• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Guided evolution?

gnostic

The Lost One
I don't know how many times I've told you that peer review is not a part of the scientific method. Your belief in peer review shows a total ignorance of metaphysics and science.
Peer Review is the last hurdle for testing new hypothesis or testing alternative hypothesis to existing scientific theory.

The purposes of Peer Review are -
  • to ensure that evidence and data are supplied with the “falsifiable” hypothesis, (for instance, if scientist try to present hypothesis without data for Review, they reviewers can reject the submission of the hypothesis as being “unfalsifiable”; in fact unfalsifiable model isn’t even a hypothesis)
  • to investigate and analyze the evidence and data themselves if it meet the explanatory, predictive and mathematical models,
  • to ensure that scientists’ hypothesis haven’t doctored evidence and data, eg providing false (incorrect or misleading evidence or data),
  • to weed out unfalsifiable/untestable evidence and data,
  • to rule out findings (evidence and data) of the reviewed hypothesis, if the evidence or data actually debunked the hypothesis,
  • etc.
I know that you have personal issues with peer review, but this isn’t a therapy session for you.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
All of which is produced by your physical brain.



It's a reasonable assumption, considering we don't have any examples of consciousness absent a physical brain. All examples we have of consciousness, comes with a physical brain.

And damaging / altering the brain, damages / alters the consciousness, as one would expect if the brain produces consciousness.

So all seems to indicate that physical brains produce consciousness.




It's the proposition that is supported by evidence.
There is no evidence of consciousness existing absent a physical brain.

So moving forward, which would be the most reasonable assumption?
That consciousness comes from physical brains, which literally all evidence supports?
Or that consciousness can exist absent a brain, which is supported by literally no evidence at all?




There's entire fields dedicated to that.
Neurologists all over the world are studying the brain, putting people under scanners in experiments, creating mind reading devices, etc. The way the brain works is nowhere near properly understood, but a lot more is known then you seem to give credit for.

Especially regarding the link between thought processes / consciousness and the "hardware" (brain) that produces it.



Sure. Underpinned by physical processes. That doesn't diminish you or the "self", you know.



Sure, good question. A neurological question.
Not having the answer to that question, is not a license to start inventing stuff.
It just means that we don't know. It doesn't change anything about all the evidence we do have.



Why would it need to be considered "purposeful"? And "purposeful" in what sense? And what evidence leads you to that conclusion?



Eum... the advantage of natural causes to explain natural phenomenon, is precisely that you don't need to invoke magic...

So no, not by "magic".




That's a big claim. And a dogmatic one at that, what with the word "forever".
So basically, you're saying that it doesn't matter what we say or what science will still discover in the future... You'll just reject it all and go with your own idea for which there is no evidence?

I'm saying you will never experience thoughts first hand other than your own. That's the gap. You can monitor brain activity while a person is performing tasks that involve thought. But there is no way to tangibly identify a self subject of those thoughts. Where is the self located, and does location have anything to do with identifying the self?

The brain is only electrochemical reactions. Those don't translate to the inner experience of self. That inner experience is not something you will witness in other people via scientific instruments or any other method.

That's what is forever beyond human attainment.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I'm saying you will never experience thoughts first hand other than your own.

Very likely, considering I can't just burrow someone else's brain. I have to make due with my own brain.

Although theoretically, it might be possible to use technology to "link" one brain to another and have it transfer or share feelings, emotions, and what not. But idd, if that is at all possible, I don't expect such tech to exist in my lifetime.

That's the gap. You can monitor brain activity while a person is performing tasks that involve thought. But there is no way to tangibly identify a self subject of those thoughts. Where is the self located, and does location have anything to do with identifying the self?

What do you mean by "self"?
The person? The person is the whole body, brain included.

The brain is only electrochemical reactions. Those don't translate to the inner experience of self. That inner experience is not something you will witness in other people via scientific instruments or any other method.


Maybe try to properly define it first. I don't know what you mean.

That's what is forever beyond human attainment.

So far, as far as I am concerned, you haven't even shown there is something there to begin with.
Try to define it. What do you mean by "self"?
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Very likely, considering I can't just burrow someone else's brain. I have to make due with my own brain.

Although theoretically, it might be possible to use technology to "link" one brain to another and have it transfer or share feelings, emotions, and what not. But idd, if that is at all possible, I don't expect such tech to exist in my lifetime.



