[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Andr�s]

http://www.concannon.net/wilmer/Wilmer's%20WebPage/SCIMETH.htm ] SCIENTIFIC METHOD [/url]

Edit: Link refuses to appear like a link.

[ March 16, 2003, 03:04: Message edited by: Andr&eacutes Lescano ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Well, I see why Fyron is repeating himself so much. People won't see what is right in from of their faces if it doesn't meet their pre-conceived notions.

http://www.alternativescience.com/sc...censorship.htm is a page featuring some relatively recent (in the Last decade) examples of the scientific establishment refusing to allow criticism of evolution. You can probably do some reasearch Online and find other sources to prove that these people exist and what is describe really happened.

http://www.alternativescience.com is the main site, which includes some pages on 'Shattering the Myths of Darwinism' a major book which lays out in fairly simple terms how the Darwinian picture of evolution doesn't work and never has.

http://www.alternativescience.com/sh...-Darwinism.htm is the direct link to the book outline and contents.

It's not about 'new' evidence. It's about the fraud of asserting that the old evidence was adequate. It wasn't. And anyone with academic or scientific credentials will be run out of their jobs for attempting to point this out. The author of this book, a professional journalist rather than an academic, was subjected to considerable attacks, including the usual character assassination and behind-the-scenes blacklisting.

Fyron:

The 'few sad cases' listed on that site are just what that one author is aware of. There is much, much more if you want to do some research. So in fact scientists DO assert things and punish people for questioning their assertions instead of accepting authority from on high. Science in the 'real world' is just like religion. I keep putting the evidence in front of your face and you keep refusing to acknowledge it. You are doing exactly what you accuse the 'religious' types of doing. Rejecting anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions. As I said, there is far less difference between the so-called 'scientific' world view and the religious one than you or most people want to believe. And you are demonstrating it right here and now.

How do you assert that 'Evolution is not wrong.' when there is no proof that it is right? You keep saying that religion makes arbitrary assertions and then assert that science must be right even if it didn't have the evidence before and doesn't have it now. Huh? An honest 'scientist' would admit that we have no idea how life came to be how it is. Do you see the difference between asserting something is right because it's 'science' and 'not religion' versus simply admitting there is no certainty?

[Suicide Junkie]

Is there some particular reason why these people cannot come up with a better theory than evolution to explain things?

"Any model is better than none"

Since evolution is a model for the situation, and there are no decent alternatives, we will continue to use evolution.

[Gryphin]

Fyron, thanks
Andr�s, thanks, :: saves link, goes and takes meds :::
I'll try to asorb that in the morning.

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Is there some particular reason why these people cannot come up with a better theory than evolution to explain things?

"Any model is better than none"

Since evolution is a model for the situation, and there are no decent alternatives, we will continue to use evolution.

Yeah, anyone that questions the party line is run out of the field. Kinda hard to conduct research when your colleagues refuse to talk to you, reject your articles in peer-reviewed publications, and get you fired from your lab/university.

Stephen Jay Gould faced some fairly hostile reactions for merely proposing a slight modification of the theory. It's an on-going controversy though a bit less heated than it was. Do a web search on 'Punctuated Equilibrium' and read about it.

[ March 16, 2003, 03:51: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Suicide Junkie]

There is also this link:
http://skepdic.com/refuge/altscience.html

PS
Baron:
So, have you googled it lately?
And do you have a link to a good anti-PE page on it?

The supershort SJ summary:
When you have huge herds intermingling, they all get shoved back to the average due to the effects of sexual reproduction and gene mixing, and there is a lot of stability.

When some Groups get cut off from the mainstream, they have a chance to become specialized from the main pop. Living in a unique environment, having a relatively small population (less averaging out of mutations, inbreeding, etc), being a group of relative freaks getting kicked out, and anything else you find to throw in.

Then if they get reconnected to the main swath of territory and happen to have an advantage, they take over in a few thousand years. Bam! If they don't, too bad, another group will get a shot later on; we have many millions of years and acres to work with.

Reminds me of the recent trend towards mixed "races" of people (and the generation of the Groups in the first place), and the whole killer bees thing. Also of the world wars (uberrace & all), but that's more politics and technology than just biology.

[ March 16, 2003, 05:07: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[Chronon]

Just a few historical points to throw into the frying pan:

1) Darwin was not the first to propose evolution of species. Lamarck, Chambers, and a number of others wrote about it decades earlier than Darwin. They had different ideas about how evolution worked, though. Darwin's revolutionary idea was natural selection - the process by which he thought evolution worked - not the concept of evolution itself.

