Support NeoGAF

[Sanky Panky]

Wow, I go to sleep and I wake up to read people think that abiogenesis is an OPINION?!

wtfamireading.jpg


Miller - Urey experiment

Educate yourselves!!! Or don't, since your god, as Dawkins put it, is a god of the gaps, and depends on gaps in human knowledge to stay relevant. Hence the desperate clinging to willful ignorance and the "shroud of mystery" in this thread by people like JGS and Sanky.

If you want to support abiogenesis, the last thing you want to do is bring up Miller-Urey.

 

[jdogmoney]

The most inexplicable part of these threads (and it happens whenever JGS is in a thread that mentions (even off-hand) abiogenesis) is how violently against the concept he is. It's like abiogenesis owes him some large sum of money and we're all saying it's fiscally responsible.

My question is wtf did abiogenesis ever do to warrant such a reaction from JGS?

 

[Fenderputty]

America already ranks poorly in science compared to other developed nations. More isn't better when "more" means covering things that aren't legitimate scientific theories. That isn't me being close minded by the way. Creationism isn't scientific because it contains no testable hypotheses.
Why should science class dedicate time to creationism instead of actual science? Should science classes start teaching tap dancing?

I don't believe String Theory has any testable hypotheses either. In fact, I think a large portion of the scientific community scoffs at the notion that String Theory is even science (Lisa Randall). That still hasn't stopped many scientists from being involved with it though (Brian Greene).

I don't believe in creationism and think it has no place in a classroom either, but I wouldn't be so quick to imply science always has a testable hypotheses.

 

[Head of Vengarl]

I'm at work so I really can't be getting into this, and I know I'm mostly preaching to the choir, but I have to at least contribute somehow so I'll just leave this here:

Simplified? Yes. But it gets the point across. When people ask why the "monkeys" (they mean chimpanzees) are still around, as if that disproves evolution, I often wonder what they were taught in middle/high school. Questions like that show a complete lack of understanding of basic evolution. Why are they still around? Because we didn't morph from chimps into humans, we are both branches off of a common ancestor.

So, knowing that, you realize that it doesn't have to be humans or chimps.

Edit: And funny you should mention that Fenderputty; I just watched a video of Lawrence Krauss and he made a humorous (yet relevant to your post) jab at String Theory.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&t=49m18s

 

[marrec]

"Choice is good!"

"Unless it's the choice I like!"

I say the more the better. I learned both in school. Better off for it in my opinion.

Not if you present the two choices as equals in context. Creationism should come nowhere near a Science class because Creationism is a religious issue. Your idea of 'The More the Better' is EXACTLY what Creationists want.

 

[Fenderputty]

The most inexplicable part of these threads (and it happens whenever JGS is in a thread that mentions (even off-hand) abiogenesis) is how violently against the concept he is. It's like abiogenesis owes him some large sum of money and we're all saying it's fiscally responsible.

My question is wtf did abiogenesis ever do to warrant such a reaction from JGS?

It would affect his life's beliefe system?

 

[twobear]

I don't believe String Theory has any testable hypotheses either. In fact, I think a large portion of the scientific community scoffs at the notion that String Theory is even science (Lisa Randall). That still hasn't stopped many scientists from being involved with it though (Brian Greene).

I don't believe in creationism and think it has no place in a classroom either, but I wouldn't be so quick to imply science always has a testable hypotheses.

Indeed, it's practically a prediction of string theory that it makes no testable hypotheses (at least with current technology).

 

[Cetra]

My state is dumb. So fucking dumb. -.-

 

[CornBurrito]

I don't believe String Theory has any testable hypotheses either. In fact, I think a large portion of the scientific community scoffs at the notion that String Theory is even science (Lisa Randall). That still hasn't stopped many scientists from being involved with it though (Brian Greene).

I don't believe in creationism and think it has no place in a classroom either, but I wouldn't be so quick to imply science always has a testable hypotheses.

I'll admit I am ignorant about String Theory. IIRC most of the evidence is theoretical. I'm not sure how much weight it actually has in the scientific community.

How often is it covered in schools?

The most inexplicable part of these threads (and it happens whenever JGS is in a thread that mentions (even off-hand) abiogenesis) is how violently against the concept he is. It's like abiogenesis owes him some large sum of money and we're all saying it's fiscally responsible.

My question is wtf did abiogenesis ever do to warrant such a reaction from JGS?

Funny. I asked this in a past thread and I don't remember the answer I got.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

I wouldn't say I used science in my analysis of the possible answers to certain hard questions; I'd say I used rationality. They're similar. If that's what you mean, then yes, we seem to agree that rationality cannot tell us why God is a better answer. Furthermore, theology (and philosophy I guess?) attempt to irrationally (meaning, based on no evidence) promote certain answers.

