Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[HitchSlap]

I agree this is really terrible and yet you say you will do it for a small fee? Wow.

I see you're not good with hypothetical thought experiments and interwebz humor.

 

[sfs]

Maybe I should have said "scientist" for the anal retentive. Some scientist can be too dogmatic.

The spiritual realities are the ones that religionist experience in their inner life.

It's not anal retentive to distinguish between scientists and science. Scientists do all sorts of things -- make metaphysical statements about spiritual realities, cheat on their taxes, drink gin, play cricket. It seems a little odd to blame any of those activities on science, though. I don't recall ever seeing a scientific paper that dismissed the possibility of nonphysical realities, and that's where science is conducted.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I see you're not good with hypothetical thought experiments and interwebz humor.

I guess so.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Then we have a bet! I'll bet you $10,000 that I can get injected with HIV and never develop AIDS. Put your money on the table.

It would be a great sin against you to take that bet.

 

[The Cadet]

Science does not dogmatically assert that natural events need natural explanations?

No, it doesn't. It merely recognizes that if a natural event had a supernatural cause, there would be no way to detect this cause or attribute it correctly, and that it would be inherently worthless when it comes to making predictions about any further events in the natural world. I think you might be confusing metaphyiscal naturalism with methodological naturalism. It does not deny the supernatural, it merely recognizes that it is unknowable and tries to work from there.

Science does not dogmatically assert that simple explanations are superior to complicated ones? Science does not dogmatically assert that all effects have causes that precede those effects temporally?

Both of these are just straight-up wrong. I have no idea where you got the former, and the latter has been known to be false for quite some time for very specific quantum effects.

Given a healthy person a treatment that might kill them when it isn't necessary is considered to be VERY unethical.

Yeah, this is a pretty awful bet, akin to saying "So 50 bucks says if you fire that shotgun in your mouth you'll come out unharmed? I'll take that bet!" However, I am a pretty awful person, and given that AIDS is no longer the death sentence it was formerly and that this toxic brand of misinformation has killed hundreds of thousands...

Then we have a bet! I'll bet you $10,000 that I can get injected with HIV and never develop AIDS. Put your money on the table.

I do not have $10,000 in hand right now. Indeed, I'm not entirely sure when my financial situation will be able to deal with this. I should be able to save up about $1,000 within a year or so, however (or maybe I can find a bookie willing to split this bet with me), so please contact me via PM, I'd love to make some easy money.

Alternatively (and this is still fairly inhumane, but not nearly as bad), we can place an alternative bet, with something valuable to me at stake should you be wrong. Pick a representative member of the genus of the Lentiviruses. These are all directly related viruses with mostly the same genome, which cause symptoms extremely similar to AIDS in various animals. You've got your Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus, your Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, your Simian Immunodeficiency Virus, et cetera. Get the virus and an animal of the implied kind, and see if it develops AIDS-like symptoms. This would provide pretty slam-dunk evidence that HIV (a virus of the same family) causes AIDS in humans.

...Of course, to understand that, you'd have to accept evolution, which is kind of a sticking point as far as I understand. Either way, if you're interested in the other bet, PM me.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Alternatively (and this is still fairly inhumane, but not nearly as bad), we can place an alternative bet, with something valuable to me at stake should you be wrong. Pick a representative member of the genus of the Lentiviruses. These are all directly related viruses with mostly the same genome, which cause symptoms extremely similar to AIDS in various animals. You've got your Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus, your Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, your Simian Immunodeficiency Virus, et cetera. Get the virus and an animal of the implied kind, and see if it develops AIDS-like symptoms. This would provide pretty slam-dunk evidence that HIV (a virus of the same family) causes AIDS in humans.

...Of course, to understand that, you'd have to accept evolution, which is kind of a sticking point as far as I understand. Either way, if you're interested in the other bet, PM me.

Watch out, Zozimus, I think this has already been done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then we have a bet! I'll bet you $10,000 that I can get injected with HIV and never develop AIDS. Put your money on the table.

