• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why science and religion are not compatible

westprog said:
Do you think that people engaged in the process of science should set their standard of proof according to the possible social effects of their conclusions?
Click to expand...

There is a way to do science without testing for effects?

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Then neo-Darwinism is most decidedly NOT science

Paulhoff said:
Here is the deal, science is a way to test, the best one we have. Science is not a thing.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

Then neo-Darwinism is most decidedly NOT science. It's not science as it is not testable. If variation is brought about by random mutation and environmental pressure selects for the fittest penotype, it is "evolution". If variation is brought about by random mutation and environmental pressure has essentially no impact on selecting for the surviving phenotypes as one sees in the case of cytochrome c, it is "evolution".

So no matter what, it is "evolution", circumstances notwithstanding, it is "evolution", regardless of outcome, it is "evolution". Just what the theory predicted. A theory that is never falsified as one sees in the case with cytochrome c. A theory that explains everything, and so as such, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING. IT TAKES NO RISKS. IS NOT FALSIFIABLE AND SO IS VERY MUCH NOT SCIENCE.
 
Last edited:
¿First, where did I say I so-called believed in neo-Darwinism?

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Patrick1000 said:
Then neo-Darwinism is most decidedly NOT science. It's not science as it is not testable. If variation is brought about by random mutation and environmental pressure selects for the fittest penotype, it is "evolution". If variation is brought about by random mutation and environmental pressure has essentially no impact on selecting for the surviving phenotypes as one sees in the case of cytochrome c, it is "evolution".

So no matter what, it is "evolution", circumstances notwithstanding, it is "evolution", regardless of outcome, it is "evolution". Just what the theory predicted. A theory that is never falsified as one sees in the case with cytochrome c. A theory that explains everything, and so as such, IT EXPLAINS NOTHING. IT TAKES NO RISKS. IS NOT FALSIFIABLE AND SO IS VERY MUCH NOT SCIENCE.
Click to expand...



I'm terribly sorry to be so condescending now, but that is just stupid.


Variation is not brought about by random mutation that does not produce a functional change in protein function. If you are a scientist how can you miss this simple important fact?

Variation refers to variation in phenotype not genotype. If there is no variation in function with the change in protein composition, then there is no variation on which natural selection can work.
 
Darwinism, come rain or shine, Darwinism explains it all.

Paulhoff said:
¿What theory explains everything?

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

Darwinism, come rain or shine, Darwinism explains it all. My point is, as such, it is a theory which takes not a single risk, and as such, is not science, and unless it is mathematics or formal logic, which it is not, then it cannot possibly be true.

One has to be a risk taker, and counter intuitively, in a sense be possibly wrong, or testably wrong, to be "right" in science.
 
Last edited:
The source of phenotypic variation is random/unintended informational change

Ichneumonwasp said:
I'm terribly sorry to be so condescending now, but that is just stupid.


Variation is not brought about by random mutation that does not produce a functional change in protein function. If you are a scientist how can you miss this simple important fact?

Variation refers to variation in phenotype not genotype. If there is no variation in function with the change in protein composition, then there is no variation on which natural selection can work.
Click to expand...

The source of phenotypic variation is random informational change. By random, I mean unintentional for the most part. Let's call it that, "unintended" instead of random informational change.

You are not being condescending. I sense this is your honest opinion, so no offense taken. You simply missed my point.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
One has to be a risk taker, and counter intuitively, in a sense be possibly wrong, or testably wrong, to be "right" in science.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, your ideas have been evaluated, so this "weird" opinion of yours can be safely ignored.


But I am curious as to where you got such a ridiculous idea...or did you just make it up, yourself, because it "sounded good" to you??
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
Darwinism, come rain or shine, Darwinism explains it all. My point is, as such, it is a theory which takes not a single risk, and as such, is not science, and unless it is mathematics or formal logic, which it is not, then it cannot possibly be true.

One has to be a risk taker, and counter intuitively, in a sense be possibly wrong, or testably wrong, to be "right" in science.
Click to expand...


Again, that is just stupid or, to be kind, ignorant.

Darwin's theory is open to disproof. Find me a mammal fossil that predates the Cambrian explosion and Darwin's theory is toast. There are all sorts of disproofs available to you or anyone else who wants to find them.

Arguing that the theory is not subject to disproof is just silly beyond belief. That you are not aware of an actual problem may irk you no end. But that is why we still find it a useful paradigm. If there is a real demonstration of it being wrong we will change our minds.
 
