Originally posted by LW Sleeth
My criticism isn’t about the abiogenesis model, though it’s fun to debate it.
For the first 55 posts in this thread, as well as for a good part of the thread thereafter, you were arguing
on the basis of the available physical evidence. You were arguing that, since no one has ever created life in a vat of chemicals, there is no basis for claiming that it can be done. It was not until post 56 that you first mentioned other types of evidence (namely, that evidence obtained from introspection).
So, it is not difficult to understand that people are so keen to present pro-chemogenesis arguments to you. You have, after all, spent a great deal of effort arguing against it.
Actually, I thought that that part was the most viable part of your case.
It is about assumptions of what is worthy of evidence, and the dubious practice of ignoring anything that doesn’t fit one’s philosophy of knowledge.
I'm with you so far.
Why am I responsible for anyone’s incomplete education, and therefore what they are “not aware of”?
Oh, now that's real constructive. You certainly have turned fault-finding into a fine art. Now if you can just become as good at explaining
why others are at fault, you'll be getting somewhere.
That's the difference between a discussion forum and a soap box.
AG has openly acknowledged he is only willing to study what supports his beliefs!
AG has openly rebutted your claim that introspection constitutes evidence by citing the fact that mental states can be affected by external stimuli.
Your response was along the lines of, "Well, if you won't look into it, then you are ignorant".
Sadly, this attitude has typified your posts in this thread.
Do you blame someone who only reads the Bible if they come here and argue they only see creationism? Why is it an okay to insist that everyone be up on their science, but not any other area of human accomplishment which might have bearing on understanding reality?
Other areas of human accomplishment will have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. As for the specific example you mention, I reject the Bible because (among other reasons) it makes no predictions, only postdictions (eg: See the sun? God put it there.). That is of no interest to either the scientist or the philosopher.
In a marriage between two immature people, a common fight one often hears could be entitled “what about me?” With maturity, one detaches from one’s preferences and learns to be open to anything valuable anyone might offer. So, what has been the case here? Have I resisted the rules of logic, evidence and proof?
Yes, you have resisted them tooth and nail.
AG is not asking, "what about me?".
You are, and AG is asking, "how can I know that the standard of evidence you are presenting is valid?". You seem loathe to answer this perfectly reasonable question because you have already decided that no one will listen to the answer.
Have I failed to study other perspectives? Have I argued from a biased point of view? Or have I argued for objectivity? Really, who is most on the side of the empirical standard?
You have not failed to study other perspectives. As for the rest of the questions, I cannot answer them, because you will not tell us why you think as you do[/color] regarding standards of evidence.
Tom: You don't have to prove that another model is both necessary and sufficient, you just have to show that chemogenesis is not necessary. To do that, you would have to show that another model is consistent with what is known.
LW Sleeth: Why do I have to show that? I haven’t asserted chemogenesis theory. I’ve simply complained that awarding the “most likely” prize to abiogenesis is something materialists are overly eager to do. Plenty of others have reservations.
Ah, more constructive input.
I have already tried to explain to you that people who claim that chemogenesis is "most likely" do so because they do not see an alternative. AG has asked you twice for one, and I have asked you once. Since there is only one possibility in view, it follows that that one is "most likely".
To that, you respond with, "No, it is not most likely, and I am not going to explain why."
You’ll have to wait for the book.
Does that mean that you are coming up with the first alternative to chemogenesis? If not, then can you cite another one?
Sorry Tom, but objectivity (or pseudo-objectivity) can be just as unreliable. Check out all the advertising on TV, how politicians justify their actions, how attorney’s argue cases, and so on . . . What you see is people using other’s faith in objective standards to deceive.
You are comparing "TV spin" (which is by its nature
deliberately deceptive) with the carefully scrutinized data taken by scientists (which is
deliberatly neutral).
What am I supposed to say to that?
You might say that those instances are not “true” objectivity, and you would be right. But if someone had only seen that sort of objective baloney, they might claim objectivity is “notoriously deceptive.” Similarly, there might be improper subjectivity and proper subjectivity. Further, as science is actually an advanced form of objectivity, there might also be an advanced form of subjectivity[/color].
OK, care to present it?[/color]
Regarding how subjectivity is “impossible to quantify and measure” . . . you are trying to evaluate ideal subjectivity by objective standards, and so again revealing your bias. Ideal subjectivity has its own standards. Do you care to know about that, or must this remain only what objective standards are about?
Why don't you just say what you mean, rather than vaguely allude to it?
It is determined similar to how one determines things objectively. One experiences what is claimed possible, and then one allows the experience, or lack of it, to create one’s opinion.
That is way too vague. How does one "allow the experience, or lack of it, to create one's opinion"? There has to be something more to it than that, because two people's expeiences can lead them do different conclusions.
You know, I am not trying to say anyone should pursue inner experience;
Yes, you are. You opened this post criticizing the fact that they do not consider ceratin forms of evidence valid. You specifically cited[/color] one of these forms of evidence as "inner experience", and have branded as ignorant those who do not consider it.
But rather than explain what you mean, you have been content to regard yourself as the only wise man around.
and I am not saying the abiogenesis model is wrong. I am disturbed at what I see as materialists claiming they are most likely correct when there are plenty of intelligent people around who still want to leave the question a lot more open than that.
You could help the others here leave it open by presenting an alternative.
I would be a lot more receptive to the abiogenesis point of view if I ever heard one abiogenesis devotee, JUST ONE, who had actually studied all perspectives with an open mind, and argued his/her case both informed and objective.
Come on, Les. There is no way anyone could study
all the perspectives with an open mind. There are literally an infinite number of them. But I don't think that's what you really want, anyway.
What you seem to really want is for a "abiogenesis devotee" to consider *your* perspective ("What about me?") And right now, with not one iota of explanatin offered for it, your "inner experience" line is just as easily written off as "God did it."
An appeal to be "unbiased" is not enough. You can only get others to see your perspective by changing minds, and you can only change minds by
convincing minds. Sitting on your hands and asking, "why should I have to convince you?" will not cut it.
So far all I hear is the one-sided, narrowly educated, pre-disposed view.
Well, what I see are FZ+ and Mentat making forgivable mistakes typical of people their age (16 years old). Those kinds of mistakes are a necessary part of their development.
I also see AG asking you to explain to him why he should accept inner experience as evidence, in view of the fact that inner experience is so easily manipulated by external influence, while the converse is not true.
And I also see you, on your high horse. When an explanation or an argument is called for, you offer nothing but criticism. You prefer to call someone "ignorant" than to show them why you think they are wrong. You seem to think that that burden does not rest on you, but remember *you* are the one who started this thread, with its dopey title that was obviously designed specifically attract attention. And now that you have people's attention, and are being presented with arguments, you don't want to actually *discuss* any of the points of contention. What really galls me is not the content of your position, but how puffed up your ego is. I've got news for you: you are the only one who thinks that your contribution to this thread is reasonable, unbiased, and in line with the rules of logic and evidence. If anything, you are just preaching.
To me, that is bad philosophizing.
Indeed!
The way I see it, you can either make a renewed effort to try to reach the goal of mutual understanding, or you can keep sitting there doing nothing, all the while thinking that you are the only reasonable person here. It's up to you.
. Names are arbitrary things made up by humans.