Actually you don't. You need to find someone working in that field that would be willing to submit you to this experiment. The people that work with the HIV virus have morals far to strict to allow them to do this. Even if it was to an AIDS denier. I tell you what. If you find someone that can and will inject you with active HIV virus, sign the necessary paperwork so that you could not sue anyone in regards to this (and here I believe there may be a major problem on your part) then we have a bet. I seriously doubt if you could hold up your end of the bargain.

 

[dad]

Why aren't they there?

Science doesn't know, and I dare you you to try to show it does. God does know ow, and He gave us the record. You will remain ignorant unless you look to that.

From that record we have some details such such as a proxy time I got involved, and the record of all life being created the same week. So we know man and beast was here from the start.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science doesn't know, and I dare you you to try to show it does. God does know ow, and He gave us the record. You will remain ignorant unless you look to that.

From that record we have some details such such as a proxy time I got involved, and the record of all life being created the same week. So we know man and beast was here from the start.

Science itself does not "know" but through science our knowledge has grown immensely. Do you want me to show this to you? I am right now as you are reading my words. The simple sheep herders that wrote the Bible could not have made a computer. Man with his knowledge derived over the centuries did.

Meanwhile you keep posting empty claims about your God but yet post no reliable evidence for it.

 

[Zosimus]

Given a healthy person a treatment that might kill them when it isn't necessary is considered to be VERY unethical.

I'm sure this problem could be obviated by simply having me inject myself. In addition the correct pronoun for "a healthy person" is not "them" but rather "he or she."

 

[Zosimus]

No, it doesn't. It merely recognizes that if a natural event had a supernatural cause, there would be no way to detect this cause or attribute it correctly, and that it would be inherently worthless when it comes to making predictions about any further events in the natural world. I think you might be confusing metaphyiscal naturalism with methodological naturalism. It does not deny the supernatural, it merely recognizes that it is unknowable and tries to work from there.



Both of these are just straight-up wrong. I have no idea where you got the former, and the latter has been known to be false for quite some time for very specific quantum effects.



Yeah, this is a pretty awful bet, akin to saying "So 50 bucks says if you fire that shotgun in your mouth you'll come out unharmed? I'll take that bet!" However, I am a pretty awful person, and given that AIDS is no longer the death sentence it was formerly and that this toxic brand of misinformation has killed hundreds of thousands...

I do not have $10,000 in hand right now. Indeed, I'm not entirely sure when my financial situation will be able to deal with this. I should be able to save up about $1,000 within a year or so, however (or maybe I can find a bookie willing to split this bet with me), so please contact me via PM, I'd love to make some easy money.

Alternatively (and this is still fairly inhumane, but not nearly as bad), we can place an alternative bet, with something valuable to me at stake should you be wrong. Pick a representative member of the genus of the Lentiviruses. These are all directly related viruses with mostly the same genome, which cause symptoms extremely similar to AIDS in various animals. You've got your Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus, your Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, your Simian Immunodeficiency Virus, et cetera. Get the virus and an animal of the implied kind, and see if it develops AIDS-like symptoms. This would provide pretty slam-dunk evidence that HIV (a virus of the same family) causes AIDS in humans.

...Of course, to understand that, you'd have to accept evolution, which is kind of a sticking point as far as I understand. Either way, if you're interested in the other bet, PM me.

Sorry, but...
A) $1,000 wouldn't even cover costs, and
B) You don't even have the $1,000.

I also note the mischaracterization of my argument. Since you don't seem to have it clear, let me reiterate it for you:

1. There is little evidence that HIV causes AIDS.
2. To the extent that HIV causes problems, they can be managed through nutrition.
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19031451 shows that fewer than 18 injections can amply cure someone who is immuno-compromised.

However, since the cost of the injections is about 660 euros for 8, the cost would be around 1320 euros, which is greater than the contemplated amount of the bet. Scrape together at least 1500 euros and you're on.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Science does not dogmatically assert that natural events need natural explanations?

Wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
"Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology."

