Is science irrational?

[thecolorsblend]

I trust science, to produce reliable results.

Fair enough. And for the final part of this (I swear)...

The way I was taught biology in school goes that you have two different kinds of genetic aberrations which can occur.

First, there's mutation. Mutation is of an either neutral or else beneficial value to the species. Meaning that if every single member of that species woke up tomorrow morning with that condition, the species chances for survival are either not impacted at all or, if anything, the chances actually improve. An example of this would be a third eyeball. If we all woke up one morning with three eyeballs, that condition isn't likely to make us go extinct.

Second, there are defects. Defects are necessarily of a detrimental value to the species. Meaning that if every single member of that species woke up tomorrow morning with that condition, the species chances for survival are practically non-existent. An example of this would be blindness. If we all woke up one morning completely blind, that condition would mean mankind would be practically extinct within a week.

Would you agree with those definitions?

 

[Chriliman]

siiiiiiiiiiiiiigh...

1. Reality exists.
2. We can learn about reality.
3. Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

The purpose of what you have there is to learn more about reality, not to figure why there is a reality that we can perceive, which is obviously the bigger question.

Sure you can say that question may be invalid, but that's your opinion, what if the question is not invalid, but rather intended to be asked? Why shouldn't we question why we even perceive a reality in the first place?

 

[bhsmte]

Fair enough. And for the final part of this (I swear)...

The way I was taught biology in school goes that you have two different kinds of genetic aberrations which can occur.

First, there's mutation. Mutation is of an either neutral or else beneficial value to the species. Meaning that if every single member of that species woke up tomorrow morning with that condition, the species chances for survival are either not impacted at all or, if anything, the chances actually improve. An example of this would be a third eyeball. If we all woke up one morning with three eyeballs, that condition isn't likely to make us go extinct.

Second, there are defects. Defects are necessarily of a detrimental value to the species. Meaning that if every single member of that species woke up tomorrow morning with that condition, the species chances for survival are practically non-existent. An example of this would be blindness. If we all woke up one morning completely blind, that condition would mean mankind would be practically extinct within a week.

Would you agree with those definitions?

No, I don't agree, if you are talking about diseases or abnormal human conditions.

Diseases and or abnormal conditions, can be caused by both mutations that are inherited, and some occur randomly and are not inherited.

"As we unlock the secrets of the human genome (the complete set of human genes), we are learning that nearly all diseases have a genetic component. Some diseases are caused by mutations that are inherited from the parents and are present in an individual at birth, like sickle cell disease. Other diseases are caused by acquired mutations in a gene or group of genes that occur during a person's life. Such mutations are not inherited from a parent, but occur either randomly or due to some environmental exposure (such as cigarette smoke). These include many cancers, as well as some forms of neurofibromatosis."

http://www.genome.gov/19016930

 

[thecolorsblend]

No, I don't agree, if you are talking about diseases or abnormal human conditions.

I understand your point but for simplicity's sake I'm restricting my discussion to conditions and disabilities. Diseases are worth discussing but tangential otherwise. So with diseases exempted, do you otherwise accept my definitions?

 

[fat wee robin]

So the "best explanation of how it works" is based on subjective opinions of scientists?

To me it seems more rational to say "best explanation of how it works is based on the undeniable truth" meaning if you deny the truth you immediately render yourself irrational.

Other than truth, what should a scientist base his explanation of how things work on? His personal opinion?

Flipin heack ,without 'science you would'nt be on the internet ,have a car ,a fridge ,be able to fly in an aeroplane ,have electric light ,clean sure water .What on earth are you blathering about ? The problem lies with those 'scientists ,usually the bottom of the barrell ,as all greats believed in a Creator ,who start pontificating on the non existence of God ;there they get lost ,as they are not qualified by God to find Him .
Only those gifted with power of the Holy Spirit make permanent breakthroughs , even if they are not religious but 'know' God exists .

 

[bhsmte]

I understand your point but for simplicity's sake I'm restricting my discussion to conditions and disabilities. Diseases are worth discussing but tangential otherwise. So with diseases exempted, do you otherwise accept my definitions?