I maintain that, contrary to the claim, this doesn't seem like a useful service at all. No evidence = no correlation with reality = chance odds of being correct. I like to believe correct things, but maybe we have different ideas of what "correct" means or what evidence is.

No, that's not at all what I meant. The concepts of "rational" and "irrational" thought are inherently philosophical to begin with, so stating that philosophy attempts to irrationally promote certain answers simply doesn't make sense.

The basic foundations of logical reasoning and thought are studied and detailed in the field of philosophy. The arguments that you use to promote what you believe are framed within the context of philosophically defined forms of argumentation. So in that way you are forced to use elements of philosophy to form your worldview based on science and scientific evidence. Science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive and constructs like the scientific method could not be seen as rational outside of the realm of philosophy.

I have a feeling that whenever you use the word evidence what you really mean is, "scientific evidence that I find acceptable." "Evidence" is not hard to come by, and the way in which we interpret and value different forms of evidence will vary based on our worldviews and the baggage of presuppositions that we bring to the table. In other words, I don't believe that there is no evidence for God's existence, but I have a feeling that what I consider good evidence for his existence you would see as worthless. That's fine with me, and it's something that I've accepted, but I don't think it's fair to say that the evidence simply doesn't exist.

 

[marrec]

I'll admit I am ignorant about String Theory. IIRC most of the evidence is theoretical. I'm not sure how much weight it actually has in the scientific community.

How often is it covered in schools?

All of the evidence for String Theory is theoretical and mathematical. As of right now there is no testable way to prove String Theory, but that isn't completely unusual.

It's covered as a Mathematical concept, if I'm not mistaken.

Funny. I asked this in a past thread and I don't remember the answer I got.

"Don't claim to know what my views on Abiogenesis are."

I like playing JGS.

 

[Fenderputty]

I'll admit I am ignorant about String Theory. IIRC most of the evidence is theoretical. I'm not sure how much weight it actually has in the scientific community.

How often is it covered in schools?

It's all theoretical at this point. The "strings" that everything would be made of are so small, there's no way for us to observe/test for them. Everything to this point is all mathematical.

I don't know how much it's taught in school. I woudn't imagine it's taught in class though. I think it's a little too advanced for K-12.

 

[Veezy]

Funny. I asked this in a past thread and I don't remember the answer I got.

I think the anger and outright dismissal come from the fact that it challenges the very belief structure. Imagine all your hopes, your dreams, your successes, and your failures were all at the hands of a being that you cannot see or directly interact with except by talking out loud or thinking words. Your entire basis on why you believe in this thing is based upon their awesome power and how they bless you with all the good things in life and teach you through your struggles.

Then, you hear that life wasn't exactly created the same way it was told in your book about that thing you've read your entire life. You hear it was due to enzymes interacting in water or some such. It didn't take six days. There was no master plan since the beginning. Oh, and those initial single cell life forms eventually become everything. You're not a special species, your just the end of the line in adaptation.

It's important, subconsciously, to people that their particular god had a hand in creation. The less they did at the beginning chips away at their belief that they're doing something for them now. If your god didn't plan out life on Earth, what's to make you think he has a hand in you getting that promotion? Or your kid getting well? Or anything in your life? Or that it's watching or even cares? Or, finally, if it's even real?

Could be wrong though.

 

[twobear]

All of the evidence for String Theory is theoretical and mathematical. As of right now there is no testable way to prove String Theory, but that isn't completely unusual.

It's covered as a Mathematical concept, if I'm not mistaken.

It's postgraduate physics.

String theory has seen a lot of backpeddling on expectations over the years as it became clearer and clearer that if it's the 'theory of everything' that it was claimed to be, then it's going to require a drastic rethinking of physics and the nature of reality.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I do not believe this to be true as I believe God created both humans and monkeys so there would be no need for one to evolve from the other. I am sure that both have changed somewhat over the course of history as the environment changed and each migrated to different regions.

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys did not evolve from humans. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, a species that is neither human nor monkey.

Please learn at least something as basic as that before you start talking about evolutionary theory. This is like, stuff you should learn in elementary school. And I'd appreciate it if you learned about things like genetic drift, gene flow, natural selection, and mutations while you're at it.

 

[marrec]

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys did not evolve from humans. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, a species that is neither human nor monkey.

The mythical "Monkuman"!

 

[googleplex]

This is beyond stupid.

 

[CornBurrito]

The mythical "Monkuman"!

 

[Kinitari]

To the abiogenesis nay-Sayers.

In the last few years we've explored more and more ways that RNA can and has appeared naturally in the environment. We've shown how simple chemical blobs infused with RNA can behave like living things. We have a better idea of the composition of primordial goo, and experiment with similar things. We are conducting more and more single to multicellular evolution experiments - we are learning tons.

Why is the rhetoric that we have gotten nowhere?

 

[marrec]

To the abiogenesis nay-Sayers.

