subjective science

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You are doing two things at once here, declaring what is not true, while at the same time telling how things are setup to view them in the way you want to see them.

Nothing circular about that! Specific frame work reminds me of your test tubes, you put in what, while excluding what you don't.

You also only entertain what you want to acknowledge.

Edit: You are doing two things at once here, declaring what is not true, while at the same time telling how things are setup to view them in the way you want to see them.

This is false.
For example, when a blood sample must be tested for cholesterol, the procedures at every single one stage of the blood collection and the test are quite specific –not because we want to come up with the outcome we opt to see, but because we know that the concrete findings we are looking for they will derive solely if these specific procedures are the ones that are accepted in practice.
The procedures are not followed because we declare beforehand what is true, but because they are validated in practice as accurate in the context of the questions that must be answered by the test; and the necessity of the setup does not mean we follow it because we want to see the outcome we like, but in order to ensure that the outcome will be relevant to the cholesterol level of the blood sample instead of being relevant to the levels of the blood sugar in it. Nothing circular about that.
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
The scientists use the lab according to specific frameworks and setups derived from specific hypotheses introduced from various scientific fields, in order to see, test and evaluate whatever takes place during their experiments and find out what exact provisions actually happen. There is no such a thing as “intelligent intervention” the way it is under ...[text shortened]... ce grounded on the Rock Record. I do not evaluate as “evidence” the religious superstitions.
😵

Use a specific example, name any experiment that was done in the lab where no intelligence was used. 😵

Was the Stanley-Miller experiment for example a use of 'intelligent intervention'?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Use a specific example, name any experiment that was done in the lab where no intelligence was used. 😵

Was the Stanley-Miller experiment for example a use of 'intelligent intervention'?

Stanley Lloyd Miller is the one of the two scientists that conducted the Miller-Urey experiment. The person who assisted Miller was Harold Urey. I conclude you are talking about the Miller-Urey experiment.

Intelligence –our intelligence– is used because our mind is the sole factor that asks specific questions and conducts specific experiments. Our intelligence has neither any relation to some kind of supernatural intelligence, nor plays any role as regards the outcome of that specific (and any other) scientific experiment. Therefore no, the Miller-Urey experiment is not an example of some kind of “intelligent intervention”. It is merely a kind of a specific question of ours, whose specific answer is not caused by the question but from the outcome per se of the experiment😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I have blatant bias! I admit it up front. 😉

Bias here means preconceived or unreasoned. I guess you mean something else.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Stanley Lloyd Miller is the one of the two scientists that conducted the Miller-Urey experiment. The person who assisted Miller was Harold Urey. I conclude you are talking about the Miller-Urey experiment.

Intelligence –our intelligence– is used because our mind is the sole factor that asks specific questions and conducts specific experiments. Our ...[text shortened]... se specific answer is not caused by the question but from the outcome per se of the experiment😵

Our intelligence has neither any relation to some kind of supernatural intelligence

You know this how?

nor plays any role as regards the outcome of that specific (and any other) scientific experiment.

Of course it does. If Miller and Urey had not used their intelligence there would be no outcome to the experiment.

There were also quite a few problems with the experiment:

“1. The concentrations of methane and ammonia were carefully selected to ensure the production of organic molecules. There is no evidence to suggest the Earth’s atmosphere was so characterized.

2. There is no evidence to indicate the Earth’s early atmosphere was reducing. There is, however, considerable evidence to suggest the Earth had an oxidizing atmosphere during most, if not all, of its history.

3. A methane-ammonia-reducing atmosphere would be fatal to life-forms.

4. The simulation of lightning by mild spark discharges is unrealistic. Actual lightning would have destroyed any organics that may have been present.

5. The molecules produced in the Miller-Urey apparatus would react detrimentally to life forms that were trying to evolve. Chemically, they would destroy all hope of producing life.”

The other problems with the experiment are as follows:

1. They cheated. They designed the apparatus to separate amino acids from the mix once they were formed. If they hadn’t done that as soon as an amino acid was formed, the next electrical spark may have rearranged the atoms into some other form.

2. The amino acids they did produce were half left-handed and half right-handed, just like you would expect from a random process like electrical sparks in a gas mixture. The trouble is, only left-handed amino acids are used in organisms.

3. Additional molecules were formed other than amino acids. Namely, formaldehyde and cyanide, which are destructive to life.

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_c9f34b8c-7bdb-5413-b22b-01419d1fc44a.html

Originally posted by @apathist
Bias here means preconceived or unreasoned. I guess you mean something else.

