Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[paul becke]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science"

 

[DogmaHunter]

I must conclude that you then believe what you want to believe and no one no matter what evidence they present will be of no consequence to you. At least your honest and admit that you will only believe what you want to believe. Refreshing but somewhat troubling

You didn't present me with any evidence.

All you did was say "scientists say X".

That's not evidence. That's an appeal to authority.
Show me a reputable scientific source in which "fine-tuning" is established with evidence.

Just because someone who happens to be a scientist says "X", it doesn't make it automatically correct. To assume so would be an appeal to authority.

For example, Newton isn't famous for all the things he "said" or "claimed". He's famous for his scientific work. He's not famous for his claims of alchemy for example. Nobody really cares about those.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Astrophysicist Luke Barnes says of the puddle analogy:

Since you are so fond of what astrophysicists have to say, perhaps you should look up the lecture of Neil deGrasse Tyson on youtube, in which he completely destroys the case of "intelligent design" and "fine-tuning as (mis)used by theists" on youtube.

I bet that suddenly, you won't care much about what "an astrophycisist" has to say on the matter.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Right now, with what we know there is no reason to believe that they couldn't be different

Likewise, there is also no reason to believe that they could be different.
So it comes down to an appeal to ignorance again and just your religious bias to assume one over the other.

However, I can easily make a case that it is way more likely that the universe being the way it is, has a natural explanation.

For the simple reason that we ONLY know of natural causes for natural effects, that throughout history, LOADS of phenomena (not to say, almost ALL phenomena) were once attributed to a "designer" or "god" or "collection of gods" and NOT ONCE did any of these things turn out to be correct. Upon closer inspection, every single time, it turned out to have a natural explanation.

You are toying with a god-of-the-gaps.

However, that is not the issue.

It is.

The issue is the fine tuning we do know of now

You consistently forget to include that word "appearance". And thereby completely misrepresenting the concept as it exists in scientific circles.

Dawkins for example, happily states that life appears designed. A bee and its favorite flowers appear to be designed for eachother. But they aren't. They merely appear to be so to our pattern seeking eyes.

and even if we come to realize they could not have been different there will still need to be an answer to why.

No, there wouldn't. The reason would simply be "they couldn't be any different".

 

[Oncedeceived]

You didn't present me with any evidence.

All you did was say "scientists say X".

Here is a link I have provided: [1112.4647] The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life There are many in the astrophysics/physics/cosmology fields that agree on fine tuning. Here is a sample of what they say:

Wilczek: life appears to depend upon delicate coincidences that we have not been able to explain. The broad outlines of that situation have been apparent for many decades. When less was known, it seemed reasonable to hope that better understanding of symmetry and dynamics would clear things up. Now that hope seems much less reasonable. The happy coincidences between life’s requirements and nature’s choices of parameter values might be just a series of flukes, but one could be forgiven for beginning to suspect that something deeper is at work.
Hawking: “Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. … The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it.”
Rees: Any universe hospitable to life – what we might call a biophilic universe – has to be ‘adjusted’ in a particular way. The prerequisites for any life of the kind we know about — long-lived stable stars, stable atoms such as carbon, oxygen and silicon, able to combine into complex molecules, etc — are sensitive to the physical laws and to the size, expansion rate and contents of the universe. Indeed, even for the most open-minded science fiction writer, ‘life’ or ‘intelligence’ requires the emergence of some generic complex structures: it can’t exist in a homogeneous universe, not in a universe containing only a few dozen particles. Many recipes would lead to stillborn universes with no atoms, no chemistry, and no planets; or to universes too short-lived or too empty to allow anything to evolve beyond sterile uniformity.
Linde: the existence of an amazingly strong correlation between our own properties and the values of many parameters of our world, such as the masses and charges of electron and proton, the value of the gravitational constant, the amplitude of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the electroweak theory, the value of the vacuum energy, and the dimensionality of our world, is an experimental fact requiring an explanation.
Susskind: The Laws of Physics … are almost always deadly. In a sense the laws of nature are like East Coast weather: tremendously variable, almost always awful, but on rare occasions, perfectly lovely. … [O]ur own universe is an extraordinary place that appears to be fantastically well designed for our own existence. This specialness is not something that we can attribute to lucky accidents, which is far too unlikely. The apparent coincidences cry out for an explanation.
Guth: in the multiverse, life will evolve only in very rare regions where the local laws of physics just happen to have the properties needed for life, giving a simple explanation for why the observed universe appears to have just the right properties for the evolution of life. The incredibly small value of the cosmological constant is a telling example of a feature that seems to be needed for life, but for which an explanation from fundamental physics is painfully lacking.
Smolin: Our universe is much more complex than most universes with the same laws but different values of the parameters of those laws. In particular, it has a complex astrophysics, including galaxies and long lived stars, and a complex chemistry, including carbon chemistry. These necessary conditions for life are present in our universe as a consequence of the complexity which is made possible by the special values of the parameters.

