On "analyzing" science that you don't understand

[LutheranGuy123]

So much claimed time spent in academia, and yet you don't seem to understand the significance of theories or even their purpose. Theories and models are used to aid in our understanding of factual observation. We observe that species change over time, that is the factual observation. The theories and models pertaining to that change are to help understand how and why, and to use this information for our benefit.

Since all theories are capable of being disproven (no matter how much evidence supports them and how little evidence is against them), they are never treated as absolute truths and are supported by evidence, not proof. Proof is for math. We literally can watch a virus infect a bacterium and all the viral offspring burst out of the cell, killing it, and yet Germ Theory of disease could still be disproven. It's just so unlikely at this point that treating it as accurate is pragmatic, and to just jump on the little possibility that the theory might be disproven is not only a waste of time, but harmful given that any alternative is magnitudes less likely to accurately reflect reality.


I openly have a bias in favor of deities existing and there being an afterlife, and no objection to deity driven evolution or a deity based origin of life or the universe as a concept. Yet, after 4 years of being a member of this site, people continue to disappoint me with how little evidence they have for their claims of there being deities, etc.

Basically, since I actually hate being an atheist and have been trying to convert since I was 13, theistic arguments should work reasonably better on me than most atheists. However, even with that, theists fail to convince me. Would you honestly claim I am biased in favor of a position that gives me a nightly existential crisis to which I cry myself to sleep nearly every night?

Technically speaking, no theories can be disproved. A theory, by definition, is open to change as new data is entered. Even geocentrism and flat Earth are valid theories. It's just that you have to make so many wacky wild assumptions that only an idiot would actually believe them.

 

[bhsmte]

Technically speaking, no theories can be disproved. A theory, by definition, is open to change as new data is entered. Even geocentrism and flat Earth are valid theories. It's just that you have to make so many wacky wild assumptions that only an idiot would actually believe them.

If one has to make; wacky and wild assumptions, a theory is not considered valid. Theories are valid, when the evidence supports them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Technically speaking, no theories can be disproved.

Theories that have been disproven:
Phlogiston theory: theory that proposed that combustible materials contained a fire-like element called phlogiston, which was released during combustion. This theory attempted to explain combustion and rusting (now known as oxidation reactions).

Miasma theory of disease: The idea that diseases, such as cholera, were caused by inhaling "bad air", which included but was not limited to night air and foul odors.

Steady State theory: Theory that, within the expanding universe, the density of matter within the universe remains unchanged, as matter is generated in proportion with the universe's expansion.

All of these theories were disproven, and some disproven theories were mainstream for a very long time. For example, the Miasma theory of disease was prevalent for over 1000 years until it was finally disproven and replaced with Germ theory of disease in 1880. Scientific theories not only can and have been disproven throughout human history, but the capacity for being disproven is a requirement for being considered a scientific theory. If you are wondering what evidence supported the Miasma theory of disease, it was the noticed connection between being around corpses and fecal matter and getting sick. The theory is incorrect because it isn't the smell that makes people sick, but microbes that do (and said microbes aren't caused by the smell, the infectious ones don't necessarily cause the smell, and you can easily get sick independent of a smell).

Not only this, but entire fields of inquiry can be found obsolete, such as Alchemy being rendered entirely obsolete by Chemistry.

A theory, by definition, is open to change as new data is entered.

Sure, theories are open to change. A good example of a theory that has changed quite a bit over time is atomic theory. However, note that the core of that theory, the idea that the atom is the smallest unit of matter (and that there is such a thing as a smallest unit of matter) has NOT changed. If that core principle of atomic theory was disproven, the whole thing would have to be discarded in favor of something else.

I think that you have erroneously associated theories that were replaced with other theories as ones that were amended. I can understand this mistake, as most theories are disproven by the theories that replace them.

Even geocentrism and flat Earth are valid theories.

No, the latter was disproven over 1000 years ago, and the former had gradual buildup of evidence against it as telescopes improved, and was rendered obsolete by the mid 1800s. The only reason people perpetuate the idea that either or both of these theories are valid is because of massive distrust of the scientific community and religious dogma. Such people cannot accept that either theory has been disproven, so they act as if they haven't.

It's just that you have to make so many wacky wild assumptions that only an idiot would actually believe them.

The only reason anyone could call geocentrism and flat Earth by the term "theory" is because they USED to be widely considered as valid theories and working models of the universe. They are disproven theories.

