Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Harsh86_Patel

Why most fringe theories exist.

149 posts in this topic

There was no life on earth and conditions gradually changed toward the planet's ability

to support life; much like a petrie dish full of agar. Life blew in on the cosmic wind and

"seeded" the planet. The very first life was already had the sequencing necessary to

give rise to species most capable of changing conditions to make them more favorable

to life. Like a bag of grass seeds with different types of seeds there was a constant bar-

age of life falling on the surface and some took root and some fell by the wayside. But

most of these early arrivals ad all the genes necessary to quuickly evolve into species

that could capitalize on extant conditions.

The change in species has less to do with survival of the fittest and much more to do with

genes that were ancient when they came to earth, with changing conditions wrought by

life itself, and with near extinctions that force change and mutation.

Darwin's theory is essentially wrong even though it is much less wrong if the time frame

is greatly extended to the first time life arose on a distant planet. Not only our atoms are

stardust but so too our genes and their origin.

Dont beat around the bush.

Care to answer my questions, point by point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to validate your own theories based on the above understanding??

It's unnecessary.

It's life itself. It's the nature of logic and nature. Our brains are even wired

this way though modern superstition, confusion, and education all conspire

to obscure the facts and their meanings.

Untill 4000 years ago the statements were obvious tautologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clad, are you proposing Panspermia of extra terrestrial origins or directed panspermia??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont beat around the bush.

Care to answer my questions, point by point?

If you can't find the answers in there then you won't understand them phrased another way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clad, are you proposing Panspermia of extra terrestrial origins or directed panspermia??

If I understand your terms, it's the former.

Everytime a sun goes nova it will blow any biosphere on circling planets to the wind. I believe

there is life raining down everywhere. Of course on planets with established life it has almost

no chance to take root because something more suited to the enviroment will already exist on

that very spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this important to your theory.

It seems that sometime around 40 to 60 thousand years ago that HSS suddenly began

acting like humans. It is my considered opinion that the primary difference between humans

and other animals is language; that it is language that allows us to question nature and our

place in it by the ability to pss complex ideas from generation to generation. This makes

history simply the product of improvements and changes in language and our ability to use

it.

...

No one can be absolutely certain when language first began but it was likely a lot farther back than 60,000 years ago. Early modern humans (Homo sapiens) were anatomically identical to us, including their physiological speech mechanisms and brains. The oldest piece of art (can't remember the material from which it was made) was a decorated object dating to 77,000 years ago in South Africa. Art and decoration are unique to Homo sapiens and represent a higher order of consciousness and thinking: there is no practical reason to decorate something unless it is for the sake of ritual or aesthetics.

Likewise, no one can be certain what the first language was—paleolinguistic theories aside—but it also represents a higher order of consciousness and thinking. I do agree with you about the vital step forward that language represents, but it no doubt occurred much earlier than you seem to think.

Conversely, it is not certain if Neanderthals had a language but it's more than likely they did not. It's quite unlikely they possessed the same higher order of consciousness and thinking enjoyed by early modern humans, which is ultimately one of the primary reasons that Homo sapiens supplanted them.

I flatly disagree with your premise that 99% of our genome came from space. As is obvious, no avenue of scientific inquiry would support that claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will ask you the questions once again.

1. is this 99% evolution "occurring before there was any life on earth" applicable only to humans or all the lifeforms on our planet?

2. If 99% evolution occurred even before there was any life on earth, what explains the fossil records? we have dates over every stratum of our soil. how does your 'Evolution occurring before there was life on earth" theory account for these dates? is it applicable to the 1%?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one can be absolutely certain when language first began but it was likely a lot farther back than 60,000 years ago. Early modern humans (Homo sapiens) were anatomically identical to us, including their physiological speech mechanisms and brains. The oldest piece of art (can't remember the material from which it was made) was a decorated object dating to 77,000 years ago in South Africa. Art and decoration are unique to Homo sapiens and represent a higher order of consciousness and thinking: there is no practical reason to decorate something unless it is for the sake of ritual or aesthetics.

I flatly disagree with your premise that 99% of our genome came from space. As is obvious, no avenue of scientific inquiry would support that claim.

I don't know when man began acting human and really don't keep up with the current science

on the issue. Much of what I know is from more than a decade ago.

Modern people have the absurd notion that man is distinct fromother life forms on the planet.

