Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[VinceBlaze]

When I say "hypotheses," I am referring to those already validated via experiment.

Okay. 'Experiment' implies an observational basis.

None of those things need validation from a theory, but a handful of hypotheses can be shown to be related or mutually supportive using a theory.

Okay, but it is not the theory itself providing this mutual support. The support originates from elsewhere.

The point is, the process of theorizing neither opposes nor excludes observation and examination, and that point stands.

I suggest that theorizing begins when/where observation ends.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Okay. 'Experiment' implies an observational basis.

Uh, I guess.

Okay, but it is not the theory itself providing this mutual support. The support originates from elsewhere.

I don't think there is a hard line that can be drawn. A theory certainly can make the case that hypotheses are mutually supportive where that information is not readily apparent.

I suggest that theorizing begins when/where observation ends.

That doesn't really make sense. One can theorize about observations. Again, a hard line between elements is not always easy to draw.

 

[Chalnoth]

What are you talking about? I can make a direct observation right now. If I look down at the ground, then look to the horizon, I see no bend in the earth. It just goes on forever. Obviously the earth is flat. I've directly observed it. Nothing religious about it. It's all based on direct observation. I see no bend in the earth.

Hence why it was possible to convince so many people for so long that the Earth was flat. But there are many situations where it becomes obvious that the Earth has some curvature to it just based upon the observations of one person at one place. For example, if you live in a plain with tall mountains not too far away, you might find a spot where the tops of the mountains are visible, but the majority of the bulk is hidden, by a flat plain. This wouldn't be possible if the Earth wasn't curved.

Anyway, I don't think the flat Earth/round Earth really falls into this category. The evidence of a round Earth was always available to anybody who had eyes and a brain. It wasn't like quantum mechanics where we needed quite a bit of technology and understanding before we could even conceive of the experiments that would end up showing that we would need something like quantum mechanics.

 

[RichardT]

Are you a geocentrist? How are you applying this statement?

Just to show you that you can't show geocentricity to be false...

 

[VinceBlaze]

A theory certainly can make the case that hypotheses are mutually supportive where that information is not readily apparent.

Okay, but I don't quite see how. Sorry.

One can theorize about observations.

Hopefully theories will be based on observations.

 

[VinceBlaze]

For example, if you live in a plain with tall mountains not too far away, you might find a spot where the tops of the mountains are visible, but the majority of the bulk is hidden, by a flat plain. This wouldn't be possible if the Earth wasn't curved.

We don't have any mountains in Chicago. They were all replaced by tall buildings.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Just to show you that you can't show geocentricity to be false...

Then what can we show to be false in this context? Anything at all?

 

[Chalnoth]

Then what can we show to be false in this context? Anything at all?

Nope. Nothing about the physical world can be proved beyond any doubt. So we shouldn't try. We should make conclusions that something is wrong even if there remains a miniscule sliver of possibility that it is still right. Because if we don't make such conclusions, we can never make any forward progress.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Nothing about the physical world can be proved beyond any doubt.

I fully agree.

We should make conclusions that something is wrong even if there remains a miniscule sliver of possibility that it is still right.

This is called critical thinking. I believe that every doctrine is incomplete and therefore partially incorrect. Whether it be religious, scientific, political or corporate.

Because if we don't make such conclusions, we can never make any forward progress.

Certainly the human species has not reached the fullness of it's evolutionary potentials. As evidence, we are fraught with wars, slavery, famine and plagues. Therefore I can fully trust no doctrines. We are all naive. I hold every doctrine in doubt, and am agnostic to every imagined god concept.

 

[Chalnoth]

This is called critical thinking. I believe that every doctrine is incomplete and therefore partially incorrect. Whether it be religious, scientific, political or corporate.

But at least science has some idea as to where it is incorrect, sometimes due to theoretical considerations (General Relativity and quantum mechanics, for instance, are incompatible, and thus one or both must be modified), sometimes due to experimental cosiderations (we know about many plausible experiments that we have not yet been able to perform).

