The importance of the EVIDENCE in science

[gnostic]

It seems this way to us but we have used science for a mere 400 years. Science must undergo a paradigm shift from time to time to more accurately reflect the nature of reality. As experiment accumulates that shows theory is wrong or incomplete all knowledge must be reorganized.

But real life in all its forms is punctuated equilibrium and not all changes are progress. Humans desire truth and efficiency so there is a tendency to progress but some changes are forced upon us or simply appear on the road we travel. It's rare we can go back and must proceed even when the road ahead becomes rocky.



I don't disagree per se but we think we understand reality now. Most individuals whether they believe in cosmology, astrology, or business administration think what they see is reality and see no anomaly and nothing that isn't known to Siri or some expert somewhere. We can not see reality any more than we can tell "evidence" from a "red herring". We see our beliefs and we color in everything we perceive with the colors of our beliefs. Reality exists but we can't see it directly at all. It is invisible to us. The ancients called it "amun" and this word meant "the hidden" but they could see aspects of amun directly in glimpses. Their reality wasn't reduced to observers, evidence, and experiment. Their reality was never taken apart for study. They had no word for "evidence" because everything either existed or it did not. We live in a digital world and reduce it for our analog "minds". "Evidence" is never labeled, we choose what the evidence is. There was no ancient word for "evidence". There were no abstractions and for us even "reality" is an abstraction. Every other life form and individual takes reality as being axiomatic. This essentially defines life and consciousness. It's little wonder that life and consciousness are largely abstractions to us.

All reasonable people understand the importance of "evidence". Ideally we use it to formulate our beliefs and models but especially we use it to develop hypothesis. Obviously also "evidence" has many definitions and everybody has to deduce every sentence in which it appears to approximate the intention of the author. Some definitions of "evidence" are barely even abstractions at all.


It's easy to get caught up arguing definitions and here it seems that we are coming to at least some meeting of the minds. I would agree that "evidence" is important to everything but then I'd include everything. It is reason and evidence upon which we must depend because there are no alternatives. But when we lose sight of the weakness of reason and evidence we charge headlong into certainty which does not exist. We come to believe that experts might be wrong but they are more right than they ever have been before. We come to believe the formatting and the omniscience. Mountains of nonsense, modeling, statistics, and assumptions are being called "evidence" and we are acting on "theory" generated by this evidence despite the simple fact it all flies in the face of experiment and often common sense as well. We are caught up in 4000 year old circular argument and have lost sight of the most important concept to science; experiment.

What you seems to continue to ignore that evidence are used for REFUTING models during testing stage of Scientific Method, and only when it pass multiple tests that VERIFICATION of the models as being “scientific”.

If the evidence verified the model, then the model is scientific and factual, not a belief.

Only those concepts that lacked any evidence - as in “absence of evidence or “zero evidence” - that we know concepts are not science, because they untestable, hence the concepts are unscientific and unfalsifiable.

Such as the concepts of -

• the creation of the world, including creation of life, requiring a creator deity or deities (God, YHWH or Allah),
• or the more recent Designer in Intelligent Design (another form of creationism);
• or the global flood as narrated in the biblical Genesis

...these concepts are all without evidence, hence they are nothing more than pseudoscience or unsubstantiated beliefs.

Or your proposed concepts of Ancient Language or Ancient Science:

Ancient science worked this way as well. The difference is that we must use experiment because evidence is dependent on the observer. They used simple observation and logic which worked because Ancient Language was completely logical just like reality. The observer saw parts of reality directly in observation but we must reduce reality to experiment to see it at all. There is no "evidence" that can show the nature of reality whether you can see it directly or must see it through experiment.

What you have claimed about Ancient Language and Ancient Science and your brand of Metaphysics are merely belief, based your invention, and your dependence on circular reasoning, confirmation bias.

You believe that people who exist prior to the “Tower of Babel” about 4000 years ago, so everything between 40,000 years ago and 4000 years ago, people spoke a single language and knew sciences better than the last 400 years.

You called these pre-Babel people “Nephilim” and post-Babel people “Homo Omnisciensis”.

There are no logic in your concept, and no evidence to back them up.

The Tower of Babel and the Nephilim are made up myths in Genesis, they don’t exist. And this Homo Omnisciensis is your own invention that don’t exist.

There was never a time, when only one language was spoken or written. And there were no science prior to 4000 years ago, and no Tower of Babel.