 

[pshun2404]

Theories that have been disproven:
Phlogiston theory: theory that proposed that combustible materials contained a fire-like element called phlogiston, which was released during combustion. This theory attempted to explain combustion and rusting (now known as oxidation reactions).

Miasma theory of disease: The idea that diseases, such as cholera, were caused by inhaling "bad air", which included but was not limited to night air and foul odors.

Steady State theory: Theory that, within the expanding universe, the density of matter within the universe remains unchanged, as matter is generated in proportion with the universe's expansion.

All of these theories were disproven, and some disproven theories were mainstream for a very long time. For example, the Miasma theory of disease was prevalent for over 1000 years until it was finally disproven and replaced with Germ theory of disease in 1880. Scientific theories not only can and have been disproven throughout human history, but the capacity for being disproven is a requirement for being considered a scientific theory. If you are wondering what evidence supported the Miasma theory of disease, it was the noticed connection between being around corpses and fecal matter and getting sick. The theory is incorrect because it isn't the smell that makes people sick, but microbes that do (and said microbes aren't caused by the smell, the infectious ones don't necessarily cause the smell, and you can easily get sick independent of a smell).

Not only this, but entire fields of inquiry can be found obsolete, such as Alchemy being rendered entirely obsolete by Chemistry.

Sure, theories are open to change. A good example of a theory that has changed quite a bit over time is atomic theory. However, note that the core of that theory, the idea that the atom is the smallest unit of matter (and that there is such a thing as a smallest unit of matter) has NOT changed. If that core principle of atomic theory was disproven, the whole thing would have to be discarded in favor of something else.

I think that you have erroneously associated theories that were replaced with other theories as ones that were amended. I can understand this mistake, as most theories are disproven by the theories that replace them.

No, the latter was disproven over 1000 years ago, and the former had gradual buildup of evidence against it as telescopes improved, and was rendered obsolete by the mid 1800s. The only reason people perpetuate the idea that either or both of these theories are valid is because of massive distrust of the scientific community and religious dogma. Such people cannot accept that either theory has been disproven, so they act as if they haven't.

The only reason anyone could call geocentrism and flat Earth by the term "theory" is because they USED to be widely considered as valid theories and working models of the universe. They are disproven theories.

Amen cuz, this IS the history of science in a nutshell. !,000 years from now most we accept or believe as established and true will either be proven incorrect or obsolete!

 

[Ygrene Imref]

A local creationist has admitted ignorance in most areas of science, yet claims that because of training in how to analyze arguments, he nevertheless has the ability to rebut evolution claims.

So as not to give away the ending, I am not going to link to this claim, but I am wondering how many creationists will be able to spot the flaw in this 'analytical' reasoning the creationist professes in this example:

"The E-Coli experiments after 50,000 plus generations still remain E-Coli, Homo sapien Neanderthalis/Homo sapien Altai/and Homo sapien Sapiens are another great example (very fitting to Kimuru's Neutral Theory)..."

I am not a fan of creationism or evolution. And, I also don't think you need a BS, MS, or Ph.D. to have a solid grasp on subject matter (autodidacts exist.) But, arguing from ignorance is hardly ever productive - especially when it is something so divisive as creation vs evolution.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Amen cuz, this IS the history of science in a nutshell. !,000 years from now most we accept or believe as established and true will either be proven incorrect or obsolete!

That is why being an auto didactic is good, or even patient in studying things. I, personally, do not to be at the intellectual whim of a current paradigm just because it is accepted.

 

[pshun2404]

That is why being an auto didactic is good, or even patient in studying things. I, personally, do not to be at the intellectual whim of a current paradigm just because it is accepted.

Good for you...ask any questions...ask every question...explore all arguments of interest for AND against....but most importantly think for yourself. Do not be fooled by sheepskins as many wolves wear them and just because many agree does not make something right or true. Also there are many quite brilliant autodidacts, you are in good company.

 

[LutheranGuy123]

Theories that have been disproven:
Phlogiston theory: theory that proposed that combustible materials contained a fire-like element called phlogiston, which was released during combustion. This theory attempted to explain combustion and rusting (now known as oxidation reactions).

Miasma theory of disease: The idea that diseases, such as cholera, were caused by inhaling "bad air", which included but was not limited to night air and foul odors.