2) The concept of evolution does have a history, and it has evolved over time. Lamarck's evolution by adaptation lost out to Darwin's natural selection. But not right away. Most European (and especially British) scientists of the late nineteenth century believed in directed evolution. In other words, God directed how evolution progressed. They did not accept Darwin's random variation idea. Our discussion of evolution versus creation would seem silly to them because they saw evolution and God in the same evidence. Our modern theory is actually a combination of Mendelian genetics and Darwin's theory that did not become the generally accepted theory until a few decades into the twentieth century. So, evolution has not been a monolithic, never-changing dogma. Yes, it has become a kind of secular religion to some people in our society, with unfortunate results. But it has changed, and probably will again.

We cannot really know for sure if evolution is true because the time period is too long - we haven't been around to actually see it. As Fontenelle once once wrote, "All philosophy [he meant natural philosophy, which we would now call science] is based on two things only: curiosity and poor eyesight...the trouble is we want to know more than we can see." (Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds, 1686) So, we try to do our best with the evidence at hand. Any true scientist, in my view, will acknowledge the provisional nature of scientific knowledge and not treat it like dogma.

[Andr�s]

Baron, I was looking for the supposed scientific evidence, not complains about censorship in a yellow-press pseudo-scientific page.

Most of what I see there is what I said, complains about censorship, about a work called "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism". They seem to trying to sell me a book but looking at the contents page is enogh.

Those complains don't sound realistic at all. It's curious that it only quotes single words and short phrases and not longer complains.
What people were most likely complaining about was about deceiving people disguising those lies as true science.
And I really can't believe that no one actually refuted at least the most outright lies in that work.

Most of the points are repetitions of the same wrong arguments creationists have been using for decades, not something new (even if the authors claims not to be a creationist) and it looks that the only intention is to sell me a book.

The link I had posted about Evolution Vs. Creationisms is still valid conters most of those points with serious scientific yet easy to understand explanations.

The only new evidence that appears to be new genetic analisys that prove that some species are not so genetically similar as they were thought to be.
I'll have to investigate but I suspect that we're talking about a few exeptions that don't alter the big picture.

[Fyron]

BM:

Well, I see why Fyron is repeating himself so much. People won't see what is right in from of their faces if it doesn't meet their pre-conceived notions.

I know what you are trying to do, and it is not going to work.

The 'few sad cases' listed on that site are just what that one author is aware of. There is much, much more if you want to do some research. So in fact scientists DO assert things and punish people for questioning their assertions instead of accepting authority from on high. Science in the 'real world' is just like religion. I keep putting the evidence in front of your face and you keep refusing to acknowledge it. You are doing exactly what you accuse the 'religious' types of doing. Rejecting anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions. As I said, there is far less difference between the so-called 'scientific' world view and the religious one than you or most people want to believe. And you are demonstrating it right here and now.

No, not at all. You are simply not understanding what I have posted. Your Posts about "scientists DO assert things and punish people for questioning their assertions instead of accepting authority from on high" are wrong, and I see no need to repeat myself again as to why.

That page on scientific censorship is so steeped in biased propaganda and half-truths that I fail to see how you can actually believe what it says (unless, of course, you are only looking for other people with your not-quite-correct beliefs in an attempt to prove that you are not wrong). It has very little value, and I am sorry for you if you were duped into purchasing the book it advertises.

The page on shattering Darwin's theory of evolution does nothing to shatter his theory. Almost none of the quotes actually have any good scientific backing. It hurts your case more than helps it.

How do you assert that 'Evolution is not wrong.' when there is no proof that it is right? You keep saying that religion makes arbitrary assertions and then assert that science must be right even if it didn't have the evidence before and doesn't have it now. Huh? An honest 'scientist' would admit that we have no idea how life came to be how it is. Do you see the difference between asserting something is right because it's 'science' and 'not religion' versus simply admitting there is no certainty?

The theory of evolution does NOT say anything about how life came to be. It says that today, blah blah blah. It makes absolutley no mention on the origins of life. The two issues are wholely unrelated. Darwin (and Lamark et all) did not mention the origins of life in their theories, and the currently accepted theory of evolution does not either.

I have constantly said that there is no certainty to the theory of evolution. I never once said that "it is right because it is science". That is you placing words in my mouth. That, or not understanding what I posted. Or maybe seeing what you want me to have posted and going from there, instead of what I actually posted.

And again, the theory of evolution is not a representative sample of science in general. Using it as such is wholely wrong.

Any true scientist, in my view, will acknowledge the provisional nature of scientific knowledge and not treat it like dogma.

I'll have to investigate but I suspect that we're talking about a few exeptions that don't alter the big picture.

If only I could have said it in such a simple fashion, BM would not have gone off on such an unfounded tangent. Oh well.

[Andr�s]

I agree that there may be another factor that complements natural selection as amechanism of evolution.
About the evolution of birds, you have example of biped dinosaurs that used their arms for balance and of some that were covered with feathers, then you even have the famous Archaeopteryx.
Yes is uncertain exactly how they achieved flight, but what would be your alternative explanation, intelligent design?