Sure, it's not impossible that space aliens caused the ascent of man by some means but the

bottom line is that man is in no way distinct from animals other than our ability to pass knowledge

through generations by means of language. It's possible that language makes possible forms

of thought that are out of the grasp of other animals but it's still language that makes us distinct.

If this is true and man used to not be distinct then it would seem to follow that language was by

some mneans an acquisition. Since only man has a large speech center in the brain then it's

likely that it was the arisal of the speech center that set man apart because it led to language.

It simply isn't known when this speech center first appeared but logically it would be at that time

that man began behaving differently.

It's true that man was more clever than all other animals but this cleverness was of very limited

utility except to the individual and those able to pass down techniques without language.

As I stated earlier since man shares 50% of his genome with oak trees it would seem to follow

we have far more in common with dinosaurs. So where did all that genetic information come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't there yet.

No, it's pretty much the number one consideration, without which nothing else has much significance.

Yep. You aren't there yet.

Let's leave the cut-and-paste to the side for now. You don't learn anything that way.

Remember this statement, because you will be wincing at it when you realize what science is actually all about.

Instead of assuming you know what they are about, ask questions to confirm that you know what they are about.

No. Harsh, the problem isn't that you are ignorant of specific things, like evolution or how to run an experiment. Anyone can learn (or Google) anything they like to support whatever point they want. The problem is that without understanding the context in which something is applied, or the culture which created the process, all it will be is an armchair observation of a ritual that you only know snippets about. In short, you are ignorant about your own ignorance. You don't understand what you don't understand, because you think that you understand it. Even our discussion here, you believe this is a contest of some kind, and the only way to win is to never admit to losing. That's not scientific thinking. Science is all about losing.

And that is specifically where we need to start. We need to correct your incorrect foundational assumption of what science is and, more importantly, what it isn't.

I used other sources to reply to you as if i would have replied in my own words you or others would have asked for referrences and sources.But if you want to avoid copy-paste i am fine with it. You cannot start with the procedure to tag a theory to be scientific without first defining Empirical science.

It is you who has jumped the Gun,start with the basics.Maybe you will learn something new.Though your talks seem very pompous and presumptive,i feel you have hardly done actual experiments in a lab.

I am still waiting to know what is your version of Science, and i am already wincing because i can see where the steps are leading (i can see you have carefully edited the steps you listed down to not mention the empirical procedure. By any chance,are you a theoretical physicist?

You can start with agreeing or disagreeing with the definitions i have posted, i will then list down the steps of how a theory is considered scientific and also an example of a theory which is supported completely by empirical and experimental evidence. I will give a case study for referrence of a genuine scientific theory contrasted with scientific quackery. Also i will be coming back to the steps you put down for a theory to be tagged as scientific.As a thought experiment i will justify a false theory using all the steps you listed down (since you excluded reproducible experimentation and the empirical procedure my job will be very easy), i will prove to you that Unicorns are real using the steps you listed down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newly revised mutation rates which clearly put the DNA changes, concerning anatomically modern humans (US), within the timeframe I mentioned.

Nope, the earliest physical remains (Omo 1 from Ethiopia) are what the c.200,000 BP date is based on which is supported by genetic studies dealing with mtDNA Haplogroup L at c.192,400 BP. Both of which concern our parent group Homo sapiens, the earliest anatomically modern humans.

J. K. Rowling wrote about a Wizard School somewhere in Scotland. I guess you'll be looking for it next.

cormac

Here are a few assumptions made by evolutionists and geneticists who support evolution while drawing inferrences:

Step 1. Assume evolution is true. Evolution has to be assumed as the very first step in the process of dealing with the genomic data because the authors will be using phylogenetic trees as their means of analyzing the genomic data. Barry G. Hall, author of Phylogenetic Trees Made Easy,explains that building a phylogenetic tree from genomic data is valid only if the sequence similarity present in the genes under consideration is due to shared evolutionary ancestry, a condition called homology.2 If the sequence similarity in the genes is due to common function or common design, then it is invalid to assume that building a phylogenetic tree from the sequences will give you real information.

Starting with the assumption that evolution is true, the authors of the paper identified 26,909 high-quality gene sequences that could be used to build gene trees for humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and rhesus monkeys.

Step 2. Align the sequences of each of the 26,909 genes and generate a gene tree for each of them to yield 26,909 gene trees.