Patrick1000 said:
The source of phenotypic variation is random informational change. By random, I mean unintentional for the most part. Let's call it that, "unintended" instead of random informational change.

You are not being condescending. I sense this is your honest opinion, so no offense taken. You simply missed my point.
Click to expand...


Yes, the source of phenotypic variation is information change. Not all informational change, as we define it, results in functional change in proteins and so not all informational change, as we define it, results in phenotypic change.

It is only the informational change, as we define it, that results in phenotypic change that is subject to evolutionary change by natural selection (or breeding).

If informational change (alteration of amino acid content in a protein) does not result in phenotypic change, then it is not subject to natural selection*.









*Technically this statement is incorrect, since everything, whether changed or not is subject to selection.
 
citizenzen said:
One of us is really reluctant to understand the point (and I admit that it might be me).

You are assuming that gods exist and fall under physics. If that were true, it would certainly make my brain structures/activity experiments an absurd way to study people's historic proclivity towards religious belief and gods.

But I am not assuming gods existence. I am posing that they can be a product of delusion. Hypothetically, if isolating a structure or pattern of activity of the brain could turn religious belief on or off, it would not necessarily be a matter of physics. It might all be a matter of how we are wired. Where is the absurdity in that?
Click to expand...

It's certainly possible to start with the assumption that gods are delusions, and then to gather evidence as to how such an illusion might be generated. Note that I've not said that this research should not take place!

It's just that such research couldn't then claim that the empirical fact of such gods (or any others) existing had been thereby disproved. (Or some similar word substituted - I know the Wasp isn't keen on using proof and disproof as a scientific term).
 
Actually R.A.F it is a basic notion that runs through all scientific disciplines

R.A.F. said:
Fortunately, your ideas have been evaluated, so this "weird" opinion of yours can be safely ignored.


But I am curious as to where you got such a ridiculous idea...or did you just make it up, yourself, because it "sound good" to you??
Click to expand...

Actually R.A.F it is a basic notion that runs through all scientific disciplines.

I wish I could take credit for it, but sadly, I cannot. Karl Popper the Viennese/turned Brit philosopher of science is typically given credit. Popper is generally considered the most important philosopher of science of the 20th century.

Popper formalized the notion that a scientific idea, say "Einstein's General Relativity", must be "FALSIFIABLE", vulnerable to inauthentication if it is to be worth anything.

If one pauses for a moment, Popper has little more than a keen grasp of the obvious. But it is an important piece of obvious, for if a scientific idea cannot be shown to be wrong, if it is in no way vulnerable, then it is not testable in any sense, and so really tells us nothing at all about the world, nothing definite anyway. As "science", it is meaningless. In such a case, where falsifiability is not a possibility, there is no experiment that can be done, no observation that can be made that can show the scientist making the hypothesis to be correct, or prove her/him wrong. As such, untestable notions, untestable systems of thought, though perhaps useful, are not scientific.

Marxism and Freudian Systems are classically viewed as systems of thought that are pseudoscientific in the sense of "true science", non-pseudoscience, being something which is testable. Freud's notions work in every case, as do Marx's. They take no risks for they simply presume themselves to be true from the get go. As such, they cannot be true in a scientifically meaningful way.

Back to Einstein. Some thought he was crazy when he encouraged Eddington to go off and prove him right or wrong in 1919 by way of photographing the
May 1919 solar eclipse. Not that Einstein wasn't confident, but some thought it was a reckless risk, exposing all his hard work to an experiment(an eclipse photographing) that might falsify general relativity. I mean it only took the guy ten years and turned him white after all. No big deal to have it all proven wrong in a flash, or more appropriately, by way of a lack of one. All that white hair for nothing? But we all know how that went. How it turned out. When all was said and done.

Modern scientists all operate by way of Popper's general notion of science being falsifiable. You have an idea and go out into the world and test it by way of experiment, experiment that one's peers can repeat, by way of observation, observation that one's peers can repeat. If your idea lacks this feature of testability, falsifiability, then it is not science, not modern science anyway, not science as conventionally viewed by the women and men who identify themselves as scientists on this day, 10/15/2011.

Darwinism, because it is not falsifiable, falls into the Marxist, Freudian, pseudoscience category. Useful yes, scientific, no.
 
Last edited:
westprog said:
It's just that such research couldn't then claim that the empirical fact of such gods (or any others) existing had been thereby disproved. (Or some similar word substituted - I know the Wasp isn't keen on using proof and disproof as a scientific term).
Click to expand...



