Science is messy.

[Mountainmike]

It is time this forum had threads about science.
So I will start one about science itself.


My statement is Science is fundamentally messy.
It is not nearly the idealized process just comprised of "hypothesis, theory" taught to 8th graders.
So discuss.

Here an introduction.

As einstein said it "starts and finishes with experience."

So.
1. Much of science is trying to validate evidence, and looking for patterns in experience and data to pursue..
It is not straight forward and yesterdays triumph can be tomorrows failure. It becomes hard with beings with free will (like humans) , its easier on things , and things that can be repeated or do repeat naturally.

2/ There is also the axiomatic model. Trying to fit new evidence to it. So there is also a second track, which is start with the model, not experience, make extrapolations from it and look for validation with experience.


But broadly we have these categories.

a/ Patterns in Experience for which there may be no model . All experimental laws like ohm, or boyle are just a pattern that have restricted applicability.
b/ Patterns for which there is a model that works - the model is where theories live - take kinetic theory of gases, which accounts for boyles law. But the lack of such model or theory does not invalidate boyles law.
c/ Patterns for which the model does not work leading to speculation on why, take galaxy shape and speculation on possible missing mass
d/ Models for which there is not or not yet verified experience. Star formation is hard to confirm because early stages emit very little light so much of the evidence is indirect. Superstrings suppose many more dimensions which are near impossible to observe or test..
e/ Models which contradict other models, and are never likely to resolve, leading to arguments on the nature of science and reality. Quantum.
f/ Experience which has yet to repeat. All you can do is take evdience and file it. Wait for more instances.
G/ At the bottom of the chain is speculation for which there is neither model nor experience.

Some things repeat naturally, some things can be repeated in vivo.
But if they do not repeat often and cannot be repeated at will they are hard to reseach.
Experiments on anything that has free will is much harder than on a thing. In general leading to statistical empirical not axiomatic models.
Things which are rare or unique are hard to study. Psychology experiments are predictable statistically to an extent, but it is inconceivable that these can be explained by underlying neuron action . So no axiomatic model.

It is all science.
It is all messy.
Most of it is perspiration not inspiration, looking for patterns and checking evidence.

Looking for pattens in galaxy shape, is just as much science as a controlled test to see "do you know who is ringing you by telephone"
Some is confirmed, some is not. A pattern in evidence is a pattern in evidence whether you can ever explain it.

One problem is scientists are people, not always objective and they have confirmation bias.
Sadly the scientific establishment promotes things it "Likes" out of all proportion to evidence. People are people.
Dawkins books speculate way beyond what he can know.


So... back to one example. It shows the stark reality of science.

So called Eucharistic miracles have a repeated pattern in evidence. But no model so they are a/
They happened. the question is what happened? Quantum effects, like Bell experiment, defy rational explanation so there is no reason that other evdience such as EM should not defy rationality or models too.
The fact phenomena cannot be explained, there is no hypothesis does not invalidate the evidence one iota.
It is valid science to research the samples, look for possible fraud or misinterpretation, but after that it IS scientific evidence..

That is way higher up the proof curve than abiogenesis which is g/ no experience of it, no model for it, and no certainty of whether , what where or how it happened.
Alhought it MIGHT be true. Nobody can say so from what is currently known. But It is valid science to research speculation.

But it is ALL science. A mess.
All a quest for what is true. Whether you like or not the outcome.

A lot of damage is done by science deciding what it "likes" a priori.
Like the ridicule given in newtons time to those who thought light was a wave, held science back for years.
What the newtob apologists did not get. A particle and a wave are just different models of a "thing". They are not a "thing" in themselves.
Science is a conceptual not just a procedural mess. It has to be. It reflects the world.

 

[Bradskii]

second track, which is start with the model, not experience, make extrapolations from it and look for validation with experience.


But broadly we have these categories.



So... back to one example. It shows the stark reality of science.

So called Eucharistic miracles have a repeated pattern in evidence.