In the last few years we've explored more and more ways that RNA can and has appeared naturally in the environment. We've shown how simple chemical blobs infused with RNA can behave like living things. We have a better idea of the composition of primordial goo, and experiment with similar things. We are conducting more and more single to multicellular evolution experiments - we are learning tons.

Why is the rhetoric that we have gotten nowhere?

Because they have little to know understand of how Scientific knowledge is gained.

 

[genjiZERO]

1 First of all, I am actually a Philosophy of Science soon-to-be PhD student, so while I'm not a scientist I am very interested in science. I don't see how that's relevant, though.

2 Secondly, I don't think that the way you've characterised science is a very good one. It's a Popperian account of science: a particular account that was proposed in the 1930s but which has subsequently been accepted to be a more-or-less inaccurate view of the methodology of science.

It's a self-image that scientists like to apply to themselves, though. It has certainly proven itself to be a very popular account of science among scientists, even though both historically and contemporarily it is not how science has been practised, on the whole.


3 On what grounds do you not believe Galileo's work to be science? On what grounds Newton's? Darwin? All three put forward predictively successful hypotheses about the world and provided the frameworks of research programmes.

4Perhaps I should give you an example of what I mean when I say that science and philosophy are continuous. I mean the debates between Leibniz and Newton about whether space is relational or substantial, which extended through Mach and informed Einstein heavily when creating General Relativity. I mean the debates between Einstein and Bohr about Quantum Mechanics. I mean attempts from Boltzmann to understand the arrow of time and entropy. I mean the underpinnings of Generative Linguistics and the programmatic aspirations of that theory (I think Chomsky is one of the few working scientists who takes this relationship seriously). All of these are at a kind of meeting point between science and philosophy.

I'm not suggesting that in some sense philosophy is a replacement for science or it can give us similar kinds of knowledge. What I am saying is that certain kinds of philosophical topics inform and are informed by science. Einstein, for example, read a lot of philosophy in his 20s (Mach and Poincaré in particular) and was emphatic in his insistence that it had greatly influenced his thinking about space and time which led to the special and general theories of relativity. [edit]I should point out here: both Mach and Poincaré were physicists. They both also wrote philosophical works about physics and science.

5 Philosophy is very broad, and you shouldn't pigeonhole it by assuming it's about certain problems or certain topics.

Numbering done not to be dickish but because I'm too lazy to cut and paste quotes

1. To me it seems like you've never done scientific research or been a member of a lab. It's important because having a scientific background increases the likelihood that you understand what the discipline is all about. There's a difference between learning about something from an academic perspective, and experiencing it first hand. Good luck with your schooling, but Philosophy of Science isn't science, it's philosophy. Ultimately it will probably require you to make normative statements. Normative statements are ultimately unscientific (which is why Conservationism isn't really a science). It's like the difference between fighting a war in Iraq and playing a lot of Call of Duty (altough less extreme).

2. A scientist is a practitioner of science. Science is the scientific method: systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified it is not science. "Is there life on other planets?" is not technically a scientific question because we cannot yet test it. All Popper did was say that hypothesis testing was ultimately deductive instead of inductive. But so what? As a scientist I find that distinction unnecessary. That's a philosophical question. As a scientist the only thing I care about is whether I can say that the probability of event X happening is unlikely to be the result of chance alone. I don't care if that logic is more accurately described as deductive or inductive. Science is the result the statement, not that background reasoning.

Also, because in my experience with philosophers they continually ignore the scientific method. If something doesn't follow the scientific method it's not science. Science is no more than observation and reporting those observations.

3. Did Galileo makes falsifiable hypotheses and test them? If not he's not a scientist (this is why mathematicians are not considered scientists). Making observations about the natural world doesn't make you a scientist. For the same reason Darwin is not a proper scientist. Darwin was a naturalist, he saw things in nature, made inferences about them, and formed hypotheses. But he never tested those hypotheses. Thus, Darwin didn't come up with the "Theory of Evolution". He came up with the hypothesis of evolution, that biologists have developed into a theory over the last 150 years. All of those people are more accurately described as forerunners of science.

Predictive hypotheses do not make you a scientist. Falsifiable hypotheses that are actually tested do. Prediction is just a sign that the hypothesis is broad in its application. But it is not necessary. Again, the things that are necessary are: falsifiability and testing.

4. Those things are all great. I enjoy questions of philosophy of science. It's an interesting field. But none of those things are science. They are also unnecessary when educating students about science. In a basic biology course there is already more than enough necessary information to teach. Philosophy of Science would make a great course, maybe it should be required for majors, but there isn't room for it in basic curricula. For a basic course for non-majors nearly the first half of biology is dedicated to explaining basic chemistry and physics. The next quarter evolution, and the last quarter ecology, physiology and cell biology. The entire time I have to continually reinforce the scientific method. It would be fun to have philosophical aspects, but because they are unnecessary they have to go.