What do you mean by "self"?
The person? The person is the whole body, brain included.




Maybe try to properly define it first. I don't know what you mean.



So far, as far as I am concerned, you haven't even shown there is something there to begin with.
Try to define it. What do you mean by "self"?

Self is the very you that is the subject of one's own experiences. Self is the unity of being that is an identity different from other identities. I am an individual. The whole of me is one and only one. My mind, will, and heart are of one unified being. I'm not a physical zombie, there is a receiver of the senses that the brain provides.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Self is the very you that is the subject of one's own experiences. Self is the unity of being that is an identity different from other identities. I am an individual. The whole of me is one and only one. My mind, will, and heart are of one unified being. I'm not a physical zombie, there is a receiver of the senses that the brain provides.
Sounds like you are just asserting that your mind is an entity independent of your brain and then you use that assertion as "evidence" that your mind is independent of your brain.

Please provide evidence that your mind is an entity independent of your brain. So far, your "evidence" seems to be no more or less then "I believe it".
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
What makes you think that peer review is not part of the scientific method? It is actually a key part. Here is a simplified flow chart of the scientific method, please note it is not the absolute sole version, there can be variations, but most uses of the scientific method follow this flow chart:

2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png


Do you see the last step?

So your opinion that beliefs affect reality is based on an educational system that failed in 1913.

Obviously the opinion of scientists affects the direction that science takes and this has never been more true than after a century of turning out students who can't think and or don't understand the nature of science. The opinion of the scientist at the very top of the Peer pecking order has no effect whatsoever on reality. Nobody's opinion affects the nature of reality.

Unless of course you believe in a god who hands his knowledge down to the high priests of science. This god who is the laws of nature turns over his secrets to those at the top and they share them with lesser priests and those geniuses of the general public who are capable of understanding, It's a nice neat little world and always has been for those who believe what they are told to believe.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So your opinion that beliefs affect reality is based on an educational system that failed in 1913.

Whoa!! Where did you get that crazy idea from? I never made that claim.

Obviously the opinion of scientists affects the direction that science takes and this has never been more true than after a century of turning out students who can't think and or don't understand the nature of science. The opinion of the scientist at the very top of the Peer pecking order has no effect whatsoever on reality. Nobody's opinion affects the nature of reality.

Projection. Don't accuse others of not being able to think until you can demonstrate that you can think yourself. And you are back to your unsupported accusations again. No one has claimed, except for you, that opinion affects the nature of reality.

Unless of course you believe in a god who hands his knowledge down to the high priests of science. This god who is the laws of nature turns over his secrets to those at the top and they share them with lesser priests and those geniuses of the general public who are capable of understanding, It's a nice neat little world and always has been for those who believe what they are told to believe.


No, I don't believe in any god at all. And no one in the sciences believe that either. It may seem that way to the uneducated. You appear to be making false accusations based upon your lack of education yourself.

By the way, you dodged the point of the whole post. My post showed that peer review is part of the scientific method. I have a feeling that you do not even understand what peer review is in the first place.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Whoa!! Where did you get that crazy idea from? I never made that claim.

YOU said "peer review" was part of the scientific method. If the scientific method is the means we use to understand reality and make predictions then it follows that peer review is required.

This is not semantics. Semantics is "peer review" is part of the scientific method. It is not and this idea arose after the collapse of the educational system.

Peer review is irrelevant to reality, Mother Nature, God, the Laws of Nature, and all the gods (little or big). It is a belief. It is superstition. You are mistaken.

Don't accuse others of not being able to think until you can demonstrate that you can think yourself.

I accused no one of not being able to think. I said the educational system failed and many people no longer think but are mere vessels for what they are told and what they believe.

And no one in the sciences believe that either. It may seem that way to the uneducated.

Many scientists believe in God. A few believe in "Gods". It seems a lot of scientists believe what they are told and that entire list of assumptions. Theory is not reality and unsupported hypothesis usually never will be because good hypothesis usually implies an experiment to test it. This is very simple if you understand basic metaphysics or ever designed an experiment.

https://www.hrstud.unizg.hr/_downlo...etaphysical_Foundations_of_Modern_Science.pdf
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
YOU said "peer review" was part of the scientific method. If the scientific method is the means we use to understand reality and make predictions then it follows that peer review is required.

