Wiki the God of Scientism

[Altfish]

Again, I do not believe that I suggested theretail was a conspiracy.
While I understand that the pages are crowd sourced, that does not answer a question regarding a consistency across multiple pages. Has anyone tried editing and see if it gets changed back? I don't know.

I am only commenting on the word differences.

Why should it be consistent, I have answered that! It is done by different people with differing styles.

 

[Curious George]

Why should it be consistent, I have answered that! It is done by different people with differing styles.

We seem to be having a very hard time communicating.

I am not saying it ought or ought not be consistent.

I am asking why it is not and what does that mean.

You suggest the reason for why is simply that it was composed by different writers with a different writing style. I would imagine that such a hypothesis would find support in similar inconsistencies throughout. Perhaps such inconsistencies exist. I picked items from my head and posted the first definitive sentences. I did not hunt for specific compositions and then select the ones that were in accordance with my theory. In fact, it was through these searches that I realized the sentences were inconsistent. I had originally looked at the definition and thought, "well that is Abiogenesis, what is the issue."

Yet anyone can see an inconsistency. And more, a pattern of inconsistency. Now if the inconsistencies were simply stylistic, we should not see this type of patterning. Perhaps this pattern is reflective of how the Wikipedia writers and editors think about hypotheses such as Abiogenesis; perhaps it is how our society does. Either way, I am not suggesting any ought here.

We can discuss what word choice ought to reflect. But that is an entire new conversation. All I have suggested is that the subject does deserve critical thought. It should not be dismissed in a fashion that undermines the OP's observation that a difference exists.

 

[Altfish]

I am not saying it ought or ought not be consistent.

I am asking why it is not and what does that mean.

And I'm answering that by saying it is written by different authors; therefore it is not consistent because there are not enough editors available to reformat the thousands of pages that are created each day.

 

[Curious George]

And I'm answering that by saying it is written by different authors; therefore it is not consistent because there are not enough editors available to reformat the thousands of pages that are created each day.

And I understand that. Yet I do not see why such a pattern should arise if it was simply from different authors. Can you find entries that do not follow this pattern? Let us imagine a scenario where a group of people all flipped coins and then wrote down their answers. If the group is large enough we should not anticipate certain patterns emerging from such a group.

So, I am suggesting your explanation while technically possible is wanting.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No. I think you are equating science and religion. That should not be.

No, I'm saying what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want to demand that "science" not word certain definitions of terms as if they are fact, then it should also be acceptable for others to demand that those of religious persuasions never declare the definitions or any aspects of their deity/deities as fact.

To the point that, if you have a problem with someone stating that "abiogenesis" is "... the natural process by which...", without including a qualifier as to whether or not it is fully known that this is a real thing, then you should not be able to state even something as simple as "Yahweh is the one true god", without also including some kind of qualifier signifying that you are also not entirely sure this is a real thing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, I do realize it is open to editing. But no, I don't know that there are many biased groups involved in the subjects I am most interested in (paranormal subjects and spirituality) besides GSoW.

Zionist groups were openly teaching people to edit pages, at one point, as an example. But even without direct 'guerilla editing', there is an inherent Western bias on wiki which would certainly indirectly impact on paranormal and spirituality.

I believe the average reader though assumes Wikipedia is a basically neutral source of information which it actually is on most mundane subjects. It is a very go-to source on many search engines.

Sure. Just like plenty of 'average' people rely on Fox for their unbiased daily news. People have an increasing ability to source news and information from places which simply confirm their inherent biases rather than challenge them. Wiki is both part of the problem, and a welcome break from systematic right-wing/left-wing bias.

Ultimately, people should be using Wiki as a quick way of getting high level information and a possible gateway to linked sources with more complete information. Atheist conspiracies notwithstanding.

 

[atanu]

No, I'm saying what is good for the goose is good for the gander. ....

I do not agree. There is a basic difference between the goals and methods of science and religion.

I employ my mind at work, which is primarily scientific and managerial. At home, I spend a significant time in stilling the same mind, to get e-centered, to recoup, to rest in peace and calmness.

The goals are different. It is naive and immature who impose the requirements of science on religion and of religion on science.

 

[atanu]

No, abiogenesis is the process. There is also a hypothesis that abiogeneisis is how life originated on Earth.

