cDK Theory

[ToBeInChrist]

The only speculative or philosophical abstractions here are your claims of Last Thursdayism. You would actually argue, in a court of law, that it is possible that DNA and fingerprints at a crime scene could have been planted their by a supernatural deity. Therefore, the evidence can be ignored. This is your argument.

No it is not my argument.

I'm arguing that on a continuum from ideas in our minds to direct observation of some thing or process from start to finish, there are varying degrees of speculation or abstraction.

We can observe what is happening now and we can speculate about what that means for tomorrow or yesterday, and we can make more abstractions and speculations to varying degrees about times/places that are far remote using instrumentation and methods and theoretical constructs that put us at a distance from the raw observed phenomena.

If you don't want to look at the nuances, sure you are left with straw men at extremes. That's your choice, though.

 

[Loudmouth]

No it is not my argument.

How is it different?

I'm arguing that on a continuum from ideas in our minds to direct observation of some thing or process from start to finish, there are varying degrees of speculation or abstraction.

You are arguing that our observations of a supernova 150,000 light years away NEVER HAPPENED!!! You are saying that we should ignore the observations.

We can observe what is happening now and we can speculate about what that means for tomorrow or yesterday, and we can make more abstractions and speculations to varying degrees about times/places that are far remote using instrumentation and methods and theoretical constructs that put us at a distance from the raw observed phenomena.

For science, it isn't speculation. It is scientific testing. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the two.

Last Thursdayism is speculation. It is even worse than speculation.

If you don't want to look at the nuances, sure you are left with straw men at extremes. That's your choice, though.

I keep asking you to apply these terms to the paper on ERV's. When will that occur? Show us how the study is flawed because of speculation and assumption. Go for it.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

How is it different?

It is different because, for starters, I'm talking about taking into consideration a continuum between more and less direct observation or description, not about dismissing or ignoring studies.

It is different because, secondarily, I'm questioning different types of presuppositions and their effect upon methodology and how such things limit what is thought to be possible.

You are arguing that our observations of a supernova 150,000 light years away NEVER HAPPENED!!! You are saying that we should ignore the observations.

No. I'm saying it's more accurate, and in many ways helpful for people to understand what's really going on -- if we are more descriptive about what we ACTUALLY did and what was recorded through what sort of instrument, and what we CONCLUDED about it after we filtered and processed all this through such and such presuppositions, theories, formula, etc. -- this is more informative, more descriptive, than jumping from the data that one obtained from instruments right to the conclusion.

I'm talking about being more transparent about the processes, methods, inferences, assumptions, etc.

And again, I am not using speculation as an entirely negative term -- science IS about speculation -- speculation that is based upon various observations using various instruments and methods and tested in an attempt to see if the speculation may be refuted or not. Karl Popper talks about this in Conjectures and Refutations. Go ahead, speculate, and try to disprove your speculations, and share your findings with others who may also try to refute your speculations, share and discuss.

In a given research project some of it may involve pretty direct observation and description. Other parts involve a small degree of abstraction and speculation based upon evidence that has withstood a considerable degree of scrutiny. Other parts involve a GREATER degree of abstraction and speculation, or a GREATER reliance upon assumptions which may not be testable.

So there are different aspects to a given project that may or may not be 'hard science' or 'soft science', may or may not be more or less speculative or tied up in some philosophical presupposition.

 

[Nostromo]

I'm talking about being more transparent about the processes, methods, inferences, assumptions, etc.

This is why we have scientific journals, and the peer-review process.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Well sure, but I'm saying it's nice if/when popular-level discussions in magazines, classrooms, forums such as this, books, etc., touches a little bit more on this sort of thing.

I think it's good when questions about methodology and assumptions, worldview, etc., are discussed a little instead of dismissed as mere anti-intellectualism.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is different because, for starters, I'm talking about taking into consideration a continuum between more and less direct observation or description, not about dismissing or ignoring studies.

No you aren't. You are saying that any starlight from more than 10,000 light years away was created midflight and can be ignored. There is no continuum. There is a stark line based on your religious beliefs past which no one is allowed to make any statements.

It is different because, secondarily, I'm questioning different types of presuppositions and their effect upon methodology and how such things limit what is thought to be possible.

Where did you ever question Last Thursdayism? You have swallowed it whole without blinking.