 

[gnostic]

How do you know with evidence what is superior or not?

You have only quoted part of my reply.

While mathematical equations (proofs) are useful tools used in science and engineering, THEY ARE NOT EVIDENCE of anything, nor are equations superior than evidence.

My post was that mathematical equations (or mathematical "proof") are not superior to the physical evidence.

The mathematical equations that you see in physics papers, research papers, scientific journals, and in textbooks, are part of the explanations in the models (eg hypotheses or scientific theories or theoretical models).

Just as scientists must test the explanations and predictions within the models (eg hypotheses, theories), any maths presented in the models, MUST ALSO BE TESTED.

No explanations, no predictions, and no equations are true, until they have all been tested. The evidence need to back up explanations/predictions/equations, none of them are true by default.

You need to remember that the equations or proofs, are themselves artificial and abstract representation or model of the real world. And since equations are formulated by people, eg mathematicians, scientists, engineers, etc, people can be wrong. It is only when evidence support the equations, that the equations are probably true.

Maths alone are not scientifically true, until they has been scientifically tested, and the only things that are accepted in science are verifiable observational evidence.

 

[cladking]

I guess I shouldda known there could be no progress in communication with someone who merely desires to lecture.

What you seems to continue to ignore that evidence are used for REFUTING models during testing stage of Scientific Method, and only when it pass multiple tests that VERIFICATION of the models as being “scientific”.

No! Only experiment can establish or demolish theory.

If the evidence verified the model, then the model is scientific and factual, not a belief.

NO! Models are not science at all but merely each individuals' understanding of science.

Only those concepts that lacked any evidence - as in “absence of evidence or “zero evidence” - that we know concepts are not science, because they untestable, hence the concepts are unscientific and unfalsifiable.

No!

What you have claimed about Ancient Language and Ancient Science and your brand of Metaphysics are merely belief, based your invention, and your dependence on circular reasoning, confirmation bias.

No!!!

I defined "metaphysics" (xxxxxxx for gnostic). It's impossible for a definition to be wrong.

You believe that people who exist prior to the “Tower of Babel” about 4000 years ago, so everything between 40,000 years ago and 4000 years ago, people spoke a single language and knew sciences better than the last 400 years.

No!

They knew a different science.

You called these pre-Babel people “Nephilim” and post-Babel people “Homo Omnisciensis”.

No!

Pre-babel people were "homo sapiens". I believe "nephilim" might have been homo sapiens who survived the tower of babel by 12 centuries. Unlike you I don't know everything and I know the difference between belief and knowledge.

There was never a time, when only one language was spoken or written.

This is your belief .

How many languages do you imagine blue whales have? Mebbe they all speak Aussie since they're all down under.

 

[gnostic]

Pre-babel people were "homo sapiens". I believe "nephilim" might have been homo sapiens who survived the tower of babel by 12 centuries. Unlike you I don't know everything and I know the difference between belief and knowledge.

There are no such things as Nephilim, it's a myth. You were the one who brought are mythological Nephilim in past threads.

In human history - and I am talking about humans in term of biology, Homo sapiens exist then and now. There are no changes in species of the Homo sapiens in the last 100,000 years. We are Homo sapiens.

And there are no such thing as Homo omnisciensis. That's your fiction and your belief.

And there is nothing called the Tower of Babel is except in myth.

Both Babel and Nephilim first appeared in Genesis, and Genesis was composed no earlier than 7th century BCE, so what would Hebrews know of history prior to 2000 BCE?

None. The Tower of Babel was probably inspired by the 6th century ziggurat in Babylon (called Etemenaki, which supposed by larger than those at Uruk and Ur, but it no longer exist except for its foundation) at the time, during the Jews exile at Babylon. The original ziggurat was destroyed by the Neo-Assyrians (Sennacherib) in early 7th century BCE, and the 2nd one was built (started by Esaraddon, Sennacherib's successor) over the original during early 7th century BCE, but the newer Etemenaki wasn't completed until Chaldean Nebuchadnezzar II.

Like I said, the Jews were probably inspired to write about Babel because of Etemenaki. Etemenaki isn't very old, and certainly didn't exist in 2000 BCE. The Great Ziggurat of Ur is older, constructed around 2100 BCE, standing just over 30 metres, while Khufu's pyramid still stand at over 140 metres.