5. I'm not pigeonholing it. I'm saying science is not philosophy, as science is not theology. They are different, and it is inappropriate, confusing, misleading and unnecessary to mix them. The nuance of whether or not a virus is "alive" is mostly unimportant from a scientific point of view. What is important is what that virus is made out of, what types of genes it has, and how is it able to replicate. I don't need philosophy to help me answer those questions.

 

[Lafiel]

Also, religion and science can be put together, but it results in the death of the sillier parts of religion. If you guys really want to open that can of worms, please do so.

The way I see it - science can add to religion (eg add or change to the interpretation of scripture, increase your appreciation of your belief in a god-like entity etc) but religion does nothing for science, and in most cases is more of a hindrance then having any tangible benefit.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

I have to be honest. You have an incredible reputation--one of the most unanimous reputations I have ever seen on GAF--of being disingenuous. You've got a negative tag over your reputation from some admin (I have no idea who, long before my time I'd assume). People have stated it in this thread, in response to nothing--you literally have posters spontaneously announcing that you're not worth talking to because of your reputation. marrec is making this claim about you right now, just a few posts above. Clearly your reputation distracts from conversation in the thread.

The perception is that you enter a thread, you make a claim (often of the form "[[some] liberals/atheists] are incorrect in <x> way."), and when called on your claim, you rejigger your claim and say "That's not what I meant, this is what I meant" or do not reply at all--effectively, being slippery or coy or evasive or disingenuous.

I'm not saying it's true. I'm not saying it's fair. I go out of my way as a moderator to more harshly crack down on people who post stuff about peoples reputations than I do on the people who have the reputations, because I believe that everyone deserves a chance. I don't want posters to feel like their reputation prevents them from getting a fair shake when they post. Everyone deserves to be heard.

Now, imagine that after hearing of your reputation, someone enters this thread.

What they see is:
- You make a claim of the form "some atheists are incorrect in <x> way"
- I respond to it asking you something to substantiate it.
- You reply that I have misinterpreted your claim and restate it in a different way
- I apologize for reading your claim incorrectly, do my best to assess it again, and I ask if I have read your claim correctly this time. I go out of my way to make sure I am reading your claim correctly BEFORE I actually discuss whether or not I agree with it.
- You reply saying "I said what I meant" and "Be my guest to read more into it thought", essentially making it impossible for me to discuss your claim with you because you won't confirm whether or not I understand the claim to begin with.

Imagine yourself as this third party reader who has never seen you post, but knows you by reputation. And they enter this thread. Do you think they'd be likely to agree with the description I posted above of your reputation, or disagree with it, based on how you've presented yourself?

I assume you do not intend to come off as disingenuous or coy or evasive or trolling. So it's obviously a case where people aren't fairly perceiving the real you. That's OK, it happens to me sometimes, and it can be really frustrating. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here--why do you think people feel you are like this? How do you think people should read your posts differently to come to a different conclusion about you? What kind of tone and what kind of words should people use when they're responding with you to get what they consider is a more satisfying discussion out of things?

You don't have to respond to this if you don't want to. I just feel like I'm doing my best to give you the benefit of the doubt and you're really not helping me and I have no idea what else I can possibly do at this point to try to empathize with your perspective in conversations or when trying to moderate a thread.

He's defending the indefensible, there are no other options for him.

 

[KillGore]

I'm at work so I really can't be getting into this, and I know I'm mostly preaching to the choir, but I have to at least contribute somehow so I'll just leave this here:

Brilliant post. Some people really are misinformed. 99% of the time I mention evolution to someone I know, they automatically ask: "yeah? so why don't we see apes evolving into man in the zoos?"

I mentally facepalm every time. Religion was basically created to explain the unexplainable, but ever since the scientific revolution, it's basically meaningless and a joke. Now it's just embarrassing, especially when considering all the things we know nowadays.

 

[Log4Girlz]

To the abiogenesis nay-Sayers.

In the last few years we've explored more and more ways that RNA can and has appeared naturally in the environment. We've shown how simple chemical blobs infused with RNA can behave like living things. We have a better idea of the composition of primordial goo, and experiment with similar things. We are conducting more and more single to multicellular evolution experiments - we are learning tons.

Why is the rhetoric that we have gotten nowhere?

Sanky Pany truly believes that abiogenesis does not have any grounding or foundation in science. This lack of logical reasoning allows him to conclude a god did it. Cognitive dissonance.

 

[Count Dookkake]

It's gonna be awesome when Sanky ends up joining the winning team.

 

[Devolution]

But why we still got Sankies?

 

[Count Dookkake]

lol

 

[ZAK]

No, that's not at all what I meant. The concepts of "rational" and "irrational" thought are inherently philosophical to begin with, so stating that philosophy attempts to irrationally promote certain answers simply doesn't make sense.