I am entering into all of these discussions with a foundation view that colors all. I admit mine.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Edit: Actually having a standard that doesn't bend due to our lust, our greedy nature doesn't strike me as something bad. You think speed limits should be done away with? How about standards in science for sorting out good findings or bad?


Standards are a product of our consensus alone. They are neither a product of a divine apocalypse, nor have they inherently a specific substance that turns them into absolute epistemic objects😵

You place a lot in consensus, but that only works while you are only hanging around those that agree.

When you find yourself in dispute with non like minded people who do not hold to your way of looking at things, is it the largest group that matters, those that agree with you, how do you know then?

I think that this another reason you reject God since He is "the" authority over all.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[b]Our intelligence has neither any relation to some kind of supernatural intelligence

You know this how?

nor plays any role as regards the outcome of that specific (and any other) scientific experiment.

Of course it does. If Miller and Urey had not used their intelligence there would be no outcome to the experiment.

There were a ...[text shortened]... life.

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_c9f34b8c-7bdb-5413-b22b-01419d1fc44a.html[/b]

The link you posted directs to a letter sent to Iowa State Daily Media Group (“an independent, student-run, non-profit organization owned and operated by students for the students, faculty, staff and alumni that make up the ISU community&rdquo😉 by a student named Jonathan Bracewell (a Junior, whose disciple is Political Science). Well, if you share Mr Jonathan Bracewell’s view, there are two main problems you both may could fix.

For one, Scott M. Huse, the author of the book titled “The Collapse of Evolution”, is a pseudoscientist whose mistakes, plagiarisms and misconceptions (some of them, because the whole book is rejected by the scientific community) are noticed, presented and discussed even by the poor readers who spent their money for nothing in order to buy it. I could not find even one peer reviewed paper attributed to that gentleman, and I do not comment on pseudoscientific rant.

For two, Bracewell’s evaluation is false. Let’s check it out step by step:

1. According to the protocol of the Miller-Urey experiment (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4089479/), neither the apparatus is designed in order to “separate amino acids from the mix once they were formed”, nor the sample is collected by means that favor the probability of the separation the way Bracewell says. In fact, the sample is collected as noted at the Section “Protocol, Paragraph 8: Collecting the sample”.

2. The Miller-Urey experiment does not provide information as regards the other stages in the origin of life, such as the formation of a simple genetic code or the origin of cellular membranes. Due to the fact that RNA was constructed from organic building blocks irrespective of how those compounds came into existence, the Miller-Urey experiment is irrelevant in this context. It simply demonstrates how some biological molecules, such as simple amino acids, could have arisen abiotically.

3. The Miller-Urey experiment is based on a specific Oparin-Haldane scenario, in which the first stage in the origin of life was chemical evolution, involving the formation of organic compounds from inorganic molecules already present in the atmosphere and in the water of our planet back then. That’s all. The experiment tested this specific hypothesis, was reproduced by other researchers and provided new information that gave new hints to the advancement of our current scientific understanding as regards the origin of life.
😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[b]Our intelligence has neither any relation to some kind of supernatural intelligence

You know this how?

nor plays any role as regards the outcome of that specific (and any other) scientific experiment.

Of course it does. If Miller and Urey had not used their intelligence there would be no outcome to the experiment.

There were a ...[text shortened]... life.

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_c9f34b8c-7bdb-5413-b22b-01419d1fc44a.html[/b]

Edit: "You know this how?"

I know it, because I know there is not the slightest scientific fact or evidence that our intelligence is related by any means with some sort of supernatural entity or supernatural intervention.


Edit: "Of course it does. If Miller and Urey had not used their intelligence there would be no outcome to the experiment."

Your assumption is false. Their intelligence is simply an epistemic object.
I will use an analogy: If Miller and Urey had made a special microscope in the context of a theory whose hypothesis is grounded on the supposed existence of a specific molecule in a blood sample, by means of using their microscope they would simply be able to find out whether or not that specific molecule exists in that specific blood sample. The outcome of the experiment, ie the existence or the non-existence of that specific molecule in that blood sample, is not affected by the intelligence of the scientists who constructed the microscope. The microscope is merely the proper epistemic object that helped them to conduct their research.

It follows that the setup of the factual(s) Miller-Urey experiment(s) played no role as regards the outcome, which by the way proved that abiogenesis is a viable scientific theory of reality😵

Originally posted by @kellyjay
You place a lot in consensus, but that only works while you are only hanging around those that agree.

