You Don't Understand...

[Mark Charles Compton]

This would make sense to attempt to observe/discern, and I would agree it likely that certain patterns could be developed such that experts could then suggest or advise on certain courses of action to take that were most probable to have effect with the type (physiological or psychological) of person being treated. But again, the data would be the driving force here. Not personal experience or some explicitly "spiritual" component.

I have a feeling many would push back on their practices being analyzed and having their mystifying depiction diluted.

 

[nPeace]

I thought you started this thread as a way to show that religious people used scientific thinking in order to reach their religious ideas.

Stay tuned.
No answer. I thought you could, or would answer the questions in the OP, since you asked about speculations and such, in science/

 

[nPeace]

Did they reach a conclusion based on knowledge they already had? Yes.

Limited knowledge. Yes.
Reaching a conclusion based on little evidence is good, in your opinion?

Did they just make a random guess they pulled out of their butt? No.

An assumption, based on little evidence. Yes.
In other words, they did not explore other studies, which could have revealed that they were assuming, based on limited knowledge. Other scientists did that.
That's good, in your opinion?

Why is it that anti-science people always hear scientists say "assumption" in the sense of the first definition and always interpret it to mean the second?

Anti-science people?
Well, I will leave the false accusations to you, and avoid putting a name to the bigheads.

First and second definition?
For the record, could you post those here, for all posters, and especially ignorant folk like me. Thanks.

 

[rational experiences]

A man reads the bible.

First human. No science.

So God with human says no science as it's exact.

You say healthy first human man life sacrificed by applying human thesis science technology. As heavens isn't ground mass. Pretty obvious.

Yes says the destroyer. Human owned thinking behaviour a personality disorder. Expressed in the sciences.

All humans are equal first said human legal.

Human theories I now want to control what I believe in.

No human today is not Sacrificed. We survive. A human not saved is a human who dies says fact in science word first observation.

Themes. I'll give you one sickness you'll all heal I then will identify my want of sacrificed life. The attack then saved from attack.

To own machines signals I want caused then it to own healed. So it can continue as I'm not using earth mass constant mass ...a reaction.

In reality that conversation says no science signal either. It would be stopped.

And as life owns so many types of sacrifices they never suddenly would of just healed either. To be one or one only first type of I want....sacrifice theoried. Evilly theoried also.

A man says in his own mind I want to reown it. Is personal.

So a theist could infer to the first one humans sacrifice by bible data.

Is the human behaviour discussed as lifes destroyer.

Employed in science to theme total destruction of biology to the ground state is a personality disorder. Isn't a humans congratulation position.

Is what a human as a scientific liar is.

 

[rational experiences]

Father said if a scientist theoried nuclear ground etching.

His physical sign he personally in safety manually digs up earths mass.

Same position. Yet position number one ground pattern no life was living after.

In his thinking nature he is still alive. Yet it owns the same history. Strings of advice.

Nuclear that man caused in nature himself.

Proven as God O sealed owns no pattern.

Men theoried design patterns as single separations. Thinking.

So he builds a safety mechanism.

A pressurised casing.

If he removed it from his bombs position holding nuclear.... the result in nature is ground etchings as his applied safety measures don't exist in nature.

Is what he agreed to cause irrationally as what I saw first. I viewed to theory is not actually science. It's I want to re own.

 

[rational experiences]

Father also said why humans aren't AI alien.

As human technology uses transmits human images too. Recurved by technology.

If men tried to use own human image Sacrificed of life as a new machine stated transmitter thesis they would destroy their other technologies also.

As earths human dead images were caused by a new amount of ground changed mass. The alien image from a huge amount of ground changed mass about a sink hole terms.

Was already known. How much ground water no longer exists inside stone as seen removed in Moses incident.

Why our heavens water gets used to cool the rest of fallout why ice saviour melts.

Men theoried to stop it higher above ground to put life's position attacked claiming humans owned more metals than rock. As I compare you to God science earths mass image myself.

As science which isn't biology first.

Is what they theoried.

 

[Tiberius]

Stay tuned.
No answer. I thought you could, or would answer the questions in the OP, since you asked about speculations and such, in science/

And in our discussion that lead to you starting this thread, I specifically said, "I am saying that no religious person has ever reached a valid conclusion about a religious claim using the scientific method."

I'm curious as to why we discussed starting a thread on topic A and then you came and started one on topic B instead.

 

[rational experiences]

His other advice.....

Old sink holes no longer owning metal mass is now filled up with our water.

Is why old alien image appears on the ground. By how much non mass plus water is involved.

Proving earth is losing its water going underground first to cool old tunnel system. So lava won't break through.