That's not evidence. That's an appeal to authority.
Show me a reputable scientific source in which "fine-tuning" is established with evidence.

See above.

Just because someone who happens to be a scientist says "X", it doesn't make it automatically correct. To assume so would be an appeal to authority.

The claim of Fine Tuning itself comes from those in authority of field of astrophysics/physics and cosmology.

For example, Newton isn't famous for all the things he "said" or "claimed". He's famous for his scientific work. He's not famous for his claims of alchemy for example. Nobody really cares about those.

Those who have peer reviewed papers who claim fine tuning are:

: Barrow & Tipler (1986), Carr & Rees (1979), Carter (1974), Davies (2006), and Wheeler (1996). See also Carr (2007) Luke Barnes has over 200 papers written and I've included the one in the link.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since you are so fond of what astrophysicists have to say, perhaps you should look up the lecture of Neil deGrasse Tyson on youtube, in which he completely destroys the case of "intelligent design" and "fine-tuning as (mis)used by theists" on youtube.

I bet that suddenly, you won't care much about what "an astrophycisist" has to say on the matter.

I have read both what is for fine tuning and that which is not for fine tuning. That is how one reaches a balanced view on the subject matter. It is how those who hold scientific views sort out the facts. I will note as well that Tyson is an atheist and as you have yourself just said, "he completely destroys the case of "intelligent design" and "fine tuning as (mis)used by theists"; this shows his bias in his views whereas the scientific papers that I have sighted do not present the ID element nor arguments either for or against ID.

 

[JayFern]

There is no fine tuning but even if there was how would we find out who did the fine tuning? so what does it matter?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Once, what you link is a paper in philosophy/history of physics. Which is not the kind of source I'm asking for.

I'm not interested in the philosophical ideas being dreamed up by people. I'm interested in what can be demonstrated.

Can any of these people demonstrate that there is a "tuner", that the "purpose" of the universe is giving rise to living things, that there was "planning" involved, that is "intent" or "agency" behind the laws of nature?

If no, then none of this supports your point anyway.

The claim of Fine Tuning itself comes from those in authority of field of astrophysics/physics and cosmology

The appearance. You again forgot to include that word.

It's kind of an important qualifier. "looks as" is not the same "is".

Those who have peer reviewed papers who claim fine tuning are:

: Barrow & Tipler (1986), Carr & Rees (1979), Carter (1974), Davies (2006), and Wheeler (1996). See also Carr (2007) Luke Barnes has over 200 papers written and I've included the one in the link.

This is again the same mistake as I previously mentioned.
Newton's work does not add credibility to his claims of alchemy.

Likewise, the peer reviewed papers of the above people do not add credibility to whatever they claim or say not included in those papers.

For the bazzillionth and one time:

Saying "x appears to be y" is the expression of a subjective opinion based on ignorance (since the word "appears" isn't conclusive at all).

While saying "x IS y" is an entirely different beast.

Lots of things "appear" to be one thing but are really something else.


You need to let go of your bias and just stick to the facts. Fine-tuning is NOT an established fact. Not even remotely...