No. I'm saying it's more accurate, and in many ways helpful for people to understand what's really going on -- if we are more descriptive about what we ACTUALLY did and what was recorded through what sort of instrument, and what we CONCLUDED about it after we filtered and processed all this through such and such presuppositions, theories, formula, etc. -- this is more informative, more descriptive, than jumping from the data that one obtained from instruments right to the conclusion.

I'm talking about being more transparent about the processes, methods, inferences, assumptions, etc.

All of which is ALREADY DONE IN PEER REVIEWED PAPERS. This is NOT HOW LAST THURSDAYISM works, and yet you are pushing Last Thursdayism. Here is the paper again:

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

Can you please show me where they are not transparent about the processes, methods, inferences, and assumptions? Can you please point to which assumptions are flawed? You keep making these vague claims. I am asking you to point to concrete examples. Can you do that?

And again, I am not using speculation as an entirely negative term -- science IS about speculation -- speculation that is based upon various observations using various instruments and methods and tested in an attempt to see if the speculation may be refuted or not.

Why not call them theories and hypotheses like the rest of science?

In a given research project some of it may involve pretty direct observation and description. Other parts involve a small degree of abstraction and speculation based upon evidence that has withstood a considerable degree of scrutiny. Other parts involve a GREATER degree of abstraction and speculation, or a GREATER reliance upon assumptions which may not be testable.

Please go to the paper cited above and give examples.

Also, you have already admitted that you think the evidence was not created by a long history, but was instead magically poofed into being as if it was produced by a long history. Why do you go on and on about evidence when you will never consider it to be evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think it's good when questions about methodology and assumptions, worldview, etc., are discussed a little instead of dismissed as mere anti-intellectualism.

You don't question them. You reject them outright because they conclusions drawn by these methods conflict with your religious beliefs. Instead, you use Last Thursdayism to ignore the evidence. If that isn't anti-intellectualism, then what is?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

I am not claiming that scientists aren't using their brains to look at actual evidence. I am not claiming that they can't come up with great explanations. I am not arguing that they never come up with practical results. I am not arguing that they shouldn't ask questions and do research.

What I am doing is saying, I'm not jumping on board to uncritically accept claims by scientists that are so broad, involving such scope.

I am not saying that last-thursdayism is scientific, either.

 

[Loudmouth]

What I am doing is saying, I'm not jumping on board to uncritically accept claims by scientists that are so broad, involving such scope.

You are saying that you will reject those claims no matter what the evidence shows. If only you would critically look at these claims. It would be a step in the right direction.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

One issue is how reliable are scientific statements dealing with a certain range/scale/scope of time or space, in a certain field.

Another issue is whether or not this or that scientific research seems to have held up against well-constructed/implemented tests and is the best current scientific answer to a question/problem available.

Yet another question is whether or not I believe the actual theory.

====

On the first issue I have questions re: philosophy of science, presuppositions, expectations/limits of methodology.

On the second issue I'm probably happy enough to accept that this or that matter of scientific consensus has had quite a bit of intelligent scrutiny and a great deal of methodological rigor has been applied, I'm generally willing to grant for the sake of argument (or simply as a gesture of respect for their hard work) that the prevailing theory represents the best scientific, the most well-researched answer currently available, given various constraints on methodology, theory, etc.

On the third issue, no I don't personally believe various theories.

 

[Tiberius]

I am not claiming that scientists aren't using their brains to look at actual evidence. I am not claiming that they can't come up with great explanations. I am not arguing that they never come up with practical results. I am not arguing that they shouldn't ask questions and do research.

What I am doing is saying, I'm not jumping on board to uncritically accept claims by scientists that are so broad, involving such scope.

I am not saying that last-thursdayism is scientific, either.

Of course, that would be foolish, to immediately accept a claim.

So why don't you see if that claim is actually correct. Put the claim to the test? See if it actually works the way they say. And then, accept it.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Of course, that would be foolish, to immediately accept a claim.

So why don't you see if that claim is actually correct. Put the claim to the test? See if it actually works the way they say. And then, accept it.

What if the best I can say in certain cases (with such issues of scope and scale) SCIENTIFICALLY, and in accord with various issues of Philosophy of Science, is that certain research has been done well according to certain standards and methods.

If you mean may I "accept it" as seriously done research according to rigorous methodology applied and interpreted with ingenuity, yes, I may "accept it" in this sense.

