ImageImageImageImageImage

O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::.

Moderators: moocow007, FrontOfficeEye, magnumt, mpharris36, GONYK, NoLayupRule, Thugger HBC, Deeeez Knicks, Capn'O, K-DOT, j4remi, Thorn, Jeff Van Gully, mrpoetryNmotion, King of Canada

User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,881
And1: 3,138
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1921 » by Iron Mantis » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:23 pm

KnickFan33 wrote:Anybody that argues people believe in science has a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. Believing in science isn't a thing.

Spoiler:
Understanding science... That's the thing.

6. believe in,

b. to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of:
I can help only if you believe in me.

When one strictly leans on what the representatives of science, scientists, say as their exclusive guide to reality, they are certainly "believing in" science.

Science doesn't have the answers for everything, and some explanations are sketchy; but many automatically preclude any alternative possibilities, believing science will eventually enlighten with empirical truths. That is "believing in".
KnickFan33
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,445
And1: 588
Joined: Nov 08, 2006

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1922 » by KnickFan33 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:10 pm

Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:Anybody that argues people believe in science has a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. Believing in science isn't a thing.

Spoiler:
Understanding science... That's the thing.

believe in,

2. to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of:
I can help only if you believe in me.

When one strictly leans on what the representatives of science, scientists, say as their exclusive guide to reality, they are certainly "believing in" science.

Science doesn't have the answers for everything, and some explanations are sketchy; but many automatically preclude any alternative possibilities, believing science will eventually enlighten with empirical truths. That is "believing in".


If going by the dictionary term, then this argument is valid. I was referring more to blindly following.

The underlined part exemplifies the lack of understanding of what science is.

1. Science never claims to have the answers to everything. It claims to have the best possible explanations due to what evidence is present. However, it will make the attempt to figure things out one at a time. Which brings us to the next point.

2. If explanations are sketchy, they are still the best explanations available due to research and observation. A true scientist accepts the possibility that he/she can be wrong. It is up to other people to provide the evidence to disprove the general consensus. If that alternative evidence proves to be better, it is accepted.

3. "automatically preclude any alternative possibilities" is the furthest thing from science. Again, the alternative possibilities should have data/evidence to back up the claims.

4. Science is indeed empirical and tries to explain as opposed to blind faith. To claim otherwise is to be disingenuous.
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,881
And1: 3,138
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1923 » by Iron Mantis » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:21 pm

KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:Anybody that argues people believe in science has a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. Believing in science isn't a thing.

Spoiler:
Understanding science... That's the thing.

believe in,

2. to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of:
I can help only if you believe in me.

When one strictly leans on what the representatives of science, scientists, say as their exclusive guide to reality, they are certainly "believing in" science.

Science doesn't have the answers for everything, and some explanations are sketchy; but many automatically preclude any alternative possibilities, believing science will eventually enlighten with empirical truths. That is "believing in".


If going by the dictionary term, then this argument is valid. I was referring more to blindly following.

The underlined part exemplifies the lack of understanding of what science is.

1. Science never claims to have the answers to everything. It claims to have the best possible explanations due to what evidence is present. Which brings us to the next pint. However, it will make the attempt to figure things out one at a time.

2. If explanations are sketchy, they are still the best explanations available due to research and observation. A true scientist accepts the possibility that he/she can be wrong. It is up to other people to provide the evidence to disprove the general consensus. If that alternative evidence proves to be better, it is accepted.

3. "automatically preclude any alternative possibilities" is the furthest thing from science. Again, the alternative possibilities should have data/evidence to back up the claims.

4. Science is indeed empirical and tries to explain as opposed to blind faith. To claim otherwise is to be disingenuous.

I understand those things. I am not referring to science itself.

What I am saying is many people "believe in" science in the ways that i've mentioned.
KnickFan33
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,445
And1: 588
Joined: Nov 08, 2006

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1924 » by KnickFan33 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:25 pm

Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:believe in,

2. to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of:
I can help only if you believe in me.

When one strictly leans on what the representatives of science, scientists, say as their exclusive guide to reality, they are certainly "believing in" science.

Science doesn't have the answers for everything, and some explanations are sketchy; but many automatically preclude any alternative possibilities, believing science will eventually enlighten with empirical truths. That is "believing in".


If going by the dictionary term, then this argument is valid. I was referring more to blindly following.

The underlined part exemplifies the lack of understanding of what science is.

