It is time to revise the Methodology of Science

[questfortruth]

This reply is mad.

mad right?

 

[Polymath257]

You have made hereby fatal error: trolling is not peer-review.

You asked for an opinion related to your 'paper'. You specifically asked if I would accept it for publication if I were a reviewer. I gave my honest opinion about what you wrote.

if you wish, you can write it up and send it in to 'Nature' and see what the referee says. My bet is that you will get a form letter saying they don't have room for your paper (a polite way of rejecting it).

 

[exchemist]

mad right?

Quod scripsi, scripsi.

 

[questfortruth]

You asked for an opinion related to your 'paper'. You specifically asked if I would accept it for publication if I were a reviewer. I gave my honest opinion about what you wrote.

if you wish, you can write it up and send it in to 'Nature' and see what the referee says. My bet is that you will get a form letter saying they don't have room for your paper (a polite way of rejecting it).

One lies, when says that paper is unclear: if the author
has defined all terms, and showed relations, then the paper is complicated,
but clear for those referees, who want to think.

 

[Sunstone]

What ? , you can't respond civilly ? Or, is derision just the automatic response of arrogance and being of the superior mind. Dawkins would be proud of you.

Spare me the fake outrage, Shmogie. Or if you really are outraged over a joke, tell your therapist about your issues with humor, not the whole forum. So far as I know, no one on this forum is qualified to prescribe meds over the internet.

 

[Polymath257]

One lies, when says that paper is unclear: if the author
has defined all terms, and showed relations, then the paper is complicated,
but clear for those referees, who want to think.

It isn't that the paper is unclear. To the extent it is true, it is trivial. And the results simply don't imply what you seem to think they do.

As they say 'the paper is both true and original. But the true part isn't original and the original part isn't true.'

 

[shmogie]

Spare me the fake outrage, Shmogie. Or if you really are outraged over a joke, tell your therapist about your issues with humor, not the whole forum. So far as I know, no one on this forum is qualified to prescribe meds over the internet.

Spare me the fake outrage, Shmogie. Or if you really are outraged over a joke, tell your therapist about your issues with humor, not the whole forum. So far as I know, no one on this forum is qualified to prescribe meds over the internet.

Nice try. A snide bit of snarkiness isn't a joke, it is a snide bit of snarkiness. Do you feel compelled to make a joke with other posts you respond to ? Is it your trademark ?

I am not outraged, I am saddened at your tactics.

You pulled a Trumpism and thought you were cute, and are really ticked you got called out for it.

Get over it.

 

[Sunstone]

Nice try. A snide bit of snarkiness isn't a joke, it is a snide bit of snarkiness. Do you feel compelled to make a joke with other posts you respond to ? Is it your trademark ?

I am not outraged, I am saddened at your tactics.

You pulled a Trumpism and thought you were cute, and are really ticked you got called out for it.

Get over it.

Spin it however you like, Shmogie, the bottom line is, you don't like my sense of humor.

 

[shmogie]

Spin it however you like, Shmogie, the bottom line is, you don't like my sense of humor.

Well, when you show a sense of humor, Iĺl let you know what I think. You sound like Trump after a tirade ¨I was just joking !¨

 

[Sunstone]

You sound like Trump after a tirade

Does that mean you'll be uncritically swallowing everything I say as true while denying it wasn't your own idea after all?

 

[questfortruth]

It isn't that the paper is unclear. To the extent it is true, it is trivial. And the results simply don't imply what you seem to think they do.

As they say 'the paper is both true and original. But the true part isn't original and the original part isn't true.'

Paper has proven the Biblical Adam and Eve using the Theory of Probability, look the file attached.

 

[Polymath257]

Paper has proven the Biblical Adam and Eve using the Theory of Probability, look the file attached.

I've looked. My opinion hasn't changed. I still think it completely unworthy of publication in any legitimate journal.

But, once again, send it in and see what response you get.

FYI: You talk about a most ancient common ancestor. That would be some single-celled organism (or something even earlier).

 

[Polymath257]

Suppose the moment of History called ``ACA'' has happened at 5500 BC. Then at this year 5500 BC lived, suppose 20000 Adams, it means, that any single human in our time (2018 AD) can trace own origin to one (or more) of the Adams

No, for ADA, we have to be able to trace back to *all* those at that time that have any ancestors now. Not all those at the time of ADA have modern descendants.