Steady State theory: Theory that, within the expanding universe, the density of matter within the universe remains unchanged, as matter is generated in proportion with the universe's expansion.

All of these theories were disproven, and some disproven theories were mainstream for a very long time. For example, the Miasma theory of disease was prevalent for over 1000 years until it was finally disproven and replaced with Germ theory of disease in 1880. Scientific theories not only can and have been disproven throughout human history, but the capacity for being disproven is a requirement for being considered a scientific theory. If you are wondering what evidence supported the Miasma theory of disease, it was the noticed connection between being around corpses and fecal matter and getting sick. The theory is incorrect because it isn't the smell that makes people sick, but microbes that do (and said microbes aren't caused by the smell, the infectious ones don't necessarily cause the smell, and you can easily get sick independent of a smell).

Not only this, but entire fields of inquiry can be found obsolete, such as Alchemy being rendered entirely obsolete by Chemistry.



Sure, theories are open to change. A good example of a theory that has changed quite a bit over time is atomic theory. However, note that the core of that theory, the idea that the atom is the smallest unit of matter (and that there is such a thing as a smallest unit of matter) has NOT changed. If that core principle of atomic theory was disproven, the whole thing would have to be discarded in favor of something else.

I think that you have erroneously associated theories that were replaced with other theories as ones that were amended. I can understand this mistake, as most theories are disproven by the theories that replace them.



No, the latter was disproven over 1000 years ago, and the former had gradual buildup of evidence against it as telescopes improved, and was rendered obsolete by the mid 1800s. The only reason people perpetuate the idea that either or both of these theories are valid is because of massive distrust of the scientific community and religious dogma. Such people cannot accept that either theory has been disproven, so they act as if they haven't.



The only reason anyone could call geocentrism and flat Earth by the term "theory" is because they USED to be widely considered as valid theories and working models of the universe. They are disproven theories.

Science doesn't work in proof. Science works on a most-likely basis. Unless you set up a camera really far away from the solar system and watch the planets orbit the Sun over the course of a few years, you're only using evidence to demonstrate that Earth most likely orbits the Sun. Unless you ask God himself how fire works, you're only using evidence to show that phlogistan almost certainly is not a thing.

 

[dad]

Science doesn't work in proof. Science works on a most-likely basis.

Most likely according to a God omitting, spiritual ignoring, godless methodology and philosophy that fraudulently labels itself with the name science. They do not know.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Amen cuz, this IS the history of science in a nutshell. !,000 years from now most we accept or believe as established and true will either be proven incorrect or obsolete!

Perhaps. I certainly hope that modern theories improve, if nothing else. However, it is worth noting that our ability to collect data and observe the world has greatly improved since the start of scientific inquiry. When Miasma theory of disease was widely accepted, people couldn't observe the real disease causing agents because they were too small. Germ theory of disease is very unlikely to be disproven in the future, considering that we can watch a virus infect a cell and cause it to produce more viruses.

Furthermore, even though Miasma theory of disease was shown to be wrong, that doesn't mean that it didn't promote some good practices (such as disposing of rotting corpses and avoiding the swampy areas that are filled with mosquitoes, as well as quarantines) along with the bad practices (trying to prevent catching diseases using perfumes and other items with good smells). Even though it was incorrect, since it was based on observing the world around us honestly, it could still lead to some progress. As long as a theory has some basis in reality, there is the potential that it could help us in our daily lives or, at the very least, help us make more accurate conclusions in the future that lead to the theory being replaced or improved. The scientific theories of the past weren't entirely worthless just because they were disproven later.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Science doesn't work in proof. Science works on a most-likely basis..

Well, science works on evidence. Math is the only thing that works on proof. Which is why any scientific theory has the potential to be disproven; no matter how likely they are to be correct, there is a chance a theory could be found incorrect. That doesn't mean that theories have no credibility at all. If the odds are 99.99% that a theory is an accurate representation of reality, I'm not going to jump on that 0.01% that it's not.

Unless you set up a camera really far away from the solar system and watch the planets orbit the Sun over the course of a few years, you're only using evidence to demonstrate that Earth most likely orbits the Sun.

Actually, even doing that, it would still make the heliocentric solar system a theory. I mean, we watch viruses infect and kill cells, and it's still germ THEORY of disease. Getting the idea of how reliable evidence can be?

Also, in commentary to your claim:
1. We can observe the orbits of some of the other planets, such as Mars, with the naked eye, since we can track their movements and use that to map out a trajectory.

