"on Bracketing The Truth" And "checking Your Religion At The Door"

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................................Mainstream science concerning life and its origins is atheist plain and simple. .......................................................................................................  

Not it isn't , Rob.  It is science.  Atheism is ideology, not science.  You have made a simple category mistake.

[Robert F. Smith]

I see it the other way around; I think it's all about the direct question. If you choose to believe in God, then that faith provides a context for interpreting the observed world (the "collateral" as it were). I'd rather not be told what collateral issues can be summed in order to "extrapolate a conclusion of some kind" whatever that means.  And I don't have the time or inclination to come up with my own list of issues.

A gross misunderstanding of what I said, Gervin.  There are no direct ways of falsifying or verifying religion or the supernatural, and you can't name any.

 

I agree that bias can lead one to make flawed interpretations, which is why I depend upon strict, repeatable science and logic to condition my suppositions.  Indeed, I prefer to use impersonal/dispassionate experimental science (usually non-Mormon and non-religious) in drawing both conclusions and correlations.  How can that be done?  By studying the work of professionals whose concerns are neither religious nor anti-religious.  Their books and articles are the warp and woof of well-reasoned correlations.  Now, if we could just get the anti-religious to adopt the same commitment, as well as to accept the massive, interdisciplinary group effort which science entails.

 

Moreover, it is you who must ultimately be the judge of the failure or success of such argument.  You, Gervin.  And any other interested party.  Science advances as a group endeavor, and can sometimes be a herky-jerky affair, but I have the same trust as B. H. Roberts that the world has a right to subject all Mormon claims to any test they wish to make.

 

In the case of the Book of Mormon, I suggest that someone start by reading Mike Coe's books on ancient America.  Take a gander at his actual claims about the ancient cultures of this hemisphere.  Then ask yourself why he neglected to apply that to the Book of Mormon.  I cite him regularly.  My training in anthroplogy and archeology help me to understand the implications of what he is saying, but a good deal of it is simple and straightforward, and most people enjoy his descriptive approach (with plenty of illustrations).

[Gervin]

dbl post

Edited December 20, 2014 by Gervin

[Gervin]

A gross misunderstanding of what I said, Gervin.  There are no direct ways of falsifying or verifying religion or the supernatural, and you can't name any.

I didn't make such a claim either way.  I said direct question.

 

I agree that bias can lead one to make flawed interpretations, which is why I depend upon strict, repeatable science and logic to condition my suppositions.  Indeed, I prefer to use impersonal/dispassionate experimental science (usually non-Mormon and non-religious) in drawing both conclusions and correlations.  How can that be done?  By studying the work of professionals whose concerns are neither religious nor anti-religious.  Their books and articles are the warp and woof of well-reasoned correlations.  Now, if we could just get the anti-religious to adopt the same commitment, as well as to accept the massive, interdisciplinary group effort which science entails.

 

You're simply begging the question.  You depend upon strict, repeatable science and logic to condition your suppositions.  So does the guy who writes an article about mesoamerican archaeology.  And all the people who conduct research and draw conclusions.  So what makes your strict, repeatable science and logic superior to that of everyone else?  If only there was an answer ...

 

 

Moreover, it is you who must ultimately be the judge of the failure or success of such argument.  You, Gervin.  And any other interested party.  Science advances as a group endeavor,

 

 

...bingo! If you are an outlier from the group that doesn't acknowledge a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon, you better re-examine the assumptions behind your strict, repeatable science and superior logic.  You might be missing something.

[Rob Osborn]

Not it isn't , Rob.  It is science.  Atheism is ideology, not science.  You have made a simple category mistake.

Mainstream science concerning life's origins is an ideology. You are right- it isn't really science.

[thesometimesaint]

It is the science called Abiogenesis

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

[ERayR]

It is the science called Abiogenesis

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

 

Or is that Abby Normal? 

[Robert F. Smith]

...................................................................   