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have read both what is for fine tuning and that which is not for fine tuning. That is how one reaches a balanced view on the subject matter. It is how those who hold scientific views sort out the facts

No. In science, facts aren't sorted out by "reading" different things. In science, facts are established through observation and experimentation. Not by reading books or texts or whatever.

I will note as well that Tyson is an atheist

I agree, although he refuses to identify himself as such. He sticks to "agnostic".

But it's interesting that you bring this up. Why does it matter if he is an atheist or a theist? Does it also matter to things like, falling at 9.81 meters per second per second as the gravitational pull from the earth?
No, it doesn't...

This, by itself, shows beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you have no scientific case. All you have is a theistic bias.

If you HAD a scientific case, then it wouldn't make any difference if you are theist or not. But it does. Just like I have been saying all along: your judgement is clouded by you religious bias.

and as you have yourself just said, "he completely destroys the case of "intelligent design" and "fine tuning as (mis)used by theists"; this shows his bias in his views whereas the scientific papers that I have sighted do not present the ID element nor arguments either for or against ID.

Your projection is ill-placed.
Not a single peer reviewed paper establishes fine-tuning at all. Because not a single data point suggests a tuner, intent, planning or purpose. Only religious bias points to that. A priori belief. Faith-based, unjustified assumptions. Invalid premises. Fallacious logic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Likewise, there is also no reason to believe that they could be different.
So it comes down to an appeal to ignorance again and just your religious bias to assume one over the other.

You don't seem to mind that Neil Degrasse Tyson used his non-religious bias to assume one over the other. Is it because you use your non-religous biases to assume one or the other?

However, I can easily make a case that it is way more likely that the universe being the way it is, has a natural explanation.

Go for it, Scientists would welcome any natural explanation but it has to be evidence and not a just-so-story...I'm listening and I am sure they will too if you can do it. Just remember that if there is some natural explanation it would mean that the fine tuning is woven into the very fabric of the universe which then must be addressed.

For the simple reason that we ONLY know of natural causes for natural effects, that throughout history, LOADS of phenomena (not to say, almost ALL phenomena) were once attributed to a "designer" or "god" or "collection of gods" and NOT ONCE did any of these things turn out to be correct. Upon closer inspection, every single time, it turned out to have a natural explanation.

Did those loads of things prohibit God as being involved in them? If so, please present the evidence that shows God was not involved. You can't do so because that is the flip to the god of the gaps arguments. They can't be shown either way to either prove God or disprove God. We take what we know scientifically and make determinations according to that with our own worldviews (everyone even you do that) and unless there is something that outweighs the strength of our convictions we remain in that worldview. Some feel the fine tuning of our universe supports the notion of design in our universe others don't but the science is what it is and it points to the universe having an appearance of design due to the design appearing features of the universe. What you believe about that is usually based on your worldview. However, what you believe about it does not change the actuality of the phenomena and that it cries out for explanation. Luke Barnes who has researched the phenomena and holds to an agnostic worldview looks at the evidence in a pretty neutral way. His science is not disputed by most other more biased peers, those who either feel no design is actual or the ones that do.

You are toying with a god-of-the-gaps.

No, it is not what we don't know but what we do know. We do know that the universe is fine tuned for life. God of the gaps talks about stuff of the universe not the universe itself. What remains unknown is if that is due to some underlying ToE which would not eliminate the fine tuning it would just give a reason for it or if the design is actual. It would mean that fine tuning was woven into the fabric of the universe and just gets more deeply confirmed.

You consistently forget to include that word "appearance". And thereby completely misrepresenting the concept as it exists in scientific circles.

False, I always include it.

Dawkins for example, happily states that life appears designed. A bee and its favorite flowers appear to be designed for eachother. But they aren't. They merely appear to be so to our pattern seeking eyes.

So are you claiming that the fine tuning that has been claimed is an illusion created by our pattern seeking eyes? Do you know that the values we are talking about can't be seen with our eyes but must be determined by research and testing?