1. Science never claims to have the answers to everything. It claims to have the best possible explanations due to what evidence is present. Which brings us to the next pint. However, it will make the attempt to figure things out one at a time.

2. If explanations are sketchy, they are still the best explanations available due to research and observation. A true scientist accepts the possibility that he/she can be wrong. It is up to other people to provide the evidence to disprove the general consensus. If that alternative evidence proves to be better, it is accepted.

3. "automatically preclude any alternative possibilities" is the furthest thing from science. Again, the alternative possibilities should have data/evidence to back up the claims.

4. Science is indeed empirical and tries to explain as opposed to blind faith. To claim otherwise is to be disingenuous.

I understand those things. I am not referring to science itself.

What I am saying is many people "believe in" science in the ways that i've mentioned.


In that sense, I think trust would be a better word to use over believe.
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,881
And1: 3,138
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1925 » by Iron Mantis » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:17 pm

KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
If going by the dictionary term, then this argument is valid. I was referring more to blindly following.

The underlined part exemplifies the lack of understanding of what science is.

1. Science never claims to have the answers to everything. It claims to have the best possible explanations due to what evidence is present. Which brings us to the next pint. However, it will make the attempt to figure things out one at a time.

2. If explanations are sketchy, they are still the best explanations available due to research and observation. A true scientist accepts the possibility that he/she can be wrong. It is up to other people to provide the evidence to disprove the general consensus. If that alternative evidence proves to be better, it is accepted.

3. "automatically preclude any alternative possibilities" is the furthest thing from science. Again, the alternative possibilities should have data/evidence to back up the claims.

4. Science is indeed empirical and tries to explain as opposed to blind faith. To claim otherwise is to be disingenuous.

I understand those things. I am not referring to science itself.

What I am saying is many people "believe in" science in the ways that i've mentioned.


In that sense, I think trust would be a better word to use over believe.

In the sense I've set forth, there's no difference; "believe in" fits perfectly. If avoiding the term "believe in" helps you sleep at night, then roll with it.
KnickFan33
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,445
And1: 588
Joined: Nov 08, 2006

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1926 » by KnickFan33 » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:32 pm

Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:I understand those things. I am not referring to science itself.

What I am saying is many people "believe in" science in the ways that i've mentioned.


In that sense, I think trust would be a better word to use over believe.

In the sense I've set forth, there's no difference; "believe in" fits perfectly. If avoiding the term "believe in" helps you sleep at night, then roll with it.


Perhaps it's just the the context, but I read it as if you're making out science to be like a religion that people follow without question. That is something I take issue with. If that wasn't what you were going for, then I apologize.

I suppose I'll end it at that.
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,881
And1: 3,138
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1927 » by Iron Mantis » Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:51 am

KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
In that sense, I think trust would be a better word to use over believe.

In the sense I've set forth, there's no difference; "believe in" fits perfectly. If avoiding the term "believe in" helps you sleep at night, then roll with it.


Perhaps it's just the the context, but I read it as if you're making out science to be like a religion that people follow without question. That is something I take issue with. If that wasn't what you were going for, then I apologize.

I suppose I'll end it at that.

You clearly do not follow or accept anything blindly, but there are actually many who do.

And any any religion that doesn't let people question is probably a cult or into brainwashing....run.

Whether science encourages questioning or not, A vast majority of people do follow science without questioning it since it is taught in secular institutions of trust; and not everyone aspires to be a science pioneer. Many just want a passing grade in their class, and they accept everything whether they fully understand it or not.

If scientists accept and say that a fish ended up as a human, how can anyone prove or disprove it? Observation, even by scientists, is entirely elusive, and there's no real way to test it. So people accept it as fact and fight it to the death.

If scientists say DNA and a cell originally formed from inanimate chemicals, in and of themselves, same thing. This is also believing in science.
KnickFan33
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,445
And1: 588
Joined: Nov 08, 2006

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1928 » by KnickFan33 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:22 am

Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:In the sense I've set forth, there's no difference; "believe in" fits perfectly. If avoiding the term "believe in" helps you sleep at night, then roll with it.


Perhaps it's just the the context, but I read it as if you're making out science to be like a religion that people follow without question. That is something I take issue with. If that wasn't what you were going for, then I apologize.

I suppose I'll end it at that.

You clearly do not follow or accept anything blindly, but there are actually many who do.

And any any religion that doesn't let people question is probably a cult or into brainwashing....run.