The basic foundations of logical reasoning and thought are studied and detailed in the field of philosophy. The arguments that you use to promote what you believe are framed within the context of philosophically defined forms of argumentation. So in that way you are forced to use elements of philosophy to form your worldview based on science and scientific evidence. Science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive and constructs like the scientific method could not be seen as rational outside of the realm of philosophy.

Fine, as you wish. I didn't think about that much. I was talking about theology, you lumped in philosophy, and I parroted you. My bad.

I have a feeling that whenever you use the word evidence what you really mean is, "scientific evidence that I find acceptable." "Evidence" is not hard to come by, and the way in which we interpret and value different forms of evidence will vary based on our worldviews and the baggage of presuppositions that we bring to the table. In other words, I don't believe that there is no evidence for God's existence, but I have a feeling that what I consider good evidence for his existence you would see as worthless. That's fine with me, and it's something that I've accepted, but I don't think it's fair to say that the evidence simply doesn't exist.

Ok, seems we agree. At least to the extents that we're willing to be specific.

Edit: Actually, to be more specific, I rather like this.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Have you read Feyerabend's 'Against Method'? If you're interested in scientific method you might find it interesting (though I'm pretty sure in some bits he's straight trollin').

I'll be entirely honest with you at the risk of undermining myself in this thread. My background is not in philosophy of science. I mostly read and research in public policy. I am currently reading Bruno Latour's Politics of Nature (VERY. SLOWLY.) but I find the subject very difficult so I only dabble. One of my close friends is doing his PhD in Historical/Philosophy of Science and I have a very hard time keeping up with him. I'll take the book recommendation under advisement though, as I haven't read it! (As it relates to philosophy of science-ish and your username, Godel Escher Bach is probably one of my favourite books of all time because it hews a little closer to my interest in computation while keeping a sort of quasi-philosophical perspective.)

Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

I mentally facepalm every time. Religion was basically created to explain the unexplainable, but ever since the scientific revolution, it's basically meaningless and a joke. Now it's just embarrassing, especially when considering all the things we know nowadays.

Religion does more than explain the unknown. That's a very reductive view.

 

[-Silver-]

Personally I have no problem if it's restricted to certain subjects such as Religious Education and perhaps History/English if it's relevant.

 

[CorkyFromLifeGoesOn]

Might as well teach that the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth, and that you can cure aids and stds by praying really hard.

 

[Demon Ice]

If you want to support abiogenesis, the last thing you want to do is bring up Miller-Urey.

Care to elaborate? Abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules, and the experiment demonstrated just that.

 

[Loofy]

The other day I found out dinosaurs actually had feathers. Totally changed my life.

 

[Fenderputty]

Care to elaborate? Abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules, and the experiment demonstrated just that.

I don't believe Abiogenesis has shown anything at this point has it? I know we can show how RNA and certain amino acids and such were possibily created, but that's not close to "emergence of life on earth"

Anyway ... if I remember correctly Spanky has his own intersting views about the scientific word. Including the earth being a closed system because the flows of energy in and out sort of work to create a balance that can be considered closed.

 

[Calcaneus]

Will equal time be given to Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and other religions? Or will this be mainly taught from a Christian perspective?

 

[Deified Data]

Don't care. I don't live in Tennessee and don't care if their children are given an education that meets my personal standards. If my life goes as planned I'll never set foot in Tennessee.

 

[Gustav]

The other day I found out dinosaurs actually had feathers. Totally changed my life.

So far only one distant relative of the T-Rex has been found with feathers. So, yes. We know that at least SOME dinosaurs had feathers.

 

[jaxword]

If my life goes as planned I'll never set foot in Tennessee.

Funny thing about life, it can throw you curve balls. You may end up eating those words in 10 years.

 

[Baggatoast]

I'm just glad that every publicly educated child in Tennessee will have learned about Islam, Judaism, Christianity and all other creationist doctrines and hopefully a bit of science to be able to make one of life's most significant choices.

 

[Kaako]

Wow...wtf did I just read in the OP.

 

[Mario]

My question is wtf did abiogenesis ever do to warrant such a reaction from JGS?

I too have noticed the attacks on abiogenesis from JGS, pouncing on its mention with replies laced with over the top language and dismissive any progress at all has been made in the field.

My guess is that it subconsciously represents something that might shake his faith. I think he has somewhat reluctantly accepted speciation, evolution, and the ascent of man (though I don't think he has made clear how a real Adam and Eve fit into the picture along the way). But abiogenesis arising as a natural process creates a much more significant distance between God and mankind if He is then relegated to merely "setting the wheels in motion" at the dawn of time, and I suspect that is a bridge too far for him.

He has previously said something to the effect that even if science proved that God was not responsible for evolution and the creation of life, he would still not lose his faith. I wonder if he actually, truly believes that. If he did, abiogenesis shouldn't appear to be so threatening.