No, there wouldn't. The reason would simply be "they couldn't be any different".

So brute fact. So, what would that tell us? That would just tell us that fine tuning of the universe has to be there. Why?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once, what you link is a paper in philosophy/history of physics. Which is not the kind of source I'm asking for.

No I didn't. It is not philosophy/history of physics. It is a scientific paper on fine tuning for intelligent life and the examples of it.

I'm not interested in the philosophical ideas being dreamed up by people. I'm interested in what can be demonstrated.

Did you read the link?

Can any of these people demonstrate that there is a "tuner", that the "purpose" of the universe is giving rise to living things, that there was "planning" involved, that is "intent" or "agency" behind the laws of nature?

Ummm, I don't think those that I cited were demonstrating anything of the sort or claiming to.

If no, then none of this supports your point anyway.

It does support design. It might not be a scientific conclusion but it is a reasonable one.

The appearance. You again forgot to include that word.

No I include that in every claim I've made.

It's kind of an important qualifier. "looks as" is not the same "is".

But looks as is a possible is. You can't reasonably conclude that possibility is not possible.

This is again the same mistake as I previously mentioned.
Newton's work does not add credibility to his claims of alchemy.

People all have beliefs that subjectively color the evidence, but the evidence is for fine tuning of the universe for permitting life to evolve on earth. Just like Newton's work stood on its own.

Likewise, the peer reviewed papers of the above people do not add credibility to whatever they claim or say not included in those papers.

What?

For the bazzillionth and one time:

Saying "x appears to be y" is the expression of a subjective opinion based on ignorance (since the word "appears" isn't conclusive at all).

They say appear because they have no way to know if it is actual design or not. It appears to be design due to the featured that are so tweeked that it appears that they were tweeked. Do you understand that?

While saying "x IS y" is an entirely different beast.

Lots of things "appear" to be one thing but are really something else.

The fine tuning is real, it is not an illusion or an appearance. What they mean by appearance of design is that the fine tuning of the universe for the existence of life is that it had to be fine tuned to permit life and this appearance of design of that fine tuning is not explained.

You need to let go of your bias and just stick to the facts. Fine-tuning is NOT an established fact. Not even remotely...

That is just like someone saying that evolution is not an established fact. You are doing just what you claim creationists do with evolution. Fine tuning is a very concise phenomena with most scientists in that field agreeing upon.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is no fine tuning but even if there was how would we find out who did the fine tuning? so what does it matter?

Provide the evidence that proves there is no fine tuning. What do you base your conclusions of no fine tuning upon?

 

[Dizredux]

One of the major problems with Once's arguments on fine tuning and appearance of design is that I feel she is indulging in a logical fallacy as her basis.

The logical fallacy involved is Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In this case her proposition appears to be

If the universe is designed or fine tuned then there will be the appearance of design or fine tuning.

There is the appearance of fine tuning and/or design.

Therefore the universe is designed and/or fine tuned.

If this is indeed her reasoning then she is working with a logical fallacy. Faulty reasoning in other words.


Just some thoughts,


Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. In science, facts aren't sorted out by "reading" different things. In science, facts are established through observation and experimentation. Not by reading books or texts or whatever.

Exactly. Fine tuning has been established through observation and experimentation.

I agree, although he refuses to identify himself as such. He sticks to "agnostic".

But it's interesting that you bring this up. Why does it matter if he is an atheist or a theist? Does it also matter to things like, falling at 9.81 meters per second per second as the gravitational pull from the earth?
No, it doesn't...

Exactly. It should not have been included in his conclusions. The fine tuning of the universe to allow life is based on facts and figures and not beliefs.

This, by itself, shows beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you have no scientific case. All you have is a theistic bias.

That is exactly what I have brought forth. The scientific conclusions of fine tuning. The scientific term not the religious one. You are the one confused by the term and what it means.

If you HAD a scientific case, then it wouldn't make any difference if you are theist or not. But it does. Just like I have been saying all along: your judgement is clouded by you religious bias.