Origin heavens gas position.

What I pretend I'm creating origins as a human causes.

Seeing they begin cosmic thesis pretending no earth history reactions or caused reactions exists first.

 

[Tiberius]

Limited knowledge. Yes.
Reaching a conclusion based on little evidence is good, in your opinion?

Please support your claim that the scientists had insufficient data upon which to base their conclusion.

An assumption, based on little evidence. Yes.
In other words, they did not explore other studies, which could have revealed that they were assuming, based on limited knowledge. Other scientists did that.
That's good, in your opinion?

Again, please support your claim that the scientists did not have sufficient evidence.

Anti-science people?
Well, I will leave the false accusations to you, and avoid putting a name to the bigheads.

Anti-science people. You know, the ones who claim that science got it wrong, even though they have not done anywhere near enough study on the subject they are dismiss to know what they are talking about. I'm sure you've seen such people.

First and second definition?
For the record, could you post those here, for all posters, and especially ignorant folk like me. Thanks.

I literally did. In the first and second sentences of the post you were quoting. You even replied to them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think that the supernatural is necessarily unfalsifiable. If supernatural phenomena exist, then they would be a sub-set of the natural, by definition. The "nature" referred to in the term "supernatural" comes from several centuries ago when that word had yet to be formally defined in science.

This is why the CIA was able to conduct experiments on topics like remote viewing, precognition, and psychokinesis, which are generally considered supernatural phenomena. Scientists have also studied ghost sightings, seances, meditation, the efficacy of prayer, and so on.

It just happens that the supernatural explanations for these phenomena never stand up to serious scrutiny.

I think that by its very definition, it is unfalsifiable. If phenomena are a subset of the natural, then they cannot be supernatural.

If there is evidence to test, then it is natural and not supernatural. Supernatural is something beyond scientific examination and outside of the laws of nature.

I don't see that this means that something can't be tested in claims of the supernatural, but what is tested will be the natural physical evidence of the phenomena that can be observed, quantified and analyzed.

 

[nPeace]

I read the article on the beetle coloration. The word assumption is wrongly given there.

Thanks for being the first to address that. Thank you.

The word that should have been used is "hypothesis based on existing evidence".

Okay, so you think it should be worded... turning an old hypothesis based on existing (or should that be... previous) evidence on its head.

There is a problem there, I think.
"an idea based on existing evidence", which is shown to be inaccurate, based on thorough research, is an idea that is accepted as true, without verification, or proof:
I think it's important to point that out, don't you?

You see, there are some scientist who think that their ideas should be accepted, even if the results are inconclusive, or other competing ideas are valid.
This can be seen from what I posted here, and the video here.
Notice the words..."[scientists] have too much hubris... too full of [themselves]... believe stories too much" "talked about getting Nobel prizes" "uncritical of glaring problems"

These are men we are dealing with here. Not gods.
They are prone to all the fallible qualities of other men... even greedy religious leaders who are after your money... and politicians.... and merchants...

Assumption in lay person language usually means a belief without evidence. No such thing is accepted in science. In fact the best way to do science is to identify hidden untested assumptions and then test them to see if they are in fact evidence based or not.

Do you think the phrases "accepted without proof", and "accepted without evidence", mean the same thing?

The article notes that the previous hypothesis on coloration had evidence in it's support. So it cannot be called an assumption.

I must have read a different article.
I read...
These colourful markings were assumed to be a warning to predators against eating the beetles, which are able to secrete poisonous chemicals in self-defence. However, this idea was based on earlier studies, which focused on using museum collections of beetle specimens for their analyses. While this method affords researchers a large number of samples, the discolouration of deceased specimens made accurate colour analysis of the beetles impossible. Furthermore, such methodology also fails to take into account the colouration of each beetle's natural environment.

That says, 1) the results could not be accurate based on the focus only on museum collected beetles - limiting the scope of the research.
The conditions of an experiment can change the results drastically, as seen from the fact that 2) the previous methodology failed to take into account the colouration of each beetle's natural environment.

Which would lead to assuming that the conditions are just right to reach a conclusion that is accurate... when that is not the case.
Sort of like assuming that gradualism is true because the rate of activity is steady, or decreasing rates of certain chemicals is steady, or speculating that the early earth had just the right conditions for spontaneous generation to have happened, or that reptiles evolved to mammals... and on and on.

Thus, reaching wrong conclusions, based on assumptions, speculations, and wrong interpretations.

The authors created a counter hypothesis and provided some evidence in their support. It's far from clear if that is enough to overturn the previous hypothesis. Further work needs to be done on this front.

Oh. Further work has to be done on this.... Swell.

