And how can I examine the data? What methodology must I use?
Oh yes, the scientific one. No other view is permissible
That is also a dogma. The use of the scientific method. Oh yes, and the use of an algorithm .
You know what a conclusion is?
Richard
(a judgement or decision reached by reasoning)
Bovine faeces. You can use any methodology you want. Though your choice of method will naturally affect how seriously you are taken.
My destination.
Your starting point.
You are free to use whatever methodology you want to use. All we ask is that you be clear on what methodology you are using. It would also be interesting to hear why you refuse to use the scientific method.
Good heavens – that’s not a dogma. It isn’t even always true.
I’d be happy to entertain any alternative view that offered a coherent explanation for all of the existing data. I’ve never seen anyone offer one. Would you care to try?
There are huge public databases of complete genomes from many, many species. Use any methodology you like to explain what’s in them.
Precisely. You only value your methodology.
If I research I will be presented with the data in a way that will force (lead? me to the same conclusions as you.
I am not allowed to “think” for myself.
And you do not value my thoughts anyway.
Again, you should “hear” yourself. I must start from your conclusions.
Dogma
Because my mind works philosophically.
The net result is a different perspective or conceptualisation… I also might include data that you do not consider relevant.
You realise that this conversation is broadly hypothetic? (And more than a little bit Devilment)
Richard
Why would that prevent you from using the scientific method? Don’t you also claim the scientific method is philosophy?
Perhaps you could also show us how your philosophical approach incorporates the data, or if it does at all. For example, why, in your philosophy, should God’s reuse of the building blocks of life result in the observed nested hierarchy? If you don’t think common ancestry and vertical inheritance should produce a nested hierarchy, then explain why.
So far, your explanations seem to be nothing more than “Because I say so”. I’m hoping there’s more to it than that.
That is because I have lost you again.
Science is a philosophy, but the philosophy is not scientific.
Just by asking that question you are proving that you do not understand…
You start from nested hierarchy. I start from God. .
From the word go our aims are different. I am not necessarily going to see your understanding as you do not see mine.
Furthermore, your view of Nested Hierarchy is inextricably linked to your view of ToE…
My view of DNA is inextricably linked to God as a creator / designer… We are both biased. ( I admit it, do you?)
Richard
What is “the philosophy” you are referring to that is not scientific?
Either way, the nested hierarchy is an observed fact for animal life. If your philosophy is incapable of explaining why we see a nested hierarchy, that’s fine. Just say so.
My aim is to explain why the universe is as it is. Why do we observe some things, but not others? Why do animals fall into a nested hierarchy?
If your purpose does not include explaining why nature is the way it is, just say so.
My view of the nested hierarchy is completely independent of the theory of evolution, just as it was about 250 years ago when Linnaeus described the nested hierarchy 100 years before Darwin. It is just a fact of biology. If facts don’t matter to you, then fine. Just say so.
I am sorry, but that is above my teaching ability.
You are looking for a pattern. I am not.
That is the whole point. I am not trying to give you a pattern. The pattern is the one that exists. You are the one “interpreting” the pattern, not me.
Of Biology or just a fact? I wonder if you can tell the difference.
It is not a fact, in the real world. it is a conclusion or a human idea.
Richard
Then you aren’t trying to explain the facts of nature. That’s fine.
What then is the purpose of your philosophy?
It’s a fact, and it exists in the field of biology. Erosion and deposition are facts found in geology. Orbit of planets are facts found in astronomy.
The nested hierarchy is a fact. It is observed. If your philosophy requires you to ignore facts, that’s your choice. However, your philosophy probably won’t catch on since it requires us to ignore demonstrable facts.
No. Perhaps the only pattern is the o"means something". Why must it?
No it is not a fact.
It cannot be confirmed as real. It is just what you have decided from what you have obd=served. Remember the Bible Code? People say they have found one. But it really cannot be in terms of the way the Bible is constructed. There is no connection between the “books” other thqn the fact that they have been placed together.
IOW Yu are claiming a "fact. That does not make it so.
You can be convinced of it. But that does not make it so.
You have observed what you see as a pattern, but that does not mean it exists or means what you say it does.
You still don’t get it.
You are claiming facts. You are claiming data. You are claiming patterns.
They exist in your viewpoint. That does not make them facts.
A theory comes from a human mind. It does not ever make it a fact. In a philosophical world facts do not exist, because they rely on a perspective, or an observation both of which are subjective. (or subject to a viewpoint)
Two men approach a statue, one from the north the other from the south. The first claims "That a beautiful gold stature, but the second claims “but it is silver!”
They are both right. (and wrong) The statue is gold on one side and silver on the other.
You cannot claim a fact without all the information. You do not have it. You only have a pattern. You do not have each creature giving birth to the next one.
Richard
It’s unwise to make assumptions about other people’s views.
In any case, what I value doesn’t put any restrictions on you.
There is nothing from stopping you analysing genetic data by converting it to a knitting pattern for a scarf, then burning the scarf and seeing what animal the ashes most resemble when you scatter them across the surface of a vat of warm mead. Just don’t expect anyone else to take the results seriously.
Research doesn’t start with being “presented with the data”.
I don’t. Most of them are less ‘thought’ and more ‘faulty assumption’.
That’s another faulty assumption. I didn’t say anything even remotely resembling that.
These false assumptions are so ingrained that they’re seen even when they aren’t there. Like taking a philosophical Rorschach test.
Peak Vroomfondel!
It certainly cannot be confirmed as real by some-one who decides in advance that it isn’t real and then refuses to even look.
This is what I meant by conclusions being a starting point.
You mean like deciding ToE works and then trying to prove it.
Richard
Some of us are curious as to how the universe works, and that means understanding why the universe looks the way it does. Perhaps you don’t share that curiosity.
Sure it can.
The nested hierarchy can and has been objectively verified.
In your philosophy, what is the criteria for something being a fact?
I am also showing how these facts are verifiable.
Again, you don’t seem to care about facts. That’s fine. That’s your choice.
You have decided that the nested hierarchy doesn’t exist, so you deny facts. Again, your choice. However, don’t expect others to be impressed by a philosophy that requires the denial of objective, verifiable, and quantifiable facts.
No, because that doesn’t happen.
Stop projecting your own flaws onto others.
I am denying nothing. other than your understanding of those facts.
you just do not read.
What you call facts others call observations or conclusions or even hypotheses.
We all know that in science a thing can be called a fact until it is disproved. Others would call that a working theory.
IOW.
Science has a specific view and you are claiming it to be the only valid one.
It already has. That is the whole point of Nested DNA. It is supposed to prove ToE.
Richard
And that’s why you try to deny the existence of the nested hierarchy, because people are using it as evidence for something you don’t like.
What you can’t seem to understand is that facts exist independently of the theory.
" Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."
–Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory”
https://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.