2. We can easily observe that the sun itself doesn't orbit anything in the solar system.

3. Not every planet orbits the sun at speeds that keep them aligned, so we can track our own orbit relative to those of the other planets.

Unless you ask God himself how fire works, you're only using evidence to show that phlogistan almost certainly is not a thing.

-_- we know phlogistan isn't a thing because we can measure particles being released. There is no special energy particle relating to oxidizing reactions.

Science can't prove, but it can disprove.

 

[pshun2404]

Perhaps. I certainly hope that modern theories improve, if nothing else. However, it is worth noting that our ability to collect data and observe the world has greatly improved since the start of scientific inquiry. When Miasma theory of disease was widely accepted, people couldn't observe the real disease causing agents because they were too small. Germ theory of disease is very unlikely to be disproven in the future, considering that we can watch a virus infect a cell and cause it to produce more viruses.

Furthermore, even though Miasma theory of disease was shown to be wrong, that doesn't mean that it didn't promote some good practices (such as disposing of rotting corpses and avoiding the swampy areas that are filled with mosquitoes, as well as quarantines) along with the bad practices (trying to prevent catching diseases using perfumes and other items with good smells). Even though it was incorrect, since it was based on observing the world around us honestly, it could still lead to some progress. As long as a theory has some basis in reality, there is the potential that it could help us in our daily lives or, at the very least, help us make more accurate conclusions in the future that lead to the theory being replaced or improved. The scientific theories of the past weren't entirely worthless just because they were disproven later.

Yet it is not entirely wrong either as there are airborn pathogens.

 

[LutheranGuy123]

Well, science works on evidence. Math is the only thing that works on proof. Which is why any scientific theory has the potential to be disproven; no matter how likely they are to be correct, there is a chance a theory could be found incorrect. That doesn't mean that theories have no credibility at all. If the odds are 99.99% that a theory is an accurate representation of reality, I'm not going to jump on that 0.01% that it's not.

Actually, even doing that, it would still make the heliocentric solar system a theory. I mean, we watch viruses infect and kill cells, and it's still germ THEORY of disease. Getting the idea of how reliable evidence can be?

Also, in commentary to your claim:
1. We can observe the orbits of some of the other planets, such as Mars, with the naked eye, since we can track their movements and use that to map out a trajectory.

2. We can easily observe that the sun itself doesn't orbit anything in the solar system.

3. Not every planet orbits the sun at speeds that keep them aligned, so we can track our own orbit relative to those of the other planets.



-_- we know phlogistan isn't a thing because we can measure particles being released. There is no special energy particle relating to oxidizing reactions.

Science can't prove, but it can disprove.

Well you're assuming that physics as we know it is correct, and that can't be proven. There is a valid orbital diagram showing how all of our observations from Earth are possible with the planets orbiting Earth. It looks *really* weird, but again, you would have to observe the planets to say one way or the other for sure. And then it wouldn't be a theory anymore, it would be an observation.

Also germ theory is a collection of observations, including seeing a virus enter a cell and then the cell bursting with viruses. But germ theory is not proven, it is only very very likely. Phlogistan theory also is not disproven, as phlogistan could be some undetectable particle. Or it could be that every study we've ever conducted demonstrating particle theory was actually random chance. I don't think any study has ever reported p=0.

 

[Resha Caner]

Another good question seems to have gotten lost in the fog. No one is an expert in all things. So how does one evaluate the claims of a discipline in which one is not an expert - especially if those claims challenge something crucially important to your life?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well you're assuming that physics as we know it is correct, and that can't be proven. There is a valid orbital diagram showing how all of our observations from Earth are possible with the planets orbiting Earth. It looks *really* weird, but again, you would have to observe the planets to say one way or the other for sure. And then it wouldn't be a theory anymore, it would be an observation.