This is not semantics. Semantics is "peer review" is part of the scientific method. It is not and this idea arose after the collapse of the educational system.

Peer review is irrelevant to reality, Mother Nature, God, the Laws of Nature, and all the gods (little or big). It is a belief. It is superstition. You are mistaken.

Did you not see "publish your results"? A peer reviewed article is first checked for obvious errors by experts in the field. Then it is put out for other experts to evaluate. Peer review is how one publishes one's results.

Oh and another crazy claim. When did the educational system collapse? I must have missed that headline.

I accused no one of not being able to think. I said the educational system failed and many people no longer think but are mere vessels for what they are told and what they believe.

Actually you did. This is out of context but that was clearly your claim:

"after a century of turning out students who can't think "


You also said that students do not understand science when it is clear that you do not appear to understand science.

Many scientists believe in God. A few believe in "Gods". It seems a lot of scientists believe what they are told and that entire list of assumptions. Theory is not reality and unsupported hypothesis usually never will be because good hypothesis usually implies an experiment to test it. This is very simple if you understand basic metaphysics or ever designed an experiment.

https://www.hrstud.unizg.hr/_downlo...etaphysical_Foundations_of_Modern_Science.pdf


Sorry, your whole long list of "assumptions" was shown to be false claims. Or did you forget how you utterly failed in the challenge given to you? By the way, you just demonstrated that you do not even understand what a theory is. A theory cannot become a theory unless it is very well supported. Theories have to describe reality very well otherwise they fail and are no longer theories.
And yes, technically theories are not reality. Theories describe and explain reality. The theory of gravity describes and explains the reality of gravity. The theory of evolution describes and explains the reality of evolution.

And how does a link to a source that you did not quote or even appear to understand help you at all?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
The theory of gravity describes and explains the reality of gravity.

Then you must understand what causes gravity and how it does that.

I guess you know everything about gravity and I am wrong about everything.

Of course you also know everything about evolution and every individual fossil. You know everything about that fossil's genes, how it lived, and precisely why it died.

Your knowledge astounds me but then I'm almost perfectly ignorant and thereby named our species "homo omnisciencis". The name is certainly apt and descriptive to describe people who can have their heads pounded full of beliefs in the omnipotence of the priests of science and come to know everything that is knowable.

I apologize for the sarcasm but what other response is possible for someone who ignores what you say while repeating the same omniscience ad infinitum? You simply aver you don't need to understand the nature of consciousness to know whether an animal lives or dies and that the fossil record seems to show gradual change therefore changes are gradual!!! Remarkable! Keep up the good work, some day people will try to figure out how we became so misguided. The most remarkable thing is that believers in all things "science" can't even imagine how they could be wrong even after their noses are rubbed in the facts.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Then you must understand what causes gravity and how it does that.

Why do you think that we need to do that? An all or nothing attitude is simply wrong.

I guess you know everything about gravity and I am wrong about everything.

You are only half right.

Of course you also know everything about evolution and every individual fossil. You know everything about that fossil's genes, how it lived, and precisely why it died.

Again, no need.

Your knowledge astounds me but then I'm almost perfectly ignorant and thereby named our species "homo omnisciencis". The name is certainly apt and descriptive to describe people who can have their heads pounded full of beliefs in the omnipotence of the priests of science and come to know everything that is knowable.

I understand. It is easy to be amazed when one knows almost nothing.

I apologize for the sarcasm but what other response is possible for someone who ignores what you say while repeating the same omniscience ad infinitum? You simply aver you don't need to understand the nature of consciousness to know whether an animal lives or dies and that the fossil record seems to show gradual change therefore changes are gradual!!! Remarkable! Keep up the good work, some day people will try to figure out how we became so misguided. The most remarkable thing is that believers in all things "science" can't even imagine how they could be wrong even after their noses are rubbed in the facts.

Sarcasm? You were actually at least right on a few points. No one claimed or implied omniscience.

By the way, I found the solution for your pyramid problem:

159102871_4082009741885854_2508547648506029695_o.jpg
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So your opinion that beliefs affect reality is based on an educational system that failed in 1913.

Obviously the opinion of scientists affects the direction that science takes and this has never been more true than after a century of turning out students who can't think and or don't understand the nature of science. The opinion of the scientist at the very top of the Peer pecking order has no effect whatsoever on reality. Nobody's opinion affects the nature of reality.