The points are, that your uses of Jewish myths from Genesis, such as Nephilim and Tower of Babel, make your claim less than credible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have only quoted part of my reply.



My post was that mathematical equations (or mathematical "proof") are not superior to the physical evidence.

The mathematical equations that you see in physics papers, research papers, scientific journals, and in textbooks, are part of the explanations in the models (eg hypotheses or scientific theories or theoretical models).

Just as scientists must test the explanations and predictions within the models (eg hypotheses, theories), any maths presented in the models, MUST ALSO BE TESTED.

No explanations, no predictions, and no equations are true, until they have all been tested. The evidence need to back up explanations/predictions/equations, none of them are true by default.

You need to remember that the equations or proofs, are themselves artificial and abstract representation or model of the real world. And since equations are formulated by people, eg mathematicians, scientists, engineers, etc, people can be wrong. It is only when evidence support the equations, that the equations are probably true.

Maths alone are not scientifically true, until they has been scientifically tested, and the only things that are accepted in science are verifiable observational evidence.

How do you know whether science or math is superior?

 

[gnostic]

How do you know whether science or math is superior?

It isn't a contest or pissing match, mikkel.

And I am talking about "evidence", not "science".

Science is the knowledge, and they contain explanation of the physical or natural phenomena, to understand -

• WHAT the phenomena is,
  
• HOW does it work,

Understanding these two, may provide insight as to -

• WHAT application this knowledge may have,
• and HOW do I implement this or these applications.

The evidence is the physical (or natural) reality - or more precisely the physical or natural phenomena, in which the scientists are trying to understand.

We called these "knowledge" or "science" - "scientific theory".

But you don't start out with a theory. The starting point is the hypothesis.

A hypothesis is "proposed theory", A hypothesis is like a theory, but have not been tested and accepted, yet. And it may never be accepted theory if it fail in the testing stage of the Scientific Method.

A theory and hypothesis should contained a number of different models:

1. explanatory models
   
2. predictive models
   
3. logical models.

In a hypothesis, these are proposed models or proposed solutions to the phenomena, that haven't been tested.

The 1st two models should be self-explanatory to you, but the last one - "logical models", are usually expressed in the forms of mathematical statements, like equations, formulas, hence it would possibly contain numbers, variables, constants, etc, hence the logical model is the same as "mathematical model".

The logical models might even be included in the explanatory models and predictive models rather than a separate model.

What you needs to understand the equations in a hypothesis may be correct or incorrect, and you won't know if it is correct, unless it has been tested. And the only way to properly test the equations (as well as testing the explanations & predictions) is through evidence.

I am not denying that maths are useful tools, and they have a lot of real-world application, and they are definitely useful in sciences.

The differences between evidence (not science) and mathematical equations, are evidence are the real physical thing, where as the equations are abstract and possibly correct solution.

But if the evidence should refute the equations, then the maths are wrong, not the evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It isn't a contest or pissing match, mikkel.

And I am talking about "evidence", not "science".

Science is the knowledge, and they contain explanation of the physical or natural phenomena, to understand -

• WHAT the phenomena is,
  
• HOW does it work,

Understanding these two, may provide insight as to -

• WHAT application this knowledge may have,
• and HOW do I implement this or these applications.

The evidence is the physical (or natural) reality - or more precisely the physical or natural phenomena, in which the scientists are trying to understand.

We called these "knowledge" or "science" - "scientific theory".

But you don't start out with a theory. The starting point is the hypothesis.

A hypothesis is "proposed theory", A hypothesis is like a theory, but have not been tested and accepted, yet. And it may never be accepted theory if it fail in the testing stage of the Scientific Method.

A theory and hypothesis should contained a number of different models:

1. explanatory models
   
2. predictive models
   
3. logical models.

In a hypothesis, these are proposed models or proposed solutions to the phenomena, that haven't been tested.

The 1st two models should be self-explanatory to you, but the last one - "logical models", are usually expressed in the forms of mathematical statements, like equations, formulas, hence it would possibly contain numbers, variables, constants, etc, hence the logical model is the same as "mathematical model".

The logical models might even be included in the explanatory models and predictive models rather than a separate model.

What you needs to understand the equations in a hypothesis may be correct or incorrect, and you won't know if it is correct, unless it has been tested. And the only way to properly test the equations (as well as testing the explanations & predictions) is through evidence.

I am not denying that maths are useful tools, and they have a lot of real-world application, and they are definitely useful in sciences.