It would perhaps be more powerful for him merely to dismiss it in any argument via the fact as an overarching theory it is very incomplete and that they "haven't proven an end to end process" rather than incorrectly suggesting there has been no success in any aspect of the field. The way it seems to bug him via his bitter responses makes me think his posts on the subject are overcompensation for an underlying fear that one day we might actually fill in the gaps and God takes another step back into the shadows.

/awaits "smarmy" response on amateur psychological analysis

 

[twobear]

I'll be entirely honest with you at the risk of undermining myself in this thread. My background is not in philosophy of science. I mostly read and research in public policy. I am currently reading Bruno Latour's Politics of Nature (VERY. SLOWLY.) but I find the subject very difficult so I only dabble. One of my close friends is doing his PhD in Historical/Philosophy of Science and I have a very hard time keeping up with him. I'll take the book recommendation under advisement though, as I haven't read it! (As it relates to philosophy of science-ish and your username, Godel Escher Bach is probably one of my favourite books of all time because it hews a little closer to my interest in computation while keeping a sort of quasi-philosophical perspective.)

Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

Don't worry about not having a background in philosophy of science, you seem very conversant anyway. I've not read a lot of Latour myself, I should get around to it.

BTW, 'Gödel's metric' is a solution to Einstein's field equations in which the universe rotates and you can travel through time. I can't remember whether he mentions it in GEB at all. But the story behind it is pretty cool. Basically Einstein and Gödel were very good friends in Princeton, and they had a bet between them about a particular, lets say philosophical, aspect of Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Gödel produced his solution in order to prove a point to Einstein, and presented the solution to him for his birthday.

Numbering done not to be dickish but because I'm too lazy to cut and paste quotes

1. To me it seems like you've never done scientific research or been a member of a lab. It's important because having a scientific background increases the likelihood that you understand what the discipline is all about. There's a difference between learning about something from an academic perspective, and experiencing it first hand. Good luck with your schooling, but Philosophy of Science isn't science, it's philosophy. Ultimately it will probably require you to make normative statements. Normative statements are ultimately unscientific (which is why Conservationism isn't really a science). It's like the difference between fighting a war in Iraq and playing a lot of Call of Duty (altough less extreme).

2. A scientist is a practitioner of science. Science is the scientific method: systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified it is not science. "Is there life on other planets?" is not technically a scientific question because we cannot yet test it. All Popper did was say that hypothesis testing was ultimately deductive instead of inductive. But so what? As a scientist I find that distinction unnecessary. That's a philosophical question. As a scientist the only thing I care about is whether I can say that the probability of event X happening is unlikely to be the result of chance alone. I don't care if that logic is more accurately described as deductive or inductive. Science is the result the statement, not that background reasoning.

Also, because in my experience with philosophers they continually ignore the scientific method. If something doesn't follow the scientific method it's not science. Science is no more than observation and reporting those observations.

3. Did Galileo makes falsifiable hypotheses and test them? If not he's not a scientist (this is why mathematicians are not considered scientists). Making observations about the natural world doesn't make you a scientist. For the same reason Darwin is not a proper scientist. Darwin was a naturalist, he saw things in nature, made inferences about them, and formed hypotheses. But he never tested those hypotheses. Thus, Darwin didn't come up with the "Theory of Evolution". He came up with the hypothesis of evolution, that biologists have developed into a theory over the last 150 years. All of those people are more accurately described as forerunners of science.

Predictive hypotheses do not make you a scientist. Falsifiable hypotheses that are actually tested do. Prediction is just a sign that the hypothesis is broad in its application. But it is not necessary. Again, the things that are necessary are: falsifiability and testing.

4. Those things are all great. I enjoy questions of philosophy of science. It's an interesting field. But none of those things are science. They are also unnecessary when educating students about science. In a basic biology course there is already more than enough necessary information to teach. Philosophy of Science would make a great course, maybe it should be required for majors, but there isn't room for it in basic curricula. For a basic course for non-majors nearly the first half of biology is dedicated to explaining basic chemistry and physics. The next quarter evolution, and the last quarter ecology, physiology and cell biology. The entire time I have to continually reinforce the scientific method. It would be fun to have philosophical aspects, but because they are unnecessary they have to go.

5. I'm not pigeonholing it. I'm saying science is not philosophy, as science is not theology. They are different, and it is inappropriate, confusing, misleading and unnecessary to mix them. The nuance of whether or not a virus is "alive" is mostly unimportant from a scientific point of view. What is important is what that virus is made out of, what types of genes it has, and how is it able to replicate. I don't need philosophy to help me answer those questions.

Don't worry about numbering, it definitely helps clarify stuff.

1. Perhaps I have been unclear on this point: I don't consider myself a scientist, and I don't consider the stuff done in philosophy of science lectures to be science. I do, however, conceive of certain parts of philosophy as continuous with science, and thus capable of informing science, and vice versa. And for what it's worth, I don't think that philosophers should be offering normative advice to scientists. It seems to me that enterprise is almost always a bad idea.