Unless of course you believe in a god who hands his knowledge down to the high priests of science. This god who is the laws of nature turns over his secrets to those at the top and they share them with lesser priests and those geniuses of the general public who are capable of understanding, It's a nice neat little world and always has been for those who believe what they are told to believe.

It seems you do not understand how peer review works.
You seem to think that there is this "head" peer or some "authority" among peers who merely "decides" what is correct and what isn't.

This might be the case in your religion. It's not the case in science.
There's no authority in science. No human authority anyway. The ultimate authority in science is a combination of data and results.

When peers review your work, they don't actually or necessarily only evaluate your conclusion. Instead, the review your work. They evaluate your methods used, your experiment design, your use of data, etc. They review the overall quality of your work in all its aspects.

This is one of the safeguards against human bias or reasoning errors.
The alternative would be to "just believe" whatever a scientist reports, no questions asked.
Surely you can see how that wouldn't be a smart thing to do. It doesn't work like that. You don't just "trust" the work of anyone. No, you redo the experiments, you double check the results. And as the report passes all these stages, you move on to more rigorous testing and actively try to prove it wrong in even more research.

Next there's also the idea of continuously building on the work that was done before you.

Newton came up with a model of gravity and laws of motion. Moving forward, physicists used that framework as a basis for further study.

Then Einstein hit a wall and in doing so, found out that Newton's ideas were incomplete / wrong.
If you are an engineer and build a GPS system using only Newtonian physics - your tech will not work.
If you build it using Einsteinian physics (relativity) - then the tech WILL work.

Science is very results based.

So we don't have to merely "believe" authorities of science concerning relativity or atomic theory.
Instead, we can see the results. We can know these theories are relatively accurate, because GPS works and nukes explode.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Does this imply a metaphysical conviction to naturalism perhaps?

Evidence is a great thing but at some point you use philosophy to infer your conclusions. And the same goes for scientific evidence. Evidence works for physical properties only. Demonstrated physical behaviours is the realm of methodological naturalism. Abstract qualities, such as consciousness, are better understood through philosophies other than naturalism.

Of all the phenomenon in reality abstract qualities require philosophical inferences. And philosophy is opinionated. So your strong intuitions about naturalism do not have to be the default position in concluding facts. There are other possibilities.

Not everything is explained by observation of the physical.

If we leave aside the human behaviour, human cultures (eg lifestyle, law), human achievement (eg technology, engineering, building) - which are in the domain of SOCIAL SCIENCES - and if we also leave out everything do with arts, literature, languages' etc, which have to with HUMANITIES - and only focus on nature and its raw natural processes, then we are dealing with NATURAL SCIENCES (eg biology, physics, chemistry, Earth science and astronomy).

As this thread is about the status of Evolution, whether it is guided or not, the Theory of Evolution is biology, and therefore fall under the category of “Natural Science”.

So evidence is essentially for any branches of Natural Sciences as a mean of testing explanatory models (eg theories, hypotheses), evidence that will either verify or refute the models.

Philosophy on the other hand, there are literally hundreds, or possibly thousands, of different types of philosophies. Some that still exist today, others are ancient, and they covered range of topics., some are personal, while others in impersonal.

But what I want to stress to you, is that most of those philosophies have nothing to contribute to science, particularly in scientific investigation and research.

Now there may have been some rudimentary science developed by some ancient civilizations and ancient cultures, like astronomy and medicine from ancient Egypt, Sumer/Babylonia, India and so on, but often they mixed rudimentary science with their respective religious beliefs, hence the “god(s) did it” superstitions.

But Naturalism or Natural Philosophy actually started with the 6th century BCE Greek natural philosophers, where they cease (or at least tried to stop) using superstitions as crutches. They weren’t always successful in excluding gods or superstitions in their (naturalism) treatises, because some Greek astronomy still believe in astrology, eg Claudius Ptolemy, the one who popularized geocentric planetary motion.

Leaving out gods and superstitions in scientific researches were the step in the right direction for Scientific Revolution. But in the West, Natural Philosophy took 10 steps backward when Christianity became predominant in the Roman Empire with the 4th century Constantine, and 50 backward steps more in the Dark Ages.