The differences between evidence (not science) and mathematical equations, are evidence are the real physical thing, where as the equations are abstract and possibly correct solution.

But if the evidence should refute the equations, then the maths are wrong, not the evidence.

Yeah, but that is not all of the everyday world. I use evidence as a method if it applies. If it don't, I don't use evidence. I use mental methodologies for the mental.
You can do evidence all you like. If you claim you do nothing but evidence for all of the world, then I can do that differently for some parts of the world.

 

[gnostic]

The term epistḗmē, in ancient Greek, ἐπιστήμη, which mean "knowledge". The terms "knowledge" and "science" are synonymous.

The word science come from the Latin word, scientia, but that also originally mean "knowledge".

I used to think gnôsis γνῶσις to mean "knowledge", but it isn't...well, not originally.

Yes, later gnôsis came to mean "knowledge", but gnôsis originally mean "seeking to know" or "inquiry". I didn't know this, until quite recently.

Some people think, even today, that "knowledge" and "wisdom" or
"philosophy" (love of wisdom) mean the same thing. And some people think philosophy to be superior than knowledge or science.

But people forget that are numerous philosophies (schools of thought), ancient and modern, eastern philosophies vs western philosophies, and many more philosophies within each regions.

The fact of the matter, that there are often disagreement with each schools, of how to think, how to behave, how to live. Not all philosophies are logical, and most have nothing to do with science whatsoever.

Some philosophies are religious or spiritual or mystical in nature, like Hinduism and Buddhism for examples.

All these schools of thoughts or philosophies cannot be right, not all of them are concern with knowledge...and wisdom don't necessarily mean knowledge.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The term epistḗmē, in ancient Greek, ἐπιστήμη, which mean "knowledge". The terms "knowledge" and "science" are synonymous.

The word science come from the Latin word, scientia, but that also originally mean "knowledge".

I used to think gnôsis γνῶσις to mean "knowledge", but it isn't...well, not originally.

Yes, later gnôsis came to mean "knowledge", but gnôsis originally mean "seeking to know" or "inquiry". I didn't know this, until quite recently.

Some people think, even today, that "knowledge" and "wisdom" or
"philosophy" (love of wisdom) mean the same thing. And some people think philosophy to be superior than knowledge or science.

But people forget that are numerous philosophies (schools of thought), ancient and modern, eastern philosophies vs western philosophies, and many more philosophies within each regions.

The fact of the matter, that there are often disagreement with each schools, of how to think, how to behave, how to live. Not all philosophies are logical, and most have nothing to do with science whatsoever.

Some philosophies are religious or spiritual or mystical in nature, like Hinduism and Buddhism for examples.

All these schools of thoughts or philosophies cannot be right, not all of them are concern with knowledge...and wisdom don't necessarily mean knowledge.

Science as its etymology:
science | Etymology, origin and meaning of science by etymonline

In my culture there are 7 categories of knowledge and your science is only one of them. You can believe as you like and I will still believe differently.

 

[gnostic]

Yeah, but that is not all of the everyday world. I use evidence as a method if it applies. If it don't, I don't use evidence. I use mental methodologies for the mental.
You can do evidence all you like. If you claim you do nothing but evidence for all of the world, then I can do that differently for some parts of the world.

When I often talk about "science", I am usually referring to Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences.

Physical Sciences referred to the following sciences:

• physics
  
• chemistry
  
• Earth science
  
• astronomy

Physical sciences also relate to "related branches" like technology, engineering and computer sciences.

Natural Sciences are the same list (in bullet-point list), plus life sciences, meaning biology and related biology branches and fields/sub-fields, eg zoology, botany, molecular biology, genetics, evolution, biochemistry, as well as the physical health and medicine.

Both Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences required following the requirements: Falsifiability, Scientific Method and Peer Review.

Then there are many sciences of Social Sciences, which relate to studies of human behaviors & emotions (psychology, behavorial science, therapy, mental health, etc), human cultures (sociology, anthropology), and human achievements/actions (archaeology, political sciences & ethics, laws, economics, etc).

Social Sciences don't need to follow strictly to Scientific Method, hence most people referred to Social Sciences, especially psychology and psychiatry as "soft science".

What you referred to as "mental" or "mental methodology", would be more in the Social Sciences department, which don't rely on following Scientific Method guideline.

