What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Oneiric1975]

Abraham Maslow can take a hike.

Seems to me you spend a LOT of time telling people to "take a hike".

Is that your "witness"?

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

@Bertrand Russell White;

Some examples on how science dances around assumed logical truths and why science works independently from them:

In essence, my argument is that science never needs to say things like: "assume theory A is true", or "if theory A is true" (an an example). Those word formations have no use at all in science. This is because the whole reason we say a theory is true, or not true, is because we have already established that the outcome Y is true, or not true! It's crucial to understand that this is everything the scientist means by the truth or not-truth of any theory. It's a complete misunderstanding that science is a logical process that starts by assuming its theories, say, are true, that's how logic works. But logic never does anything but find the tautological equivalences of its predicates and postulates, science isn't like that at all! - Agreed

I understand what you are saying here and I know you are not assuming X is true as you say. Using the world "true" as you do is misleading - by saying this I'm not saying you are misleading purposely but the language is misleading. The outcome of Y can never be true (as it is used in logic as 100% true) only ever considered highly probably by some agreed upon criteria such as a 95% confidence level on its error range which in currently under criticism in the world of science and statistics. Scientific American just did a very good article on this recently. I have no problem with this language except, as I say above, it is usually more accurate to state it as probabilities. It is a balance between some theory being true (in the absolute sense of being 100% accurate or very close) but trivial versus being true (less than 100% say 95% within error bounds) and have wide explanatory power. Concentrating on the Y part of what you are discussing as an approximation of X, is as I'm saying, a statistical issue and mathematical so involves the mathematics and logic (non-symbolic logic) of statistics. It is still involved, even though I agree not in the traditional sense of symbolic logic.

What science actually does is say "I have no idea whether to regard theory X as true, but it predicts Y, so we'll see if Y is true. Agreed, but I would prefer the word "probable" rather than "true" because information on Y will never be complete no matter how many times you run your trials because it is always going to be finite If it is, we'll say theory X has some usefulness. If we say that with enough different Y, we will start to regard theory X as true, contextually and provisionally." Yes, I agree as long as you remove true and put in probable
See how extremely different that is from saying "science wants to say that if theory X is true, then outcome Y will be true"?
In science, the only thing theory X ever does is organize, unify, and convey understanding in relation to a set of observations Y. Then we take theory X and extend it to observation Y' that has not happened yet, but that we regard as sufficiently similar to the existing set of Y that theory X is used to understand, that we expect to understand Y' the same way. We don't know until we try, but that is how science builds expectations. But at no point is it ever necessary to say "if theory X is true", because the truth of theory X is already established by the existing set of Y-- there's no "if" involved, it's an inference not an assumption. Science is still drawing a logical relationship/connection between Theory X and outcome observation(s) Y. If Y obtains sufficiently, then it is assumed their exists a logical correlation between Theory X and observation(s) Y over sufficiently many trials, even if the stronger connection of cause and effect can't be established. It is still using a logical connection and logic is still part of the structure. I think we actually agree on most of this just getting down on archaic non-specific words like "true" that come out of a shared background between religion, mathematics, philosophy and science before they all split off. I'm not trying to say Science isn't its own man (or woman), but it still is partly dependent on logic and sometimes mathematics to function effectively (meaning broad explanatory power).

Take a gold-panning analogy and say, the definition of electron (as examples). We never assume we'll find the gold using science, and we never assume the electron definition is a good one, we test these things. And on the basis of these tests, we build expectations, and we live and die (literally, sometimes) by those expectations because science is the worst way to form objective expectations .. except for every other way to do it.

Guesses in science are never just guesses, they are based on good hunches and good ideas based on experience and a solid framework to work from. There is also the process of being initiated into science to learn a particular science from experts. If you took a random sample of ordinary people off the street (a group that had never learned any physics, I know today this is a bit lame, although many people have probably forgot their physics), they would never come up with a definition of the electron that matched Y like today. All the good hunches and good ideas they had based on what they knew of the world wouldn't get them any nearer to a good definition of QM even if they had some very basic training in science. However, if they learned science practice from a physicists in detail and became adept at functioning like a scientist and learned that advanced mathematics could be useful and ..., they might over enough time come up with the wave equation for the electron etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

[ deleted ]

 

[SelfSim]

I think we actually agree on most of this just getting down on archaic non-specific words like "true" that come out of a shared background between religion, mathematics, philosophy and science before they all split off. I'm not trying to say Science isn't its own man (or woman), but it still is partly dependent on logic and sometimes mathematics to function effectively (meaning broad explanatory power).