You're simply begging the question.  You depend upon strict, repeatable science and logic to condition your suppositions.  So does the guy who writes an article about mesoamerican archaeology.  And all the people who conduct research and draw conclusions.  So what makes your strict, repeatable science and logic superior to that of everyone else?

Again, you completely missed my point, Gervin.  Perhaps I was not clear enough, or you did not read me carefully.

I am not talking about my version of "strict, repeatable science and logic".(though I am trained in both), but rather on the accepted norms within the academy.  One finds such in refereed and published articles and books by scientists.  One can mine them for data and conclusions, from which further extrapolations are possible.  All subject to further review, by whatever party wishes to make a review (replies, rejoinders, etc.), a process which can continue for many years.  No one person can vaunt his conclusions above others.  You, for example, tend to vaunt your conclusions above those of others, but do not deign to present normative scientific data or conclusions.

 

...........If you are an outlier from the group that doesn't acknowledge a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon, you better re-examine the assumptions behind your strict, repeatable science and superior logic.  You might be missing something.

That begs the question (again):  One is less concerned with warring factions on the subject of the Book of Mormon (for how could they be unbiased or unprejudiced?), and more with the raw data and conclusions presented by dispassionate professionals on basic history and archeology.  The direct approach which you prefer leaves us with zilch scientifically, while the indirect approach deals strictly with real data and conclusions -- which be applied to the issues in question.  Then, let the chips fall where they may.  Why are you fearful of that evenhanded and fairminded approach, Gervin?  After all, if the Book of Mormon is fiction, it should not be able to pass that objective test.

[thesometimesaint]

Or is that Abby Normal? 

 

Or maybe Funk and Wagnalls.

[pogi]

It is the science called Abiogenesis

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

 

Abiogenesis is on par with alchemy as far how scientific it is.

[thesometimesaint]

Abiogenesis is on par with alchemy as far how scientific it is.

 

No it is not. Abiogenesis is the chemistry of the prebiological. Alchemy and Astrology are what are known as protosciences. Chemistry, and Astronomy are the science part.

[pogi]

No it is not. Abiogenesis is the chemistry of the prebiological.

 

You mean chemistry.  Chemistry is the chemistry of the prebiological.

[thesometimesaint]

You mean chemistry.  Chemistry is the chemistry of the prebiological.

 

No. I mean what I said. It is just the chemistry of what was to become life. Without the chemistry life becomes problematic at best.

[pogi]

No. I mean what I said. It is just the chemistry of what was to become life. Without the chemistry life becomes problematic at best.

 

The chemistry of what was to become life is still just chemistry.  Once it becomes life it is called biochemistry.  The hunt for the missing link is a protoscience like alchemy.  If alchemy could really turn lead into gold or produce the elixir of life, it would graduate from a protoscience to a science.  The same goes for abiogenesis.

 

From https://www.wordnik.com/words/protoscience :

 

Protoscience - "A field of study at the initial phase of the scientific method, involving information gathering and hypothesis formulation, but is not yet falsifiable, or if it is, its predictions have not yet been observed."

 

See also: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Protoscience

 

(1) An unscientific field of study which later becomes a science.

(2) A field of study that has not yet been adequately tested or at the initial phase of the scientific method, involving information gathering and hypothesis formulation, but is not yet falsifiable, or if it is, its predictions have not yet been observed.

Edited December 21, 2014 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

The chemistry of what was to become life is still just chemistry.  Once it becomes life it is called biochemistry.  The hunt for the missing link is a protoscience like alchemy.  If alchemy could really turn lead into gold or produce the elixir of life, it would graduate from a protoscience to a science.  The same goes for abiogenesis.

 

From https://www.wordnik.com/words/protoscience :

 

Protoscience - "A field of study at the initial phase of the scientific method, involving information gathering and hypothesis formulation, but is not yet falsifiable, or if it is, its predictions have not yet been observed."

 

See also: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Protoscience

 

(1) An unscientific field of study which later becomes a science.