Whether science encourages questioning or not, A vast majority of people do follow science without questioning it since it is taught in secular institutions of trust; and not everyone aspires to be a science pioneer. Many just want a passing grade in their class, and they accept everything whether they fully understand it or not.

If scientists accept and say that a fish ended up as a human, how can anyone prove or disprove it? Observation, even by scientists, is entirely elusive, and there's no real way to test it. So people accept it as fact and fight it to the death.

If scientists say DNA and a cell originally formed from inanimate chemicals, in and of themselves, same thing. This is also believing in science.


Whether science encourages questioning or not, A vast majority of people do follow science without questioning it since it is taught in secular institutions of trust; and not everyone aspires to be a science pioneer. Many just want a passing grade in their class, and they accept everything whether they fully understand it or not.


If people do not question and follow, that isn't really relevant. The relevance is that questioning is encouraged and allowed. That's how most scientific breakthroughs occur. Compare this to certain (maybe all?) religions where a book/belief is deemed infallible and that's a significant difference.

If scientists accept and say that a fish ended up as a human, how can anyone prove or disprove it? Observation, even by scientists, is entirely elusive, and there's no real way to test it. So people accept it as fact and fight it to the death.

If scientists say DNA and a cell originally formed from inanimate chemicals, in and of themselves, same thing. This is also believing in science.


Can these be wrong? Certainly. But there's plenty of evidence to back them up. DNA, fossil records, etc. We can observe changes in phenotype expression in a number of ways. Are the theories perfect? Definitely not, but at least there's logical evidence to back them up. The same can not be said about intelligent design, which is made on circular logic (My book is true because it says its true).



In the end, who would you rather believe? Someone who shows you proof, but admits they might be wrong? Or someone who claims they're never wrong, but is constantly proven to be wrong, and constantly changing his narrative in an attempt to not seem wrong?
User avatar
robillionaire
Analyst
Posts: 3,257
And1: 2,530
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Location: Manhattan
       

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1929 » by robillionaire » Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:52 am

People do often trust science without fully understanding it, but why? Is it because teachers told them to trust it without understanding it? I propose it's because it has been the mechanism that has far and away the highest success rate in explaining an unknown phenomenon and in advancing society. We have an entire civilization's worth of evidence that shows that the scientific method actually works, with no other method delivering comparable results. That's not to say it's infallible or scientists can't be wrong about something(historically they have been many times), or that we should believe whatever they say just because they say so. But if someone didn't want to take the time to do their own research and wanted to learn more about the world around them and wanted explanations that most closely align with reality, I wouldn't fault them for putting their trust in the method that demonstrably has the best track record
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,881
And1: 3,138
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1930 » by Iron Mantis » Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:50 am

KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
Perhaps it's just the the context, but I read it as if you're making out science to be like a religion that people follow without question. That is something I take issue with. If that wasn't what you were going for, then I apologize.

I suppose I'll end it at that.

You clearly do not follow or accept anything blindly, but there are actually many who do.

And any any religion that doesn't let people question is probably a cult or into brainwashing....run.

Whether science encourages questioning or not, A vast majority of people do follow science without questioning it since it is taught in secular institutions of trust; and not everyone aspires to be a science pioneer. Many just want a passing grade in their class, and they accept everything whether they fully understand it or not.

If scientists accept and say that a fish ended up as a human, how can anyone prove or disprove it? Observation, even by scientists, is entirely elusive, and there's no real way to test it. So people accept it as fact and fight it to the death.

If scientists say DNA and a cell originally formed from inanimate chemicals, in and of themselves, same thing. This is also believing in science.


Whether science encourages questioning or not, A vast majority of people do follow science without questioning it since it is taught in secular institutions of trust; and not everyone aspires to be a science pioneer. Many just want a passing grade in their class, and they accept everything whether they fully understand it or not.


If people do not question and follow, that isn't really relevant. The relevance is that questioning is encouraged and allowed. That's how most scientific breakthroughs occur. Compare this to certain (maybe all?) religions where a book/belief is deemed infallible and that's a significant difference.

If scientists accept and say that a fish ended up as a human, how can anyone prove or disprove it? Observation, even by scientists, is entirely elusive, and there's no real way to test it. So people accept it as fact and fight it to the death.

If scientists say DNA and a cell originally formed from inanimate chemicals, in and of themselves, same thing. This is also believing in science.


Can these be wrong? Certainly. But there's plenty of evidence to back them up. DNA, fossil records, etc. We can observe changes in phenotype expression in a number of ways. Are the theories perfect? Definitely not, but at least there's logical evidence to back them up. The same can not be said about intelligent design, which is made on circular logic (My book is true because it says its true).