Of course, not everything was lost in the Dark Ages, because the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire didn’t experience the Dark Ages, and copies of some of ancient treatises made their ways to Arabic and Persian philosophers, rediscovering Greek science and inventions, which they built upon, leading to the Golden Age of Islam, which made it ways back to the West, igniting the Italian Renaissance.

After the Renaissance, came the Scientific Revolution, which led to modern scientific techniques, including the Scientific Method, and eventually “Natural Philosophy” became NATURAL SCIENCE.

In late 19th century Britain, not long after Darwin published On Origin Of Species (1859), Thomas Henry Huxley had successfully campaigned that religion and theology, especially creation, shouldn’t be taught in science classrooms of public schools and in universities.

The 18th century Age of Enlightenment saw to the separation of State and Religion, but Huxley brought about the separation of Science and Religion in the education systems.
.
This is not saying that theology, comparative religions or biblical studies, etc cannot be taught as courses or subjects at universities, is just since religions are not science, therefore they shouldn’t be taught in science subjects.

What I would like to say, there should be distinction and separation between science fields and philosophies.

Like I said earlier, there are hundreds or thousands of different types of philosophies, but only a tiny fraction contributed to the way science work...

eg empiricism, logical positivism, methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism. Now I might include epistemology and ontology into it too, but only portions of these 2 philosophies, not the entire things.

Modern philosophies don’t actually carrying scientific investigation of physical or natural phenomena and how they work, hypothesis formulation, testing, and analysis of evidence and data.

Now, you brought up inferences several times, but inferring alone has limitations and without testing (observations and evidence finding/analysis), there are no ways to determine if inferring provide the correct solutions.

And btw, inferring alone isn’t science.

And it is the same with metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism alone isn’t science, if there aren’t evidence to support assumptions of reality.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
You seem to think that there is this "head" peer or some "authority" among peers who merely "decides" what is correct and what isn't.

No, they vote on it after the the top of the pecking order tells them how to vote.

All scientists pretty much agree on everything and this especially applies to the soft "sciences". If I provide examples you'll ignore it and persist in your beliefs. And the top of the pecking order will probably assign a grad student much smarter than himself to check it out before he signs off on it.

The ultimate authority in science is a combination of data and results.

Yes!!! By George I think you have it finally. Experiment always trumps belief and opinion is always irrelevant. Peer review is irrelevant.

The alternative would be to "just believe" whatever a scientist reports, no questions asked.

There is no alternative for thinking for oneself. If I invent experiment and don't tell anybody the experiment STILL EXISTS. If I create upside down flies and you ignore it they still exist. If a Peer learns something I don't know, it still real even after I don't know it. How can you not understand this? The problem is groupthink. The problem is lack of understanding of metaphysics. The problem is most scientists and most laymen are now engaged not in true science but in a religion characterized by Look and See Science.

Why don;'t you understand that if something is shown by experiment it is real and if something isn't shown by experiment it is a belief.

You believe consciousness doesn't matter to "evolution" but to you "evolution" is just another sacrament or belief to be adopted to show your devoutness. It doesn't matter if this "theory" is founded in experiment or not because you believe in it.


OK, look. Your post isn't really all that bad. There's a lot of truth to your words but the problem is you can see none of the truth in my words. Sure, science in practice is often a collaborative affair and every individual is capable of misthinking experiment or its results. But you don't seem to understand committees and groups are FAR MORE LIKELY to misthink something than an individual. Juries convict or exonerate because a strong personality can take over or a strange idea might get accepted by all. Intelligence levels plummet when people get together. We live in a strange new world where nobody seems to understand anything going on and lobbyists tell Congress what laws to pass. Data are continually being misconstrued and misinterpreted. Peers will not defend their beliefs and suppress data that don't conform.

Meanwhile millions coming out of schools can't even read and millions more think Peer review is part of the scientific method. The world is on the brink of disaster despite the fact we now know everything. People don't notice the contradictions because groupthink always is part of doublethink.

There isn't even such a thing as "evolution" and everyone thinks they understand the cause, direction, and means. Who needs to know how gravity works or what it is to have a "theory of gravity"? The fact that we know species change does not prove they evolve. Calling it "evolution" is simply a circular argument. Calling gravity a "theory" doesn't mean we understand anything about it.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
No, they vote on it after the the top of the pecking order tells them how to vote.