No.

You state mutations are either beneficial or neutral. This is not correct. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral or harmful.

 

[thecolorsblend]

No.

You state mutations are either beneficial or neutral. This is not correct. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral or harmful.

I then nuanced that by categorizing harmful mutations as defects.

 

[bhsmte]

I then nuanced that by categorizing harmful mutations as defects.

Ok so, continue.

 

[Chriliman]

Flipin heack ,without 'science you would'nt be on the internet ,have a car ,a fridge ,be able to fly in an aeroplane ,have electric light ,clean sure water .What on earth are you blathering about ? The problem lies with those 'scientists ,usually the bottom of the barrell ,as all greats believed in a Creator ,who start pontificating on the non existence of God ;there they get lost ,as they are not qualified by God to find Him .
Only those gifted with power of the Holy Spirit make permanent breakthroughs , even if they are not religious but 'know' God exists .

I agree. My point is from an atheistic perspective, science is irrational, but from a theistic perspective science is very rational.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Wait, do you rely on the expertise of scientists or not?

What do you mean by "rely on"?

If so, then experience plays a key role in assessing reality. If someone is more experienced than you are then it's wise to listen to them.

Experience and expertise are two different things. And as I said before, experience alone introduces Black Swan problems. You need to realize that your experiences may be atypical.

Am I saying I'm more experienced than you are at being a rational thinker, well maybe...

I just had two people at work ask my why I was laughing so hard.

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

 

[bhsmte]

I agree. My point is from an atheistic perspective, science is irrational, but from a theistic perspective science is very rational.

How do all the atheist scientists get any work done, if they are basing their work on irrational thought?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I agree. My point is from an atheistic perspective, science is irrational, but from a theistic perspective science is very rational.

You've completely failed at explaining why this would be...

 

[thecolorsblend]

Ok so, continue.

Before I do, we must have consensus. Do you agree with those definitions now?

 

[Chriliman]

You've completely failed at explaining why this would be...

Because theists know truth is absolute or unchangeable and that they must accept this as true. Atheists don't necessary think truth is absolute and so they let their beliefs define truth, instead of letting their beliefs conform to truth.

 

[bhsmte]

Before I do, we must have consensus. Do you agree with those definitions now?

This is what I agree with regarding the topic.

Mutations can be either; beneficial, neutral or harmful.

Mutations can be inherited and or occur randomly on their own and are not inherited.

Harmful mutations can cause disease, abnormal conditions (which may or may not reduce survival) and can also be impacted by environmental factors.

 

[bhsmte]

Because theists know truth is absolute or unchangeable and that they must accept this as true. Atheists don't necessary think truth is absolute and so they let their beliefs define truth, instead of letting their beliefs conform to truth.

Whatever irony meters were left, they all just blew up.

 

[thecolorsblend]

This is what I agree with regarding the topic.

Mutations can be either; beneficial, neutral or harmful.

Mutations can be inherited and or occur randomly on their own and are not inherited.

Harmful mutations can cause disease, abnormal conditions (which may or may not reduce survival) and can also be impacted by environmental factors.

Again, those are not the terms I set out. I classified mutations as a type of aberration which is either neutral or positive. I then classified defects as a type of aberration which is inherently negative. The biologists I personally know agree with those definitions in general. So can you?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Before I do, we must have consensus. Do you agree with those definitions now?

You're not going down the "if everyone were gay the species would die out" road, are you?

I mean, that would just be stupid...

 

[bhsmte]

Again, those are not the terms I set out. I classified mutations as a type of aberration which is either neutral or positive. I then classified defects as a type of aberration which is inherently negative. The biologists I personally know agree with those definitions in general. So can you?

I told you what I agree with, regarding the topic of mutations.

 

[Chriliman]

Whatever irony meters were left, they all just blew up.

Well, I've never met an atheist who actually claimed to know the truth of why we all exist in this reality we call the universe. If I ever do meet such an atheists, I would think he would have quite a god complex.