19 Feb 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoI think you are correct. But I am curious about why you specify "inorganic chemicals". I suspect it is specifically to avoid admitting what has been achieved.
I believe such a mono cellular living being has not been created by Science in a lab,starting from inorganic chemicals.
As an analogy, if you said "Nobody has made a commercial passenger jet out of plastic" they would be perfectly correct. But this would in no way reflect badly on mans understanding of powered flight - or even whether or not man has successfully made commercial passenger jets.
It is simply improbably that any scientist would particularly wish to make life from inorganic chemicals, and thus would probably not attempt it. After all, they would have to first make organic chemicals, then life and since organic chemicals are readily available it doesn't really make sense to make them in the same experiment.
19 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree with you.That was just to raise the bar,that I wrote Inorganic Chemicals.After all each and every organic chemical can be synthesized from Inorganic Chemicals.Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
I think you are correct. But I am curious about why you specify "inorganic chemicals". I suspect it is specifically to avoid admitting what has been achieved.
As an analogy, if you said "Nobody has made a commercial passenger jet out of plastic" they would be perfectly correct. But this would in no way reflect badly on mans understanding of powered fligh ...[text shortened]... als are readily available it doesn't really make sense to make them in the same experiment.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
19 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are right about that distinction. I hope rvsakhadeo will clear this up. People with chemistry education use the word "organic" to refer to carbon compounds (C, generally with H, O, N, S, P, etc. and with the exception of things like ionic carbonates) whereas the term organic may appear to the layman to mean compounds that have an "organ-ic" -- living -- source, like DNA itself. I think it would be fair for rvsakhadeo to specify that no naturally-sourced DNA, cell membranes, etc. could be used, he might even be entitled to specify that the source of C. H. O, N, etc. be the elements, although I'd see no problem starting with petrochemicals, ammonia, phosphorus compounds, etc. that we already know we could synthesize.
I think you are correct. But I am curious about why you specify "inorganic chemicals". I suspect it is specifically to avoid admitting what has been achieved.
As an analogy, if you said "Nobody has made a commercial passenger jet out of plastic" they would be perfectly correct. But this would in no way reflect badly on mans understanding of powered fligh ...[text shortened]... als are readily available it doesn't really make sense to make them in the same experiment.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
19 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes that particular distinction would also seem to leave out religion and metaphysics, which I don't mean to say are, or are not, actual sources of understanding of the world, I just mean to say they are often juxtaposed with science as routes to knowledge. There are some arts that can be construed as efforts to provide an understanding of the world, such as theater, movies, or the novel, as fictional routes to broaden our understanding of human relations, political issues, etc as opposed to non-fiction presentations, documentaries, history, biography etc. I am a regular theatergoer, maybe a dozen plays a year, and I believe I have gained understandings of the world that way; although I won't claim that I absolutely could not have gained that understanding via personal scientific experimentation or by reading about scientific studies, etc., I will say that the experience impressed these learnings on me in a way that science probably couldn't. I also would have a hard time laying out exactly what understandings they are. I know the arts have exposed me to and helped me widen my appreciation and tolerance of human differences and failings, a learning I sometimes lose sight of and need to regain. Scientific study could do some of that too, such as Margaret Mead's work. I think in a way art and science complement one another and together make a person more complete. I can't say that for religion, which seems to be either antithetical or orthogonal to science in many areas, except possibly when viewed as art (literature, religious music, etc.) Like the Book of Job touches on the questions people have about human suffering, although the way it answers them is almost purposely unsatisfactory -- it says, "Who are you to question?"
I probably fit much of the definition you give, but then that is because of:
[b]A successful accusation of scientism usually relies upon a restrictive conception of the sciences and an optimistic conception of the arts as hitherto practised.