Oh, good grief. It has already been explained to you that is one acepts any given miracle, then that's all that has been done. So ethinghazhappened that appears to haveno natural cause. It has zero bearing on scientific matters. Absolutely none. Nada. Rien. Zip. Zilch.

You want to start a threat on science then immediately bring up the supernatural. What a waste of time.

 

[Mountainmike]

Oh, good grief. It has already been explained to you that is one acepts any given miracle, then that's all that has been done. So ethinghazhappened that appears to haveno natural cause. It has zero bearing on scientific matters. Absolutely none. Nada. Rien. Zip. Zilch.

You want to start a threat on science then immediately bring up the supernatural. What a waste of time.

This A thread about science and evidence. The fact it is a messy process.
No cause is needed to validate evidence or in some cases determine empirical laws.

The evidence is the evidence regardless of explanation , indeed science does not “ explain” anything, it observes and models. You state “ supernatural” Which is both arbitrary, and YOUR opinion of a cause.

If it happens it is natural. In some of those cases heart tissue appeared progressively with unusual Dna, so not that of a fraudster. That is the evidence, like it or not. Your dislike of evidence does not devalue it one iota.

Do you have nothing to say On the science ?

You should have more concern for your belief in abiogenesis
( on which I am neutral, pending any evidence or model)
because it is in the lowest category of scientific investigation which is pure speculation.

Because for the stage from no life to life there is no evidence, it cannot be repeated , it does not repeat, there is no structure for the first cell nor any model or process to it. Nor incidentally is there any agreement on the first genome, so no process from the first cells to present, but also nobody can define a process till they postulate a first genome.

Again, that is a scientific statement.

Too many on these threads reject evidence because they dont like where they think it points , or accept it way beyond its status because they “like“ where it points,. All abiogebesis has a few disconnected plausibility steps for bits of what may or may not have been involved,

 

[jayem]

You should have more concern for your belief in abiogenesis
( on which I am neutral, pending any evidence or model)
because it is in the lowest category of scientific investigation which is pure speculation.

Because for the stage from no life to life there is no evidence, it cannot be repeated , it does not repeat, there is no structure for the first cell nor any model or process to it. Nor incidentally is there any agreement on the first genome, so no process from the first cells to present, but also nobody can define a process till they postulate a first genome.

It's true that there isn't yet a comprehensive naturalistic explanation for the appearance of life on this planet. But that doesn't mean there never will be. Consider the state of knowledge 300 years ago. In 1723, Isaac Newton was still alive. He'd discovered the formula for calculating the force of gravity between 2 masses. But could he have imagined that gravity is the warpage by mass of the time-space continuum? Would he have had the faintest clue that particles acquire mass by interaction with a boson in the Higgs field that permeates the entire universe? By the same token, none of us can predict all that we many learn 300 years from now. And more to the point, people have always explained what wasn't understood by resorting to supernatural entities. Things like weather, earthquakes, diseases, crop failures, the ebb and flow of the tides, and the perceived motion of the sun, moon, and stars at one time were all attributed to various gods and spirits. But now we know these are all perfectly natural phenomena. A supernatural explanation has never been proven valid for anything. So--by simple inductive reasoning--why would anyone accept supernatural causation for all those things we still don't understand?

 

[Bradskii]

This A thread about science and evidence. The fact it is a messy process.
No cause is needed to validate evidence or in some cases determine empirical laws.

The evidence is the evidence regardless of explanation , indeed science does not “ explain” anything, it observes and models. You state “ supernatural” Which is both arbitrary, and YOUR opinion of a cause.

If it happens it is natural. In some of those cases heart tissue appeared progressively with unusual Dna, so not that of a fraudster. That is the evidence, like it or not. Your dislike of evidence does not devalue it one iota.

Do you have nothing to say On the science ?

You should have more concern for your belief in abiogenesis
( on which I am neutral, pending any evidence or model)
because it is in the lowest category of scientific investigation which is pure speculation.

