either of those.

Also, there is no line of ascent.

And I'm guessing that you still don't know why you shouldn't be offering uniformed opinions as if you were some kind of metric, as if those opinions should be seriously considered because they're yours - a status some people enjoy, but not all. There are some people that are so reliable that if they offer an opinion that seems wrong, one should seriously reconsider his position, but others that are wrong so often that their claims and conclusions can be disregarded if they seem incorrect.

The reasons you disagree are all faith-based, which also has no persuasive power. Your doubt is not reasonable doubt. It is faith-based doubt, which is why when you say that, "There is no 'proof' " of this or that, it carries little weight, because you wouldn't recognize a sound argument as such.

I know the term ascent is not the same as descent. But ascent seems more applicable unless you want to say that the first cell descends...

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think you understand my point. Did you read the Dunning-Kruger material? Did you understand it? There's no evidence for either of those.

Also, there is no line of ascent.

And I'm guessing that you still don't know why you shouldn't be offering uniformed opinions as if you were some kind of metric, as if those opinions should be seriously considered because they're yours - a status some people enjoy, but not all. There are some people that are so reliable that if they offer an opinion that seems wrong, one should seriously reconsider his position, but others that are wrong so often that their claims and conclusions can be disregarded if they seem incorrect.

The reasons you disagree are all faith-based, which also has no persuasive power. Your doubt is not reasonable doubt. It is faith-based doubt, which is why when you say that, "There is no 'proof' " of this or that, it carries little weight, because you wouldn't recognize a sound argument as such.

I know the term ascent is not the same as descent. But ascent seems more applicable unless you want to say that the first cell descends...here's how one science group starts out -- "Cells are divided into two main classes, initially defined by whether they contain a nucleus. Prokaryotic cells (bacteria) lack a nuclear envelope; eukaryotic cells have a nucleus in which the genetic material is separated from the cytoplasm." So -- the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) is said to be: ": A hypothesized single-celled organism that lived between 3–4 billion years ago and is the ancestor of all living things on earth." So no matter, it's a hypothesis. A single-celled organism that lived a while ago -- (Hypothesized)

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think you understand my point. Did you read the Dunning-Kruger material? Did you understand it? There's no evidence for either of those.

Also, there is no line of ascent.

And I'm guessing that you still don't know why you shouldn't be offering uniformed opinions as if you were some kind of metric, as if those opinions should be seriously considered because they're yours - a status some people enjoy, but not all. There are some people that are so reliable that if they offer an opinion that seems wrong, one should seriously reconsider his position, but others that are wrong so often that their claims and conclusions can be disregarded if they seem incorrect.

The reasons you disagree are all faith-based, which also has no persuasive power. Your doubt is not reasonable doubt. It is faith-based doubt, which is why when you say that, "There is no 'proof' " of this or that, it carries little weight, because you wouldn't recognize a sound argument as such.

I know the term ascent is not the same as descent. But ascent seems more applicable unless you want to say that the first cell descends...here's how one science group starts out -- "Cells are divided into two main classes, initially defined by whether they contain a nucleus. Prokaryotic cells (bacteria) lack a nuclear envelope; eukaryotic cells have a nucleus in which the genetic material is separated from the cytoplasm." So -- the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) is said to be: ": A hypothesized single-celled organism that lived between 3–4 billion years ago and is the ancestor of all living things on earth." So no matter, it's a hypothesis. A single-celled organism that lived a while ago -- (Hypothesized)

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think you understand my point. Did you read the Dunning-Kruger material? Did you understand it? There's no evidence for either of those.

Also, there is no line of ascent.

And I'm guessing that you still don't know why you shouldn't be offering uniformed opinions as if you were some kind of metric, as if those opinions should be seriously considered because they're yours - a status some people enjoy, but not all. There are some people that are so reliable that if they offer an opinion that seems wrong, one should seriously reconsider his position, but others that are wrong so often that their claims and conclusions can be disregarded if they seem incorrect.

The reasons you disagree are all faith-based, which also has no persuasive power. Your doubt is not reasonable doubt. It is faith-based doubt, which is why when you say that, "There is no 'proof' " of this or that, it carries little weight, because you wouldn't recognize a sound argument as such.

As I have said in the past (not because of speeding light past type business), I believed everything I was taught in school about evolution. No questions. I was an A student, not that it matters in this particular context. Nevertheless I recited the lessons well. There were (are) so many different religious beliefs going around, I figured quite frankly, who knows? And not only did I doubt God's existence, but I began to think that God does not exist. For one thing, there are so many different religions, I wondered -- But then ... things changed...and so I leave the rest to demonstrate His being to Him. There are, imo, big questions regarding the theory of evolution. But that's yes, my viewpoint now. It was not always the way I thought in the past. Several reasons: 1. I was taught evolution and had no reason to not believe it. 2. The world of religion can be confusing because of the various ideas. 3. Eventually I began to think God did not exist, but still did not question the theory of evolution. But then things changed in my life.

 

[gnostic]

As I have said in the past (not because of speeding light past type business), I believed everything I was taught in school about evolution. No questions. I was an A student, not that it matters in this particular context.

You are talking about high school biology, which would only teach very rudimentary level.

Unless you have studied some more advance than high school biology, whatever you have to say, are nothing more than your personal (and biased) opinions…on the scale of knowledge, your opinions don’t whole any weights whatsoever. No one really care if you wants to stick head in the sand, we already know that you are not willing to learn anything more advanced, since your JW religion put constraints upon their members.

Jehovah’s Witnesses isnt a scientific body (organisation), it is cultish Christian sect. Its too, don’t have any authority on the matter of science.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I know the term ascent is not the same as descent. But ascent seems more applicable unless you want to say that the first cell descends.

If you want to be understood, use descent for descendants, who descended from LUCA with modification.

the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) is said to be: ": A hypothesized single-celled organism that lived between 3–4 billion years ago and is the ancestor of all living things on earth." So no matter, it's a hypothesis. A single-celled organism that lived a while ago

Yes, but that is more than a hypothesis now. The evidence for it is overwhelming and sufficient to say that that hypothesis is correct beyond reasonable doubt.

You take shelter in words like hypothesis and speculation, but forget how much more others know than you about the science you reject.

I believed everything I was taught in school about evolution. No questions. I was an A student, not that it matters in this particular context. Nevertheless I recited the lessons well.

If that's true - if you ever received an A in a course on evolution - then you've forgotten most of the science you learned.

Did you think about any of the Dunning-Kruger material I presented to you? Did you understand it? Do you know why I posted it?

There are, imo, big questions regarding the theory of evolution.

But not the questions biologists have.

The theory works as it is, although additions may need to be made in the future as they have in the past with the addition of modern genetics and recognizing that punctuated equilibrium occurs.

But neither of those upend the basic ideas of Darwin about a LUCA evolving into the tree of life we see today through natural selection applied to genetic variations in populations over generations through geologic time. That appears to be here to stay.

The remaining work is going to be identifying and specifying the anatomy and biochemistry of the LUCA if possible, and to elucidate specific pathways, especially the one leading to man, which means doing the same for the last man-chimp common ancestor and identifying which of its descendants in the branch that led to man are ancestors and which were branches that died out without leaving additional descendants (aunts, uncles, and cousins if you will).

Eventually I began to think God did not exist, but still did not question the theory of evolution. But then things changed in my life.

Me, too, but in the other direction. I could see that the religion was false, and instead of picking another one, returned to atheistic humanism, although I didn't know to call it that at the time.