Step 3. Assume that rhesus monkeys were the first of the five species to emerge in the species tree (that is, assume that rhesus monkey is a valid outgroup for building a phylogenetic tree with human and great ape gene sequences) and eliminate any gene trees that don’t show rhesus monkeys as the oldest species. This assumption results in the elimination of 1,409 (five percent) of the gene trees from the analysis. 25,500 gene trees now remain.

Step 4. Assume that genes acquire mutations in a clock-like fashion (molecular clock theory). This assumption is the basis for the belief that one can use the changes in gene sequences from one species to another to calculate the time they diverged from one another. Gene trees that generate divergence times inconsistent with the theoretical species tree are discarded because the authors conclude they aren’t behaving in a clock-like fashion. This process eliminates 2,190 (eight percent) of the gene trees. 23,310 trees now remain in the analysis.

Step 5. Assume that the theoretical species tree is correct and eliminate gene trees that differ drastically from the theoretical tree. This assumption eliminates 11,365 (42 percent) of gene trees, leaving 11,945 trees. The scientists identify the remaining sequences as “phylogenetically informative.” This phrase simply means that the remaining gene trees give them more or less the story of the evolutionary relationship they expected to find. In the end, the researchers have rejected ~56 percent of the initial data because, in one way or another, they don’t match the hypothesized species tree.

Step 6. The researchers can now tackle the paper’s real objective—explaining the inconsistency between so many of the gene trees and the theoretical species tree. Armed with the set of gene trees considered valid and making two additional assumptions—that orangutans emerged ~16 million years ago and that the generation time for the species is 20 years—the scientists calculate the probability that gene trees that do not agree with the species tree would turn up in their analysis.

Fortunately for their research, the probability is exactly what they observed occurring in their data. This calculation serves as a justification for upholding the evolutionary paradigm in spite of so much data being eliminated from consideration because it isn’t consistent with the hypothesis. The authors further conclude that the original population of humans was between 24,000 and 49,000. So, having started with the assumption that evolution is true (see step 1)

Point no.4 highlights one of the biggest assumptions made by proe-evolution geneticist.

Ask yourself how many factors other then time can impact the mutation rate?

If you start with the assumption that modern HSS are 200,000 years old and then interpret gentic data in that light then ofcourse you will come back to the same date, but it is circular reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used other sources to reply to you as if i would have replied in my own words you or others would have asked for referrences and sources.But if you want to avoid copy-paste i am fine with it.

That's precisely what I want. The objective is not to better your Google-fu. It is to better your understanding of science.

You cannot start with the procedure to tag a theory to be scientific without first defining Empirical science.

And, with this sentence, you finally answered my question regarding whether you understood the pre-requisites of scientific methodology.

Although, really...the "Pre-" should have tipped you off.

It is you who has jumped the Gun,start with the basics.

This is as basic as you can get. This is what happens before it enters the realm of science.

Maybe you will learn something new.

It is a wonderful thing to learn something new, and more than once I have learned something new from my students.

Though your talks seem very pompous and presumptive,i feel you have hardly done actual experiments in a lab.

Why you believe that doing experiments in a lab requires one to be pompous and presumptive, I do not know. What I do know, however, is that you are still under the impression that this is a contest or debate of some kind.

I am still waiting to know what is your version of Science, and i am already wincing because i can see where the steps are leading (i can see you have carefully edited the steps you listed down to not mention the empirical procedure.

Then you are not aware of one of the most powerful and devastating axioms that surround these pre-requisites.

Do you know what it is?

By any chance,are you a theoretical physicist?

Nope. I am a marketing and negotiation instructor.

You can start with agreeing or disagreeing with the definitions i have posted, i will then list down the steps of how a theory is considered scientific and also an example of a theory which is supported completely by empirical and experimental evidence.

No. You don't know enough about science to teach it.

I will give a case study for referrence of a genuine scientific theory contrasted with scientific quackery.

Good, we can use it as an example when we discuss the pre-requisites.

]Also i will be coming back to the steps you put down for a theory to be tagged as scientific.As a thought experiment i will justify a false theory using all the steps you listed down (since you excluded reproducible experimentation and the empirical procedure my job will be very easy), i will prove to you that Unicorns are real using the steps you listed down.[/b]

I look forward to it. If you are unable to do so, will you be willing to admit that maybe your definition of science isn't as accurate as you thought, and, as you promised earlier, be ready to listen to someone else talk about it?