There is another science, which have uses in all of the above "sciences", Formal Sciences, which you would know better as "logic" and "mathematics". I am not going to say any more about Formal Sciences than that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When I often talk about "science", I am usually referring to Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences.

Physical Sciences referred to the following sciences:

• physics
  
• chemistry
  
• Earth science
  
• astronomy

Physical sciences also relate to "related branches" like technology, engineering and computer sciences.

Natural Sciences are the same list (in bullet-point list), plus life sciences, meaning biology and related biology branches and fields/sub-fields, eg zoology, botany, molecular biology, genetics, evolution, biochemistry, as well as the physical health and medicine.

Both Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences required following the requirements: Falsifiability, Scientific Method and Peer Review.

Then there are many sciences of Social Sciences, which relate to studies of human behaviors & emotions (psychology, behavorial science, therapy, mental health, etc), human cultures (sociology, anthropology), and human achievements/actions (archaeology, political sciences & ethics, laws, economics, etc).

Social Sciences don't need to follow strictly to Scientific Method, hence most people referred to Social Sciences, especially psychology and psychiatry as "soft science".

What you referred to as "mental" or "mental methodology", would be more in the Social Sciences department, which don't rely on following Scientific Method guideline.

There is another science, which have uses in all of the above "sciences", Formal Sciences, which you would know better as "logic" and "mathematics". I am not going to say any more about Formal Sciences than that.

So you use 3. I use 7.

 

[cladking]

Like I said, the Jews were probably inspired to write about Babel because of Etemenaki. Etemenaki isn't very old, and certainly didn't exist in 2000 BCE. The Great Ziggurat of Ur is older, constructed around 2100 BCE, standing just over 30 metres, while Khufu's pyramid still stand at over 140 metres.

I don't know everything. It would certainly be nice to just look at all the "evidence" and pronounce how everything mustta been and mussta still be but reality doesn't work this way.

Did you forget that unlike the Bible I am suggesting that not only was the language confused at the "tower of babel" but it is still confused? This would mean the story of the "Confusion of the tongues at the Tower of Babel" is itself confused. I state an hypothesis based on the "evidences" and you want to demolish it with mere words and semantics. You won't even cite any evidence except to lecture about your beliefs and how and where the babel "myth" arose. Despite repeatedly linking to a source of an ancient rendition of the "tower of babel" from no later than 1800 BC you are simply blind to such evidence because you've already arranged your world such as to exclude any such evidence.

I repeat again the reason "evidence" isn't directly included as part of the scientific method is that we each see different evidence and we each interpret evidence differently just as you can't properly parse this post or any sentence that contains the words "metaphysics", "evidence", or "tower of babel". For this reason we can't even argue the same subject. You believe "evidence" is part of the scientific method and won't discuss this either. You have chosen to believe this because the more inclusively you define it the more "intelligence" is a factor in its operation and the more easily you can maintain a belief in the efficacy of expertise in understanding reality. You've thrown the entire dictionary at everything except any kind of argument with which you disagree and then you select the narrowest possible meaning and lecture.

I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood

 

[cladking]

I repeat again the reason "evidence" isn't directly included as part of the scientific method is that we each see different evidence and we each interpret evidence differently just as you can't properly parse this post or any sentence that contains the words "metaphysics", "evidence", or "tower of babel". For this reason we can't even argue the same subject.

While I previously stated that "evidence" is the means by which we arrive at hypothesis this is not solely and universally true. It really doesn't matter by what means an individual invents hypotheses or experiments. The only thing that matters to real science is the outcome of experiment. "Evidence" simply isn't necessary to science except to those who believe that reality can be seen directly all the time by the High Priests of Science called Peers. They can not see reality and you can't stand before them, after them, or upon their shoulders to see either. "Reality" is "determined much more by the time and place of your birth and education than it is by what actually happens and why. "Reality" is individual and people who live in the same place have a similar understanding of it.

You believe you see reality and every day science can peer deeper and deeper into it and farther and farther away into it. You don't see that evidence is dependent on perspective or why science works at all so you've mistaken knowledge for truth and models for reality itself.

Dogma and science change one funeral at a time.

 

[gnostic]

You believe "evidence" is part of the scientific method and won't discuss this either.

I have never said that. I’ve never said “evidence is part of scientific method”.

The evidence are essential requirements TO TEST a new hypothesis or existing theory.