Because for the stage from no life to life there is no evidence, it cannot be repeated , it does not repeat, there is no structure for the first cell nor any model or process to it. Nor incidentally is there any agreement on the first genome, so no process from the first cells to present, but also nobody can define a process till they postulate a first genome.

Again, that is a scientific statement.

Too many on these threads reject evidence because they dont like where they think it points , or accept it way beyond its status because they “like“ where it points,. All abiogebesis has a few disconnected plausibility steps for bits of what may or may not have been involved,

Once again, More nonsense about abiogenesis. Which this thread will be about. You can't leave it alone.

 

[Mountainmike]

It's true that there isn't yet a comprehensive naturalistic explanation for the appearance of life on this planet. But that doesn't mean there never will be. Consider the state of knowledge 300 years ago. In 1723, Isaac Newton was still alive. He'd discovered the formula for calculating the force of gravity between 2 masses. But could he have imagined that gravity is the warpage by mass of the time-space continuum? Would he have had the faintest clue that particles acquire mass by interaction with a boson in the Higgs field that permeates the entire universe? By the same token, none of us can predict all that we many learn 300 years from now. And more to the point, people have always explained what wasn't understood by resorting to supernatural entities. Things like weather, earthquakes, diseases, crop failures, the ebb and flow of the tides, and the perceived motion of the sun, moon, and stars at one time were all attributed to various gods and spirits. But now we know these are all perfectly natural phenomena. A supernatural explanation has never been proven valid for anything. So--by simple inductive reasoning--why would anyone accept supernatural causation for all those things we still don't understand?

“ supernatural “ is a purely subjective term, like “ extraordinary “
.You use an arbitrary distinction And classification.
If it happens, it’s natural, whoever or whatever did it. If it doesn’t happen it’s not natural. Simples.


Science doesn’t explain “ why” , it documents what the universe normally is observed to do. It finds patterns and interrelates them. So even if a pattern is found, the cause of the pattern is undetermined. There is a tendency and philosophical error to view a pattern as it’s own explanation .

Gravity does what it does. you cannot say what gravity “is“ or “why “ gravity is. You can only say what it normalky does. You cannot say it will always do what it usually does it, or that it has always done it, or does it everywhere, or there can be no exceptions . Gravity does not explain itself, so nothing explained by gravity has an underlying explanation, only a model.
Most of the laws are experimental and empirical Limited to dataset.

Science studies and confirms evidence, for some of which it never finds an underlying model.
The pattern remains whether Some may not “like” where some evidence points . It does not devalue evidencr,

As for abiogenesis, I might believe it if ever someone comes up with a model or process. It will pass my threshold for getting interesting when someone proposes the first genome, for the earliest cells.
There is a big fat nothing except pure speculation At present, interesting though it is.

 

[jayem]

As for abiogenesis, I might believe it if ever someone comes up with a model or process. It will pass my threshold for getting interesting when someone proposes the first genome, for the earliest cells.
There is a big fat nothing except pure speculation At present, interesting though it is.

It;s coming. The current thinking is that RNA appeared before DNA. And it's postulated that nucleotide bases could appear spontaneously in certain early-Earth conditions. It's not life, but it's the first step. I'll make a prediction that within the next 25 years, we'll have a model that demonstrates it.

Searching for lost nucleotides of the pre-RNA World with a self-refining model of early Earth - Nature Communications

And BTW, this is no more speculative than claiming life was created by some god, spirit, or other such entity,

 

[Halbhh]

It's true that there isn't yet a comprehensive naturalistic explanation for the appearance of life on this planet. But that doesn't mean there never will be. Consider the state of knowledge 300 years ago. In 1723, Isaac Newton was still alive. He'd discovered the formula for calculating the force of gravity between 2 masses. But could he have imagined that gravity is the warpage by mass of the time-space continuum? Would he have had the faintest clue that particles acquire mass by interaction with a boson in the Higgs field that permeates the entire universe? By the same token, none of us can predict all that we many learn 300 years from now. And more to the point, people have always explained what wasn't understood by resorting to supernatural entities. Things like weather, earthquakes, diseases, crop failures, the ebb and flow of the tides, and the perceived motion of the sun, moon, and stars at one time were all attributed to various gods and spirits. But now we know these are all perfectly natural phenomena. A supernatural explanation has never been proven valid for anything. So--by simple inductive reasoning--why would anyone accept supernatural causation for all those things we still don't understand?