(2) A field of study that has not yet been adequately tested or at the initial phase of the scientific method, involving information gathering and hypothesis formulation, but is not yet falsifiable, or if it is, its predictions have not yet been observed.

 

I can't believe we are having this discussion about the proximal relationship between chemistry, abiogenesis, and alchemy. It is about as useful as stating that because the Weight brothers didn't fly to the moon space travel is impossible. Or as my favorite Theist said: We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.

Edited December 21, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[pogi]

I have not made the claim that it is or is not possible. I am only clarifying the misclassificstion of abiogenesis as a science. It is at present a protoscience.

[mfbukowski]

I have not made the claim that it is or is not possible. I am only clarifying the misclassificstion of abiogenesis as a science. It is at present a protoscience.

Unfortunately one would need a time machine to do the experiments. Even attempting to "reproduce" the conditions becomes an epistemological nightmare- there is no way one could even know what the conditions even WERE with certainty.

[pogi]

Unfortunately one would need a time machine to do the experiments. Even attempting to "reproduce" the conditions becomes an epistemological nightmare- there is no way one could even know what the conditions even WERE with certainty.

 

I totally agree, however IF scientists were able to perform an act of abiogenesis in a lab under any condition, it would demonstrate that it is possible.  I hesitate to say "never" and end up looking like Joseph Fielding.  However, calling abiogenesis a "science" is totally inaccurate and misleading.  It is no more a science then alchemy at this point.

Edited December 22, 2014 by pogi

[Mars]

My time machine is extremely slow, and it only goes forward...

[pogi]

My time machine is extremely slow, and it only goes forward...

 

Mine is stuck in the present, but I can look up at night in mine and see millions of years in the past.

Edited December 22, 2014 by pogi

[ERayR]

Mine is stuck in the present, but I can look up at night in mine and see millions of years in the past.

 

Yes but I am betting it is like mine and doesn't do close ups.

[mfbukowski]

I totally agree, however IF scientists were able to perform an act of abiogenesis in a lab under any condition, it would demonstrate that it is possible.  I hesitate to say "never" and end up looking like Joseph Fielding.  However, calling abiogenesis a "science" is totally inaccurate and misleading.  It is no more a science then alchemy at this point.

Yes of course you are right, but what exactly is the question abiogenesis strives to answer? Even if successful in a lab, that only shows that it is possible in the lab- not that that was the way it "actually happened".

[mfbukowski]

Mine is stuck in the present, but I can look up at night in mine and see millions of years in the past.

Great post!

Astronomy is great to talk about because it is one of the hardest of hard sciences in its rigor, but it presents clearly THE problem central to science- that "knowledge" is always limited to what we are able to observe and not necessarily what is "real"

All we have is conjecture and interpretation of data which is observable, no more, no less.

Astronomical observations show us the past- the stars we see might have gone supernova thousands of years ago. So we are not observing "reality", we are interpreting the best evidence available and creating a "reality" which appears to fit the "evidence"

That is true of all science- it is just more clear in astronomy.

So getting back to the OP- is it even possible NOT to "bracket the truth"? Can we ever know "the truth" in that sense?

All we can ever get is different perspectives on ways to answer questions, conjecturing from what we think might be "data".

Edited December 22, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

I have not made the claim that it is or is not possible. I am only clarifying the misclassificstion of abiogenesis as a science. It is at present a protoscience.

Although I prefer the term archebiosis, both it and abiogenesis are terms relating to a theory which has been undergoing experimental testing without success since the 1950s.  Of course it isn't science.  Nor is it protoscience.  It is rather the subject of scientific inquiry and theoretical formulation.  I first encountered the subject in 1964 in a textbook on philosophy by a CalTech professor.

 

Given the requisite level of technical ability, I see no fundamental reason why life cannot be created from organic and inorganic materials.  We may see that accomplished in this century.  That will only mean that we have sussed out one of the natural abilities of God, and at a very primitive level.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

You mean chemistry.  Chemistry is the chemistry of the prebiological.

What about biochemistry?