In a hypothesis, the hypothesis is attempt to understand and to explain the following -

• what phenomena,
• what the properties of the phenomena,
• how this phenomena works,
• and understanding the above, you might also explain what application this phenomena may have.

Hypothesis should include possible predictions of what this phenomena is and how it work, and the predictions are used for testing the hypothesis.

All of the above is part of Scientific Method, the first part or step: the Formulation of the Hypothesis.

The next step in Scientific Method is Testing the Hypothesis, by gathering evidence or performing experiments, or both.

The tests involved observations, which is not just about “seeing” the evidence, is about obtaining as much information about the physical properties of the phenomena/evidence, eg quantities, measurements, comparison between evidence or between experiments, etc.

These information about evidence, is called data.

The evidence aren’t part of Scientific Method, but essential to the testing of the hypothesis. The evidence needed to be observed, tested and analyzed.

The evidence and data are studied and analyzed, to help determine if the explanations & predictions (from the hypothesis) are valid scientifically or not.

If not, then the evidence have refuted the hypothesis, in which in this case you would conclude the hypothesis is either weak or incorrect, and therefore it can be discarded as a failed hypothesis.

But if the evidence support the explanations plus predictions, then the hypothesis have been verified as being “scientific” and a possible candidate of being “scientific theory”.

I said “candidate” because there is a chance that one or more scientists may offer better tested explanations of working hypothesis than the first scientist’s hypothesis.

So you may have more than one candidate hypothesis.

So the Scientific Method involved two major steps, before reaching the conclusion about hypothesis’ status:

1. Formulation of the hypothesis (which include the explanatory modeling and predictive modeling).
2. Testing the hypothesis (which include observations of the evidence or experiments, gathering data, and analyzing the evidence & data).

If the hypothesis is successful in the testing stage of Scientific Method, then you can draw conclusion, and that ends Scientific Method.

The next step, isn’t part of Scientific Method. It is where hypothesis needs to present the hypothesis (or candidate hypotheses, if there are multiple hypotheses) and evidence plus data to independent scientists for review. Hence the Peer Review.

The Peer Review are not some conspiracy theorists. They are only there, to independently examine the hypothesis/evidence/data, to ensure that scientist(s) who authored and tested the hypothesis, didn’t make errors or didn’t fraudulently doctored the data from the test results, as well as ensure the author(s) have followed the Scientific Method requirements.

You have repeatedly misunderstood what I say about Peer Review.

The Peer Review isn’t part of Scientific Method. The independent scientists (peers) would only review hypotheses that have already undergone Scientific Method.

To give you an example, of those concepts rejected by peer review: the Irreducible Complexity, by Michael Behe.

His paper - Irreducible Complexity was one of the concepts about Intelligent Design, where the natural world and natural phenomena, particularly in biology, were too complex for it developed naturally, hence it must be designed, and therefore required an intelligent “Designer”.

The reason why Irreducible Complexity was rejected, because he supplied no evidence, no original experiments and no original data.

All he had in his paper, were some analogies and computer simulations, none of which, are considered evidence or experiments.

He tried to bypass Peer Review, by publishing some books, including Darwin’s Black Box, which was examined in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District court case (2005).

During being cross-examined, Behe admitted that his Irreducible Complexity, include no experiments and no data.

The Peer Review had nothing to do with this Kitzmiller’s civil action against the Dover’s school board for trying to introduce Intelligent Design’s book Of Pandas And People (1989) as a textbook to be used in science classrooms. Behe was there as Dover’s expert witness.

Michael Behe’s admission provided us insight as to why his Irreducible Complexity was rejected in the first place.

The Peer Review are mechanism for not only correcting errors of hypotheses, but also rejecting any fraudulent (and pseudoscience) concepts that are supported by experiments and data.

I have noticed back at the Ancient Reality thread, that you are against Peer Review, quite possibly due to your own lack of experiments and data.

You are anti-Peer Review, because no one accepted your idea.

Have you given any thought that the problem doesn’t lie with Peer Review, but with illogical concept and your lack of evidence/experiments to your ideas?

You talk of Homo Omnisciensis that you have invented, but don’t exist, except according to you alone. You have mentioned the Tower of Babel as boundary of time (2000 BCE or 4000 years ago, the transition between Early and Middle Bronze Age) of Ancient Science that provided better understanding of physical world better than modern sciences, because of communication of single simple and basic language that you called Ancient Language.

And yet, this Ancient Language, you have admitted cannot be translated, and yet you are “the expert” of this Ancient Language.

