DNA Theory is Incomplete

[Bunyip]

They are touted as complete until something comes to challenge that. There have been points in history when scientists claimed everything that could be discovered about the world had been. Before quantum science appeared for example.

No. There is no such thing as a complete theory. Nobody 'touts' that.

 

[Satsujin]

No. There is no such thing as a complete theory. Nobody 'touts' that.

“There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.”
---Lord Kelvin, physicist and inventor of intercontinental telegraphy 1900

Tell me has anyone here researched telekinesis personally? I have and found it possible for me if not repeatable. I was skeptical after seeing youtube videos that were admittedly fake and those that seemed more plausible. You prolly dismiss the idea because science in general currently says it is ridiculous. I dont think Noetic Science says that but that is pseudo science to you. I am not saying it will be possible for everybody if they try but at least attempt it before you decide it is impossible.

 

[Bunyip]

“There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.”
---Lord Kelvin, physicist and inventor of intercontinental telegraphy 1900

Yes, that was a remarkably silly thing for Kelvin to say. It is not at all akin to claiming any theory to be complete though.

Tell me has anyone here researched telekinesis personally? I have and found it possible for me if not repeatable. I was skeptical after seeing youtube videos that were admittedly fake and those that seemed more plausible. You prolly dismiss the idea because science in general currently says it is ridiculous. I dont think Noetic Science says that but that is pseudo science to you. I am not saying it will be possible for everybody if they try but at least attempt it before you decide it is impossible.

I'm not saying it is impossible.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well perhaps lying is too strong a word. Perhaps they genuinely believe it is true despite the existence of other evidence that doesnt match their worldview.

I have heard similar wording attempting to discredit evolution. Often.

It was not worth of any respect then. It was wishful thinking and straight lies, presented fraudulently and with an obvious disregard for both facts and the basic understanding of what science is.

Is there any difference now?

 

[Satsujin]

Bunyip: Anything is POSSIBLE. The future can be defined as an uncertain sea of infinite possibilities What differs is the probability. The question is whether you are open-mindedly willing to seek the truth or only look for it in one worldview. After all, I am not saying material science is wrong. It has discovered many wonderful things. I have just discovered much wonder in the immaterial too.

 

[Bunyip]

Bunyip: Anything is POSSIBLE. The future can be defined as an uncertain sea of infinite possibilities What differs is the probability. The question is whether you are open-mindedly willing to seek the truth or only look for it in one worldview. After all, I am not saying material science is wrong. It has discovered many wonderful things. I have just discovered much wonder in the immaterial too.

Sure, I am not at all suggesting that immaterial things like abstracts, metaphors etc don't exist. Nor am I ruling out any possibility. I'm not sure what this has to do with materialism.

 

[Satsujin]

Is science in general, as it is today, willing to look for answers about truth of world in the immaterial? I don't think so. Why? Because of materialis. Noetic sciences are ridiculed e.g. because one way they experiment is by looking for patterns in RNGs. Science says they are just seeing patterns they want to see. But these patterns(spikes from what I've seen) aren't just appearing, they appear at times when something significant is happening. Possibly materialist science just writes this off as inexplicable coincidences.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Yeah calling something pseudo scientific seems common when scientists try to explore the immaterial realm. Only the material is real to science. I'm not sure what is believed about consciousness but the general idea seems to be that it can be explained materially. Just we haven't found the answer in the material realm but thats where it is for sure. Sounds like dogma to me. For me that doest work when we have people like Patient R --- a man who lost all parts of brain associated with selfawareness by science but was still self aware and functional except for strong memory issues.

Anyway, people should be free to believe what they want. Even materialist scientists.

There is a method of science; and it goes like this:

1. Ask a question.
2. Perform the research.
3. Devise and conduct the experiment,
   
4. Record your results.
5. Submit your work to peers for review of possible mistakes.

Furthermore, before something in science can be called a "theory", it must meet certain criteria:

1. It must be testable, measurable and observable.
2. It must be repeatable.
3. It must be falsifiable.
4. It must provide predictable outcomes; a predictive model of reality.

Whatever does not follow the method of investigation is pseudoscience.
Whatever does not meet the criteria for "Theory" is pseudoscience.
Whatever is based on misunderstanding or falsifications of scientific understanding is pseudoscience.

Thus:

• Brontosaurus and Piltdown Man were pseudoscience; as they were not submitted to peer review.
• 911 truthers use pseudoscience; postulating ideas based on misunderstandings or complete falsifications of scientific principles; and failure to perform adequate research on their claims.
• Creationism is pseudoscience for a lot of reasons; one reason being that creationism is not testable, measurable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable and does not provide a predictive model of reality.
• Bigfoot hunters and paranormal investigators are fields of pseudoscience as they assume the outcome then find the evidence to support their claims; which is not "asking a question" but instead is "assuming the answer".

Another point to be made is the strict, specific definitions required for the scientific method. Part of that process of defining a given anomaly is the ability to define its characteristics and properties. Many things lack a scientific definition: including Consciousness, Soul, Spirit, and God. Until these ideas can be defined in scientific terms with established characteristics and properties, they lie outside the realm of science. And perhaps, they always will. So, to attempt to use science to either prove or disprove such ideas, we are attempting to prove or disprove something that is outside the scientific method and working with nonspecific definitions; thus, pseudoscience.

Hopefully, this will help clear up what is and what is not pseudoscience.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Basically why is this lie being propagated if it is known to be untrue? Isn't it kind of like religious dogma being preached? They are not saying we don't know, they are saying it is the complete blueprint. Would be more honest to say we don't know if it is but maybe we'll find the answer later.
Sort of like religious fundamentalists saying God exists as the only truth when the real truth is nobody knows but we may find out in the future.

