News Flash Materialists Caught in Denial

  • Thread starter Thread starter Les Sleeth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Flash News
Click For Summary
Scientific materialists are argued to be in denial regarding the origins of life, as they claim that chemistry alone can account for life processes, a theory referred to as chemogenesis. The discussion emphasizes that while chemistry is fundamental to life, it does not inherently produce the necessary organization for life, which requires progressive organization characterized by adaptability, hierarchical development, and persistence. Critics assert that examples of chemical self-organization, such as RNA polymerization and amino acid synthesis, do not fulfill the criteria for progressive organization. The debate highlights a fundamental disagreement on whether life can be fully explained through chemistry, with some arguing that the complexity of life transcends mere chemical interactions. The conversation ultimately questions the adequacy of current scientific explanations for the emergence of life from non-life.
  • #91
Originally posted by Tom Pardon me for butting in. I've been reading along, and I am keen to see this answered:

[Originally posted by Another God] “I haven't denied that there are other possible explanations, it is just that we don't know of ANY, that are possible. Name another possible explanation.”

Well?

You are not butting in, but is that “Well?” implying I have to solve the life origin problem in order to question the objectivity of claims? Similarly, am I required to offer an alternative explanation before I’m allowed notice chemistry’s lack of ability to get “progressive” outside of life, and consequently to wonder if some unrecognized force/influence is present in life? Such wonderings about unseen influences happen all the time, such as when the orbits of Uranus and Neptune did not behave as expected. If I were a scientist working in the field, I suppose I should be expected to predict what was causing the perturbations (Pluto). But what if I weren’t a scientist -- am I prohibited from noticing irregular behavior?

But then, possibly your “Well?” is a bit of indignation over the fact that a lot of dedicated people are working hard to understand how life works, and they are theorizing with the best information they have. While how life originated may not be understood, what has been discovered about life processes has contributed to humanity in many ways. I love all that, and I fully support the effort to figure out how everything works in the universe.

However, life’s origin and nature is not only a science issue, yet more and more materialist-oriented science devotees are claiming it is. I am just old enough to remember when behaviorists (e.g., Skinner, Hull, and others) were so sure they could explain all there is to explain about human psychology. What gave them that confidence? Well, behavior actually can reveal quite a bit of human psychology. The problem they had is a general one that arises when someone dedicated to a field of study comes to believe, prematurely, that they can explain every single thing with their favorite theory. The truth is, it takes several theories to explain human psychology, and I think life might as well.

So my main argument is really about objectivity, and to point out that if one only studies physical processes, using an investigative method which only reveals physical processes, then it is logical that physical processes is all one will find. I suspect your “Well?” means, “Well, what else is there but physical processes?” Because I wouldn’t expect you to believe or consider reasonable something you’ve not experienced, to your “Well?” I might say, “Well, how am I supposed to supplement your depth of life experience so that what I say makes sense to you?”

There’s not enough room to present an alternative model here (although I do have one -- it’s on its way to a publisher right now – want to read it?). But let me try a small thought experiment.

We know experience is the basis of knowing, and that sense experience is what we rely on in empiricism. We are born with our senses working, so it is easy to use them. The senses are oriented “outward” and away from us . . . we don’t see or hear “inward.” That outward orientation reveals a physical universe.

Yet for the last 3000 years or so has been a class of researchers who decided, for whatever reason, to exactly reverse the direction of their attention. Not all the time, but for awhile each day. Behind the splitting of our sensitivity into our senses, they claim there is an area of human sensitivity that is undivided, whole, unified. By learning to develop how to use that unified sensitivity, they say, one can experience an element of reality unavailable to fragmented sense experience.

They claim that with this “conscious oneness,” one can experience an element of reality that is also one, or undivided, and that it sits beneath all the manifold aspects of reality. In fact, manifold reality rises up out of this oneness, and eventually will return to it. This is what Zen practitioner Sengtsan meant when he said “One thing is all things, all things are one thing.”

Ok, let’s return to life. I’ve claimed what is lacking in the current model is something that will pull together disparate processes into the unified whole we call “life.” Possibly what the inner practitioners learn to experience is an integrating influence that manifests when conditions are right.

