Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

[Ophiolite]

That is your prerogative as a sovereign human to believe the theory of evolution.

Speedwell did not say he believed it. He said he accepted it as the best of the currently available explanations. That is is different from believing it.

Speedwell, please correct me if I have put words in your mouth.

 

[Speedwell]

Speedwell did not say he believed it. He said he accepted it as the best of the currently available explanations. That is is different from believing it.

Speedwell, please correct me if I have put words in your mouth.

Not at all. But I reject the notion that belief in or acceptance of (however Kaon wants to put it) the theory of evolution is being forced on us.

It is being offered to us as a plausible explanation of accumulated data. As long as it remains so and is contradicted by no new data and in the absence of a plausible alternative explanation I can accept it provisionally without compulsion. Just like any other scientific theory.

 

[Kaon]

Does that mean you are going to respond to my request?

No, it means I respect your commentary on what satisfies you academically. Additionally, I also respect that you do not believe I have shown so far have been specifics.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, it means I respect your commentary on what satisfies you academically. Additionally, I also respect that you do not believe I have shown so far have been specifics.

OK. I understand that you are a time waster, who assigns value to word salad and runs away from a reasonable challenge to their assertions. I don't respect such behaviour. Thank you for your time.

 

[Kaon]

But your point was that belief was being demanded of us, was it not?

One of my points was that there is an imposed demand of acceptance onto the layperson, and our peers in academia - but semantically it is the same thing as belief to an extent. There is no storm trooper demanding we believe in something or we die; there is, however, sociology, psychology and politics that do the work. Ridicule, for example, is one of the ways society qualifies who is wrong (unacceptable), and who is right (acceptable).

I thought the above was clear (even if one disagrees).

 

[Kaon]

Speedwell did not say he believed it. He said he accepted it as the best of the currently available explanations. That is is different from believing it.

Speedwell, please correct me if I have put words in your mouth.

Semantics: belief is an acceptance of something. But, if the context is that s/he just accepts it (without believing it), then yes that is something entirely different. It is still his/her prerogative to accept, or not accept it as a sovereign human.

 

[Kaon]

OK. I understand that you are a time waster, who assigns value to word salad and runs away from a reasonable challenge to their assertions. I don't respect such behaviour. Thank you for your time.

Ok.

 

[Speedwell]

One of my points was that there is an imposed demand of acceptance onto the layperson, and our peers in academia - but semantically it is the same thing as belief to an extent. There is no storm trooper demanding we believe in something or we die; there is, however, sociology, psychology and politics that do the work. Ridicule, for example, is one of the ways society qualifies who is wrong (unacceptable), and who is right (acceptable).

I thought the above was clear (even if one disagrees).

I just don't see how that applies to the theory of evolution.

 

[Kaon]

I just don't see how that applies to the theory of evolution.

Ok. (I am just responding since you made a statement.)

 

[Yttrium]

Again: do you believe we should be able to reproduce a theory in a laboratory before we impress the expectation of acceptance on the general public or our peers? Are you going to comment on this point?

No. That would be a ridiculous limitation on scientific theories. Theories make testable predictions. Those are the parts we test.

We're not going to collapse a star into a black hole in a laboratory.

 

[Speedwell]

Ok. (I am just responding since you made a statement.)

Do you think your comments in post #265 apply to the theory of evolution? If so, why?

 

[Kaon]

No. That would be a ridiculous limitation on scientific theories. Theories make testable predictions. Those are the parts we test.

We're not going to collapse a star into a black hole in a laboratory.

Interesting. I find it more ludicrous to write a textbook on something that cannot be reproduced in a lab. That isn't a limitation on science; it is a check and balance. It is what separates science from well-funded philosophy.

Theories are often terribly wrong, and a tremendous amount of time is wasted extrapolating accepted theories that are wrong. That is part of science; why complicate it with no way to ever vindicate the theory.

You can't collapse a star into a black hole to test the theory that collapsed stars cause black holes, but you believe you have enough substance to know that is how black holes are created based on theory. And, you cannot see the myopia in this view?

 

[Kaon]

Do you think your comments in post #265 apply to the theory of evolution? If so, why?

It applies to the fraternity of academia - not just one theory, person or paradigm within it.

 

[Speedwell]

Interesting. I find it more ludicrous to write a textbook on something that cannot be reproduced in a lab. That isn't a limitation on science; it is a check and balance. It is what separates science from well-funded philosophy.

Theories are often terribly wrong, and a tremendous amount of time is wasted extrapolating accepted theories that are wrong. That is part of science; why complicate it with no way to ever vindicate the theory.