I still don't know why I'm the wasp and not Icky, which is what I thought would happen, but anyway..............


That is precisely what I said earlier. But that does not save religion from being incompatible with science.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Actually R.A.F it is a basic notion that runs through all scientific disciplines.

I wish I could take credit for it, but sadly, I cannot. Karl Popper the Viennese/turned Brit philosopher of science is typically given credit. Popper is generally considered the most important philosopher of science of the 20th century.

Popper formalized the notion that a scientific idea, say "Einstein's General Relativity", must be "FALSIFIABLE", vulnerable to inauthentication if it is to be worth anything.

If one pauses for a moment, Popper has little more than a keen grasp of the obvious. But it is an important piece of obvious, for if a scientific idea cannot be shown to be wrong, is in no way vulnerable, then it is not testable in any sense. There is no experiment that can be done, no observation that can be made that can show the scientist right, or prove her/him wrong. As such, untestable notions, untestable systems of thought, though useful, are not scientific.

Marxism and Freudian Systems are classically viewed as systems of thought that are pseudoscientific in the sense of "true science" being something which is testable. Freud's notions work in every case, as do Marx's. They take no risks for they simply presume themselves to be true from the get go. As such, they cannot be true in a scientifically meaningful way.

Back to Einstein. Some thought he was crazy when he encouraged Eddington to go off and prove him right or wrong in 1919 by way of photographing the
May 1919 solar eclipse. Not that Einstein wasn't confident, but some thought it was a reckless risk, exposing all his hard work to an experiment(an eclipse photographing) that might falsify general relativity. I mean it only took the guy ten years and turned him white after all. No big deal to have it proven wrong in a flash, or more appropriately, by way of a lack of one. so we all know how that went.

Modern scientists all operate by way of Popper's general notion of sciene being falsifiable. You have an idea and go out into the world and test it by way of experiment, observation. If you idea lacks this feature of testability, falsifiability. It is not science, not modern science anyway. Not science as conventionally viewed by the women and men who identify themselves as scientists.

Darwinism, because it is not falsifiable, falls into the Marxist, Freudian, pseudoscience category. Useful yes, scientific, no.
Click to expand...


Darwinism is falsifiable. I gave you a way to falsify it above.

I think you are confusing its wide reaching explanatory power, a sign that it is a strong theory, with it being unfalsifiable.

There are ways to falsify it. The problem is that the ways to falsify it haven't been found and are unlikely to be found.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Westprog, I think Darat's concern was over your use of 'most' in saying 'most definitions of God'. In fact, there are only a very few -- two or three at most -- examples of a type of God that fits what you are talking about. There are many more definitions of god out there than this.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be more happily expressed as the definition of god (singular) as most commonly accepted.

I will repeat an objection I cited earlier in the thread about the hidden God.....how is this being worthy of worship? Hiding does not seem to me to be a property of a perfect being.
Click to expand...

That's really a theological, or philosophical question, rather than a scientific one. Someone attempting to change your mind on this point might say that such a god would be hiding only from scientific proof, and was made manifest in other ways. That's a digression, however.
 
westprog said:
(Or some similar word substituted - I know the Wasp isn't keen on using proof and disproof as a scientific term).
Click to expand...


Yeah ... neither am I. I'm not trying to claim it would or could disprove gods ... only that it would point to a possible source of them.

But it's just a silly hypothetical anyway.



Patrick1000 said:
Darwinism, because it is not falsifiable, falls into the Marxist, Freudian, pseudoscience category. Useful yes, scientific, no.
Click to expand...


You keep making this assertion, and it is just incredibly ridiculous. As mentioned before, just show the layer of sedimentary rock that has the dinosaur on top of the caveman and you've have your evidence for falsification.

But I may be picking up on something in your post (my spider-senses are tingling). I notice that you use the term "Darwinism" which seems archaic to me. So I looked it up and found this ...

The meaning of "Darwinism" has changed over time, and varies depending on who is using the term. In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection.​

Can you explain why you use that term and what exactly you mean by it?
 
westprog said:
That's really a theological, or philosophical question, rather than a scientific one. Someone attempting to change your mind on this point might say that such a god would be hiding only from scientific proof, and was made manifest in other ways. That's a digression, however.
Click to expand...

I didn't state it as a scientific question. It is a purely philosophical/theological question, but it belies the possibility of such a god as one worthy of worship. Hiding from scientific proof? What difference does it make what type of proof from which it hides? It is hiding from human interest/inquiry. How does that fit any definition of a being that deserves worship?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom