Expressing bad attitudes to historians and critical scholarship without realizing it

[Roy]

@RichardG

All this talk about standards and rules and self righteousness (not scientific word but accurate here)! You are basically claiming perfection.that cannot be argued with. It is eletist. Only people trained and taught (By scientists) can take part. Everyone else is barred as “ignorant”!

There is no place for latteral or original thinking.

The most well-known scientists are those that came up with and provided evidence for original ideas. Wegener. Einstein. Margulis. Darwin. Kepler. Etc., etc., etc.

There is plenty of room in science for lateral and original thinking.

What there is not room for is laziness or lies.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

original ideas.

The philosophy of Original thinking

Which are then confirmed or denied by opinions

You cannot get away from the fact that Science is as vulnerable as any activity and has subjective elements because the human mind is, by definition subjective.

Richard

[Roy]

@RichardG

@Roy

original ideas.

The philosophy of Original thinking

Which are then confirmed or denied by opinions

Ideas in science are confirmed or denied by data and evidence, not opinions.

If you had read and understood the source you just cited, you’d know that it says that you should not confirm or deny ideas based on opinions, because “they can always be malicious or absurd” and “Opinions without sound foundations are senseless”.

So either you didn’t read your own source, in which case you’re lazy, or you did, in which case you’re incompetent or lying.

Either way you’re good for nothing more than and .

As usual.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

Ideas in science are confirmed or denied by data and evidence, not opinions.

And that is your opinion.

And their opinion.

The Scientific method is a philosophy.

All theories and scientific “laws” are consensus.

Scientists are humans with human brains. And any decision/conclusion made by a human brain is subjective.

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

You have decided what the facts mean. That means that you have an opinion

I have constructed a hypothesis and demonstrated how it is supported by objective data. That’s not an opinion.

@RichardG

Your facts will always have a philosophical element, whether you like it or not, because Philosophy is about the the nature of facts (knowledge).

The philosophy here is empiricism which are sense based and objective facts. Is empiricism what you are talking about? Do you dislike the fact that science requires empirical measurements while excluding subjective beliefs?

@RichardG

As I have been arguing with you for some time now, the thrust of Genetic matching is based on a subjective environment within which ToE is deemed a fact.

What is this subjective environment? Either a base is the same or it is different between two species. That’s as objective as it gets.

@RichardG

Even your alogorythms are presupposed to prove what you expect to see. it is not impartial. It is subjective on ToE.

Can you support this with any evidence? How are the algorithms not impartial or presupposed to prove what we expect to see? How are they subjective?

Added in edit:

Here is a comparison of sections from the human and chimp genomes.

102836535 acacagccagattccaggttacagggttattctgcttccgatcagataaa 102836584
>>>>>>>>> |||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||| >>>>>>>>>
098675847 acacagccaggttccaggttacaaggttattctgcttccgatcagataaa 098675896

102836585 ttctccacttgcttggaaactctcatcacctatttctttcttccccaaaa 102836634
>>>>>>>>> ||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||| >>>>>>>>>
098675897 ttctccacttgcttggaaactctaatcacctatttctttcttccccaaaa 098675946

102836635 atcctcctcccttttccctgcattgcagcctaggaagcacagcaactatt 102836684
>>>>>>>>> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| >>>>>>>>>
098675947 atcctcctcccttttccctgcattgcagtctaggaagcacagcaactatt 098675996

102836685 tcaaaacaccaggggaccctttagtgctctgcaaacatggtgatcaggtt 102836734
>>>>>>>>> |||||||||||  ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >>>>>>>>>
098675997 tcaaaacaccacaggaccctttagtgctctgcaaacatggtgatcaggtt 098676046

102836735 acctttcaataaagatcatcagcctccacttccttaccttgagtagaaaa 102836784
>>>>>>>>> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >>>>>>>>>
098676047 acctttcaataaagatcatcagcctccacttccttaccttgagtagaaaa 098676096

102836785 caaaatctttttttttttttaaactttgggcacatggaaaggtaagtatt 102836834
>>>>>>>>> |||||||||||||||||| ||  ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >>>>>>>>>
098676097 caaaatctttttttttttata--ctttgggcacatggaaaggtaagtatt 098676144

102836835 tgcaaatgactggcatgggcaatgactgacaactcaggaaagacagacaa 102836884
>>>>>>>>> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||| >>>>>>>>>
098676145 tgcaaatgactggcatgggcaatgactgacaactcaggaaagacaggcaa 098676194

102836885 aaaatctccctgggaattagtagcagcaataagatagggtggaggagaag 102836934
>>>>>>>>> ||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >>>>>>>>>
098676195 aaaatctccctgggagttagtagcagcaataagatagggtggaggagaag 098676244

There are 11 base differences between the two genomes, 9 substitution mutations and one insertion/deletion (i.e. indel). This gives us an overall similarity of 97.25%.

How is this not objective?

[Roy]

@RichardG

@Roy

Ideas in science are confirmed or denied by data and evidence, not opinions.