But let’s stop there for a second. When I bring up the subject of “inner” here, it is clear what most materialists are thinking. From their comments they are associating it with religion or the occult or something kooky. They have not studied in depth what certain inner practitioners have achieved, and they won’t study it! So their only basis for judging the veracity of inner experience claims is predjudice and uninformed opinion . . . in a word, ignorance. The study of the inner thing is not easy either. Most claims seem to be by pretenders. But fortunately there are records, and quite few of them, of what appears to be the real thing. It is the experience, in my opinion, that should be studied, and not any of the personality, philosophical or cultural elements which so often seem to capture people’s attention.

If one believes that experience is the basis of knowing, and if one is after the truth, then I cannot see how any variety of experience can be overlooked as a possibility for helping us understand reality. Reality and our nature decides what we can know, and how we can know. What if there is no other way to know the unified aspect except to turn inward? Then it is not about fairness, it is not about how we wish it were . . . it is about reality dictating to us how it is. And for me, it is about wanting the truth no matter how it comes, or what I have to do to taste a little of it.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You are not butting in, but is that “Well?” implying I have to solve the life origin problem in order to question the objectivity of claims?

No, read my post again. My "Well?" followed AG's quoted request for another possible[/color] explanation, not a full and complete explanation. Obviously, AG and the others are not aware of another possibility, and neither am I. That is the reason they say that chemogenesis is the "most likely" reason for life.

Think about it: If there were a horse race, and I only see one horse running, can you blame me for thinking that that one horse is "most likely" going to win the race? And if you say, "no, it is not most likely", then can you blame me for asking you to point out another--just one other--horse in the race?

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.

There’s not enough room to present an alternative model here (although I do have one -- it’s on its way to a publisher right now – want to read it?).

That's exactly what I was asking for, and so was AG.

But let’s stop there for a second. When I bring up the subject of “inner” here, it is clear what the materialists are thinking. From their comments they are associating it with religion or the occult or something kooky.

Not religious, but subjective and unreliable. Inner experiences are notoriously deceptive, and impossible to quantify and measure. In order to accept this as a basis for serious research, I would have to be convinced that there could be a systematic way to conduct research on this basis such that the results are scientifically meaningful.

They have not studied in depth what certain inner practitioners have achieved, and they won’t study it! So their only basis for judging the veracity of inner experience claims is predjudice anduninformed opinion . . . in a word, ignorance.

The word I would use is, "skepticism". More below.

The study of the inner thing is not easy either. Most claims seem to be by pretenders. But fortunately there are records, and quite few of them, of what appears to be the real thing.

How do you, Les, determine who is a "pretender" and who is not? How do you determine what is the "real thing" and what is not?

edit: fixed italics bracket
 
Last edited:
  • #93
FZ, please stop talking to me like I am ignorant. I am university educated, and one of my majors was biology, plus I’ve studied regularly since those days. I understand at least enough about the field to know that the definition of life is not that open to debate. This is why we have a discipline known as “biology,” why we can say something is “dead,” why we could state clearly after the Mars visit no life was found, etc.
But I'm not saying you are ignorant - I am saying that you are making the same mistake you are accusing materialists of. It's a judgement question, it's not a matter of quoting the beliefs of others.

Are we going to discuss life by the general definitions of science, or do you get to make up your own rules? The life we have here is the only life we know, and it may just be the only life in the entire universe.
I think you will find that people broadly disagree with that - that's why we have SETI, for example. It's not a matter of taking it as rote - do we understand the justification behind them? Is there a real empirical difference, or are these ultimately rooted in subjectivity? This is a question that deserves answering, not just brushed aside by selective quoting.

So taking rocks or a single chemical process and showing the similarity to one life process does not make a rock or chemical process alive!
I don't think you have read my posts fully. Let's have a reminder...
In any reaction, an initial reaction can be considered by cause and effect to have a whole series of tertiary systems. A fire for example has a central flame, and then a convection effect is evolved, and this causes smoke which exhibit the additional characteristic of turbulence, so on and so forth. By adjusting the scale, anything can be made to be "alive".


The chemogenesis question raised here was whether or not chemistry and physical processes alone can create the living system we call a cell AND (and regarding this thread, that is a big “and”) if those scientists who claim chemogenesis is the “most likely” origin of life are exaggerating when they make that claim.
Yes they can because as an argument of possibility, all cases of probability remain open until proved otherwise. And yes it is the most likely, as long as you think life is empirical in nature.