Yes, of course! About 1/2 of U.S. Christians (or a bit more than 1/2) believe that evolution is what happened -- that is, then, to believers: also God's intended process by which He created the progression of life generally.

And that includes both versions: a) where evolution is 'guided' (by divine interventions at times), and b) unguided: unfolding perfectly over billions of years naturally, by the design of nature itself (physics): like a flower from a seed. (* note below)

The text of the bible doesn't indicate which of these is the case, nor suggest one over the other, as the text isn't about things like biochemistry, geology, astronomy, etc. -- but is entirely aimed to just help us to find and reconcile with God.

If the Bible had evolutionary details that would be really odd in the text -- entirely beside the point and theme of the text...like...putting botany detail into a text on bridge engineering.... It would not fit the actual wording of the text, which is about the theme of how Earth/the Universe/Nature is a wonderful home for us to thrive in... Genesis 1 is very much like a Poem. You could call it a "Poem About Creation", and that would be a pretty good description in terms of labeling of the style/intent of the writing.
-----------------

(* note -- a somewhat more subtle point I try to help some Christians see is that if someone believes in God at all as the creator of all things, that already/instantly is saying He created all of nature, thus the design of nature -- physics, chemistry...all that happens... == so, therefore, when they argue against factual observations from the sciences (actual observations), they are arguing against God's design or creation in effect (at least in the view someone like me that actually does believe in God as creator of this Universe....) -- so I sometimes wonder if such individuals arguing against observed facts in science like the ancient age of the stars and our planet, etc. actually believe in God (in reality, instead of ideology), see......... I expect some number of Young Earth Creationists are just ideological, and don't actually believe in God...that some or many YEC advocates are actually non believers)

 

[Mountainmike]

It;s coming. The current thinking is that RNA appeared before DNA. And it's postulated that nucleotide bases could appear spontaneously in certain early-Earth conditions. It's not life, but it's the first step. I'll make a prediction that within the next 25 years, we'll have a model that demonstrates it.

Searching for lost nucleotides of the pre-RNA World with a self-refining model of early Earth - Nature Communications

And BTW, this is no more speculative than claiming life was created by some god, spirit, or other such entity,

Rna Is far too complex to be the first genome.
I have been reading the speculation for the last 50 years, but that’s all it is,
it is disappointing how little it has progressed,

Nobody can say how life began except as a belief.

My problem is when abiogenesis it is claimed as a fact, when it doesn’t even make it as a valid hypothesis under the rules of science. I might believe it , if a credible process is postulated, but at present there isn’t even a structure postulated for the genome of the first cells, so there can be no process or test formulated. There’s also no path from first cell to present cell. Complete blank. The attempt to strip down present cells resulted in instability below a couple of hundred genes.

But as I keep pointing out there is evidence of new life as heart tissue that appeared progressively in so called Eucharistic miracles. So that is scientific evidence, not pure speculation. Attack the evidence by all means, but at least there is some to attack..

The purpose of the thread is to point out that science is messy.
Patterns in evidence are found with no underlying model.
and the fact you can model them is not of itself demonstration of cause.

 

[Neutral Observer]

So called Eucharistic miracles have a repeated pattern in evidence.

This is so unbelievably ironic, coming as it does in an OP about messy science. As far as I've been able to discern EM is pretty much the definition of messy science.