You do realize that we have put out telescopes and cameras into space though, right? Furthermore, physics doesn't have to closely match modern theories to disprove other possibilities. Let's say that there is a colored square, and both of us are asked to best determine the color of the square without seeing it directly. I ask for a picture of the square, and you get to see it to. So, we both see this: http://cobaltbluecolor.facts.co/whatiscobaltbluecolorcode/cobaltcolor.png . I decide to trust that the average camera is going to be able to pick up color fairly well, though not perfectly, so I conclude that the color of the square is definitely a shade of blue, and that it specifically seems to be cobalt blue. However, you don't trust the camera, because it could have filters or be purposely made to distort color, so you claim that the color of the square can't be determined by a picture at all with any sort of accuracy, and refuse to submit an answer at all. Then, we get to see the actual square directly, and it looks like this: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a9/2d/03/a92d0334809e1a3fa76fb5d299e3113b.png
As it turns out, the camera that took the picture tended to mute colors a bit, making this royal blue square appear cobalt, so here is a comparison side by side http://www.blueandhue.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/royal-blue-vs-cobal-blue-1024x501-1024x501.png

Now, if I knew that the camera muted colors, I could have corrected for it, don't you think? And even when I don't, the general picture is still grasped (the square is blue). In any case, I got farther to the truth than anyone that asserts that the truth is unknowable. Thus, when I use said camera to take pictures of objects I will never be able to directly observe with my own eyes, I can feel confident that what I am looking at is a fairly accurate representation of those objects.

Also germ theory is a collection of observations, including seeing a virus enter a cell and then the cell bursting with viruses. But germ theory is not proven, it is only very very likely.

The probability of it being random chance is so low that it's not even worth investing into at all. That's be like a trillion coins flipped fairly all landing on tails. Hence why it is pragmatic to treat germ theory as an accurate representation of reality until evidence is produced that suggests otherwise. That's how science is. If there was a superior methodology to understanding items such as biology that would render conclusions as accurate as proof in math, then we would use it. For now, this is the best our species has to work with. I agree that no theory is proven, but I disagree with your implication that this makes putting stock in theories not worthwhile.

Phlogistan theory also is not disproven, as phlogistan could be some undetectable particle. Or it could be that every study we've ever conducted demonstrating particle theory was actually random chance. I don't think any study has ever reported p=0.

If it is undetectable, science treats it as if it doesn't exist. A property of being undetectable is having no measurable impact on energy or matter or other physical properties of the universe, so anything that would remain undetectable forever is most likely entirely irrelevant to our lives to begin with. Furthermore, thousands of experiments randomly reaching the same conclusions entirely by chance is an excessively improbable outcome. That's why experiments are repeated so much, to improve the accuracy of the results. P doesn't have to equal 0 for the results to be useful. That's not even a goal.

 

[LutheranGuy123]

You do realize that we have put out telescopes and cameras into space though, right? Furthermore, physics doesn't have to closely match modern theories to disprove other possibilities. Let's say that there is a colored square, and both of us are asked to best determine the color of the square without seeing it directly. I ask for a picture of the square, and you get to see it to. So, we both see this: http://cobaltbluecolor.facts.co/whatiscobaltbluecolorcode/cobaltcolor.png . I decide to trust that the average camera is going to be able to pick up color fairly well, though not perfectly, so I conclude that the color of the square is definitely a shade of blue, and that it specifically seems to be cobalt blue. However, you don't trust the camera, because it could have filters or be purposely made to distort color, so you claim that the color of the square can't be determined by a picture at all with any sort of accuracy, and refuse to submit an answer at all. Then, we get to see the actual square directly, and it looks like this: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a9/2d/03/a92d0334809e1a3fa76fb5d299e3113b.png
As it turns out, the camera that took the picture tended to mute colors a bit, making this royal blue square appear cobalt, so here is a comparison side by side http://www.blueandhue.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/royal-blue-vs-cobal-blue-1024x501-1024x501.png

Now, if I knew that the camera muted colors, I could have corrected for it, don't you think? And even when I don't, the general picture is still grasped (the square is blue). In any case, I got farther to the truth than anyone that asserts that the truth is unknowable. Thus, when I use said camera to take pictures of objects I will never be able to directly observe with my own eyes, I can feel confident that what I am looking at is a fairly accurate representation of those objects.


The probability of it being random chance is so low that it's not even worth investing into at all. That's be like a trillion coins flipped fairly all landing on tails. Hence why it is pragmatic to treat germ theory as an accurate representation of reality until evidence is produced that suggests otherwise. That's how science is. If there was a superior methodology to understanding items such as biology that would render conclusions as accurate as proof in math, then we would use it. For now, this is the best our species has to work with. I agree that no theory is proven, but I disagree with your implication that this makes putting stock in theories not worthwhile.