Jewel beetle’s bright colored shell serves as camouflage from predators
Artist and naturalist Abbott Handerson Thayer became known as the "father of camouflage" with the publication in 1909 of a book on coloration in animals. He was particularly fascinated by the phenomenon of iridescence: many species exhibit bright, metallic jewel tones that shift hues depending on viewing angle. While iridescence is often viewed as a means of sexual selection - think the magnificent peacock, shimmering his feathers to attract a willing peahen - Thayer suggested that in some species, it was also an effective means of camouflage.

Thayer endured a fair bit of mockery for his ideas, most notably from Theodore Roosevelt, a big game hunter who thought Thayer had grossly overstated his case. Indeed, there has been very little empirical support for Thayer's hypothesis in the ensuing century. But researchers from the University of Bristol have now uncovered the first solid evidence for this in the jewel beetle, according to a new paper in Current Biology.

"The idea of 'iridescence as camouflage' is over 100 years old, but our study is the first to show that these early ignored or rejected ideas that 'changeable or metallic colors are among the strongest factors in animals' concealment' have traction,"
- Kjernsmo.​

Shinny Shells for Camouflage - Not Display
Tan and her team spent 17 months photographing live beetles in 32 locations across four Australian states. She then compared each beetle’s coloration to the color of the leaf it was found on. Taking into account the evolutionary relationship between the different beetle species, Tan discovered that different species of beetles had color patterns similar to those of their host plants.

This suggests that the colorations have a camouflaging effect, rather than serving a predator-deterring (aposematic) function. This camouflage effect was particularly pronounced in beetles which fed on multiple types of plants, as they had to blend into many different environments.

What I don't find, those who are eager to accept a beloved "theory", or hypothesis saying, is... "what seems to be suggested by the results, are far from clear, and is not enough to verify or conclude our idea... further work needs to be done on this front."

What more would you as a scientist think needs to be done to confirm Dr. Tan, and her team's findings?

Scientists often call such a hypotheses by the word assumption, but it is actually not. It is poor wording from the perspective of the scientists. The language skills of most graduate students are not great and it's not something we care overmuch while reporting research.

So what does assumption mean in science?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I don't see that this means that something can't be tested in claims of the supernatural, but what is tested will be the natural physical evidence of the phenomena that can be observed, quantified and analyzed.

So, if I'm understanding correctly; Dark Matter and Dark Energy are elusive, and we cannot detect them directly yet. I presume, as long as we don't wipe ourselves out first, we will one day have a method or device capable of directly detecting these phenomena. If I understand your position, you do not have the same presumptions about the supernatural, as I have about DM/DE?

Hope that makes any sense...

 

[nPeace]

Part of the scientific method is the creation of falsifiable hypotheses. These hypotheses may be sustained over time, increasing their truth value, but they can also be falsified.

You could call these hypotheses assumptions, but I think this would be inaccurate. In science, these "assumptions" are made for the purposes of being tested and peer-reviewed, which I think is probably the opposite of assuming that they are true.

To me, an "assumption" has the connotation of a failure of inference, essentially asserting that which one does not have evidence for. Justified claims are not assumptions, but they should still be tested and peer-reviewed because they might be wrong, which is what we see here.

Yes, and these competing interpretations set forward their own hypotheses for further testing, that way we can empirically show which interpretation is more likely to be correct. This means that scientific consensus eventually forms in proportion to the evidence.

I think I should point out that science is always developing, and just because it does not have concrete answers on everything it is investigating, that does not mean that science is just based on assumption or subjective interpretation.

So when an assumption is accepted as the best explanation, by the scientific community, what is it?
When it is discovered that it is wrong, what is it?

 

[nPeace]

I am confused. It appears here that the group whose hypothesis was eventually confirmed by the greater weight of evidence got accepted. What is problematic here?

1. There were many opposing views, with one view holding stronger than the other, due to "to a larger degree of individuals within the university and scientific community being influenced by", not data, but scientists.

2. They all had evidence. They all pointed to what the results indicated to them.

3. Another "theory" gained favor with the scientific community as the "current best explanation".

So the community can be influenced by the "credentials" of scientists.

There can be evidence for opposing views. One side alone doesn't have to be the sole possessor of evidence.

The current best explanation may be the favored one, and still be wrong.

Okay?

 

[nPeace]

And all the scientists did about this contradiction, was to assume and invent yet another occult agency, "dark matter", instead of revising their prime assumption and contradiction according to good scientific method and practice.
.