It's not a lie. It's the truth as it's known presently by science. Plus theory is not conclusive either unlike religious dogma typically is. Big difference.

 

[Satsujin]

New Guy: The RNG method in Noetics seems to meet your criteria but has been generally called pseudo science.

I will also state that I don't think materialism will always limit science. Quantum Science has already linked mind and reality. It is currently mostly theory but in time we will learn more. We are evolving towards greater consciousness.

 

[Bunyip]

What made you think that materialism or science in any way rules out the immaterial?

 

[Satsujin]

What made you think that materialism or science in any way rules out the immaterial?

So are you now saying that Science is currently willing to study the immaterial without trying to link it to a physical aspect? I may be mistaken but the only science i can see doing that is noetics and i know that is considered pseudo

I recommend GCP Results if you think noetics has any value.

 

[Bunyip]

So are you now saying that Science is currently willing to study the immaterial without trying to link it to a physical aspect? I may be mistaken but the only science i can see doing that is noetics and i know that is considered pseudo.

What do you mean 'without trying to link it to it's physical aspect'? Why would anyone have a problem with doing that?

 

[Satsujin]

I don't mean any physical aspect. I mean one directly linked to it.
Consciousness and Brain
VS.
Consciousness and RNG

Btw, have you even looked at the GCP data? It seems significant and surprising to me.

 

[Quintessence]

would any of you you say that more scientists are leaving the tenets of reductionism? Or that it is still the majority view?

Reductionism was the standard during the Enlightenment when modern sciences first emerged. It hasn't been the thing for... gosh... decades. At least since before I was born. Many of the sub-disiplines that arose within the last four or five decades never would have emerged if we still had that mindset. That the general public still thinks reductionism is a standard is symptomatic of its poor understanding of the sciences. In general, it seems the public understanding of the sciences lags a few decades behind what is contemporary.

Is science in general, as it is today, willing to look for answers about truth of world in the immaterial?
I don't think so. Why? Because of materialis.

That's not really why. I'd recommend you study the philosophy of science if you haven't. The sciences are one method of many for understanding the world around us. It's a method that has some particular limitations, and one of those limitations is that something must be quantifiable and measurable in order for the sciences to say anything about it. Something immaterial cannot, by definition, be measured or quantified. Thus, as far as the sciences are concerned, it cannot be evidenced, it cannot be proven, and is thus not studied by the sciences. That does not mean it does not exist, and it does not mean there are not other methods of investigation that can be used to understand those aspects of our reality. But they are not science. It really is okay for a source of knowledge and understanding to not be scientific, in spite of my culture's current obsession with putting everything to an empirical litmus test.

 

[Satsujin]

Many of the sub-disiplines that arose within the last four or five decades never would have emerged if we still had that mindset.

Which subdisciplines are you referring to? Psychology? Quantum science? Are these considered as strong as neuroscience today? And as far as I know the only central tenets of the material sciences are the 3 laws of thermodynamics. Even some of these have been challenged by other scientists.

I'd recommend you study the philosophy of science

Can you recommend any books or papers? I understand the concepts behind the empirical method of science(repeatable, falsifiable, controls etc) but in science today it is not considered scientific if it is not empirical. And who is to say the immaterial world follows natural laws like the material world? It can however be studied as the unpopular Noetic sciences have shown.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Science only deals exclusively with the material world. That is why treatment of immaterial things that claims to be Science is actually Pseudoscience. For example, the study of demons is not Science. If you present it as Science, then its Pseudoscience. That's because you can't study demons scientifically.

 

[Satsujin]

That is why treatment of immaterial things that claims to be Science is actually Pseudoscience.

Noetic Science seems to be studying the immaterial side of consciousness as scientifically as possible. Have you actually looked at the GCP page I posted earlier or simply decided it is not worthy because of hearsay? They have graphs, equipment, controls that produce extremely interesting data.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Noetic Science seems to be studying the immaterial side of consciousness as scientifically as possible. Have you actually looked at the GCP page I posted earlier or simply decided it is not worthy because of hearsay? They have graphs, equipment, controls that produce extremely interesting data.

Noetic comes from Dan Brown fiction. (Not literally). It is subjective, inner understanding, the opposite of Science.

Graphs are Math, and controls and devices that produce data are called 'Detectors'. Neither Math nor Detectors are Science but merely tools. If they detect something, then Science tries to produce a physical explanation for what was detected. If there is no physical explanation, then Science is no longer in the picture. The Scientist must at that point say "I have no scientific explanation for this data." or "I can only partially explain this data." That is the closest Science gets to discussing the immaterial.

 

[leibowde84]

Most scientists and atheists would say that DNA is the complete blueprint for all life. But this is untrue. What science currently knows about DNA is that it is the molecular blueprint for the production of proteins. There were also a lot of new discoveries with what was considered Junk DNA. As far as I know, there is nothing indicating how those proteins get organized into the body structure for life. This info not in the fertilized egg either. Maybe it is something that will be discovered later. But the point is that is not what science currently teaches. As far as I know, it DOES say that DNA is the complete blueprint for all life.

I fail to see the issue with this assumption. All science is based on deductive reasoning. Certainty is an illusion. When scientists say "DNA is the blueprint for all life", they are 1. using a metaphor linguistically which is pretty vague, and 2. they are actually saying "according to the evidence that we have today and our understanding of organic life, DNA is most likely the "blueprint for all life on earth".