[for example, man Bob -- female Jane -- man Igor -- .... - man John - Adam number 1700]. But due to the direct male descendents line of Y-Choromosomal Adam (and line females of Mitochondrial Eve) is present also at 5500 BC, then ACA point must be more ancient, than time wnen M-Eve and Y-Adam were born.

Wrong. No direct male line need exist to everyone at the time of ACA. Since lines with both men and women are allowed in the analysis, there is a younger age than when things are more restricted: it is easier to get common ancestors with less restriction.

It means, that mt-MRCA must be not 200 000 years old, but under 10 000 years old. Need quote from Wikipedia?

No, please don't. Your understanding of this material is poor.

 

[questfortruth]

FYI: You talk about a most ancient common ancestor. That would be some single-celled organism (or something even earlier).

I am talking about most ancient HUMAN.

 

[questfortruth]

Wrong. No direct male line need exist to everyone at the time of ACA. Since lines with both men and women are allowed in the analysis, there is a younger age than when things are more restricted: it is easier to get common ancestors with less restriction.

Did Y-Chromosomal Adam have parents? And grand-parents? And grand-grand-parents? The Wikipedia says, that ACA point must be more ancient, than MRCA points. Including mt-MRCA and Y-MRCA then. OK. It is subject of debate, so it is not quite clear proof of Bible. But the proof of God is simple: without God, there is no Absolute Truth, so there is God.

 

[Polymath257]

I am talking about most ancient HUMAN.

Then you get into definitional issues: what defines a HUMAN from those in the generation just before? Species are like languages. They change so slowly that making a strict dividing line is impossible.

 

[Polymath257]

Did Y-Chromosomal Adam have parents? And grand-parents? And grand-grand-parents? The Wikipedia says, that ACA point must be more ancient, than MRCA points. Including mt-MRCA and Y-MRCA then. OK. It is subject of debate, so it is not quite clear proof of Bible. But the proof of God is simple: without God, there is no Absolute Truth, so there is God.

Yes, of course Y-Adam had ancestors. And it is completely irrelevant to the Bible. This stuff is not even close to meaning what you seem to think it means.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Absolute Truth is true not to Trump alone, but to God.

Using Trump and Truth in the same sentence is oxymoronic.

 

[gnostic]

Let us assume, that Y-Chromosomal Adam lived 600 years before the Mitochondrial
Eve was born. But the female ancestor of that Eve lived also 600 years before
the Mitochondrial Eve. Do you follow, or it is way too complicated? According to Wikipedia, there is non-zero probability, that Y-Chromosomal Adam lived same time as Mitochondrial Eve. The Mitochondrial Eve has grand-grand-grand-mother called "original Eve''. Enough grand, that this grand-grand-grand-Eve lived the same time with Y-Chromosomal Adam. Do you copy that?

If the Y-Chromosomal Adam lived centuries before the Mitochondrial Eve,
then the future Eve was in the genus of those who lived with Adam.
Therefore, one can say that Adam lived at the same time as Eve. This is
argued in this paper. In addition, I use the opportunity for a discourse
about the methodology of science, proposing a change of methodology.
Well, how could we all have gone in the wrong direction? The wrong direction
started from Ancient Greece, when the methodology of mistrust began to form.
This direction was developed by the Christians: Popper, Occam, Darwin were
Christians. Is sounds like the Church Schism. Today, Dr.Kaku teaches that
reality does not exist and that the Science got it all wrong:

More of your gibberish, similar to that of your other thread, but shorter in this one.

As to the methodology.

For your information, any scientific THEORY can be added, replaced current or old ones, modified or corrected. Theories are the ones that can be reviewed. But such reviews and changes are only done, if there are better alternatives (better explanations, better predictions) supported by better verifiable evidences.

As to the Scientific METHOD, that currently need no revision, because it worked.

Scientific Method provided objective methodology of testing any hypothesis or scientific theory, where evidences or experiments will either VERIFY or REFUTE theory or hypothesis.

Scientific method has a mechanism (if used properly) that allows for exposing errors and self-correction.

The scientific method is what make searching and acquiring knowledge different from the ways religions and philosophies do thing.

The only people who don’t like scientific method, are creationists and people who are science-illiterate, cheaters, and con-men.