---

It’s because I consider your argument sophistry. It looks to me like a debating tactic you are using in order to blur the boundaries of life so you can then claim life is nothing unique.
It is merely an option, and an option that has not been closed. And making it a debating tactic does little to undermine any truthfulness, if that exists, in it.

Molecular biologist Hahlon Hoagland in his book “The Way Life Works” lists 16 patterns of life:
Look at the word, patterns here. That is the first critical distinction I make. We are not talking about patterns - anything has an infinity of patterns. We are talking about criteria, and whether they are arbitary. This is critical. Stuff like "use of sugars" are not only incorrect (sulphur digesting bacteria being a counter example), but are also irrelevant.

Notice how awed they all are by life, that they consider it a mystery. Just about everyone not trying to win a debate or who’s not turned into a cold calculating machine notices there is something unique about life.
As I said, this is not an uncommon position. But look at the second automatic conclusion - the validity of science as the only method to plumb this mystery. In these cases then mysteries represent something we do not know - it is not that there is no formula, but we have not found it. By saying that life is unique and real, the hunt is on. Chemogenesis is most likely, as the materialist concludes that life is something to find, and chemogenesis is the first candidate. Gould also said:

"Humans are not the end result of predictable evolutionary progress, but rather a fortuitous cosmic afterthought, a tiny little twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life, which if replanted from seed, would almost surely not grow this twig again."

There are empirical researchers who have non-materialist theories; not every scientist buys the chemogenesis theory.
I am assuming that the idea of materialist is that empirical is the same as material. In essence, even a special principle of life is materialist, as long as we continue to insist life is definitely empirical. Immaterial evidence, evidence like that you give for the idea of love for your wife, is only useful for subjectivism.

But there are scientists saying chemogenesis is “most likely” all the time, and not just to each other either, but to anybody who will listen. Do they have enough evidence for that “most likely” label?
You want to name an alternative?

Ideally empiricism is a neutral practice and does not assume what cannot be discovered through it does not exist, but rather assumes it is simply unavailable to senses and or logical analysis.
I do not agree with this. Empiricalism claims the significance of entities depends on their influence, however indirect, on the universe. There is no use hypothesising an entity that does not do anything. The materialist defines reality by this method - as everything is observed by the effects it has, the two mesh together. Even a thunder and lightning God is materialist. If any evidence of process has some influence on the real world, it is a physical process. Even if it is currently unavailable, it is held off until it is. Hence the acceptance by materialists of string theory etc, as long as it can be assured that the extra dimensions actually make a difference.

My objection is when materialist philosophy starts to influence empirical objectivity, so that the so-called “objective” opinions we are expecting really are tainted by the materialist faith in matter as God.
Rather the reverse. God is matter.
 
  • #94
Originally posted by Tom No, read my post again. My "Well?" followed AG's quoted request for another possible[/color] explanation, not a full and complete explanation. Obviously, AG and the others are not aware of another possibility, and neither am I. That is the reason they say that chemogenesis is the "most likely" reason for life.

My criticism isn’t about the abiogenesis model, though it’s fun to debate it. 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. Why am I responsible for anyone’s incomplete education, and therefore what they are “not aware of”? AG has openly acknowledged he is only willing to study what supports his beliefs!

Originally posted by Tom Think about it: If there were a horse race, and I only see one horse running, can you blame me for thinking that that one horse is "most likely" going to win the race? And if you say, "no, it is not most likely", then can you blame me for asking you to point out another--just one other--horse in the race?

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?

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? 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?

Originally posted by 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.

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.

Originally posted by Tom That's exactly what I was asking for, and so was AG.

You’ll have to wait for the book.

Originally posted by Tom Not religious, but subjective and unreliable. Inner experiences are notoriously deceptive, and impossible to quantify and measure. In order to accept this as a basis for serious research, I would have to be convinced that there could be a systematic way to conduct research on this basis such that the results are scientifically meaningful.


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 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.

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?

Originally posted by Tom How do you, Les, determine who is a "pretender" and who is not? How do you determine what is the "real thing" and what is not?

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.

You know, I am not trying to say anyone should pursue inner experience; 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. 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.

So far all I hear is the one-sided, narrowly educated, pre-disposed view. To me, that is bad philosophizing.
 
Last edited:
  • #95
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.
 
  • #96
Originally posted by Tom 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.

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.