Science does not dogmatically assert that simple explanations are superior to complicated ones?

Wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
"The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better."

So you should practice that.

Science does not dogmatically assert that all effects have causes that precede those effects temporally?

Wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
"Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the first event is understood to be responsible for the second."

So you should practice that too and quit pretending the first effect needed no cause.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
"Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology."



Wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
"The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better."

So you should practice that.



Wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
"Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the first event is understood to be responsible for the second."

So you should practice that too and quit pretending the first effect needed no cause.

How does effect precede cause in the case of the creation of time itself? After all, before there was time, there was no preceding.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

What's dogmatic about science, exactly? No idea in science is held dogmatically. The entire point is that ideas are held up to the evidence and tested every time.



Yeah, the outward face of creationism has had some real impressive clunkers.

What about this text, which I have seen quoted many times, "
...Richard Lewontin's review of Carl Sagan’s posthumously published book, Billions and Billions, when he admitted that evolutionists “have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” [my emphasis]

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What about this text, which I have seen quoted many times, "
...Richard Lewontin's review of Carl Sagan’s posthumously published book, Billions and Billions, when he admitted that evolutionists “have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” [my emphasis]

Only applies when you're doing science. Any scientist is free to believe in, worship God as creator of all things after doing the science. Science might be viewed as a game . . . how much can we figure out without resorting to the supernatural? Doesn't mean there's no supernatural, its just that as long as we are doing science we have to leave it out. I can play ping pong only on a certain table with a certain net. After I finish my game, I can bounce my balls anywhere I want on anything I want! So it is with science and natural things only.

 

[Colter]

It's not anal retentive to distinguish between scientists and science. Scientists do all sorts of things -- make metaphysical statements about spiritual realities, cheat on their taxes, drink gin, play cricket. It seems a little odd to blame any of those activities on science, though. I don't recall ever seeing a scientific paper that dismissed the possibility of nonphysical realities, and that's where science is conducted.

I didn't blame science, I was conceding that the religious and the scientist can be dogmatic to the point of viewing the universe in distortion.

 

[Zosimus]

Wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
"Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology."



Wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
"The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better."

So you should practice that.



Wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
"Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the first event is understood to be responsible for the second."

So you should practice that too and quit pretending the first effect needed no cause.

Dear Steven,

Wikipedia is not a valid source. It might work reasonably well for definitions; I will concede that.

I don't get what you're trying to prove.

In addition your statements:

So you should practice that.
and
So you should practice that too and quit pretending the first effect needed no cause.

...are off-topic personal attacks. I don't appreciate them.

What exactly is the "first effect" that you are referring to?

 

[sfs]

In addition the correct pronoun for "a healthy person" is not "them" but rather "he or she."

"They" has been used as gender-neutral singular pronoun since Middle English. Its use was deprecated by 19th century grammarians, but it is returning to formal usage. It's accepted by many British style guides but generally rejected by American ones.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dear Steven,

Wikipedia is not a valid source. It might work reasonably well for definitions; I will concede that.

I don't get what you're trying to prove.

In addition your statements:

So you should practice that.
and
So you should practice that too and quit pretending the first effect needed no cause.

...are off-topic personal attacks. I don't appreciate them.

What exactly is the "first effect" that you are referring to?

Why is Wikipedia not a valid source? This is not a school paper, and Wikipedia is a much more valid source than when that claim used to be made. Wikipedia is a valid source for settled science. When it comes to more cutting edge science, or the personal information of celebrities, then it is not a valid source.

 

[lifepsyop]

What about this text, which I have seen quoted many times, "
...Richard Lewontin's review of Carl Sagan’s posthumously published book, Billions and Billions, when he admitted that evolutionists “have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” [my emphasis]

It's basically an admission that, regardless of the strength and weaknesses of Evolution theory, it will still be enshrined as unquestionable dogma on philosophical grounds.

This automatically makes the theory suspect because there is so much clearly ideological investment in it.

You can expect about as honest a presentation for evolution theory by its proponents as you would a presentation of an automobile by a used-car salesman.