I've listed the erroneous assumptions more times than I can count but talking about falling on deaf ears!!!!
Excuse me while I have some fun and tackle every single one of these.
You assume consciousness and individuals are irrelevant to life and evolution.
No.
You assume that you are intelligent.
I can read and write and communicate abstract ideas. That, in and of itself, makes me/us more intelligent then all other species on the planet.
You assume that your perception and definitions of space and time are reality.
Absolutely not. This is why we rely on science to learn about space and time.
The opposite is actually true: I assume ("realize", actually) that my perceptions will
very easily fool me into false beliefs.
You assume that the way we think doesn't affect experiment.
False. This is why during experiments, we have double blind studies and control groups and alike. In science, we go out of our way to reduce human bias to an absolute minimum.
You assume that reality is only what appears in experiment.
Not really. All explanation in science is considered provisional.
However, we (you too) assume that reality is consistent. For example, we don't assume that gravity will suddenly stop working tomorrow or start working differently. So if we measure the force of gravity in an experiment a couple dozen times over and get consistent results, we assume we'll get the same results tomorrw.
You assume all of reality has already appeared in one experiment or another.
Huh? Off course not. Where did you get that silly idea?
If that were true, no experiments would be conducted anymore. The entire LHC wouldn't have been build. No scientists would be trained anymore.
You assume there was no "Creator" or other means by which reality can organize itself.
No. Instead, we see no reason to believe in one / assume one exists, because no evidence or data is available to support such.
Show me evidence, and I'll happily accept the proposition.
You assume math can be used to describe all of reality and that all math reflects some reality.
Not really.
In fact, when Newton tried to describe the orbits of planets, he had to invent new math to do so.
At best, one can say that so far, math seems to do a pretty good job at modeling phenomena of reality.
Also, it is perfectly possible to use math to model a non-existing universe. Math doesn't describe reality by default. It only does so when it is underpinned by the actual data of reality.
Underpin it with incorrect data and you will get a perfectly valid and mathematically correct model of reality, which does not accurately reflect reality.
You assume chaotic principles are not necessary to describe reality.
No idea what is supposed to mean.
You assume only humans are conscious and this can be determined without even a definition for "conscious".
No.
You assume ancient people were highly superstitious but we're all better now (thanks to evolution)(and science}.
Ancient people were demonstrably very superstitious, yes. As can be concluded and demonstrated by the stuff they wrote down. Just about every phenomenon and their mothers were attributed to "spirits" and "deities" and similar magical things.
And yes, as science progresses, people grow out of that.
For example, you'll find it quite hard to get people to believe today that lightning is the result of some deity casting down lightning bolts from Mt Olympus, or thunder being the result of some deity smashing his magic hammer on some anvil. Back in the day though, this wasn't only an easy thing to do - it was pretty much the default view.
You assume that all an expert has to do is interpret data and this will lead him to the truth and then he can lead us to the truth.
When put like that, no, that is not the case. There's a "bit" more to it then that.
Also, it's not so much an assumption as it is rather demonstrably the best method we know of to find out how things work. Is it perfect? Off course not. But it's nevertheless the best we can do.
You assume that technology proves a total understanding of the underlying principles.
No. It proves that the understanding of the underlying principles is at least accurate enough to make the tech work.
Is atomic theory 110% accurate? I doubt it. But our understanding of atoms is at least accurate enough to make nukes explode.
You assume that everyone who's right gets the same answer.
That would be the case by definition of the word "right".
We can't both be right about something while saying mutually exclusive things, after all..................
When we say mutually exclusive things, either one of us is incorrect or we both are. But we can't both be right.
You assume that this same answer must be correct.
No.
You assume your assumptions don't matter so long as you use a scientific perspective.
This is a strange thing to say, considering that using a scientific perspective often challenges and disproves our assumptions. It's how we make progress.
You assume everything that comes from the past is nonsense because it looks like nonsense, smells like nonsense, and quacks like nonsense.
Another very bizarre thing to say.
Literally everything we know, was discovered in the past.
Relativity, evolution, atomic theory, plate tectonics... all these ideas are a century old or older.
What determines if something is nonsense or not, is not its age, but its merit and the evidence pro/con.
You assume that Darwin was correct when he said populations of species never drops to low levels.
Que?
1. I've never heard this quote by Darwin
2. If Darwin said that, he was demonstrably incorrect.
You assume that if they did drop to low levels it's because most individuals weren't "fit" and then only the fittest reproduced to "save" the species.
Another very strange assumption.
A million and one things, and then some, can make species levels drop - most of which don't have anything to do with the species per say. Like when a volcano erupts, a meteor strikes or other disruptive cataclysmic events occur.
You assume that missing links are irrelevant.
1. no
2. I assume you can't even properly define what a "missing link" is and don't even realize how that's a popular media phrase with little value in scientific context.
You assume that changes shown in the fossil record are all gradual.
Not an assumption. We observe changes occurring in extant species. We
know evolution is a gradual process. We
know every newborn comes with a set of mutations. We
know these mutations accumulate through the hereditary of DNA. We thus
know that changes in species comes about in gradual ways.
You assume you don't need experiment to show any such gradual change.
We have plenty of experimental and observational evidence of gradual change. It's not exactly hard to come by. In fact it's ridiculously easy.
You assume that life ever did originate on earth.
Not necessarily on earth. And not an assumption. Life, by definition, originated somewhere, somehow at some time. Because life didn't always exist. It had to begin at some point.
You assume that our framework of knowledge perfectly fits the reality we see and that the reality we see is universal in space and time.
We know for a fact that it does NOT "fit perfectly".
This is why research in just about every field of science continues.
I could go on like this all day
You could go on all day making false claims and strawmen?
Because, sorry to inform you, but literally NOT A SINGLE ONE of your accusations was correct. Not a single one.
In short: your mind reading device is seriously broken.
Your assumption that knowledge lies in books much more than in observation and understanding of existing knowledge and "philosophy" will probably prevent you from understanding this post.
It's ironic, because you are the only here who has to rely on what you read in "books".