I do not think that most of the Arts are used for "understanding the world in which we live".[/b]
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
19 Feb 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoIt might be that what science provides in response to those mysteries or questions does not meet the criteria you would apply to call it a satisfactory answer. In science, there is general commitment to seek answers that involve only the natural world. Anything that needs to be posited to explain something, is regarded as a natural object, for example, black holes are not posited as locations where a supernatural being removes matter from the universe. If there were to be a supernatural being doing that, science will observe only the natural observable aspects and will not refer to any supernatural being in its answer. That is a methodological commitment of science, even if the investigator believes that a supernatural being is behind it, as some scientists do so believe. The same goes for the big bang or anything else. The answer should have predictive power that can be replicated by other investigators. Some people add that it should require minimal revision of established theories, require the fewest number and minimal complexity of new entities, and be "fruitful" in terms of opening up new avenues of study. Plate tectonics is a good, noncontroversial (nowadays) example, although it did overthrow existing theories that were already in trouble.
I agree to the point of description of the Electrical charges. But my essential point remains i.e. although Science has a great success in describing our universe and the rules underlying the universe,it has i) failed to find answers to many mysteries ii) being basically a baggage of recipes,it does not have any Algorithm for tackling the questions I was talking about.
Could you tell us one or two of the specific mysteries or questions that you think science can't answer, and indicate what would be the criteria you'd apply to decide if an answer is satisfactory?
19 Feb 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoI apologise 🙂 -I somehow got you confused with Dasa (who did use those words)
I have never used the words "dishonest" and " dumb ass " against any contributor on any of the forums. So I don't know what are you talking about. Forget these forums,in ordinary conversations, I do not use such language.
19 Feb 11
Originally posted by JS357And I don't think it would be 'fair'.
I think it would be fair for rvsakhadeo to specify that no naturally-sourced DNA, cell membranes, etc.
He is essentially claiming 'scientists can't create life', but because he knows that is not true, he want to use as an argument 'scientists have not done x', where 'x' sounds equivalent to 'creating life'.
If he is claiming that scientists cant create DNA, cell membranes or some other component of a typical cell, then why cant he say so? Why cant he specify which component he believes is impossible to make in the lab? If on the other hand his argument is that even when we have the components, we cannot make them work together, then why the whole 'must use inorganic compounds' clause?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
19 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI haven't seen a specific claim from him that life can't be synthesized, but I would agree with you if you said he is biased toward the idea it can't be. I am biased the other way. Not that life will be synthesized from scratch. When we already have cells and cellular material at our disposal, why make one from scratch? Maybe some rich person will fund it anyway? I don't know what would be so earth-shattering about life being synthesized, but apparently it would be, to a lot of people, until they adjusted their beliefs to accommodate it.
And I don't think it would be 'fair'.
He is essentially claiming 'scientists can't create life', but because he knows that is not true, he want to use as an argument 'scientists have not done x', where 'x' sounds equivalent to 'creating life'.
If he is claiming that scientists cant create DNA, cell membranes or some other component of a typical cell, ...[text shortened]... make them work together, then why the whole 'must use inorganic compounds' clause?
I think it's really a side issue. He seems mainly motivated to keep his non-science sources, Hinduism and its commentators, on at least a par with science, or on a higher plane with respect to the kinds of mysteries and questions he has, and here's my sticking point -- he hasn't yet stated the criteria he applies to potential answers to his mysteries and questions to decide if they are satisfactory answers. He could just say a satisfactory answer would be derivable from the scriptures and the commentaries he respects and we'd be about done, with no further discussion worth pursuing. But maybe he wants to convince us of his beliefs. I'd say, why?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12472
19 Feb 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoIn other words, you refuse to give any coherent arguments simply because you have none. And yet, you would have us admit that your post-modern circumlocutions are a valid addition, or perhaps even alternative, to the proven success of science. Guess what: without solid arguments, it is not working, and your unsupported opinions are as nought.
As I said Science is a collection of rules that work and it is nothing more. Not one scientist can explain WHY a scientific rule works. Circular arguments abound. Nobody can reply why +ve charges attract -ve charges and NOT repel each other.