Many realize this is common in science today, where philosophy

The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
The sort of vigorous debate briefly sketched above is, we suggest, both typical of many areas of biology (including discussions on species concepts and on a number of ecological theories) and an excellent example of a dialogue at the interface of empirical biology, theoretical biology, and philosophy of biology. These are issues that can be settled decisively neither on empirical grounds (it is hard to imagine what sort of evidence, on its own, could possibly do that) nor even on a theoretical (as opposed to a broader conceptual) level - say, framed in the kind of mathematical terms that are the bread and butter of population genetic theory. The reason for this is that some of the crucial issues are conceptual (i.e., philosophical) in nature and hinge on not just matters of definition (what, exactly, counts as a paradigm?) but also on the entire framework that biologists use to understand what it is that they are doing (e.g., what is the relationship between systems of inheritance and natural selection, or, in multilevel selection theory, what counts as a level and why?). Kuhn (1962) famously referred to this as the “disciplinary matrix” characterizing a given field of inquiry.

 

[nPeace]

I'm shocked! I would be even more shocked if I thought you understood my response.

I don't understand. Sorry.

 

[nPeace]

Unfortunately for religion, we human beings who do not believe in the same things cannot literally go to the source of our frustrations with misinterpretation and observe for ourselves, gather data, and re-assess. For example, one person says that God sending bears to maul a bunch of people over some words said about balding is fine, because the people who were mauled were of at least some certain age, and obviously didn't believe in God or they wouldn't have been hurting poor Elisha's feelings. Whereas another of us might say that it is cruel and evil to send bears out to maul people just for insulting someone. Which of us is correct? Can we ask God, do you think? Can we witness the bear mauling, or listen to the actual words and see the actions of the people who were mauled, to see if there wasn't something even more nefarious going on? Nope. We don't get that luxury.

However - within the purview of science, if someone doesn't like the findings, assumptions, or conclusions wrought by a fellow scientist's research, do you know what they can literally do? If they have the time, equipment and desire, then they can reproduce the experiment, in full, and observe for themselves exactly what there is to see. They can try and look for the exact findings of the other researcher, or they can make a plan to falsify them and see if that works out. If not, perhaps they only reinforce the assumptions and conclusions made by the previous researcher. Perhaps they come to the same conclusions. But the main point is... they have something to literally turn to in order to get concrete answers. You don't have this in religion. You don't. And that is, most assuredly, where religion falls down.

I was more thinking of interpreting scriptures primarily.
It is possible to have a correct understanding of scripture, and determine that it is true.
It's no different to scientist determining that they hold a transitional fossil in their hand, which they insist they interpreted correctly.
Well there is one difference. While they cannot be sure, as they rely on their limited brain, and understanding, Those with God's spirit know they are building on true knowledge and understanding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So when an assumption is accepted as the best explanation, by the scientific community, what is it?
When it is discovered that it is wrong, what is it?

Assumptions are not excepted as the best explanations in science. Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So, if I'm understanding correctly; Dark Matter and Dark Energy are elusive, and we cannot detect them directly yet. I presume, as long as we don't wipe ourselves out first, we will one day have a method or device capable of directly detecting these phenomena. If I understand your position, you do not have the same presumptions about the supernatural, as I have about DM/DE?

Hope that makes any sense...

As I understand it, dark matter and dark energy are hypotheses. At one time the neutrino was only a hypothetical particle, until means were developed to detect them. The hypothesis of the neutrino was not speculation or assumption and was based on existing knowledge discovered in physics.

With the supernatural, there is nothing to hypothesize or detect. Supernatural phenomena are essentially magic leaving no evidence of their magic nature to test. If evidence were left and we could test it, it would not be supernatural.

How would conflicting claims that an unhealthy person was spontaneously healed by either the Christian God, Thor, gnomes, witches or a host of the many other supernatural agents that have been believed in by man? The only physical evidence would be that someone was sick and now is not. Beyond that, any imagined being or phenomenon could be claimed as the source of healing. I certainly have my belief of how that might be and Whom, but I cannot demonstrate it with any objective evidence I know of.

Not sure if that answers your question or even comes close.

 

[Subduction Zone]

With the supernatural, there is nothing to hypothesize or detect. Supernatural phenomena are essentially magic leaving no evidence of their magic nature to test. If evidence were left and we could test it, it would not be supernatural.

Which is why there cannot be any scientific evidence for the supernatural.

I think that part of the problem is that some non-scientific people conflate "evidence" and "proof". There is no proof in science. All that exists is evidence. The evidence may support an idea or oppose it. An idea cannot be proved absolutely. And that is rather similar to evidence in criminal trials. The word "proof" is used there sometimes but even then it is only "proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. That means that even when convicted the court recognizes that there is a chance that the accused did not do the crime. It is why we have the ability to overturn criminal convictions.