Luke Barnes, Brandon Carter, Paul Davies and others have not used any religious bias in determining the fine tuning of the universe. I am taking their claim...the universe is fine tuned for existence of life. My claim is that it supports design is based on my religious bias and the fact that it is a reasonable conclusion based on the facts. Your bias seems to be clouding your ability to see that these scientists do not for the most part have a religious bias as to their work. It is demeaning to them to make those accusations against them.

Your projection is ill-placed.
Not a single peer reviewed paper establishes fine-tuning at all.

That is simply false and I've included a list.

Because not a single data point suggests a tuner, intent, planning or purpose. Only religious bias points to that. A priori belief. Faith-based, unjustified assumptions. Invalid premises. Fallacious logic.

Your uneducated bias about the term of fine tuning is leading you astray. Fine tuning was never meant to imply an actual fine tuner in the scientific consensus. What it does claim is that it does suggest by the evidence of an appearance of an intent, planning and purpose for life and that is why they pegged the term fine tuning. The subjective conclusions we take from that appearance is whether there was a fine tuner or whether this appearance has some naturalistic explanation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

One of the major problems with Once's arguments on fine tuning and appearance of design is that I feel she is indulging in a logical fallacy as her basis.

The logical fallacy involved is Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In this case her proposition appears to be

If the universe is designed or fine tuned then there will be the appearance of design or fine tuning.

There is the appearance of fine tuning and/or design.

Therefore the universe is designed and/or fine tuned.

If this is indeed her reasoning then she is working with a logical fallacy. Faulty reasoning in other words.


Just some thoughts,


Dizredux[/Quote]

Lets do it this way:

If the universe is designed or fine tuned then there will be the appearance of design or fine tuning.

There is the appearance of fine tuning and/or design.

Therefore the universe is possibly designed and/or fine tuned.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You don't seem to mind that Neil Degrasse Tyson used his non-religious bias to assume one over the other. Is it because you use your non-religous biases to assume one or the other?

That's not how bias works, dude. Bias is when you let your a priori beliefs influence your conclusion. Not your a prior non-beliefs.

Or would you also say that Newton had a bias of "no graviton fairies"?

Go for it, Scientists would welcome any natural explanation but it has to be evidence and not a just-so-story...I'm listening and I am sure they will too if you can do it. Just remember that if there is some natural explanation it would mean that the fine tuning is woven into the very fabric of the universe which then must be addressed.

You should try to read with a bit more attention.
I said I can make a case that makes it more likely that whatever the explanation is, it will be a natural explanation.

And I explained how. The fact alone that we KNOW of natural causes but don't know about ANYTHING supernatural is enough to consider it more likely that whatever the explanation is - it likely will be a natural explanation.

Supernatural "explanations" have been proposed for a billion and one things. Not once did it turn out correct. Every single examined instance however, turned out to have a natural explanation instead.

No, that doesn't mean this trend will continue. But it does make it more likely. In fact, it's kind of Occam's razor.

The supernatural explanation requires the assumption of the existence of undemonstrable supernatural things.
A natural explanation does not.

Did those loads of things prohibit God as being involved in them?

Is god involved in the tides, the seasons, the sun's burning, lightning, thunder, earthquakes, volcano's, super novae, tidal waves and tsunami's, rain, wind,.........?

Can we "prove" that he isn't? No, because we can't prove negatives like that. In exactly the same way, we can't prove that graviton fairies are not involved in gravity. Do graviton fairies keep you awake at night?

If so, please present the evidence that shows God was not involved.

Shifting the burden of proof. It's upto those who wish to claim gods are involved to support it.

You can't do so because that is the flip to the god of the gaps arguments.

No, that's not the reason. The reason it can't be done is:
- it's a shift of the burden of proof
- you can't logically prove a negative like that.

Saying you can't prove that a god is involved with seasonal rain is like saying that it can't be proven that graviton fairies are involved with gravity. Or leprechauns with rainbows.

We take what we know scientifically and make determinations according to that with our own worldviews (everyone even you do that)

In science, we don't do that.
Which is why lightning has a natural explanation today, instead of "deity is throwing bolts at us".