2. Again, you are packaging a particular philosophical conception of science and selling it as The Scientific Method. With one hand you are pushing forward the view that you don't believe philosophy of science has any bearing on you as a scientist, and on the other you are pushing a philosophical conception of science and declaring it to be 'non philosophical'.

3. And this is precisely what I mean -- falsifiability was not a concern of scientists until after Popper wrote about it. You are presenting it as some kind of philosophy-neutral description of scientific process, when in fact it's just a repackaged conception of science attributable to a philosopher. A view that has become particularly prevalent self-image among scientists themselves, but still not an actual description of the way science has been done and continues to be done. And if you think 'well I work in a lab so I know what it's like and it's definitely like I say it is'--it might be somewhat like that for you. For every 10,000 biologists sitting in a lab running repeats of experiments to gather data, there's an Einstein tucked away in a study somewhere uncovering insights about spacetime without running a single experiment, and science accomodates both.

For example, before falsificationism was popular, there was a view of science, called conventionalism, that asserted that particular hypotheses were in fact not tested at all in science, because they were conventions selected by scientists and not properly speaking empirical hypotheses. This was a philosophical conception put forward by a scientist, Henri Poincaré. Poincaré would have denied that the spirit of science is putting forward empirical hypotheses capable of falsification (as would, I suspect, most scientists prior to the 1930s).

Moreover, scientists have not historically been that great at judging what they do. Newton, for example, claimed he arrived at his mechanics by a process of induction from Kepler's laws. It didn't take very long for his contemporaries to point out that such a feat is impossible.

As for dismissing Galileo, Newton, Darwin etc. as not being scientists: at least you're consistent!

4. Again, see point 1. Sorry if I've made it seem as though I believe these to be core scientific questions and the kind of thing that should be taught in physics 101. These are philosophical questions that are continuous with science.

5. You insist you're not pigeonholing and then proceed to pigeonhole. I'm not very much interested myself in whether viruses are alive either.

 

[Angry Fork]

How is the belief that God always existed and created everything logically any different than everything came from nothing?

There are theories on how something can come from 'nothing'. It's something I don't currently understand all the way, but most people can't. It involves a ton of reading and work to understand the complexities of the theories. Particularly for the origin of the universe there's intense math and so much to learn that most people would have to be a physicist to understand every little thing. Before you can say the theories are bullshit you have to at least give them a real try and attempt to understand them. I accept what these scientists tell the world because they have no reason to lie. There isn't some huge conspiracy to lie to people about abiogenesis or the origin of the cosmos, just as Darwin wasn't perpetuating some conspiracy when it came to evolution (but it seems you don't even think evolution is real which boggles my mind).

Science is the search for truth and understanding with the tools we have and what we're capable of in the material world. There are thousands of researchers and scientists in labs and buildings that are fundamental in changing our understanding of the world and their names will never be known. They will never be famous or achieve riches for their contributions. They do it because they love it and have given themselves to the cause of furthering human knowledge. There is no reason to believe these people are all disingenuous conspirators looking to con everyone into believing evolution. If you think this is the case, if you think all of the evidence and all of their theories are all fake, and instead choose to believe a supernatural, un-testable irrational being did everything, then there is no hope for you and you don't understand what science is. You don't understand that the real, natural physical world is all we have and for that reason the theories presented are ones that have to exist in this natural physical universe.

JGS (and you) don't seem to understand that those 'evil atheist' scientists ONLY look for a natural explanation because that's ALL WE HAVE. By definition supernatural is not natural. By rejecting science in favor of faith you insult the researchers and scientists trying to find solutions to the gaps in our knowledge. You tell them unless they can't provide EVERYTHING then they are NOTHING compared to a supernatural being (which you have no evidence for). This isn't how science works and it's not fair to people who are working on giving everyone answers.

While you wait for answers there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know, but eventually we will." There may not be a 100% concrete factual testable theory for the origin of life or the cosmos in my lifetime but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to then make an even GREATER claim and superimposing a fictional being to fill the gap for no reason. It's intellectual cowardice and wish thinking to do this and is reserved for the people desperate to quell their fears of uncertainty. And this doesn't even touch on the monumental arguments which completely shit on holy books but that's more of a discussion for the atheism/theism thread. I would really recommend reading that thread if you're a christian and properly understanding the arguments against religion because that's what's holding you back from appreciating/understanding science.

 

[1-D_FTW]

FFS, I went to a Catholic high school and even they had the good sense to teach evolution in Science classes.

 

[Sanky Panky]

To the abiogenesis nay-Sayers.

In the last few years we've explored more and more ways that RNA can and has appeared naturally in the environment. We've shown how simple chemical blobs infused with RNA can behave like living things. We have a better idea of the composition of primordial goo, and experiment with similar things. We are conducting more and more single to multicellular evolution experiments - we are learning tons.