Correct. And that can be clear in the beginning of the article, which IMO is not.

 

[atanu]

...

But we can go further. There is no real difference between 'living matter' and 'non-living matter' except for arrangement of the components and ability of the relevant chemicals to get to the sites where they are used. No atom, no molecule in a living thing is alive. So even today life arises from non-living matter.

This is an assertion and conjecture, not backed by knowledge of mechanism or of any practical evidence.

 

[atanu]

OK, option 2 (that life has always existed) is clearly false. In the conditions of the early Big Bang, the temperature was in the hundreds of millions of degrees. Atoms could not yet exist because it was too hot. Life was simply not possible in those conditions. In fact, it wasn't for about 300,000 years that things cooled enough for neutral (as opposed to ionized) atoms to exist. Again, those are not conditions that allow life to exist.

But we can go further. Until the first generation of stars went through their cycle, there were not the basic elements (carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc) that are required for life to arise. So, even 10 milliion years after the start of the expansion, life was impossible.

Option 2 is clearly wrong.

No. You assume life to be merely that which you perceive mentally-sensually, forgetting that the mental-sensual competence is built on something that the mental-sensual cannot fathom.

I know I cannot make you or many folks accept this but eventually scientists mature and many come to acknowledge that we know but a minute part of the existence and that the root of our own consciousness and existence may be unknowable to intellect, which itself is a product of the that process.

 

[atanu]

Not from a scientific viewpoint. Are bacteria conscious? Probably not, yet they are alive.

Even if I assume that bacteria have no mechanism to know, there are other points that you did not answer. The full text was:

Living things are made up of many things but these things as a conglomerate do not constitute life, which is the unifying aspect and the consciousness that constitute life. All these parts, although present in a dead a body cannot generate life. We do not know what consciousness or life really are. (We actually also do not know what actually is the true nature of the matter that is presented to us sensually).

Under such circumstances, claiming that abiogenesis is the natural process by which non living gives rise to living is, IMO, a hypothetical concept.

 

[Polymath257]

This is an assertion and conjecture, not backed by knowledge of mechanism or of any practical evidence.

On the contrary, it is backed by all of biochemistry. We are chemical processes.

 

[Polymath257]

No. You assume life to be merely that which you perceive mentally-sensually, forgetting that the mental-sensual competence is built on something that the mental-sensual cannot fathom.

I don't forget it. I don't believe it.

I know I cannot make you or many folks accept this but eventually scientists mature and many come to acknowledge that we know but a minute part of the existence and that the root of our own consciousness and existence may be unknowable to intellect, which itself is a product of the that process.

And *none* of the evidence points to consciousness being anything other than a process in the brain. And again, that means it is ultimately chemical in nature.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I do not agree. There is a basic difference between the goals and methods of science and religion.

I employ my mind at work, which is primarily scientific and managerial. At home, I spend a significant time in stilling the same mind, to get e-centered, to recoup, to rest in peace and calmness.

The goals are different. It is naive and immature who impose the requirements of science on religion and of religion on science.

Apparently you have completely forgotten what it is that started this back and forth between you and I. I said that the ways in which you would probably have the Wikipedia article edited so that it didn't "assume too much" is an arbitrary requirement... especially given the fact that the Wikipedia articles on some gods/deities/religion/etc. also make some assumptions (as demonstrated in the parts I quoted). I am IN NO WAY equating science and religion in making this observation. I don't care what you do at work versus what you do at home. When did I ever say anything remotely related to your work-life regimen of thought versus your home-life regimen? Who cares if "the goals are different" either? What does this have to do with anything I have said? Here's a paraphrasing in case you are still lost:

If articles written on religions or deities are allowed to stand with assumptions relating ideas of the religion as if they were common understanding, then this practice is just as valid for ANY topic... scientific topics included. Conversely, if articles of a scientific nature are NOT ALLOWED to contain assumptions of this nature, then neither should ANY other topics articles - including religious/spiritual ones.

