Thanks, @beaglelady , I vastly underestimated the magnitude of the claim! That’s HUGE. Well, unless the base is 1.
2 Likes
I did a quick check on critiques of Bailey, it seems he does accept global warming and climate change is happening though he is on the conservative side on how much it is directly affecting people yet. His solution seems to be to leave it to the free market to solve.
I don’t think there is anything on the site but this is often referenced
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.htm
Which is I’m sure the one you mentioned
page not found
Thanks. But when a person posts claiming orders of magnitude number of climate predictions from the ‘70s have been refuted, I want more than the authors political leanings. I want a solid bibliography that the recommender has bothered to varify.
It’s a tall order, I know.
But it’s a taller order to ask me to believe the claim without evidenc, because a person read it in a book. Otherwise, it’s a rumor. Gossip.
Yeah, you missed the point, but that’s okay.
The opinions of dissenting scientists, like Koonin, that claim something opposite of the scientific consensus are not good arguments against the scientific consensus. It’s important to pay attention to how people challenge a consensus in science, as that is done through the hard work of publishing real science and convincing the scientific community you are correct, not publishing contrarian books and profiting off being a “climate skeptic.”
The consensus has been wrong before is not a good argument against rejecting any scientific consensus today.
Your argument here is:
In this one other field of nutrition, a lot of scientists held to X and then we found out that Y is a better understanding of reality, therefore we can reject other scientific consensus like that of climate change. That sounds a little silly does it not?
5 Likes
But what is the difference based on a person’s exact belief level make when they express circular reasoning?
By the mere use of the fallacious structure they show that they are saying nothing at all to whether something is true or not. They are merely stating what they believe - twice.
I shared Sara Walker’s comment as one example of the “A is true because A is true” which I do hear often on this issue. If someone else says so because they believe that the origin of life is natural because it must be natural (regardless of whether they believe it a totally random process or placed there by God or …) then they are also merely stating their belief twice.
This is the same as a person saying the Scriptures are true because it says so. They could be a Christian, a polytheist, someone who thinks it’s just good sayings or anything else. Their exact belief doesn’t matter. Saying what you believe twice doesn’t say anything.
Yes?
Difficulties arise when people conflate philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Scientists sometimes do this, and they overstep the bounds of science when they do so. Sara Walker might be doing this based on other writings or statements she made, but we can’t infer it simply from her belief that life could have arisen from non-life. That simple statement does not make any philosophical assumptions about the existence of a creator God per se, i.e., some Christians also believe that God could have used that method to create the first cell. So, I don’t see any circular reasoning necessarily.
You seem to be stating your belief twice. There can’t be scientific evidence because there is no scientific evidence.
The evidence that Meyer proffers is
- The universe has a beginning
- Fine Tuning
- Information of Life
The only known cause of such activity is a mind. Merely saying there is no evidence is not responding to it.
And logically, if all of space time had a beginning then the most logical inference is that something outside of space time caused it.
I understand there are argument for multiverses or some physical precursors or do overs, but an infinite universe or multiverse is contrary to the evidenced entropy. Perhaps there is a really large matter/energy perpetual motion machine but that is contrary to the evidence of physical nature. No?
Do you find the statement “We know life must have arisen naturally because we are here.”
to be circular reasoning?
Am I missing something?
A person saying the Bible is true because it says so may also have actual evidence and logic to believe it is true. It doesn’t make the statement any less circular.
I listened to her talk with Sean Carroll because I am looking for the best evidence and reasoning for life coming from non-life. While she talks glowingly about various hypothesis she is also honest is the limitations. Her claim to certainty that life comes from non-life is because we are here.
I’m sure she is a very nice person and she is very knowledgeable in several scientific areas.
There is no power that any person has to magically transform circular reasoning into a meaningful statement.
If I am incorrect in this being her statement or in seeing this is circular reasoning then please show me.
Oh, and I agree that someone or some group basing a scientific elucidation on naturalism or any other belief is NOT something against the actual scientific methodologies. But it seems to me that far too many are already there.
I think it depends on what one means by “arose naturally”. Those words can be interpreted/construed in two different philosophical frameworks: Does it mean “following natural laws that God set in place” or " following the laws of a universe where no supernatural exists".
There is only scientific evidence of nature, and what rationality parsimoniously extrapolates beyond that:
- All universes from eternity have a beginning. How is the only known cause of that a mind?
- Fine tuning. Of what?
- Information of life. What is that?
Spacetime had a beginning with the beginning of each of the infinite universes from eternity. And? So what?
No. It’s worse than that. Even within universes, like our utterly mediocre one, the expansion of spacetime is accelerating driven by negentropic dark energy. That is the evidence, the only evidence.
Universes themselves start from the collision of 11D branes. Is what I favour.
Nature is ultimately not understandable. Why should it be?
First of all I agree that Koonin has an opinion which is opposed to the consensus thinking on climate change. He would be first to acknowledge that he agrees with much of the findings of climate scientists that the atmosphere is warming and that humans contribute to the warming through their dependence on fossil fuels and in many other ways. More specifically, his opinion is not one of a climate denier but rather of one who does not believe climate science serves the best interests of the public by exaggerating claims of impending doom, and that when we talk about “climate” we must recognize that we are not talking about weather and that historical climate data, prior to 150yrs ago, as best we can determine it needs to be used to provide proper context for how climate models future looking climate models are built and used. In this regard, much of his book points out how viewing the available through over the longest timeline possible, e.g., sea level changes, is required to understand where we are today and whether we should be alarmed, or concerned (a difference) and how much we should try to intervene or whether an intervention will have enough impact to be material to the future or not. He is not a “climate skeptic”. He really do need to read his book to know what you are asserting.
Yes, this is circular. But it can be useful to presume something happened in order to figure out how it might have happened.
1 Like
Yes.
Yes.
No they don’t. True. But the former is what makes the latter invalidly circular.
1 Like
Of course as in Euclid assuming there is a final prime number that then showed it to be a contradiction and thus not true. Something that cannot be known without considering the notion first.
But that is not the statement she made.
It is totally logical to assume something is true to then test it and see if it is empirically (or logically) valid.
It is totally illogical to say something is true because it is true.
And to do so illogically while maintaining it to be scientific evidence is conflating one’s belief with empirical evidence. I don’t care the belief conflated- it clearly is not actually a scientific elucidation.
No one should stand for such if they are supportive of the Nullius in verba basis of actual scientific methodology.
Based on this premise then life from non-life is a faith which can never be falsified. It is also not merely an observation as all empirical observations only show life coming from life.
There seems to be a consensus among scientists that life coming from non-life is the empirical evidence.
In law there is a saying that
if you have the law then pound the law,
if you have the facts then pound the facts,
if you have neither then pound the table.
I see a lot of pounding the table in presentations of life coming from non-life.
Part of my career as an IT specialist was evaluating vendor systems marketing versus actual reality. It seemed to me that the technical jargon level was inversely related to the actual product. I see the same in explanations of origin of life studies/experiments versus the actual reality of the study/experiment.
I am looking for the best evidence and logic for it occurring. I am finding circular reasoning and worse.
I find your rational extrapolations quite the opposite of parsimonious. 
Maybe the extrapolations are correct and maybe they’re not.
It is true that we are limited creatures and cannot know everything about the universe in our life spans. But given an eternity with a brain as capable as our mind and maybe we could. Who knows but I hope so.
Some are questioning the homogeneity of our universe with some large galaxy clusterings and proposing alternate understandings such as modified gravity.
I listen to it some and wonder. But then again think we are way over our skies yet in evidence for various theories.
Maybe the JWST will bring some needed evidence supporting and refuting various concepts.