In the end, who would you rather believe? Someone who shows you proof, but admits they might be wrong? Or someone who claims they're never wrong, but is constantly proven to be wrong, and constantly changing his narrative in an attempt to not seem wrong?

Whether questioning is encouraged or not, the fact is: the vast majority of people DO "believe in" science without challenging. It's a real thing, yes.

Some allow their entire worldview to only be shaped exclusively by scientists and their explanations. If science cannot or does not explain it, they reject the possibility and seek no alternative way to understand or believe. Thus, again, they "believe in" science. I guess that's borderline scientism though.

As far as logic goes, a bacteria growing into every form of life and eventually a human over time is not logical and there's no empirical evidence that this actually happened.

The DNA and cell, information/construction system, springing up in and of itself from inert chemicals is not logical and there's no proof it is possible.

Intelligent design is not tied to any religious texts.

"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life. "


You say, "In the end, who would you rather believe? " There's that magic word again: "believe" :D
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
Knicks Forum Grandpa's Law
Posts: 45,640
And1: 16,302
Joined: May 16, 2005
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1931 » by HarthorneWingo » Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:16 am

Where are we at with cryogenics? I'd like to freeze myself for the next couple of years. By then, KP will be back. We'll have drafted two lottery picks and hit our free agent bonanza.

Spoiler:
Plus, Trump will be gone.
Image
KnickFan33
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,445
And1: 588
Joined: Nov 08, 2006

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1932 » by KnickFan33 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:39 am

Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:You clearly do not follow or accept anything blindly, but there are actually many who do.

And any any religion that doesn't let people question is probably a cult or into brainwashing....run.

Whether science encourages questioning or not, A vast majority of people do follow science without questioning it since it is taught in secular institutions of trust; and not everyone aspires to be a science pioneer. Many just want a passing grade in their class, and they accept everything whether they fully understand it or not.

If scientists accept and say that a fish ended up as a human, how can anyone prove or disprove it? Observation, even by scientists, is entirely elusive, and there's no real way to test it. So people accept it as fact and fight it to the death.

If scientists say DNA and a cell originally formed from inanimate chemicals, in and of themselves, same thing. This is also believing in science.


Whether science encourages questioning or not, A vast majority of people do follow science without questioning it since it is taught in secular institutions of trust; and not everyone aspires to be a science pioneer. Many just want a passing grade in their class, and they accept everything whether they fully understand it or not.


If people do not question and follow, that isn't really relevant. The relevance is that questioning is encouraged and allowed. That's how most scientific breakthroughs occur. Compare this to certain (maybe all?) religions where a book/belief is deemed infallible and that's a significant difference.

If scientists accept and say that a fish ended up as a human, how can anyone prove or disprove it? Observation, even by scientists, is entirely elusive, and there's no real way to test it. So people accept it as fact and fight it to the death.

If scientists say DNA and a cell originally formed from inanimate chemicals, in and of themselves, same thing. This is also believing in science.


Can these be wrong? Certainly. But there's plenty of evidence to back them up. DNA, fossil records, etc. We can observe changes in phenotype expression in a number of ways. Are the theories perfect? Definitely not, but at least there's logical evidence to back them up. The same can not be said about intelligent design, which is made on circular logic (My book is true because it says its true).



In the end, who would you rather believe? Someone who shows you proof, but admits they might be wrong? Or someone who claims they're never wrong, but is constantly proven to be wrong, and constantly changing his narrative in an attempt to not seem wrong?

Whether questioning is encouraged or not, the fact is: the vast majority of people DO "believe in" science without challenging. It's a real thing, yes.

Some allow their entire worldview to only be shaped exclusively by scientists and their explanations. If science cannot or does not explain it, they reject the possibility and seek no alternative way to understand or believe. Thus, again, they "believe in" science. I guess that's borderline scientism though.

As far as logic goes, a bacteria growing into every form of life and eventually a human over time is not logical and there's no empirical evidence that this actually happened.

The DNA and cell, information/construction system, springing up in and of itself from inert chemicals is not logical and there's no proof it is possible.

Intelligent design is not tied to any religious texts.

"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life. "


You say, "In the end, who would you rather believe? " There's that magic word again: "believe" :D


Creating amino acids in a sterile environment has been done. Individual organisms creating a larger Symbiotic relationships between organisms creating a different organism has been observed (eg Portuguese Man O War). You can see "macro changes" within a few generations in common dogs.