All scientists pretty much agree on everything and this especially applies to the soft "sciences". If I provide examples you'll ignore it and persist in your beliefs. And the top of the pecking order will probably assign a grad student much smarter than himself to check it out before he signs off on it.



Yes!!! By George I think you have it finally. Experiment always trumps belief and opinion is always irrelevant. Peer review is irrelevant.



There is no alternative for thinking for oneself. If I invent experiment and don't tell anybody the experiment STILL EXISTS. If I create upside down flies and you ignore it they still exist. If a Peer learns something I don't know, it still real even after I don't know it. How can you not understand this? The problem is groupthink. The problem is lack of understanding of metaphysics. The problem is most scientists and most laymen are now engaged not in true science but in a religion characterized by Look and See Science.

Why don;'t you understand that if something is shown by experiment it is real and if something isn't shown by experiment it is a belief.

You believe consciousness doesn't matter to "evolution" but to you "evolution" is just another sacrament or belief to be adopted to show your devoutness. It doesn't matter if this "theory" is founded in experiment or not because you believe in it.


OK, look. Your post isn't really all that bad. There's a lot of truth to your words but the problem is you can see none of the truth in my words. Sure, science in practice is often a collaborative affair and every individual is capable of misthinking experiment or its results. But you don't seem to understand committees and groups are FAR MORE LIKELY to misthink something than an individual. Juries convict or exonerate because a strong personality can take over or a strange idea might get accepted by all. Intelligence levels plummet when people get together. We live in a strange new world where nobody seems to understand anything going on and lobbyists tell Congress what laws to pass. Data are continually being misconstrued and misinterpreted. Peers will not defend their beliefs and suppress data that don't conform.

Meanwhile millions coming out of schools can't even read and millions more think Peer review is part of the scientific method. The world is on the brink of disaster despite the fact we now know everything. People don't notice the contradictions because groupthink always is part of doublethink.

There isn't even such a thing as "evolution" and everyone thinks they understand the cause, direction, and means. Who needs to know how gravity works or what it is to have a "theory of gravity"? The fact that we know species change does not prove they evolve. Calling it "evolution" is simply a circular argument. Calling gravity a "theory" doesn't mean we understand anything about it.

:facepalm: Good grief... sighs

Seriously, you really stop with all the conspiracies.

You are ticked off because you couldn’t get publish, so you have grudges against all Egyptologists.

But now you moving to thread that have nothing to with Egyptian pyramid building, where you can vent on Peer Review with more conspiracy theories.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Good grief... sighs

You are really something!

Until I sound like what you believe a scientist sounds like and say what you think a scientist would say, experiment, metaphysics, and logic are irrelevant.

It simply would never occur to most people today that science could be wrong about anything at all. It has become the most dangerous religion in human history and it will be a minor miracle if it doesn't cause an extinction of the human race.



Why do you invent nonsense out of thin air and fail to address a single point?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You are really something!

Until I sound like what you believe a scientist sounds like and say what you think a scientist would say, experiment, metaphysics, and logic are irrelevant.

It simply would never occur to most people today that science could be wrong about anything at all. It has become the most dangerous religion in human history and it will be a minor miracle if it doesn't cause an extinction of the human race.



Why do you invent nonsense out of thin air and fail to address a single point?
Anyone that has studied the sciences and understands them at all knows that there are often errors made. So what if the uneducated expect too much?

But what science deniers do not understand is that there is a self correcting process in the sciences. And that even though errors are made the magnitude of the errors keep getting smaller and smaller.

You seem to want to take a giant step backwards towards beliefs that we know to be false.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
You seem to want to take a giant step backwards towards beliefs that we know to be false.

No.

I want to take a step forward to understanding consciousness and how it affects "evolution" and experiment.

Just saying science is right (or mebbe a little wrong and getting less wrong) is the position of a priest or a believer. It is not a scientific perspective.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
No.

I want to take a step forward to understanding consciousness and how it affects "evolution" and experiment.

Just saying science is right (or mebbe a little wrong and getting less wrong) is the position of a priest or a believer. It is not a scientific perspective.
So you would prefer to let all the crazy or dishonest hacks, cranks and cheaters to write and publish their pseudoscience untestable and untested claims in scientific books and journals all without peer review to double/triple/quadruple check their writings or without supplying verifiable evidence and data?
 
Top