Edit: Incidentally, you are aware that the pre-requisites of science are not the be-all-and-end-all to science, right? That there are other steps, including the empirical one which come much later? You aren't going to pretend that the one post that I made and asked if you understood, after which you spent 4 pages trying to do things your way, is the entirety of my lesson. I did tell you it was going to be a long road.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's precisely what I want. The objective is not to better your Google-fu. It is to better your understanding of science.

And, with this sentence, you finally answered my question regarding whether you understood the pre-requisites of scientific methodology.

Although, really...the "Pre-" should have tipped you off.

This is as basic as you can get. This is what happens before it enters the realm of science.

It is a wonderful thing to learn something new, and more than once I have learned something new from my students.

Why you believe that doing experiments in a lab requires one to be pompous and presumptive, I do not know. What I do know, however, is that you are still under the impression that this is a contest or debate of some kind.

Then you are not aware of one of the most powerful and devastating axioms that surround these pre-requisites.

Do you know what it is?

Nope. I am a marketing and negotiation instructor.

No. You don't know enough about science to teach it.

Good, we can use it as an example when we discuss the pre-requisites.

I look forward to it. If you are unable to do so, will you be willing to admit that maybe your definition of science isn't as accurate as you thought, and, as you promised earlier, be ready to listen to someone else talk about it?

Edit: Incidentally, you are aware that the pre-requisites of science are not the be-all-and-end-all to science, right? That there are other steps, including the empirical one which come much later? You aren't going to pretend that the one post that I made and asked if you understood, after which you spent 4 pages trying to do things your way, is the entirety of my lesson. I did tell you it was going to be a long road.

Please spare the trash talk, come to the point put your definition of Empirical science for all of us to read. Also please explain why you have not included any mention of the empirical method in your description of the scientific method.

Here is the scientific method described with a much better explanations and examples:

Scientific method has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years[4] and is the process by which science is carried out.[8] Because science builds on previous knowledge, it consistently improves our understanding of the world.[9] The scientific method also improves itself in the same way,[10] meaning that it gradually becomes more effective at generating new knowledge.[11] For example, the concept of falsification (first proposed in 1934) reduces confirmation bias by formalizing the attempt to disprovehypotheses rather than prove them.[12]

The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct.[13] There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, they are better considered as general principles.[14] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (or to the same degree), and not always in the same order. As noted by William Whewell (1794–1866), "invention, sagacity, [and] genius"[15] are required at every step: Formulation of a question: The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in "Why is the sky blue?", but can also be open-ended, as in "Does sound travel faster in air than in water?" or "How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?" This stage also involves looking up and evaluating previous evidence from other scientists, including experience. If the answer is already known, a different question that builds on the previous evidence can be posed. When applying the scientific method to scientific research, determining a good question can be very difficult and affects the final outcome of the investigation.[16] Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on the knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe. The hypothesis might be very specific, e.g., Einstein's equivalence principle or Francis Crick's "DNA makes RNA makes protein",[17] or it might be broad, e.g., unknown species of life dwell in the unexplored depths of the oceans. A statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about some population. For example, the population might be people with a particular disease. The conjecture might be that a new drug will cure the disease in some of those people. Terms commonly associated with statistical hypotheses are null hypothesis andalternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is the conjecture that the statistical hypothesis is false, e.g., that the new drug does nothing and that any cures are due to chance effects. Researchers normally want to show that the null hypothesis is false. The alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome, e.g., that the drug does better than chance. A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested. Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. The less likely that the prediction would be correct simply by coincidence, the stronger evidence it would be if the prediction were fulfilled; evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is not already known, due to the effects of hindsight bias (see also postdiction). Ideally, the prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis from likely alternatives; if two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes' Theorem.) Testing: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems. Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.[18] Experiments should be designed to minimize possible errors, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example, tests of medical treatments are commonly run as double-blind tests. Test personnel, who might unwittingly reveal to test subjects which samples are the desired test drugs and which are placebos, are kept ignorant of which are which. Such hints can bias the responses of the test subjects. Failure of an experiment does not necessarily mean the hypothesis is false. Experiments always depend on several hypotheses, e.g., that the test equipment is working properly, and a failure may be a failure of one of the auxiliary hypotheses. (See the Duhem-Quine thesis.) Experiments can be conducted in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars (using one of the working rovers), and so on. Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated gradually. Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. In cases where an experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis such as a chi-squared testmay be required. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated at any stage in the process. Many iterations may be required to gather sufficient evidence to answer a question with confidence, or to build up many answers to highly specific questions in order to answer a single broader question.