But if you mean do I "accept" the picture of the world, the conclusion about what happened many millennia ago across the world or universe, I wouldn't call either acceptance or rejection of some such claims to be without significant philosophical, metaphysical, or religious aspects. A tentative acceptance or cautiously hopeful agnosticism toward such claims may or may not be scientifically appropriate, could be argued based on various speculations and presuppositions and qualifications.

 

[Tiberius]

What if the best I can say in certain cases (with such issues of scope and scale) SCIENTIFICALLY, and in accord with various issues of Philosophy of Science, is that certain research has been done well according to certain standards and methods.

If you mean may I "accept it" as seriously done research according to rigorous methodology applied and interpreted with ingenuity, yes, I may "accept it" in this sense.

But if you mean do I "accept" the picture of the world, the conclusion about what happened many millennia ago across the world or universe, I wouldn't call either acceptance or rejection of some such claims to be without significant philosophical, metaphysical, or religious aspects. A tentative acceptance or cautiously hopeful agnosticism toward such claims may or may not be scientifically appropriate, could be argued based on various speculations and presuppositions and qualifications.

What if that picture of the world allows you to make a prediction? "If that picture of the world is true, then it tells us that we should find X, Y and Z." So you go out and look for X, Y and Z, and if you find them, the picture of the world that told they'd be there is probably true.

Agreed?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

What if that picture of the world allows you to make a prediction? "If that picture of the world is true, then it tells us that we should find X, Y and Z." So you go out and look for X, Y and Z, and if you find them, the picture of the world that told they'd be there is probably true.

Agreed?

Racists have pictures of the world that tell them, if true, that people of this or that race will be X, Y, or Z. If you go out and look for people of this or that race who are X, Y, or Z, and find them, this does not mean that the picture of the world that told you they'd be there is probably true.

Are there other cases where a picture of the world, with predictions that are looked for and found, may not confirm the picture of the world?

 

[Tiberius]

Racists have pictures of the world that tell them, if true, that people of this or that race will be X, Y, or Z. If you go out and look for people of this or that race who are X, Y, or Z, and find them, this does not mean that the picture of the world that told you they'd be there is probably true.

That's ridiculous, because they do not test their findings. And they do not allow for peer review, so the biases of the person can greatly influence the results.

If you get a thousand people doing that, going out and seeing if people of a particular race have a particular trait, then sure, you'll get some racist people whose personal bias leads them to conclusions like all black people are such and such, but the vast majority of people will see that the traits possessed by black people are exactly the same as the traits possessed by white people, asians, and everyone else.

So don't provide me with a clearly flawed technique and claim that it proves science is flawed. Science has mechanisms to eliminate such flaws, racists don't.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

That's ridiculous, because they do not test their findings. And they do not allow for peer review, so the biases of the person can greatly influence the results.

In a country where those biases were accepted as the norm among researchers, peer review might corroborate their view, though.

It is good to have a mechanism to handle flaws, but flawed people will utilize the mechanism.

Aren't all worldviews supported by some facts? Can't every delusional individual or group point to facts and say "see, it's there"

 

[Tiberius]

In a country where those biases were accepted as the norm among researchers, peer review might corroborate their view, though.

The scientific community is an international one.

It is good to have a mechanism to handle flaws, but flawed people will utilize the mechanism.

And what exactly does this mean?

Aren't all worldviews supported by some facts? Can't every delusional individual or group point to facts and say "see, it's there"

I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious that I meant "facts subjected to scrutiny."

 

[And-U-Say]

Aren't all worldviews supported by some facts? Can't every delusional individual or group point to facts and say "see, it's there"

No, only religion does that. In Science, you look at all results and actually make an effort to falsify your own data and theories. And other Scientists look to falsify your data or theories. This is the very basis of Science, something the religious have a hard time understanding since they are brought up to agree, not scrutinize. But in Science, fame only awaits those who come up with something new or overturn existing theories. Every Scientist knows this.

 

[AV1611VET]

In Science, you look at all results and actually make an effort to falsify your own data and theories. And other Scientists look to falsify your data or theories.

You left out a third group.

Sometimes the general public has to falsify products produced or misapplied by your theories as well.

 

[Tiberius]

What in the world are you talking about? Describe an example.