 

[VinceBlaze]

But at least science has some idea as to where it is incorrect,

Not enough though I think. Just my personal view.

 

[Chalnoth]

Not enough though I think. Just my personal view.

Yeah, well, you're also not a scientist. I am. And I can assure you that I and my colleagues have a very good idea of what we don't yet know in our specific field. Skepticism is a hallmark of the field.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Okay, but I don't quite see how. Sorry.

Without general relativity, for example, we could have Newtonian gravitaiton and special relativity but no elegant thread (spacetime curvature) that connects the two.

Hopefully theories will be based on observations.

Ironically, you would have had similar reservations about general relativity had you lived in the 1920s.

 

[Tomk80]

I was responding to your previous statement in the context that it was presented. We can use what terminologies that you like however.

I don't care about terminologies. I just want to understand what you are saying in the first place. And I want you to understand that 'creation' and 'big bang' are not mutually exculsive terms.

And what are the right reasons to reject this reliability?

The limitations of science could give some doubt on the reliability of science. This does not mean that all viewpoints are equally valid though.

I do not regard the scientific community as the ultimate authority.

I don't expect you to. However, that those people are not in the scientific community but move outside it, combined with the fact that they do not hold up their musings to scientific scrutiny, might tip you off on something.

Can you provide a specific example?

An example would be 'irreducible complexity' as proposed by Behe. Many ID-ists regularly make the statement that the bacterial flagellum has some 40 proteins which are all necessary for the flagellum to function and that of only 10 of them a functional homologue in other systems has been found.

This is not true. Only 2 of the 40 proteins in it are present in all flagella in nature and have no homologue in other molecular systems.

 

[Tomk80]

Does this mean that it was a valid conclusion when people asserted the world was flat at the time?

At that time it was the best conclusion they could arrive at. So yes, at that time it was a valid conclusion.

 

[VinceBlaze]

you're also not a scientist. I am.

What area of science do you practice?

I have dedicated my life to tapping into my evolutionary potential by recycling the circadian rhythm. My body currently operates on a 36-hour cycle, as opposed to a 24-hour cycle, and will likely do such (or greater) for a permanent lifetime basis. This means that my waking periods are 24 hours long and my sleep periods are 12 hours long. This method has already regenerated damaged organ tissue within my body through natural physiological enhancement. Eventually, I will boost my natural rhythm to a permanent 48 cycle.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Without general relativity, for example, we could have Newtonian gravitaiton and special relativity but no elegant thread (spacetime curvature) that connects the two.

I believe that the multiverse is infinitely eternal and eternally infinite, existing as a conscious living organism that manifests subordinate life systems. Infinity surpasses space and eternity surpasses time.

I'm not sure if my belief is consistent with general relativity or not.

 

[VinceBlaze]

The limitations of science could give some doubt on the reliability of science.

I agree and further extend this to non-scientific realms too.

However, that those people are not in the scientific community but move outside it, combined with the fact that they do not hold up their musings to scientific scrutiny, might tip you off on something.

Who might you be referring to? And in what context?

 

[VinceBlaze]

At that time it was the best conclusion they could arrive at. So yes, at that time it was a valid conclusion.

Okay, but what if the people of the time came up with diametrically opposed conclusions? Maybe some asserted that the earth was flat and some asserted that the earth was round. Would both of these be valid conclusions for the time?

 

[Chalnoth]

What area of science do you practice?

Cosmology.

I have dedicated my life to tapping into my evolutionary potential by recycling the circadian rhythm. My body currently operates on a 36-hour cycle, as opposed to a 24-hour cycle, and will likely do such (or greater) for a permanent lifetime basis. This means that my waking periods are 24 hours long and my sleep periods are 12 hours long. This method has already regenerated damaged organ tissue within my body through natural physiological enhancement. Eventually, I will boost my natural rhythm to a permanent 48 cycle.

I don't see how this has anything whatsoever to do with science, but I find it highly unlikely that moving to any cycle other than 24 hours would be of benefit, as humans evolved in the presence of a 24 hour day.