No amount of evidence provided will end up persuading a creationist that can not and will not question their holy book/teachings. No matter what new knowledge is found, there will always be a gaps, and that's where religious communities will always conveniently wedge their deity(s) into.


Intelligent design is thinly veiled attempt at trying to legitimize creationist ideologies and that is not debatable. I believe a federal court even subpoenaed all drafts of its most popular textbook and you can clearly see the editing of any words relating to creation being changed to the words intelligent design. There is nothing scientific about it and is nothing more than attempt by religious institutions to pass their unfounded beliefs as scientific.

Assume you can find info regarding the court case in the below wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People


Edit: Why would they want to pass their beliefs off as scientific? It's all an attempt to use the legitimacy of science to make their illegitimate arguments more believable :lol:
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,881
And1: 3,138
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1933 » by Iron Mantis » Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:35 am

KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:


If people do not question and follow, that isn't really relevant. The relevance is that questioning is encouraged and allowed. That's how most scientific breakthroughs occur. Compare this to certain (maybe all?) religions where a book/belief is deemed infallible and that's a significant difference.



Can these be wrong? Certainly. But there's plenty of evidence to back them up. DNA, fossil records, etc. We can observe changes in phenotype expression in a number of ways. Are the theories perfect? Definitely not, but at least there's logical evidence to back them up. The same can not be said about intelligent design, which is made on circular logic (My book is true because it says its true).



In the end, who would you rather believe? Someone who shows you proof, but admits they might be wrong? Or someone who claims they're never wrong, but is constantly proven to be wrong, and constantly changing his narrative in an attempt to not seem wrong?

Whether questioning is encouraged or not, the fact is: the vast majority of people DO "believe in" science without challenging. It's a real thing, yes.

Some allow their entire worldview to only be shaped exclusively by scientists and their explanations. If science cannot or does not explain it, they reject the possibility and seek no alternative way to understand or believe. Thus, again, they "believe in" science. I guess that's borderline scientism though.

As far as logic goes, a bacteria growing into every form of life and eventually a human over time is not logical and there's no empirical evidence that this actually happened.

The DNA and cell, information/construction system, springing up in and of itself from inert chemicals is not logical and there's no proof it is possible.

Intelligent design is not tied to any religious texts.

"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life. "


You say, "In the end, who would you rather believe? " There's that magic word again: "believe" :D


Creating amino acids in a sterile environment has been done. Individual organisms creating a larger Symbiotic relationships between organisms creating a different organism has been observed (eg Portuguese Man O War). You can see "macro changes" within a few generations in common dogs.

No amount of evidence provided will end up persuading a creationist that can not and will not question their holy book/teachings. No matter what new knowledge is found, there will always be a gaps, and that's where religious communities will always conveniently wedge their deity(s) into.


Intelligent design is thinly veiled attempt at trying to legitimize creationist ideologies and that is not debatable. I believe the courts have even subpoenaed all drafts of its most popular textbook and you can clearly see the editing of any words relating to creation being changed to the words intelligent design. There is nothing scientific about it and is nothing more than attempt by religious institutions to pass their unfounded beliefs as scientific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

Edit: Why would they want to pass their beliefs off as scientific? It's all an attempt to use the legitimacy of science to make their illegitimate arguments more believable :lol:

Creating aminos is cool, but that in no way, shape or form, explains the spontaneous springing up of the sophisticated coding/decoding language systems necessary for life:

"Even if our young planet had the right conditions to produce amino acids, that’s a less impressive feat than it appeared in the 1950s. “Amino acids are old hat and are a million miles from life,” says Nick Lane. Indeed, as Miller’s experiments showed, it’s not difficult to create amino acids. The far bigger challenge is to create nucleic acids – the building blocks of molecules like RNA and DNA. The origin of life lies in the origin of these “replicators”, molecules that can make copies of themselves. Lane says, “Even if you can make amino acids (and nucleic acids) under soup conditions, it has little if any bearing on the origin of life.”

The problem is that replicators don’t spontaneously emerge from a mixture of their building blocks, just as you wouldn’t hope to build a car by throwing some parts into a swimming pool. Nucleic acids are innately “shy”. They need to be strong-armed into forming more complex molecules, and it’s unlikely that the odd bolt of lightning would have been enough. The molecules must have been concentrated in the same place, with a constant supply of energy and catalysts to speed things up. “Without that lot, life will never get started, and a soup can’t provide much if any of that,” says Lane."