If you cannot translate the Ancient Language, then how can you possibly know what the incoherent symbols means, and how would you know there are hidden science in this imaginary language of yours?

All this, sound like pseudoscience and conspiracy theories of Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken - all fake archaeologists.

 

[gnostic]

So you use 3. I use 7.

What’s the other 4?

 

[cladking]

I could argue with most of your post but in general I agree with it. At least the chief differences are phraseology and semantics.

However, you continually overlook one of my chief points which is we are each different and every scientist has a little different model and core beliefs. Each scientist has his own definitions and there is even some variation in axioms, postulates, and givens. Scientists experience consciousness the same way everyone else does; we all preferentially see our beliefs and what we see supports our beliefs. I don't believe this fact can be overlooked when discussing "evidence".

I have noticed back at the Ancient Reality thread, that you are against Peer Review, quite possibly due to your own lack of experiments and data.

"Peer review" has its place and this is especially true in the hard sciences. But there is no science, no experiment, in Egyptology so Peers have no function. I'd remind you that Egyptology put an urgent call to "Peers" in 2015 to explain a few thermal anomalies which I had already predicted. They never even came up with a viable hypothesis and simply dropped it. Nobody called me to ask how I knew in advance it was there and campaigned for years to get the thermal testing done. Nobody asked me what to do next or what would be found next (copper hydroxide and ultraviolet reflections at the entrance).

I would suggest that prediction (at least in this case) makes experiment virtually superfluous.

You are anti-Peer Review, because no one accepted your idea.

Very few Egyptologists have ever heard of my idea. To my knowledge not more than one has even considered it for more than a moment or two. Peers do not review alternative ideas. They toss them in the trash. Egyptologists simply won't even respond to my eMails.

If you cannot translate the Ancient Language, then how can you possibly know what the incoherent symbols means, and how would you know there are hidden science in this imaginary language of yours?

It can't be translated but the meaning can be modelled.

We are each different and we each assume this is the nature of consciousness. It is not. It is the nature of thinking in any modern analog language and all modern human languages are analog. Just as each termite or beaver thinks alike so too did ancient humans. How can we all sit here arguing the meaning of simple words and the origin of nature while disagreeing about even the existence of reality without realizing we are all different? We each have our own evidence and our own theories and then science changes when someone dies rather than by a new experiment!!!

If you have any evidence I'm wrong about these things you mention then why not add it to the Ancient Reality thread?

 

[gnostic]

"Peer review" has its place and this is especially true in the hard sciences. But there is no science, no experiment, in Egyptology so Peers have no function. I'd remind you that Egyptology put an urgent call to "Peers" in 2015 to explain a few thermal anomalies which I had already predicted.

I have been talking about mostly about Babylonia and your nonexistent Tower of Babel, not about Egypt, so I have interests in talking about your hatred for Egyptology.

Ziggurats in Mesopotamia existed (eg Uruk, Ur, Babylon), but not this Tower of Babel.

I don't know everything. It would certainly be nice to just look at all the "evidence" and pronounce how everything mustta been and mussta still be but reality doesn't work this way.

Wow, you say evidence must be "look at", but you just ignore them.

There are physical evidence of the ziggurat in Ur, built during the 3rd dynasty of Ur, before 2000 BCE. And it was constructed during the reign of Ur-Nammu (c 2112 - 2094 BCE). And the ziggurat is a real structure, that it's still standing today, unlike your nonexistent Tower of Babel.

And, Ur-Nammu isn't an imaginary ruler, he was founder of the 3rd dynasty. He reigned shortly after the collapse of the Akkadian dynasty. And this ziggurat was the last largest monument built before the end of the 3rd millennium BCE.

Why do you keeping insisting on people to accept your ridiculous claims about the Tower of Babel, when there are no such structure built.

The ziggurat, Etemenanki, wasn't constructed until the late Kasssite dynasty (1595 - 1160 BCE) in Babylon, but this ziggurat was destroyed by the Neo-Assyrian Sennacherib (705 - 681 BCE), including the city. His successor Esarhaddon (681 - 669 BCE) began rebuilding the city, and the new ziggurat was gradually being reconstructed over the old ziggurat, and it wasn't completed until Nebuchadnezzar II.

And as I said in my previous reply, Etemenaki was the inspiration to the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. At least the foundation of Etemenaki still exist, if not the rest of ziggurat.