This model underlies the scientific revolution.[19] One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of forming questions and subsequently testing them,[4] an approach which was advocated by Galileo in 1638 with the publication of Two New Sciences.[20] The current method is based on a hypothetico-deductive model[21] formulated in the 20th century, although it has undergone significant revision since first proposed (for a more formal discussion, see below).

Now please put your definition of Empirical science for all of us poor souls to read. Instead of your stupid comments please add some value to the discussion.I don't need to learn what is the scientific method from you, i am more interested in knowing your notions of Science and Scientific method. Please put what you know in a post,don't need your lecturing and trash talk. Empirical Science is not a subject of Negotiation,it is black and white and that is the beauty of it.If we can rise about empty rhetoric then probably you will end up learning something.Up until know it seems you are deliberately trying to skip the Empirical procedure involved in the scientific method to mislead people.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harsh, rather than copy paste stuff from wikipedia (referring to wikipedia is fine enough) to substantiate your theories/views, how about reading the matter and presenting them in your own words?

It would look more realistic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harsh, rather than copy paste stuff from wikipedia (referring to wikipedia is fine enough) to substantiate your theories/views, how about reading the matter and presenting them in your own words?

It would look more realistic.

Spartan, it would be used against me and referrences will be demanded. Also i am posting the wiki version inorder to highlight how Aquatus has failed to mention the integral empirical procedure in the scioentific method while listing steps for the same in his own words.

Our argument started when i said that i believe that empirical science i.e science based on appropriate experiments which can be reproduced and give specific measurable and empirical results that can be predicted by a proposed hypothesis to explain a real world phenomenon/observation(which will have riders to make it falsifiable) is the only real science, rest all is subject to interpretation.

I have put my version of the scientific method in one line above in my own words.It is relatively simple and not a subject of debate.LIke i said the reason i posted the Wiki Version is because i found that Aquatus is trying to ignore this integral part of the scientific method, and for others who are reading it only my word against his would not be sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harsh, rather than copy paste stuff from wikipedia (referring to wikipedia is fine enough) to substantiate your theories/views, how about reading the matter and presenting them in your own words?

It would look more realistic.

And mabye actually get read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this important to your theory.

It seems that sometime around 40 to 60 thousand years ago that HSS suddenly began

acting like humans. It is my considered opinion that the primary difference between humans

and other animals is language; that it is language that allows us to question nature and our

place in it by the ability to pss complex ideas from generation to generation. This makes

history simply the product of improvements and changes in language and our ability to use

it.

I applaud you for defining "science" but have come to believe that this definition is incomplete.

There are probably many ways to use logic and observation to learn about the world but a

more primitive means rather than observation> hypothesis> experiment> conclusion is obser-

vation> hypothesis> observation> conclusion.

Ultimately our understanding of nature is necessarily founded on logic and expressed by lan-

guage as well as passed generationally by language.

I agree there are many ways to use logic and logic/reasoning is a predecessor of science. What i was trying to clarify is what comes in the bound of Real Science i.e Empirical Science (i.e not based on theory alone) and how the word scientific is being misused by Quacks indulging in Pseudoscience, for example the evolutionist will tell you that modern HSS arrived 200,000 years ago. He will say this because the oldest fossil records of HSS was found to be 200,000 years old(he forgets that he has not dug up the whole world and he will not clarify that it is probable anb not certain that HSS is 200,000 years old), he will claim monkeys turned into men and hypothesize based on nothing but air. He will claim that Darwinistic Evolution is spontaneous,unpredictable,cannot be measured,cannot be observed as an experiment in the lab but still is an integral part of Science and hence a fact.

Though i acknowledge your pointing out the deficiency in science, to give a single word for it: "consciousness". Science doesn't acknowledge consciousness currently in the perception of reality, for eg- Schrodinger's cat which requires an outside conscious observer. Whereas Logic and Reasoning are based on "Consciousness".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kinds of definitions of science and the scientific method that one gets in the first chapter of high school science textbooks stems from Bacon and in my opinion is, while accurate, so incomplete as to be misleading.

I have long pondered how to distinguish the scientific claims of real scientists and those of the earth-warming deniers or the creationists or the alien visitations or the ancient technological civilizationists and so on. It is not easy and there are no single tests. Still, I know it when I see it. The pseudos have a certain flavor about them that one rarely tastes when reading real science, even real popular science.