Symbiotic relationships are fascinating, but not proof of evolution.


Dogs remain dogs after a few generations.
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,881
And1: 3,138
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1934 » by Iron Mantis » Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:40 am

KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:


If people do not question and follow, that isn't really relevant. The relevance is that questioning is encouraged and allowed. That's how most scientific breakthroughs occur. Compare this to certain (maybe all?) religions where a book/belief is deemed infallible and that's a significant difference.



Can these be wrong? Certainly. But there's plenty of evidence to back them up. DNA, fossil records, etc. We can observe changes in phenotype expression in a number of ways. Are the theories perfect? Definitely not, but at least there's logical evidence to back them up. The same can not be said about intelligent design, which is made on circular logic (My book is true because it says its true).



In the end, who would you rather believe? Someone who shows you proof, but admits they might be wrong? Or someone who claims they're never wrong, but is constantly proven to be wrong, and constantly changing his narrative in an attempt to not seem wrong?

Whether questioning is encouraged or not, the fact is: the vast majority of people DO "believe in" science without challenging. It's a real thing, yes.

Some allow their entire worldview to only be shaped exclusively by scientists and their explanations. If science cannot or does not explain it, they reject the possibility and seek no alternative way to understand or believe. Thus, again, they "believe in" science. I guess that's borderline scientism though.

As far as logic goes, a bacteria growing into every form of life and eventually a human over time is not logical and there's no empirical evidence that this actually happened.

The DNA and cell, information/construction system, springing up in and of itself from inert chemicals is not logical and there's no proof it is possible.

Intelligent design is not tied to any religious texts.

"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life. "


You say, "In the end, who would you rather believe? " There's that magic word again: "believe" :D


Creating amino acids in a sterile environment has been done. Individual organisms creating a larger Symbiotic relationships between organisms creating a different organism has been observed (eg Portuguese Man O War). You can see "macro changes" within a few generations in common dogs.

No amount of evidence provided will end up persuading a creationist that can not and will not question their holy book/teachings. No matter what new knowledge is found, there will always be a gaps, and that's where religious communities will always conveniently wedge their deity(s) into.


Intelligent design is thinly veiled attempt at trying to legitimize creationist ideologies and that is not debatable. I believe a federal court even subpoenaed all drafts of its most popular textbook and you can clearly see the editing of any words relating to creation being changed to the words intelligent design. There is nothing scientific about it and is nothing more than attempt by religious institutions to pass their unfounded beliefs as scientific.

Assume you can find info regarding the court case in the below wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People


Edit: Why would they want to pass their beliefs off as scientific? It's all an attempt to use the legitimacy of science to make their illegitimate arguments more believable :lol:

Why do you keep directing attention to "holy books"?

You originally said the idea of "believing in" science isn't an actual concept. I proved it is.
KnickFan33
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,445
And1: 588
Joined: Nov 08, 2006

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1935 » by KnickFan33 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:07 am

Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:Whether questioning is encouraged or not, the fact is: the vast majority of people DO "believe in" science without challenging. It's a real thing, yes.

Some allow their entire worldview to only be shaped exclusively by scientists and their explanations. If science cannot or does not explain it, they reject the possibility and seek no alternative way to understand or believe. Thus, again, they "believe in" science. I guess that's borderline scientism though.

As far as logic goes, a bacteria growing into every form of life and eventually a human over time is not logical and there's no empirical evidence that this actually happened.

The DNA and cell, information/construction system, springing up in and of itself from inert chemicals is not logical and there's no proof it is possible.

Intelligent design is not tied to any religious texts.

"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life. "


You say, "In the end, who would you rather believe? " There's that magic word again: "believe" :D


Creating amino acids in a sterile environment has been done. Individual organisms creating a larger Symbiotic relationships between organisms creating a different organism has been observed (eg Portuguese Man O War). You can see "macro changes" within a few generations in common dogs.

No amount of evidence provided will end up persuading a creationist that can not and will not question their holy book/teachings. No matter what new knowledge is found, there will always be a gaps, and that's where religious communities will always conveniently wedge their deity(s) into.


Intelligent design is thinly veiled attempt at trying to legitimize creationist ideologies and that is not debatable. I believe a federal court even subpoenaed all drafts of its most popular textbook and you can clearly see the editing of any words relating to creation being changed to the words intelligent design. There is nothing scientific about it and is nothing more than attempt by religious institutions to pass their unfounded beliefs as scientific.