Ok .. that's acceptable, given the language issue you point out (which I agree is ever present and usually problematic).

Guesses in science are never just guesses, they are based on good hunches and good ideas based on experience and a solid framework to work from.

Which is sort of why I brought up the usual philosopher's definition of 'knowledge' .. ie: 'Justified True Belief' .. (I wasn't meaning to imply that you had said anything about this, by the way). I've never seen any sense at all in this claimed meaning of 'knowing'. It certainly has nothing to do with 'scientific knowledge', which is all about justification, is sketchy on truth, and is devoid of any need for belief. Knowing in science, is choosing where you are going to place your bet, when the bet has objective consequences. So 'knowledge' then boils down to 'track record', and nothing else. Certainly not 'justified true belief'. I think we might agree on that, also(?)

I think this entire sub-conversation started because of this interchange:

Actually not quite. For example, it, {science}, must assume a form of naturalistic uniformitarianism - processes and laws tend to remain constant over time.

No scientific method I'm aware of starts out with: 'Step #1: assume a form of naturalistic uniformitarianism.

As best I can ascertain, (let's use the Wiki descriptions):

Uniformitarianism, ..is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe

and;

Philosophical Naturalism is the philosophical basis of science as described by Kate and Vitaly (2000). "There are certain philosophical assumptions made at the base of the scientific method – namely, 1) that reality is objective and consistent, 2) that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that 3) rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions are the basis of naturalism, the philosophy on which science is grounded.

My point is that no such assumptions are necessary at all to science. As we agreed above, these are conclusions (inferences) and are never assumed as being 'true', at all, in science.
Science tests these things and never assumes them before commencing those tests.
That entire Wiki section is totally mistaken on this .. as are 'Kate and Vitaly'. I'm not even sure I like the Shafersman view there either, because he depends on a meaning of 'nature' which is whatever science eventually comes up with following testing. These guys have got it all back-to-front!

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

You're mything the point.

Kind of like one book title I saw - "Jesus Mything in Action"

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Ok .. that's acceptable, given the language issue you point out (which I agree is ever present and usually problematic).
Which is sort of why I brought up the usual philosopher's definition of 'knowledge' .. ie: 'Justified True Belief' .. (I wasn't meaning to imply that you had said anything about this, by the way). Fair enough I've never seen any sense at all in this claimed meaning of 'knowing'. It certainly has nothing to do with 'scientific knowledge', which is all about justification, is sketchy on truth, and is devoid of any need for belief. I think that we both agree that when we start to add words like believe we get into trouble. I will discuss with people such as Christians when they try to say that science have their own beliefs (which scientists do) and that science has beliefs (which I don't tend to agree with). There are things that may seem to be like religious beliefs but they are quite different as people like the atheist George Smith has pointed out. He clearly shows how faith is the absence of knowing in any real sense (scientific or otherwise). Knowing in science, is choosing where you are going to place your bet, when the bet has objective consequences. So 'knowledge' then boils down to 'track record', and nothing else. Certainly not 'justified true belief'. I think we might agree on that, also(?) Yes

I think this entire sub-conversation started because of this interchange:
As best I can ascertain, (let's use the Wiki descriptions):and;My point is that no such assumptions are necessary at all to science. As we agreed above, these are conclusions (inferences) and are never assumed as being 'true', at all, in science.
Science tests these things and never assumes them before commencing those tests.
That entire Wiki section is totally mistaken on this .. as are 'Kate and Vitaly'. I'm not even sure I like the Shafersman view there either, because he depends on a meaning of 'nature' which is whatever science eventually comes up with following testing. These guys have got it all back-to-front!

The way you are stating these things I would tend to agree. The problem is a question of real people who do science who aren't generally concerned about these things vs discussion involving different WV or perspectives.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kind of like one book title I saw - "Jesus Mything in Action"

Did you read it? or write it?

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Did you read it? or write it?