If it is undetectable, science treats it as if it doesn't exist. A property of being undetectable is having no measurable impact on energy or matter or other physical properties of the universe, so anything that would remain undetectable forever is most likely entirely irrelevant to our lives to begin with. Furthermore, thousands of experiments randomly reaching the same conclusions entirely by chance is an excessively improbable outcome. That's why experiments are repeated so much, to improve the accuracy of the results. P doesn't have to equal 0 for the results to be useful. That's not even a goal.

Again, so incredibly unlikely that it's pointless to even entertain the idea is still not impossible. We can't be 100% certain, only 99.9999999999999999999999% certain.

 

[pshun2404]

Another good question seems to have gotten lost in the fog. No one is an expert in all things. So how does one evaluate the claims of a discipline in which one is not an expert - especially if those claims challenge something crucially important to your life?

Ever encounter an honest child? They are not trying to burst anyone's bubble but sometimes they do. Because they have not been inundated yet with all the BS adults have had imposed on them and have not yet been "convinced" this or that is true or not true. As a simple observer they ask a brilliant and quite honest question and often that rocks the adult's zeitgeist.

And an equally valid question is why do people just believe something some one says just because it is supposed someone is an expert? One can have a Ph.D. in one point of view or in one isolated specialty and totally miss the bigger picture because though considered and "expert" in this one narrow little corner they fail to take into account the implications of its relatedness to other important and influential areas.

For example, when one tries to study psychology seriously, one finds themselves bumping into a need to grasp biology, neurology, anthropology (cultural and forensic), sociology, and all this in a context of physics, chem, and ecology (even to theological tradition and the impact of theologies on these other perspectives). Why? Because being a human entails all these and more.

So being a so-called expert or teacher does not guarantee what they teaching is actually true. The biology text being taught and supported by Clarence Darrow and the ACLU (who hired him) one allegedly "expert" conclusion reads:

“At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.” (Hunter, Civic Biology, 1914)

It was supported by the ideas of people like Huxley, Proveos, Sanger, Herbert Spencer and more alleged enlightened social and scientific heroes, but would you really want this taught to YOUR children as established fact? Answer right you pass answer wrong you fail...Darwinians believed it and taught it as a fact, but was it? Is it? Seriously think about this!

One need not be a so-called expert to ask meaningful and important questions or detect flaws in a particular position. Shortly hereafter "expert" Anthropolgists captured (from his wife and children) and put on DISPLAY one Ota Benga as a valid living example of a missing link cross over between ape and man at the St. Louis world fair (1923) and this years after the emancipation proclamation.

 

[Resha Caner]

“At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.” (Hunter, Civic Biology, 1914)

An interesting historical tidbit.

Shortly hereafter "expert" Anthropolgists captured (from his wife and children) and put on DISPLAY one Ota Benga as a valid living example of a missing link cross over between ape and man at the St. Louis world fair (1923) and this years after the emancipation proclamation.

And another, but not really an answer to the question.

 

[pshun2404]

Sorry I thought you would have a gestalt from that presentation. You know, an AH HAH experience where the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

My answer:

If one is not an "expert" (where as I showed allegedly being one guarantees nothing regarding truth) they can look at what is presented and seek to know the opinions for and against and consider their reasons for holding these positions, and then make up their mind for themselves.

This is why implications presented as truth (like the science fiction of a common ancestor that became Chimps and Humans) must be questioned by people whose opinion has not been "shaped"...once the mind is dogmatically fixated by education and indoctrination it is hard to truly exercise actual critical thinking.

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry I thought you would have a gestalt from that presentation. You know, an AH HAH experience where the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

My answer:

If one is not an "expert" (where as I showed allegedly being one guarantees nothing regarding truth) they can look at what is presented and seek to know the opinions for and against and consider their reasons for holding these positions, and then make up their mind for themselves.

This is why implications presented as truth (like the science fiction of a common ancestor that became Chimps and Humans) must be questioned by people whose opinion has not been "shaped"...once the mind is dogmatically fixated by education and indoctrination it is hard to truly exercise actual critical thinking.

So chimps and humans may or may not have had a common ancestor. The scientific consensus seems to be that they did, and there seems to be a reasonable case for it. So what? If it turns out to be true it does me no harm whatever, and if science is wrong then science is wrong again. It's not as if that never happens.

You seem to be spending a lot of time and effort to debunk the idea, and I wonder why. What's the harm in universal common ancestry?