Assume you can find info regarding the court case in the below wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People


Edit: Why would they want to pass their beliefs off as scientific? It's all an attempt to use the legitimacy of science to make their illegitimate arguments more believable :lol:

Why do you keep directing attention to "holy books"?

You originally said the idea of "believing in" science isn't an actual concept. I proved it is.


It is your belief that people follow science blindly without question. To my knowledge, you haven't provided any evidence to back up the claim and have proven nothing as a result. I'd be more than happy to review any data you might have on the subject. I disagree, but can't counter argue for lack of evidence as well, so there was no point in continuing that discussion.

A biologist says creating amino acids is "old hat" and they might be. But can you have nucleic acids without them? How does this fit in with the "can't make something from nothing argument"?

Why are you insisting proof of evolution when you've already agreed that science doesn't pretend to be infallible? The examples provided were evidence supporting the theory. For example, you say dogs will stay dogs. Which is true I guess. But I'm curious as to how different you think they are from wolves. Are they one and the same?
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,881
And1: 3,138
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1936 » by Iron Mantis » Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:13 pm

KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
Creating amino acids in a sterile environment has been done. Individual organisms creating a larger Symbiotic relationships between organisms creating a different organism has been observed (eg Portuguese Man O War). You can see "macro changes" within a few generations in common dogs.

No amount of evidence provided will end up persuading a creationist that can not and will not question their holy book/teachings. No matter what new knowledge is found, there will always be a gaps, and that's where religious communities will always conveniently wedge their deity(s) into.


Intelligent design is thinly veiled attempt at trying to legitimize creationist ideologies and that is not debatable. I believe a federal court even subpoenaed all drafts of its most popular textbook and you can clearly see the editing of any words relating to creation being changed to the words intelligent design. There is nothing scientific about it and is nothing more than attempt by religious institutions to pass their unfounded beliefs as scientific.

Assume you can find info regarding the court case in the below wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People


Edit: Why would they want to pass their beliefs off as scientific? It's all an attempt to use the legitimacy of science to make their illegitimate arguments more believable :lol:

Why do you keep directing attention to "holy books"?

You originally said the idea of "believing in" science isn't an actual concept. I proved it is.


It is your belief that people follow science blindly without question. To my knowledge, you haven't provided any evidence to back up the claim and have proven nothing as a result. I'd be more than happy to review any data you might have on the subject. I disagree, but can't counter argue for lack of evidence as well, so there was no point in continuing that discussion.

A biologist says creating amino acids is "old hat" and they might be. But can you have nucleic acids without them? How does this fit in with the "can't make something from nothing argument"?

Why are you insisting proof of evolution when you've already agreed that science doesn't pretend to be infallible? The examples provided were evidence supporting the theory. For example, you say dogs will stay dogs. Which is true I guess. But I'm curious as to how different you think they are from wolves. Are they one and the same?

Breed away, wolves and dogs together remain the same species.

Do people believe science's explanation that life spontaneously arose from inanimate chemicals and transformed into every form of life we have today? Yes.


Has science provided empirical evidence to support these explanations. No.


Conclusion: people "believe in" science.


edit: If I am mistaken, please provide the data with empirical evidence.

Why am I "insisting on proof"? Because science encourages scrutiny and questioning. And cold, hard proof is what separates science from religion, faith, and philosophy, right?
KnickFan33
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,445
And1: 588
Joined: Nov 08, 2006

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1937 » by KnickFan33 » Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:05 pm

Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:Why do you keep directing attention to "holy books"?

You originally said the idea of "believing in" science isn't an actual concept. I proved it is.


It is your belief that people follow science blindly without question. To my knowledge, you haven't provided any evidence to back up the claim and have proven nothing as a result. I'd be more than happy to review any data you might have on the subject. I disagree, but can't counter argue for lack of evidence as well, so there was no point in continuing that discussion.

A biologist says creating amino acids is "old hat" and they might be. But can you have nucleic acids without them? How does this fit in with the "can't make something from nothing argument"?

Why are you insisting proof of evolution when you've already agreed that science doesn't pretend to be infallible? The examples provided were evidence supporting the theory. For example, you say dogs will stay dogs. Which is true I guess. But I'm curious as to how different you think they are from wolves. Are they one and the same?

Breed away, wolves and dogs together remain the same species.