Probably the best clue is the tendency to stack the deck -- to pick and choose evidence and to rationalize if not ignore evidence that does not support the thesis. Now all theories have to do this to some extent, since the universe is untidy and there generally are exceptions to every rule, but, still, deck stacking is the most common characteristic. To recognize this, however, one must be informed. The uninformed person doesn't know about the evidence that isn't being mentioned, and is therefore more easily converted.

Still, although this leads me to follow the experts most of the time, as I am hardly expert in any but a few fields, I generally know enough to recognize deck stacking when I see it.

A second clue is a certain dogmatism -- a zeal for the thesis and reasons the advocate has for wanting it to be true that go beyond just normal human curiosity. Here of course we see religion inserting itself, but egos can be involved, or nationalism or racism or sense of excitement, or desire for attention. When one detects the probable presence of these external factors, one should certainly have their guard up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kinds of definitions of science and the scientific method that one gets in the first chapter of high school science textbooks stems from Bacon and in my opinion is, while accurate, so incomplete as to be misleading.

I have long pondered how to distinguish the scientific claims of real scientists and those of the earth-warming deniers or the creationists or the alien visitations or the ancient technological civilizationists and so on. It is not easy and there are no single tests. Still, I know it when I see it. The pseudos have a certain flavor about them that one rarely tastes when reading real science, even real popular science.

Probably the best clue is the tendency to stack the deck -- to pick and choose evidence and to rationalize if not ignore evidence that does not support the thesis. Now all theories have to do this to some extent, since the universe is untidy and there generally are exceptions to every rule, but, still, deck stacking is the most common characteristic. To recognize this, however, one must be informed. The uninformed person doesn't know about the evidence that isn't being mentioned, and is therefore more easily converted.

Still, although this leads me to follow the experts most of the time, as I am hardly expert in any but a few fields, I generally know enough to recognize deck stacking when I see it.

A second clue is a certain dogmatism -- a zeal for the thesis and reasons the advocate has for wanting it to be true that go beyond just normal human curiosity. Here of course we see religion inserting itself, but egos can be involved, or nationalism or racism or sense of excitement, or desire for attention. When one detects the probable presence of these external factors, one should certainly have their guard up.

You have spoken truely.The reason i was insisting on defining Empirical method first is because that is the only way to distinguish bad science/pseudoscience from real science.Without having a controlled experiment to justify all assumptions of a suggested hypothesis to explain an observation in the physical world, it is easy to pass off anything as science.Science without experimentation and the empirical method is nothing but 'Religion' i.e a matter of faith and choice and not a universal fact (if there are any).

Reproducible experiments are crucial to the cause of science,without which it will be as good as listening to religious gurus. Bacon's definition is till date the best way to describe real science, rest all based only on theory is more of thought experiments and can swing in any direction.

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.[2] Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing.[3] Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science.[4] "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.[4] Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among public school science teachers and newspaper reporters.[5]

The demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience has ethical political implications, as well as philosophical and scientific issues.[6] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[7]Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, medical quackery, and occult beliefs combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[8]

The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative, because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science.[9] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience usually dispute the characterization.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reproducible experiments are a good thing to have on your side when arguing for a thesis, but they can have multiple possible interpretations, and they aren't always possible. A good rational chain of reasoning and sensible thought experiments are also helpful, and often this is all a chalkboard of equations really is. So also are just simple observations, even if unrepeatable, when the subject is not something likely to be misunderstood, like an astronomer's report of spotting a moon near Pluto.

I think to some extent we all deviate from the "straight and narrow" of mainstream science here and there. I employ certain Chinese herbs for my hay fever much more successfully and cheaply than Western drugs, and of course have had acupuncture many times. Whether it is placebo or not I can't prove, but I think not. I am also not a "physicalist" in my thinking, tending to the view that mind and sentience and intelligence have non-physical components and that the concepts of right and wrong are objective realities even though our conclusions are often led astray by our desires and cultural biases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please spare the trash talk,

I have made no "trash talk".

come to the point put your definition of Empirical science for all of us to read.

It will come in its own time. I have no intention of starting in the middle.

Also please explain why you have not included any mention of the empirical method in your description of the scientific method.

Because prior to getting to the empirical method, we need to understand what the purpose of using the empirical method is.

Here is the scientific method described with a much better explanations and examples:

The only person's definition of science that is relevant here is yours.

Now please put your definition of Empirical science for all of us poor souls to read.