 

[jayem]

But as I keep pointing out there is evidence of new life as heart tissue that appeared progressively in so called Eucharistic miracles. So that is scientific evidence, not pure speculation. Attack the evidence by all means, but at least there is some to attack..

Whatever are you talking about? Heart tissue in Eucharist miracles?

The purpose of the thread is to point out that science is messy.
Patterns in evidence are found with no underlying model.
and the fact you can model them is not of itself demonstration of cause.

Sure, science is messy. What human endeavor is not messy? Science is far less messy than politics. And it's orders of magnitude less messy than religion. How many hundreds of world religions are there? And how many thousands of different gods? Even among Christians, there are denominations with very different doctrines. Unitarians believe God is one entity. Trinitarians say God is 3 in one. Catholics venerate and pray to Mary. Protestants do not. Mormons claim to follow a new Christian revelation, where an exemplary devout believer may become a god himself. That's a tiny sample. Christian beliefs are all over the place. If there is really only one God, who desires a relationship with mankind, why is all this confusion allowed to exist? It makes no sense.

Sorry for going off topic.

 

[Diamond7]

If the Bible had evolutionary details

The Bible and Evolution talk about a common ancestor. Most people skip over the genealogies and do not read them. I have studied and read them and Evolution proves the Bible is true.

 

[Bradskii]

Rna Is far too complex to be the first genome.
I have been reading the speculation for the last 50 years, but that’s all it is,
it is disappointing how little it has progressed,

Nobody can say how life began except as a belief.

My problem is when abiogenesis it is claimed as a fact, when it doesn’t even make it as a valid hypothesis under the rules of science. I might believe it , if a credible process is postulated, but at present there isn’t even a structure postulated for the genome of the first cells, so there can be no process or test formulated. There’s also no path from first cell to present cell. Complete blank. The attempt to strip down present cells resulted in instability below a couple of hundred genes.

But as I keep pointing out there is evidence of new life as heart tissue that appeared progressively in so called Eucharistic miracles. So that is scientific evidence, not pure speculation. Attack the evidence by all means, but at least there is some to attack..

The purpose of the thread is to point out that science is messy.
Patterns in evidence are found with no underlying model.
and the fact you can model them is not of itself demonstration of cause.

Yet more nonsense about magical heart tissue and abiogenesis. Unsubscribing from this thread. I have better ways of wasting my time.

 

[Mountainmike]

Yet more nonsense about magical heart tissue and abiogenesis. Unsubscribing from this thread. I have better ways of wasting my time.

It’s perfect sense.

Whatever are you talking about? Heart tissue in Eucharist miracles?


Sure, science is messy. What human endeavor is not messy? Science is far less messy than politics. And it's orders of magnitude less messy than religion. How many hundreds of world religions are there? And how many thousands of different gods? Even among Christians, there are denominations with very different doctrines. Unitarians believe God is one entity. Trinitarians say God is 3 in one. Catholics venerate and pray to Mary. Protestants do not. Mormons claim to follow a new Christian revelation, where an exemplary devout believer may become a god himself. That's a tiny sample. Christian beliefs are all over the place. If there is really only one God, who desires a relationship with mankind, why is all this confusion allowed to exist? It makes no sense.

Sorry for going off topic.

Since this is a science thread , not an apologetics thread, I will avoid religious issues .
Although I have firm opinions on why ( and when) divergence happened.

The essential point of the thread was to contest the idea that science “ understands” the universe in a fundamental way.
It is a philosophical overreach of what science can ever tell us, and it is the origin of the false dichotomy between faith and science.

But on the first point yes.

If it interests you buy Serafinis book, ( or tesorieros)

Study - sokolka , Buenos airies , tixtla and legnica so called Eucharistic miracles .
Plenty of information on the web if you look.
Indendent pathology teams on multiple continents really do vouch for the appearance of ( in some cases progressive) recently living heart tissue in Eucharistic bread. DNA studies make fraud extremely unlikely.
Those cells did not evolve, they appeared. One pathologist - Robert Lawrence stated it was “ compelling evidence” of created tissue.