When you find yourself in dispute with non like minded people who do not hold to your way of looking at things, is it the largest group that matters, those that agree with you, how do you know then?

I think that this another reason you reject God since He is "the" authority over all.

Edit: "When you find yourself in dispute with non like minded people who do not hold to your way of looking at things, is it the largest group that matters, those that agree with you, how do you know then?"

Realizing that sensemaking is the basis of knowledge, I know whatever I know because prior to this epistemic level I did my chores.
When I do my chores I recognize that a poor research skill does not help; a lack of critical thought does not help; a lack of organizational mental skills does not help; a low IQ/EQ level does not help –particularly when the sector who suffers is one’s EQ; blind beliefs do not help; accepting blindly any sort of authority does not help; religious practice does not help; delusions do not help; hatred, ignorance, greed do not help; ignorance of one’s nature does not help; inability to discriminate causes and conditions does not help; inability to recognize causal fields does not help; inability to train your bodymind in order to become a dispeller of disputes, does not help; inability to be a good philosopher does not help; inability to write your own story does not help; inability to state “I don’t know” when you do not know, does not help; inability to replace your ignorance with blind beliefs, does not help; inability to change does not help;
Knowing the above, I know my chores never end.


Edit: I think that this another reason you reject God since He is "the" authority over all.

You are right, Kellyjay. This is how I see it😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[b]Our intelligence has neither any relation to some kind of supernatural intelligence

You know this how?

nor plays any role as regards the outcome of that specific (and any other) scientific experiment.

Of course it does. If Miller and Urey had not used their intelligence there would be no outcome to the experiment.

There were a ...[text shortened]... life.

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_c9f34b8c-7bdb-5413-b22b-01419d1fc44a.html[/b]

What you don't seem to WANT to understand is prebiotic molecules will react with UV or heat in the right environment and further, those changes could be called experiments, non intelligent experiments but taking place all over early Earth and in numbers of quadrillions or quintillions each year and the random build up of more complex molecules over eons of such experiments will make very complex molecules that can lead to RNA type molecules in the right place to start self reproductio and further complexity.
You want to make it so simple that one day a lightning strike hits a mud puddle with some organic molecules and out pops a mouse.
Not quite the way it works.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I am entering into all of these discussions with a foundation view that colors all. I admit mine.

Yopu passively-aggressively imply that faith belief and scientific inquiry are on equal footing. They are so way not!

Originally posted by @apathist
Yopu passively-aggressively imply that faith belief and scientific inquiry are on equal footing. They are so way not!

For one thing, science advances. Christianity cannot advance that is to say, grow out of the need for the bible. A thousand years ago that was true, now is true, a thousand years from now will be true. The stories will be exactly the same.

Can you even GUESS what science will be like in a thousand years, assuming we don't ruin our planet or off ourselves in the meantime?

The way science is advancing now is exponential especially after the invention of the internet, a thousand times quicker to view papers and get them disseminated around the globe. Science works by collaberation and freedom of press.
Religion works by keeping to the same dogma, same stories century after century. And the invention of the internet only works to keep that dogm together not advance a thing in religion.

Next year science will not be the same as today. Next year we will still be hearing the same fairy tales about the WW flood, Jesus came back from the dead and so forth.

There is no way that COULD change otherwise it would not be christianity.

So christianity, Islam, Judaism, all survive by NOT changing.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
For one thing, science advances. Christianity cannot advance that is to say, grow out of the need for the bible. A thousand years ago that was true, now is true, a thousand years from now will be true. The stories will be exactly the same.

Can you even GUESS what science will be like in a thousand years, assuming we don't ruin our planet or off ourselv ...[text shortened]... e it would not be christianity.

So christianity, Islam, Judaism, all survive by NOT changing.

They do not survive. By means of cultivating dichotomy and promoting dualism they mutate into written in stone ancient stories and decline, evolving from religious systems with a hint of philosophy to dead letters whose meaning cannot penetrate the barriers of ignorance, hatred, greed, delusion and fanaticism😵

Originally posted by @apathist
Yopu passively-aggressively imply that faith belief and scientific inquiry are on equal footing. They are so way not!

Faith in scientific inquiry does not give a solid answer, it is always subject to change with
some new piece of data. Faith is not just in God, it is also in each other, or anything we put
our trust in, that may, or may not be true. What do you mean by faith belief, since what
ever you believe to be true, you are going to act in faith due to it?