I am not sitting on any fence neither I can play at being profound.I am seized with the doubt that Science has bec ...[text shortened]... oneself to God's ways or by doing one's duty selflessly or a combination of all these things.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to come up with arguments for your own position, not merely accusations against science.
I do not enter into mudslinging matches or personal attacks.I respect everyone of the individual contributors here including you " shallow" blue.
Oh, and you might refrain from contradicting yourself within two adjacent sentences. And perhaps leave out the scare quotes - that always helps one's credibility.
Richard
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe that Hargobind Khurana received the Nobel Prize in the sixties for synthesizing the DNA. ( pl. correct if I am wrong).Now with cloning, it is also clear that Science can create copies of living beings.Spectacular advances-no doubt. But Replication is not Creation.
And I don't think it would be 'fair'.
He is essentially claiming 'scientists can't create life', but because he knows that is not true, he want to use as an argument 'scientists have not done x', where 'x' sounds equivalent to 'creating life'.
If he is claiming that scientists cant create DNA, cell membranes or some other component of a typical cell, ...[text shortened]... make them work together, then why the whole 'must use inorganic compounds' clause?
Why has Science not been able to unlock the key to the difference between being a live being and a dead being and use that key to at least prepare an Algorithm or a line of action to create a monocellular live being in a laboratory ? Forget the starting point of such an attempt. Scientists must already be attempting various starting points even today-say playing with cell membranes et al. Success ?
I do not want to peddle my country's philososophy or theology. I have no vested interest in canvassing Hindu spiritual thought.
I believe that although Science has been an extraordinary tool in the hands of Mankind,it is basically a collection of successful recipes. Am I wrong ? And if as somebody has said in this thread that Science is concerned with seeking explanations of only Natural World,fine.But then believers in Science cannot pour scorn on others who are examining these issues with non scientific tools.
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoWhy has Science not been able to [create artificial life]?
I believe that Hargobind Khurana received the Nobel Prize in the sixties for synthesizing the DNA. ( pl. correct if I am wrong).Now with cloning, it is also clear that Science can create copies of living beings.Spectacular advances-no doubt. But Replication is not Creation.
Why has Science not been able to unlock the key to the difference between being a ...[text shortened]... n Science cannot pour scorn on others who are examining these issues with non scientific tools.
Because it's hard. Why had science not been able to create an atomic BEC prior to 1995? Because it's hard. What kind of answer do you expect from such a question?
I believe that although Science has been an extraordinary tool in the hands of Mankind,it is basically a collection of successful recipes. Am I wrong ?
You're neither right nor wrong, it's simply a rather meaningless assertion. If you define science to be ding flurrble zurg, then science is ding flurrble zurg.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
20 Feb 11
You say:
"...Why has Science not been able to unlock the key to the difference between being a live being and a dead being and use that key to at least prepare an Algorithm or a line of action to create a monocellular live being in a laboratory ?
"Science" in this case means well-funded scientists. If and when there is funding, the investigations will proceed further from the current point. Maybe there is some work going on now, or some work that is going on for another reason, will be useful in that direction, but I think there is little or no financial incentive to produce life from scratch. Has anybody offered a big prize for the first demonstration?
You say
"... And if as somebody has said in this thread that Science is concerned with seeking explanations of only Natural World,fine. But then believers in Science cannot pour scorn on others who are examining these issues with non scientific tools."
The problem here is that you are referring to "believers in Science". Some "believers in Science" will act like some "believers" in Jesus or Allah. You paint with too broad a brush if you group people who do science, or appreciate its rigorous methods, with people who believe capital-S Science can speak authoritatively on subjects of discussion that are posited to lie outside the natural world. Science does not address such subjects, but you will still have to face the fact that there will be people who act like it does.
But here's a question for you: The rules of logic and rational thought are considered by some philosophers of science to be standards that should be applied to all human inquiry, not just inquiry about the natural world. Do you believe that these standards or rules of thought should apply to inquiries on subjects that are posited to lie outside the scope of science?