Ahhhhh, I get it . . . the hammer. Lining up arguments like that, by you, can only mean censure. I’m done.
 
  • #97
Originally posted by Tom
How do you, Les, determine who is a "pretender" and who is not? How do you determine what is the "real thing" and what is not?
Yes, and this is the whole crux of the matter, for without "introspection" one would never know.

Indeed, how can you "know" the truth of anything if you can't see it for yourself? At which point do you stop taking "someone else's" word for it? :wink:
 
  • #98
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Ahhhhh, I get it . . . the hammer. Lining up arguments like that, by you, can only mean censure. I’m done.

Now you are doing the very thing you are accusing AG of: acting out of ignorance.

First, I have many posts here, and I had over 2900 in the last version of PF. I have made comprehensive rebuttals to many posters in that time, and in less than a handful of cases was there a subsequent "censure". Usually, I am just saying what I think, and expect it to be discussed. But you wouldn't know that, because you read hardly any of my posts. That's OK, but don't go telling me what such a rebuttal "can only mean" when you have not taken the time to read the great majority of them.

Second, I am not using "the hammer". I don't even have a hammer. I am not the Administrator of this website, Greg is. What do you think, that Greg just does whatever I tell him to?

Third, if you are indeed backing out of this thread, than at least be honest as to why. Just be an adult and say that it is because you cannot or will not answer the questions put to you. Don't use me as a scapegoat.

edit: typo
 
  • #99
Originally posted by Tom
Now you are doing the very thing you are accusing AG of: acting out of ignorance.
Third, if you are indeed backing out of this thread, than at least be honest as to why. Just be an adult and say that it is because you cannot or will not answer the questions put to you. Don't use me as a scapegoat.

edit: typo

I have little time right now so this will be short for now. But in fairness to Les, I don't think you can judge the attitudes and approach from the context of this thread alone. This topic has been discussed in many other threads with the exact same participants. Much of the attitudes present here are carry overs from tactics and behaviour exhibited in those other threads. At some point everyone has to decide when they are casting their pearls before swine and move on.
 
  • #100
Originally posted by Tom
Now you are doing the very thing you are accusing AG of: acting out of ignorance.

First, I have many posts here, and I had over 2900 in the last version of PF. I have made comprehensive rebuttals to many posters in that time, and in less than a handful of cases was there a subsequent "censure". Usually, I am just saying what I think, and expect it to be discussed. But you wouldn't know that, because you read hardly any of my posts. That's OK, but don't go telling me what such a rebuttal "can only mean" when you have not taken the time to read the great majority of them.

Second, I am not using "the hammer". I don't even have a hammer. I am not the Administrator of this website, Greg is. What do you think, that Greg just does whatever I tell him to?

Third, if you are indeed backing out of this thread, than at least be honest as to why. Just be an adult and say that it is because you cannot or will not answer the questions put to you. Don't use me as a scapegoat.

Well, whether you will admit it or not, you do have clout; most of us who’ve been here awhile respect and maybe are even a little intimidated by your position. And actually I have usually read your posts when you were participating in an area of PF I was too. But by “hammer” and “censure” I meant debating in an attacking style. The technique appears to be to ignore my reasons for not answering certain of your questions, and level an inordinate amount of personal shots. If that is how you are going to debate, why should I participate since you aren’t responding to my objections, and all I’m going to get out of it is an ad hominem battering?

However, I will admit to a couple of points you made. This thread hasn’t been exactly on subject, at least as stated, the whole time. It did start out as challenging chemogenesis (I am going to switch to the more accurate term “abiogenesis”), but that came about from frustration with what I see as denial. So the reason the “most likely” issue came up is because to me that characterizes my complaint. If you read some of my past posts, it has been my most repeated (and virtually only) complaint about the science community, so for me it isn’t just a way to pass the time, it really bothers me. Saying that means I also should also admit that I’ve debated here in a combative way at times, allowing my frustration to show more than I probably should.

In this thread I made the challenge to abiogenesis after witnessing the assumption in Nautica’s thread (first by AG) that abiogenesis created life; it’s an assumption, I believe, that doesn’t properly reflect the problems with the theory. Now, you want to switch the subject and tell me I have to present an alternative model or shut up, or at least that’s the attitude I picked up on in your last posts, and which then AG joined in demanding. I responded to that petition in several ways, and you ignored every reason I gave and just demanded again. (Believe me, it takes reading my entire book to get the model . . . it took me twelve years of full-time work to come up with it, and fifteen years of preparation before that. Also, I have obligations to my publisher not to give any of the ideas away before the book is out.) Yet even if I could answer it in a brief space, I would not do it on principle.