And that is your opinion.

And their opinion.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@RichardG

You cannot get away from the fact that Science is as vulnerable as any activity and has subjective elements because the human mind is, by definition subjective.

That things fall down is subjective?

@RichardG

All theories and scientific “laws” are consensus.

That things falling down and the orbit of the moon is due to gravity is consensus, and the opinion of someone who denies this is as valid as the consensus?

@RichardG

The Scientific method is a philosophy.

Philosophers could argue back and forth for centuries and not resolve whether matter is indefinitely divisible. That is subjective. Science acknowledges that people are subjective. That is the whole point of putting ideas to the test. Science says shut up already - try it and see what happens. Don’t guess, just measure the thing.

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

Richard P. Feynman.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

How is this not objective?

What is your conclusion?

Whatever your answer, that is subjective.

@rsewell

@RichardG

The Scientific method is a philosophy.

Philosophers could argue back and forth for centuries and not resolve whether matter is indefinitely divisible

That is not the point.

Any methodology is a philosophy.

You rphilosophy is to believe what you can see, measure or conclude.

Sorry, and all that.

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

What is your conclusion?

Whatever your answer, that is subjective.

So you have already decided it is subjective before seeing anything? Talk about a bias . . .

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

So you have already decided it is subjective before seeing anything? Talk about a bias .

No just real.

All I am doing is trying to kock you off your high horse.

Richard

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@RichardG

Any methodology is a philosophy.

You rphilosophy is to believe what you can see, measure or conclude.

Yes, but do you have any better ideas?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@rsewell

@RichardG

You rphilosophy is to believe what you can see, measure or conclude.

Yes, but do you have any better ideas?

That isn’t the point.

I am not claiming that the philosophy is false or inappropriate, only that it is a philosophy

And with it comes the subjectivity that scientists claim does not exist…

Also, it does not migrate to all of life, especially the spiritual side.

Richard

[Andy7 (Andy)]

@RichardG

All this talk about standards and rules and self righteousness (not scientific word but accurate here)! You are basically claiming perfection.that cannot be argued with. It is eletist. Only people trained and taught (By scientists) can take part. Everyone else is barred as “ignorant”!

There is no place for latteral or original thinking.

Richard

With respect, I don’t think it’s fair to “play the elitist card” when talking with people who have studied a field in depth, and may even have obtained an advanced degree, whether they be scientists or historians.

FWIW, I see @T_aquaticus answering many questions (made in both good and questionable faith) with patience and humility. That’s not my idea of elitist.

That is my 2 cents on a thread about attitudes toward scholarship .

[heymike3]

I do wonder how science addresses this possibility experimentally

This thing cannot keep on going so that we are always going to discover more and more new laws. If we do, it will become boring that there are so many levels one underneath the other.

Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law

[heymike3]

@Vinnie

Remember that history is a practical and probability based-judgment. Make sure that you fully understand how the mechanics of history work before attempting to tackle the philosophy of history.

Whether the historian can admit the very real possibility that Israel was God’s uniquely elected nation makes for a good litmus test in my opinion

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

Certainly creation is fundamentally nonrandom from a theological point of view. But, as Ecclesiastes points out, we do not know that from looking at the physical evidence; the “under the sun” data alone merely leave us with a big question mark when it comes to ultimate meaning. Likewise, Genesis 1 tells us that the forces of nature are merely patterns in God’s creation; they do not have purposes or plans of their own. Thus, the study of these natural patterns is not the way to detect the purpose; ID’s “God hypothesis” approach is fundamentally off track. Of course, we may say “Hmm… There are patterns to everything, and we can understand them. Why is the universe that way?”, but the pattern does not answer that question. If we approach creation, already knowing about God, we know to praise Him for the wonder and glory and wisdom while trusting Him for the parts that don’t seem to make sense.

The statement that a particular component of creation, such as aspects of the process of evolution, are “random” should mean that our best formula for them, if we have a formula at all, is not adequate to predict between multiple possible outcomes. People often try to turn such “randomness” into a statement about ultimate cause [whether to deny the ultimate cause or to deny the apparent randomness], but the science cannot justify (nor disprove) such a claim.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

All I am doing is trying to kock you off your high horse.

In that pursuit you don’t seem to care if what you say is true.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

And with it comes the subjectivity that scientists claim does not exist…

It is subjectivity that you can’t even point to.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

All I am doing is trying to kock you off your high horse.

In that pursuit you don’t seem to care if what you say is true.

Show me the lie.

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

nd with it comes the subjectivity that scientists claim does not exist…

It is subjectivity that you can’t even point to.

Yes I have.

@RichardG

@rsewell

@RichardG

You rphilosophy is to believe what you can see, measure or conclude.

Yes, but do you have any better ideas?

That isn’t the point.

I am not claiming that the philosophy is false or inappropriate, only that it is a philosophy

And with it comes the subjectivity that scientists claim does not exist…

IOW if you use your brain you are being subjective.

Richard