Some feel the fine tuning of our universe supports the notion of design in our universe others don't but the science is what it is and it points to the universe having an appearance of design due to the design appearing features of the universe.

What things "appear to be" is a subjective opinion of the facts.
Tuning is determined by demonstrating a tuner, intent, purpose and agency. Not by looking at numbers and making unjustified claims about them.

However, what you believe about it does not change the actuality of the phenomena and that it cries out for explanation

I never once said that the universe and the nature thereof doesn't require an explanation. However, I don't assume the answers before asking the question. That's what you do.

No, it is not what we don't know but what we do know. We do know that the universe is fine tuned for life.

No. We know that the universe is a universe that can contain life.
We don't know that it was "rigged" for life with planning, intent and purpose. because that is what tuning means.

God of the gaps talks about stuff of the universe not the universe itself. What remains unknown is if that is due to some underlying ToE which would not eliminate the fine tuning

Again, it would and it shows exactly the problem in your use of language and how you continue to confuse yourself (or deliberatly try to slip in your religious beliefs into the conversation).

Something that is TUNED has a TUNER and TUNING is done with intent, purpose and planning.

You don't know this, you assume it based on religious beliefs.

False, I always include it.

Really?
Here's that sentence again: The claim of Fine Tuning itself comes from those in authority of field of astrophysics/physics and cosmology

Where exactly is the word "appearance" here?

So are you claiming that the fine tuning that has been claimed is an illusion created by our pattern seeking eyes? Do you know that the values we are talking about can't be seen with our eyes but must be determined by research and testing?

Do you know what a metaphor is?
Most of our modern knowledge aren't things that we can "see" like I can see my pc monitor right now.

We seek patterns. That is what we do. We are also prone to impose purpose and intent on things without being justified in doing so - which is kind of part of our pattern seeking nature.

It's hindsight fallacious thinking.

It's saying that the rock is sharp so that the cat can scratch itself by rubbing against it. Instead of saying that the cat rubs against to rock to scratch itself because it is sharp.

Your entire reasoning is backwards.

The universe isn't the way it is so that we could exist.
We exist because the universe is the way it is. If it were different, we wouldn't be here.

All this talk about "tuning" IMPLIES that you ASSUME that life was "meant to be". That's an extra-ordinary claim. And you are unable to support it.

So brute fact. So, what would that tell us? That would just tell us that fine tuning of the universe has to be there. Why?

You are so stuck between a rock and a hard place, it's not even funny anymore.

ps: didn't you just state that always include the word "appearance"? Because here you are again, talking about tuning as if it is an established fact.

Your dishonesty and semantic play of words is noted.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is just like someone saying that evolution is not an established fact. You are doing just what you claim creationists do with evolution. Fine tuning is a very concise phenomena with most scientists in that field agreeing upon.

Show us a single scientist who can demonstrate, with evidence, that a designer fine tuned our universe for life.

 

[Mainframes]

The universe shows evidence that its natural laws and constants are just right for life but not fine tuned.

To demonstrate fine tuning you need to show that the laws and constants have been adjusted from their original values. Can you do this?

 

[Loudmouth]

Lets do it this way:

If the universe is designed or fine tuned then there will be the appearance of design or fine tuning.

There is the appearance of fine tuning and/or design.

Therefore the universe is possibly designed and/or fine tuned.

Possibly? Isn't that where we started?

Fairies possibly cause gravity? Leprechauns possibly cause rainbows?

What evidence do you have that gets us past a possible cause that is indistinguishable from something made up on the spot?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Provide the evidence that proves there is no fine tuning.

AFAIK, it's impossible to do that Oncedeceived.

It would be like saying: "Prove Santa Claus isn't responsible for fine-tuning".

That's why the person making the assertion, in this case "There is an intelligence responsible for fine tuning the universe", has the burden of proof.

For example, if I said: "Santa Claus is responsible for fine-tuning the universe", I think we can both agree that I would have the burden of proof.