The questions are, did Babel ever exist, or is it just myth invented by 6th century Jews, who composed chapter 11 of Genesis? Can you even locate this Tower of Babel?

There is another problem with Genesis 11, where it stated Abraham left Ur for the city of Harran, and it referred to the city as being Chaldean.

The problem here, that no Chaldeans lived in Ur and southern Babylonia during the time, 2000 BCE. The first dynasty of Babylon was Amorites, not Chaldeans.

There are no historical records of Chaldeans ever living in Babylonia during the Middle Bronze Age (which coincided with the Amorite dynasty in Babylon) and Late Bronze Age (Kassite dynasty, 1595 - 1160 BCE).

The Chaldeans didn't migrate to southern Babylonia until 10th or 9th century BCE, and the Chaldeans didn't become a threat to the Neo-Assyrian dynasty until the 7th century, with Nabopolassar (626 - 605 BCE), the father of Nebuchadnezzar II, began the Chaldean dynasty in Babylon.

This mean Genesis 11 isn't just wrong about the nonexistent Tower of Babylon, it is wrong about the presence of Chaldeans in Ur, because the Chaldeans are anachronistic in Genesis 11.

 

[gnostic]

It can't be translated but the meaning can be modelled.

You mean interpreted, or you are guessing make assumption as to what these symbols MAY MEAN.

Do you remember this chart you posted up in Ancient Reality (post 663)?

How would you know these symbols represent "Ancient Science" or "Metaphysics"?

You are making wild guesses.

If you are guessing, assuming and interpreting these symbols, then this mean that you cannot possibly decipher the symbols. Your modelling is nothing more than guesswork, and you believe that what you are guessing to be fact.

It is called confirmation bias, cladking.

Do you not understand how ridiculous you sound?

No wonder no one believe you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What’s the other 4?

In Danish culture there are 7 categories of knowledge as how something/someone works.

• Natural science
• Formal abstract thinking
• Social science, the "we" of the social life.
• Human science, the "I" for how to be an individual
• Arts and what beauty is
• History as how we understand the past for the lives of humans we can't ask
• How works, works

And off course combinations here off. Knowledge is to describe what is going on and all of the everyday world consists at least of these 7 categories.
So for your title: The importance of the EVIDENCE in science that one covers all 7 to me and indeed the word "imporantence" is within social, human and how works, work. You are to me not doing natural science. You are doing knowledge about how natural science works, but that it is important, is not natural science.

 

[cladking]

Why do you keeping insisting on people to accept your ridiculous claims about the Tower of Babel, when there are no such structure built.

It is you fixated on the Tower of Babel and you insist it wasn't in Mesopotamia and it wasn't a ziggurat.

I don't know what the "Tower of Babel" was or even if it existed at all. You can look everywhere and there is no EVIDENCE for it today other than extensive ancient writing. There is no mound of rubble with a giant plaque that reads "Here Lies the Tower of Babel" anywhere in the world. I don't know. You know that every pile of rubble everywhere and even piles still standing like Meidum are not the Tower of Babel and there is no referent for the Tower of Babel because there is no scientific book that identifies the Tower of Babel and that the Bible is simple claptrap with nothing in it that is real. All of your reality lies in some textbook or an equation so there's no point looking at hypotheses.

You can't understand I don't belief in the Tower of Babel. I don't believe in the Bible, in Peers, or in science (just Yoko and me and sometimes I'm none too sure about her). This is why I propose that based on EVIDENCE carved in stone that perhaps the "tower of babel" (NOTE LACK OF CAPITALIZATION) might be more a concept than a place. Perhaps (I DON'T KNOW) it was the place where the edict changing the official language from Ancient Language to the pidgin languages was issued. We have the Malta Agreement or Paris Accords and they had the Tower of Babel. Did I mention that unlike you whop has all thge4 answers that I don't know. All I have is vast amounts of evidence to make guesses called "hypotheses" when they untested and unassailable scientifically. In my opinion these are the best guesses to explain ziggurats, pyramids and the stories of the Bible and they are all foiunded on far more evidence than "There's no evidence the Tower of Babel was in Babel or existed at all".

"There's no evidence the Tower of Babel was in Babel or existed at all" is simply gainsaying my beliefs based on evidence yet presents no logic, no evidence, and no argument. There's no evidence the Tower of Babel was on the south pole right in the center of Atlantis or on the moon either. SO?