So as I keep pointing out that whether You like the evidence or not, there is more scientific evidence for creation than abiogenesis.

 

[Bradskii]

It’s perfect sense.

Since this is a science thread , not an apologetics thread, I will avoid religious issues .

Let's see. Nope...the rest of the thread was about religious miracles.

Study - sokolka , Buenos airies , tixtla and legnica so called Eucharistic miracles .

Indendent pathology teams on multiple continents really do vouch for the appearance of ( in some cases progressive) recently living heart tissue in Eucharistic bread. DNA studies make fraud extremely unlikely.

Those cells did not evolve, they appeared. One pathologist - Robert Lawrence stated it was “ compelling evidence” of created tissue.

So as I keep pointing out that whether You like the evidence or not, there is more scientific evidence for creation than abiogenesis.

You can't even follow your own rules on your own thread.

 

[jayem]

Independent pathology teams on multiple continents really do vouch for the appearance of ( in some cases progressive) recently living heart tissue in Eucharistic bread. DNA studies make fraud extremely unlikely.

Having nothing better to do, I did find some reports on this. Most all were on Catholic web sites. (One was a Chick article saying it’s a hoax.) But I found nothing in the legitimate medical literature. MEDLINE, which is part of the PubMed search engine, references nearly 30 million articles, from world-wide scientific publications on biomedical topics. If human heart muscle suddenly appeared on a wet commuion wafer, why wouldn’t it be reported in a scientific journal? Which would include a detailed account of how this spot was discovered, what specific testing was done, and what methods were used. I found over 37,000 articles on myocardium—including many on how myocardial cells may have evolved, develop, and function. But zip, zero, nada about their spontaneous generation on a cracker. My money is on fabrication and hearsay.

 

[Neutral Observer]

My money is on fabrication and hearsay.

What I find most enlightening is that in many cases of EM the hosts are still around. So there's absolutely no reason why the previous studies and their results can't be repeated. Yet as far as I know, none of them ever have been.

 

[Diamond7]

DNA studies make fraud extremely unlikely.

The leading expert on DNA wrote a book telling us that DNA is the language of God.

 

[Mountainmike]

What I find most enlightening is that in many cases of EM the hosts are still around. So there's absolutely no reason why the previous studies and their results can't be repeated. Yet as far as I know, none of them ever have been.

But they were repeated at the time . Several groups were asked to check them.

if you watch this - you see sone of those involved, including in that video, non religious pathologist Robert Lawrence stated for tesorieros book that it was “ credible evidence of created cells”

When Ron and Mike willesees interest was unknown , they found it easy to get labs to work blind: to report on samples before being told the origin.

Alas such is the dishonesty of science, when Ron became known , increasingly labs refused to take part, in the tests at all . indeed for such as the single cell - MtDNA , Ron had to stay in the background.

Do not ever thing scienctists are objective or impartial, when it comes to things with a religious angle they lose it all.

But the tissue sections are still there to see. And impossible for present pathology to explain.
white cells die in vitro , so these samples were are alive , and they should not be. The DNA results are hard to fake and were certainly not a simple substitution fraud. Nor was there anyone in common in the test teams on multiple continents. So nobody orchestrating it.

 

[Mountainmike]

This is so unbelievably ironic, coming as it does in an OP about messy science. As far as I've been able to discern EM is pretty much the definition of messy science.

Why do you say ironic ? It proves the point.
There is evidence for which there is no model, just a pattern.
It also appears to defy assumed axioms of the scientific model process.
but there is nothing new in that. Quantum effects defy basic tenets too, like does it exist before it is observed?

It is messy fundamentally because we are modelling a limited projection of reality not reality.
Which any mathematician can tell you leads to “ many to one “ mappings, and “one to many” mappings
So multiple things can appear the same, and the same thing can appear in multiple ways. Many things are un observable so don’t manifest At all.