Neither. Based on a book I saw listed on Amazon. Sounds like an interesting book on Jesus never having existed. With how little we know about Jesus, and knowing nothing near his time that talks about a real life historical Jesus (Paul's letters don't really speak of Jesus as if he is a real person - no parables, nothing on his life, miracles etc.), there is no records of his life or any indication he lived in the period 4 B.C. to about A.D. 30, contradictory material and obviously mythical material in the gospels, scholarly consensus that much of what we know about Jesus is legendary and other major problems.

More and more, people are likely to see the Jesus of history is very much an unknown quantity and probably irrelevant to their lives.. Soooo it is little wonder that if so many people, including Christians, can't agree with who Jesus was, then one can make up any type of Jesus you want to fit your own ideas. You are right, Christian group splitting is a normal thing to expect (not just a disease of the Baptists) when there isn't even a general agreement on who the original founder of the sect was or whether he even existed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither. Based on a book I saw listed on Amazon. Sounds like an interesting book on Jesus never having existed.

It figures you would find that "interesting."

With how little we know about Jesus, and knowing nothing near his time that talks about a real life historical Jesus ...

Oh, please!

Read it and weep:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,

SOURCE

Let's hear you academize your way out of that one -- (this should be good).

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

It figures you would find that "interesting."Oh, please!

Read it and weep:

SOURCE

Let's hear you academize your way out of that one -- (this should be good).

I know, and I agree but very little agreement on who he was.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know, and I agree but very little agreement on who he was.

Wow.

Did He exist, or didn't He?

I can't tell from reading your posts.

 

[SelfSim]

I think that we both agree that when we start to add words like believe we get into trouble. I will discuss with people such as Christians when they try to say that science have their own beliefs (which scientists do) and that science has beliefs (which I don't tend to agree with). There are things that may seem to be like religious beliefs but they are quite different as people like the atheist George Smith has pointed out.

A testable definition of belief is: 'that which I hold to be true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.
The 'trouble', (your term there), I see, is when beliefs are undistinguished by the speaker of them. Classical philosopher writings are rife with these kinds of beliefs .. and I'll bet that's never discussed in more formalised philosophy education circles, too.

He clearly shows how faith is the absence of knowing in any real sense (scientific or otherwise).

'Knowing' can also be defined operationally .. which is a more useful way of thinking about it, IMO.

The way you are stating these things I would tend to agree. The problem is a question of real people who do science who aren't generally concerned about these things vs discussion involving different WV or perspectives.

If what you mean there, is that scientists who hold beliefs which are not distinguished by themselves, is 'a problem', then I don't agree with that particular problem as being limited to scientists .. All humans have that problem. I personally view wisdom, (at least in part), as being the acquisition of objective knowledge for the purpose of being able to continually distinguish beliefs.

If that's not what you mean there, then why do you see that as 'a problem'?

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

A testable definition of belief is: 'that which I hold to be true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.
The 'trouble', (your term there), I see, is when beliefs are undistinguished by the speaker of them. Classical philosopher writings are rife with these kinds of beliefs .. and I'll bet that's never discussed in more formalised philosophy education circles, too.
'Knowing' can also be defined operationally .. which is a more useful way of thinking about it, IMO.
If what you mean there, is that scientists who hold beliefs which are not distinguished by themselves, is 'a problem', then I don't agree with that particular problem as being limited to scientists .. All humans have that problem. I personally view wisdom, (at least in part), as being the acquisition of objective knowledge for the purpose of being able to continually distinguish beliefs. Agreed
If that's not what you mean there, then why do you see that as 'a problem'?

 

[Bertrand Russell White]

Wow.

Did He exist, or didn't He?

I can't tell from reading your posts.

Most scholars would say he did and I would agree. However, I think from all the evidence and analyses of the available material (including Paul's letters and the gospels) there is a very good case that can be made that the Jesus of history is not the Jesus that Christians and non-Christians have traditionally conceived. I agree with Richard Carrier that more rigorous methods of evaluation have to be developed (that are flexible enough to adapt) and new information about who the Jesus of history was surfaces. His methods seem reasonable and I hope the scholarly community seriously adopts them and improves on them. This would be in Christians and non-Christians best interest. This could help us to move beyond all the different opinions that the Christianities and non-Christianities have about Jesus.