No. That would only encourage you to continue believing that you understand what science is. If you have a specific question about the pre-requisites of science, I will answer that, if not, however, I will continue to explain the pre-requisites, because some of the statements you have made here indicate that you do not understand some important foundational concepts.

Instead of your stupid comments please add some value to the discussion.

I offered you a chance to learn what real science was, you agreed, then followed me into another discussion and berated me for responding to other posts instead of focusing solely on you. l posted my first lesson within the hour, which was ignored for four days, and which you did not reply to until I asked you if you wished to carry through learning about science.

Behaviour shines through, Harsh. You berate me for not responding to you immediately, then ignore my response till forced. You accuse me of "trash talk", yet the only direct insults we see come from you. If you do not wish to learn what science is, then I won't waste my time, however, you do not get to pretend that you understand science.

I don't need to learn what is the scientific method from you,

Probably not. You do, however, need to learn what science is.

i am more interested in knowing your notions of Science and Scientific method.

The fastest way to learn them is by reading the information I offer and asking questions about it.

Please put what you know in a post,

I promised several people long ago to stop doing that.

don't need your lecturing and trash talk.

You may not want them, but you do need it. And there has been no trash talk.

Empirical Science is not a subject of Negotiation,it is black and white and that is the beauty of it.

It isn't as black and white as all that, but yes, it does have a refreshing directness to it that allows for quick, easy to understand, follow, and replicate, knowledge. This does not, in any way, invalidate other methods of research.

If we can rise about empty rhetoric then probably you will end up learning something.

That is the second time you have said that. You haven't actually posted any information, however.

Up until know it seems you are deliberately trying to skip the Empirical procedure involved in the scientific method to mislead people.

I have already told you several times that we are starting at the beginning (actually, even before the beginning) and that the empirical method, along with the other types of research, will be discussed when we get to that part, not before.

The only thing that is keeping you from talking about Empirical research is your refusal to address everything that comes before it. I have already made my first post. You have refused to discuss it (indeed, you outright dismissed it with nothing more than an incorrect guess at what it might mean). The ball is in your court, Harsh. The river is right there, but you have to decide if you want to continue pretending to not be thirsty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes all hypothesis start on the chalk board, but they have to followed up by experimentation for confirmation.Nowdays many chalk board assertions are being passed of as scientific.For eg- speciation.

Chinese herbs,Ayurvedic medicine and various forms of alternative medicine are still being used despite of western medicine. This itself is a testament of the users on the effectivity of these alternative medicines.

Mind,sentience and intelligence are non-physical entirely. They constitute 'Conciousness' which is a concept still not acknowledged by science.The theoretical physicists,

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have made no "trash talk". It will come in its own time. I have no intention of starting in the middle. Because prior to getting to the empirical method, we need to understand what the purpose of using the empirical method is. The only person's definition of science that is relevant here is yours. No. That would only encourage you to continue believing that you understand what science is. If you have a specific question about the pre-requisites of science, I will answer that, if not, however, I will continue to explain the pre-requisites, because some of the statements you have made here indicate that you do not understand some important foundational concepts. I offered you a chance to learn what real science was, you agreed, then followed me into another discussion and berated me for responding to other posts instead of focusing solely on you. l posted my first lesson within the hour, which was ignored for four days, and which you did not reply to until I asked you if you wished to carry through learning about science. Behaviour shines through, Harsh. You berate me for not responding to you immediately, then ignore my response till forced. You accuse me of "trash talk", yet the only direct insults we see come from you. If you do not wish to learn what science is, then I won't waste my time, however, you do not get to pretend that you understand science. Probably not. You do, however, need to learn what science is. The fastest way to learn them is by reading the information I offer and asking questions about it. I promised several people long ago to stop doing that. You may not want them, but you do need it. And there has been no trash talk. It isn't as black and white as all that, but yes, it does have a refreshing directness to it that allows for quick, easy to understand, follow, and replicate, knowledge. This does not, in any way, invalidate other methods of research. That is the second time you have said that. You haven't actually posted any information, however. I have already told you several times that we are starting at the beginning (actually, even before the beginning) and that the empirical method, along with the other types of research, will be discussed when we get to that part, not before. The only thing that is keeping you from talking about Empirical research is your refusal to address everything that comes before it. I have already made my first post. You have refused to discuss it (indeed, you outright dismissed it with nothing more than an incorrect guess at what it might mean). The ball is in your court, Harsh. The river is right there, but you have to decide if you want to continue pretending to not be thirsty.

I see a lot of empty words coming from a person who claims that he knows how Science works.