Why is the rhetoric that we have gotten nowhere?

With such a reliance on a RNA pre-biotic world, and your insistence that we keep gainging knowledge in the field, surely you would be aware that the father of Abiogenesis, Stanley Miller himself, had to abandon the view that RNA was the pre-cursor to DNA and life. because

The discovery of the catalytic activity of RNA (1, 2) brought
the concept of an RNA world (3–7) into wide acceptance.
However, the instability of ribose and other sugars (8), the great
difficulty of prebiotic synthesis of the glycosidic bonds of the
necessary nucleotides (9, 10), and the inability to achieve twoway
non-enzymatic template polymerizations (11, 12) have
raised serious questions about whether RNA could have been
the first genetic material (13), although there are dissenting
opinions (6, 14). A pre-RNA world in which the backbone of the
first genetic material would have been different from the ribose
phosphate seems more likely, but the nature of this backbone is
unknown.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3868.full.pdf

By the way, notice the first problem with RNA... these organic molecules naturally get destroyed by the same forces that supposedly assembled them in the pre-biotic world. That's why they have to contantly find other solutions to the problem. It's fine if you want to believe that RNA was dropped into this world by a meteor, but such rampant speculation does nothing for the progress of humanity.

His alternative PNA, already needs AEG, adenine, uracil, guanine, and cytosine, etc to happen in nature, and there needs to be absolutely no oxygen present, because it breaks apart any progress made. I don't have to list all the problems he found with this new solution, but he never got anywhere, and sadly he died.

Care to elaborate? Abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules, and the experiment demonstrated just that.

Lol not even close. Not only was the experiment only able to produce SOME of the amino acids needed for proteins, but the same amino acids would break apart if exposed to the same forces. So not only is the process not enough to get anywhere, but the little you havem you have to completely isolate it in the environment, or it woul break apart.

I admire your enthusiasm and hope, but bold claims won't take you anywhere.

 

[Measley]

As a high school science an social studies teacher, I anxiously await the day when some kid wants to argue his religion against science. My principal has already given the green light to rip the kid to shreds if they bring it up.

I live in a pretty liberal city though.....

 

[Kinitari]

With such a reliance on a RNA pre-biotic world, and your insistence that we keep gainging knowledge in the field, surely you would be aware that the father of Abiogenesis, Stanley Miller himself, had to abandon the view that RNA was the pre-cursor to DNA and life. because

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3868.full.pdf

By the way, notice the first problem with RNA... these organic molecules naturally get destroyed by the same forces that supposedly assembled them in the pre-biotic world. That's why they have to contantly find other solutions to the problem. It's fine if you want to believe that RNA was dropped into this world by a meteor, but such rampant speculation does nothing for the progress of humanity.

His alternative PNA, already needs AEG, adenine, uracil, guanine, and cytosine, etc to happen in nature, and there needs to be absolutely no oxygen present, because it breaks apart any progress made. I don't have to list all the problems he found with this new solution, but he never got anywhere, and sadly he died.

He didn't abandon the idea that RNA was the precursor to DNA and Life, he abandoned the idea that RNA was the FIRST genetic compound that supported life. The argument is now there was something before it - which is a completely different situation. The idea that RNA and in-organic material mushed together can in turn create 'life like' thingies is uncontested.

Regardless, as far as I can see the RNA world hypothesis is still held as something credible -

On the other hand, the recent &#64257;nding that activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides can be synthesized under plausible prebiotic conditions[8] means that it is premature to dismiss the RNA-&#64257;rst scenarios.[1]

Point stands - that life from non-life isn't some wistful dream - it makes sense, and we are continuously learning more, challenging our ideas and growing in the field of Abiogenesis.

 

[Sanky Panky]

He didn't abandon the idea that RNA was the precursor to DNA and Life, he abandoned the idea that RNA was the FIRST genetic compound that supported life. The argument is now there was something before it - which is a completely different situation. The idea that RNA and in-organic material mushed together can in turn create 'life like' thingies is uncontested..

Nope, he expressedly said that instead of RNA being the precursor, something like PNA was instead.

Are you referring to the polio-causing virus created in a NY lab from *ahem* DNA? Where they took DNA, broke it down to RNA, and in the same chemicals where RNA does it's thing, they got copies of RNA packaged into shells? It's an awesome experiment on how you can replicate what RNA does currently in organisms, but tells you NOTHING about the pre-biotic world. You still need the existing RNA for it (which breaks down so they had to use DNA), and you end up with a virus that NEEDS a host to survive, Where was the host back then even IF this scenario was possible?

Point stands - that life from non-life isn't some wistful dream - it makes sense, and we are continuously learning more, challenging our ideas and growing in the field of Abiogenesis.

Based on every new experiment, we can just leave your assertion at "we are continuously... challenging our ideas".