Do people believe science's explanation that life spontaneously arose from inanimate chemicals and transformed into every form of life we have today? Yes.


Has science provided empirical evidence to support these explanations. No.


Conclusion: people "believe in" science.


Your conclusion is still based on opinion with nothing to back it up. I doubt you have interviewed enough people who "believe" in science in a large enough scale to be representative of the population.

"wolves and dogs together remain the same species" ignores taxonomic classification, dna analysis, biology, macro/microscopic changes, recorded history, etc. What more evidence might be needed to be convincing that the two are different? Additionally, the same evidence goes against the idea of all species being "created" at the same time.
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,881
And1: 3,138
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1938 » by Iron Mantis » Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:39 pm

KnickFan33 wrote:
Iron Mantis wrote:
KnickFan33 wrote:
It is your belief that people follow science blindly without question. To my knowledge, you haven't provided any evidence to back up the claim and have proven nothing as a result. I'd be more than happy to review any data you might have on the subject. I disagree, but can't counter argue for lack of evidence as well, so there was no point in continuing that discussion.

A biologist says creating amino acids is "old hat" and they might be. But can you have nucleic acids without them? How does this fit in with the "can't make something from nothing argument"?

Why are you insisting proof of evolution when you've already agreed that science doesn't pretend to be infallible? The examples provided were evidence supporting the theory. For example, you say dogs will stay dogs. Which is true I guess. But I'm curious as to how different you think they are from wolves. Are they one and the same?

Breed away, wolves and dogs together remain the same species.

Do people believe science's explanation that life spontaneously arose from inanimate chemicals and transformed into every form of life we have today? Yes.


Has science provided empirical evidence to support these explanations. No.


Conclusion: people "believe in" science.


Your conclusion is still based on opinion with nothing to back it up. I doubt you have interviewed enough people who "believe" in science in a large enough scale to be representative of the population.

"wolves and dogs together remain the same species" ignores taxonomic classification, dna analysis, biology, macro/microscopic changes, recorded history, etc. What more evidence might be needed to be convincing that the two are different? Additionally, the same evidence goes against the idea of all species being "created" at the same time.

60% believe humans evolved, yet though there's no empirical evidence to support it. Yes, people "believe in" science.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

Going back and forth about adaptations between dog v wolf will not prove they emerged from a bacteria, or that a dog was ever a fish. Dog v wolf simply allows for variances within a kind. They are not different enough to prove that any environmental factors or random mutations can transform a fish to a wolf over time. If I am mistaken, please provide the empirical data.

Please provide empirical data to support how, in and of itself, a pool of inert chemicals can become a bio coded information, interpretation, and construction system: DNA/RNA and cell and their constituents.

Please provide empirical data to prove a bacteria or a fish can end up as a human.

If I am mistaken, please provide the data with empirical evidence.

Why am I "insisting on proof"? Because science encourages scrutiny and questioning. And cold, hard proof is what separates science from religion, faith, and philosophy, right?
User avatar
Iron Mantis
RealGM
Posts: 11,881
And1: 3,138
Joined: Aug 12, 2006
   

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1939 » by Iron Mantis » Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:46 pm

Can you at least give the the empirical data on how butterfly metamorphosis evolved from random processes?
User avatar
robillionaire
Analyst
Posts: 3,257
And1: 2,530
Joined: Jul 12, 2015
Location: Manhattan
       

Re: O.T. .::THE SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY THREAD::. 

Post#1940 » by robillionaire » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:40 pm

Science HAS absolutely provided empirical evidence to support the theory of evolution. I live a couple blocks away from the american museum of natural history and I get free guest passes, there an individual can study and see some of the evidence. But from the things you have stated in prior comments, "a fish ended up as a human" or "life arose from inanimate chemicals" (the theory of evolution doesn't account for the origin of life) for example suggests to me that maybe you don't fully understand what the theory of evolution by natural selection is or how the process even works, and maybe have not truly taken the time to study it. The evidence is there, whether or not you find it compelling on a personal level is up to you, but the scientific community over the centuries does find the evidence compelling enough to place it on the highest tier of science. They don't just accept it because someone said so, it has been well-tested, they have a wealth of evidence supporting it, they have used it to correctly explain observations in nature, and have harnessed it's predictive capability and we use it in various aspects of our lives such as agriculture medicine and environmental preservation. There has perhaps been no other scientific theory under more scrutiny and investigation, due to perceived implications, yet as we discover more evidence the theory has only been reinforced.

Return to New York Knicks