 

[atanu]

Apparently you have completely forgotten what it is that started this back and forth between you and I. I said that the ways in which you would probably have the Wikipedia article edited so that it didn't "assume too much" is an arbitrary requirement... especially given the fact that the Wikipedia articles on some gods/deities/religion/etc. also make some assumptions (as demonstrated in the parts I quoted). I am IN NO WAY equating science and religion in making this observation. I don't care what you do at work versus what you do at home. When did I ever say anything remotely related to your work-life regimen of thought versus your home-life regimen? Who cares if "the goals are different" either? What does this have to do with anything I have said? Here's a paraphrasing in case you are still lost:

If articles written on religions or deities are allowed to stand with assumptions relating ideas of the religion as if they were common understanding, then this practice is just as valid for ANY topic... scientific topics included. Conversely, if articles of a scientific nature are NOT ALLOWED to contain assumptions of this nature, then neither should ANY other topics articles - including religious/spiritual ones.

And you are missing the whole point that religion has different paradigm. Science is rigorous.

 

[atanu]

I don't forget it. I don't believe it.

And *none* of the evidence points to consciousness being anything other than a process in the brain. And again, that means it is ultimately chemical in nature.

Yeah. I cannot argue with this kind of assertion, until you yourself introvert your own awareness and examine its source. Till then let me share with you view of a respected biologist.

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."[70]​

Haldane, J.B.S., Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.
...

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah. I cannot argue with this kind of assertion, until you yourself introvert your own awareness and examine its source. Till then let me share with you view of a respected biologist.

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."[70]​

Haldane, J.B.S., Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.
...

Anything from a time since we have learned how the brain works? Say, in the last 20 years?

 

[atanu]

Anything from a time since we have learned how the brain works? Say, in the last 20 years?

Plenty. I can cite a few if you wish.

But the quote of JBS Haldane is a philosophical point, which is: It is unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in brain then we have no reason to suppose that our beliefs are true.

This is not invalidated by million tons of paper showing neural correlates.

 

[Polymath257]

Plenty. I can cite a few if you wish.

But the quote of JBS Haldane is a philosophical point, which is: It is unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in brain then we have no reason to suppose that our beliefs are true.

This is not invalidated by million tons of paper showing neural correlates.

I've never quite understood this argument. First of all, why do we *ever* have reason to think beliefs are true? Only w correspond with reality.

So why should our beliefs, the processes in the brain, correspond to reality? Well, we should expect them to give fairly reliable information in those situations involving survival of our ancestors. So, with limitations, we expect our vision and hearing to give at least *something* corresponding with reality.

So, to begin with, the fact that we evolved and survived shows that at least some of our senses give valid information.

After, that, frankly, we have little reason to think we are right in our beliefs. We *know* there are optical illusions, where our senses fail to give correct views. The same can happen in hearing or in the other senses.

But that is *exactly* why we need to be skeptical and *test* each and every one of our ideas to the fullest extent we can. In other words, we have confidence in our beliefs if and only if they have been tested and real attempts have been made to show them *wrong* and yet they still work.

Outside of that, I *don't* think we have reason to have confidence in our beliefs. So religion is one huge area that cannot be tested and we *know* people have many wrong ideas (all those religions can't be all right).

 

[atanu]

I've never quite understood this argument. First of all, why do we *ever* have reason to think beliefs are true? Only w correspond with reality.

Well I thought that was the premise, to unravel the mystery of origin. You acknowledge that we do not have reason to think that our reasoning can be true.

So why should our beliefs, the processes in the brain, correspond to reality? Well, we should expect them to give fairly reliable information in those situations involving survival of our ancestors. So, with limitations, we expect our vision and hearing to give at least *something* corresponding with reality.

So, to begin with, the fact that we evolved and survived shows that at least some of our senses give valid information.

After, that, frankly, we have little reason to think we are right in our beliefs. We *know* there are optical illusions, where our senses fail to give correct views. The same can happen in hearing or in the other senses.

But that is *exactly* why we need to be skeptical and *test* each and every one of our ideas to the fullest extent we can. In other words, we have confidence in our beliefs if and only if they have been tested and real attempts have been made to show them *wrong* and yet they still work.

Outside of that, I *don't* think we have reason to have confidence in our beliefs. So religion is one huge area that cannot be tested and we *know* people have many wrong ideas (all those religions can't be all right).

Well. Well. Now you are pointing to wrong and Ideas.

We come back to the same point.