You can't collapse a star into a black hole to test the theory that collapsed stars cause black holes, but you believe you have enough substance to know that is how black holes are created based on theory. And, you cannot see the myopia in this view?

There is enough substance to know that the data we do have suggests that black holes are very likely formed in that way. No one is making the claim that it is an absolute fact that black holes are formed in that way.

 

[Speedwell]

It applies to the fraternity of academia - not just one theory, person or paradigm within it.

I will agree that it is human nature to ridicule patently false notions, and that sometimes such ridicule extends to eccentric ideas which turn out after all to be justified, but if they do turn out to be justified, the ridicule ceases.

 

[Yttrium]

Interesting. I find it more ludicrous to write a textbook on something that cannot be reproduced in a lab. That isn't a limitation on science; it is a check and balance. It is what separates science from well-funded philosophy.

If we could completely demonstrate it in a lab, then it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a proven fact. The whole point to scientific theory is that we're coming up with an explanation for things we can't completely reproduce at this time. If you insist on laboratory reproduction, then we would have no scientific theories at all.

Theories are often terribly wrong, and a tremendous amount of time is wasted extrapolating accepted theories that are wrong. That is part of science; why complicate it with no way to ever vindicate the theory.

You are using a computer. Are you seriously wondering why we have scientific theories? A vast amount of our technology today resulted from scientific theories.

You can't collapse a star into a black hole to test the theory that collapsed stars cause black holes, but you believe you have enough substance to know that is how black holes are created based on theory. And, you cannot see the myopia in this view?

I believe I have enough substance to accept the idea of a star collapsing into a black hole as a likely theory. I certainly don't know for sure that's how it happens. I don't know for sure that black holes exist at all. The theory is that certain stars can and do collapse into black holes, and it makes testable predictions. With those predictions, we've discovered objects in space that sure seem to have the properties of stars that have collapsed into black holes.

 

[Kaon]

If we could completely demonstrate it in a lab, then it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a proven fact. The whole point to scientific theory is that we're coming up with an explanation for things we can't completely reproduce at this time. If you insist on laboratory reproduction, then we would have no scientific theories at all.



You are using a computer. Are you seriously wondering why we have scientific theories? A vast amount of our technology today resulted from scientific theories.



I believe I have enough substance to accept the idea of a star collapsing into a black hole as a likely theory. I certainly don't know for sure that's how it happens. I don't know for sure that black holes exist at all. The theory is that certain stars can and do collapse into black holes, and it makes testable predictions. With those predictions, we've discovered objects in space that sure seem to have the properties of stars that have collapsed into black holes.

Ok.

 

[Kaon]

I will agree that it is human nature to ridicule patently false notions, and that sometimes such ridicule extends to eccentric ideas which turn out after all to be justified, but if they do turn out to be justified, the ridicule ceases.

I appreciate your comment, even though I still disagree (mostly with the last part).

Unfortunately, many people don't grow up; they just get older. Humans exist in academia - who don't grow up, but get older. I am not saying throw the baby and bathwater out, but I would say as someone who has "poured more than a few baths," it would be most prudent to inspect what is in the water, and listen to (or at least entertain) other people when they say it is less than clean.

Otherwise, we end up ignorant and wondering why baby never gets clean (stagnation), or why baby stays infected (erroneous theory continued as acceptable - through ignorance or purposeful misleading.)

Excuse the extended metaphor(s), but not everyone is an academic, or even an academically-versed layperson. I want to cover all bases for lurkers.

 

[Speedwell]

I appreciate your comment, even though I still disagree (mostly with the last part)

It happens. One thinks of the work of Wegener with plate tectonics or Lynn Margulis with symbiogenesis. Both were widely ridiculed when they began, but stuck to it and now their work is accepted science.

Otherwise, we end up ignorant and wondering why baby never gets clean (stagnation), or why baby stays infected (erroneous theory continued as acceptable - through ignorance or purposeful misleading.)

Which aptly describes the continued popularity of such foolish and discredited notions as a flat Earth or YECism

 

[Kaon]

It happens. One thinks of the work of Wegener with plate tectonics or Lynn Margulis with symbiogenesis. Both were widely ridiculed when they began, but stuck to it and now their work is accepted science.


Which aptly describes the continued popularity of such foolish and discredited notions as a flat Earth or YECism

By the same token, those foolish and discredited notions may be the axioms of the next century. Again, I don't actually think every rejected idea is right. However, a non-negligible number of alleged "woo" is actually progress in disguise. History continues to show this. That is why it is good to be humble enough to remember that even if some of our models work, unless we reproduce the results of our theory we are just philosophizing. And, even if we can reproduce the results in a tangible way (beyond equations), we need to continue to reproduce the results to make sure they stand up.