1.Empirical method i.e testing experimentation is a pre-requisite to any scientific claim

2.You are still stuck on the hypothesis step only, a hypothesis is theoretical and for it to become scientific it has to have a empirical and experimental backing. A hypothesis is not considered scientific until it is verified by testing. Your focus is only on formation of hypothesis,but it is worth little value until proven by testing,experimentation.

3.Empirical method is not a method of research but a method of verification which is obligatory for deeming any sort of hypothesis or suggestion to be scientific.

4.Empirical procedure is where science starts and unverified opinions stop,so you can very well call it is the foundation of real science i.e where real science begins and mere conjecture stops.

5.I understand important foundational concepts required to Hypothesize, but it is not considered real science until verified by empirical method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chinese herbs,Ayurvedic medicine and various forms of alternative medicine are still being used despite of western medicine. This itself is a testament of the users on the effectivity of these alternative medicines.

Mind,sentience and intelligence are non-physical entirely. They constitute 'Conciousness' which is a concept still not acknowledged by science.The theoretical physicists,

I know nothing abut Ayurvedic medicine, but I do know that certain Chinese herbs are cheaper and more effective than Western counterparts. I think the problem is that there is no profit in going through all the tests the Americans demand. The US needs to devise some way to incorporate these things into their system -- the best I ever get from an American doctor is, "This has never been tested on humans." --Utter nonsense -- Chinese have been using them for ages.

I would not go so far as to say that things like mind and sentience and intelligence (which I think are just different aspects of what the Chinese call Tao) are not acknowledged by science. Plenty of neurologists are stuck on the "qualia" issue -- the reductionionists just refusing to admit it is a problem -- I really don't think they "get it" in their tight box -- and others referring to it with expressions such as "the deepest as-yet unsolved mystery.What we have is the boundary between physical sensation and sensual experience, and it is tempting indeed to use the "god of the gaps" to bridge this, so we must temper our mystical ambitions here and leave room for science to someday come up with some insight (although what it might be, or what even its nature might be, is utterly beyond me).

We also have the "presence" that was alluded to briefly in another theme that one experiences so often, not just when meditating. This universal religious/psychological phenomenon is little acknowledged or studied, and sometimes identified as left and right brains detecting each other. This is just silly. There is something "out there" that leads Westerners to think "God" and Chinese to think "Tao." The two presences are different: God speaks to you, the Tao is just there, but the experience is similar enough that it needs attention.

Edited by Frank Merton
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know nothing abut Ayurvedic medicine, but I do know that certain Chinese herbs are cheaper and more effective than Western counterparts. I think the problem is that there is no profit in going through all the tests the Americans demand. The US needs to devise some way to incorporate these things into their system -- the best I ever get from an American doctor is, "This has never been tested on humans." --Utter nonsense -- Chinese have been using them for ages.

I would not go so far as to say that things like mind and sentience and intelligence (which I think are just different aspects of what the Chinese call Tao) are not acknowledged by science. Plenty of neurologists are stuck on the "qualia" issue -- the reductionionists just refusing to admit it is a problem -- I really don't think they "get it" in their tight box -- and others referring to it with expressions such as "the deepest as-yet unsolved mystery.What we have is the boundary between physical sensation and sensual experience, and it is tempting indeed to use the "god of the gaps" to bridge this, so we must temper our mystical ambitions here and leave room for science to someday come up with some insight (although what it might be, or what even its nature might be, is utterly beyond me).

We also have the "presence" that was alluded to briefly in another theme that one experiences so often, not just when meditating. This universal religious/psychological phenomenon is little acknowledged or studied, and sometimes identified as left and right brains detecting each other. This is just silly. There is something "out there" that leads Westerners to think "God" and Chinese to think "Tao." The two presences are different: God speaks to you, the Tao is just there, but the experience is similar enough that it needs attention.

Various Ayurvedic medicines are being patented in other countries outside India.Their nature is mostly Herbal.

Consciousness or a Universal Consciousness called 'Brhman' is the foundation of the Vedic Religion,hence the assertion that God is in Everything, alive or dead or non-living.The body is a vessel and 'Consciousness' is a part of a universal consciousness that is expressed through the body.

The theoretical physicists have come up with 12 dimensions just to side step the issue of a 'Conscious Observer'.

Most westerners cannot think of God other then being a 'Sky Daddy'. They cannot think of God as an Abstract Universal Consciousness.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.