Let me summarize why I don’t think I should have to present an alternative model, even if I do have one. As a thinking human being discussing ideas in a forum, I question inconsistencies in people’s propositions. But by your standards, I shouldn’t be allowed to question unless I can provide an alternative. How does that make sense? Is that how you run your life -- never questioning anything except what you are ready to replace with your own ideas? Don’t you ever say, “that doesn’t make sense” without feeling the need to develop a replacement theory?

My objection overall is not that there is an abiogenesis model, just like I don’t object to someone having a creationist or intelligent design model. My objection is to an attitude I run into with science-oriented materialist philosophy (I’ll just call that scientism). One way this attitude is reflected is in the statement “. . . there is no evidence.”

“Oh really,” I like to say. Now, the scientism devotees are the ones saying there “is no evidence,” not me. When I try to point them to where there might be evidence I am told they are not interested in looking; and the implication why they won’t look is usually because they do not consider it evidence.

That leads to a side discussion, which I usually argue by pointing out that experience is the basis of knowing, and therefore evidence too. I challenge the notion that sense experience is the only experience ever to produce knowledge about reality. That is why, I say, one must broaden one’s education if one is going to make the statement “there is no evidence.”

If there is such evidence, and I attempt to point to where to look, and no one listens, how is it my responsibility to get that evidence into their head? Even if I did come up with an alternative model, that resistance to any evidence except which scientism devotees deem acceptable is going to be challenged every step of the way.

And then comes the next step, and a further source of frustration. Now fully cloaked in scientism evidence, and shielded from any other possible sort of evidence, scientism devotees proclaim in public settings (like Discovery science specials, etc.) or in textbooks educating our children, that abiogenesis is “most likely.” But what should be said instead is that scientism’s theory is abiogenesis.

I dislike that “most likely” because I think the question is still very open. I would like to believe scientism devotees say it because they can’t see any better idea, but I read science and watch science specials incessantly, and I am always seeing an assumption in place of “we are right.” That same attitude shows up here too when someone demands that everything be subjected to empirical standards. The clear message is, if it doesn’t show up through empirical study, it doesn’t exist. Now, if you are a scientism devotee, that is pretty convenient isn’t it?

To recap the scientism approach I object to, it is to first define all that’s real as only knowable through sense experience (and that essentially is physical processes), it is to judge all other experience by empirical standards and therefore justify ignoring other possible legitimate conscious experience and consequently any evidence the experience might offer; and, in the case of abiogenesis, it is to exaggerate it’s ability to explain the origin of life while being utterly unwilling to admit to the theory’s main problem, which is that chemistry cannot be shown to get “progressive” (as defined).

Now, why am I not justified in challenging that approach without having to offer an alternative model? I am complaining about a sort of incestual standard among scientism devotees that interferes with objectivity, openness, depth of education, and encourages exaggeration. I am not complaining that someone has a model I don’t agree with.
 
  • #101
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well, whether you will admit it or not, you do have clout; most of us who’ve been here awhile respect and maybe are even a little intimidated by your position. And actually I have usually read your posts when you were participating in an area of PF I was too. But by “hammer” and “censure” I meant debating in an attacking style. The technique appears to be to ignore my reasons for not answering certain of your questions, and level an inordinate amount of personal shots. If that is how you are going to debate, why should I participate since you aren’t responding to my objections, and all I’m going to get out of it is an ad hominem battering?
Now why does this all tend to ring a bell with me? Hmm ... Perhaps like Les, these are my own feelings of inadequacy speaking here? Or, perhaps not? I don't know, it just all sounds kind of familiar.

But then again I'm not as well spoken as Les, neither do I take the whole thing quite so seriously, so maybe I have no business butting in. However, I do know what it feels like to get run over by a truck, and it ain't a pretty sight!
 
  • #102
I've also seen what looks like some semantic confusion with the term "most likely". Based on Tom's usage of it coupled with his horse race analogy, he is interpreting "most likely" to mean "of all the theories we know about, this one is probably closer to the truth." Whereas, I (and I assume Les) interpret it to mean "this theory is probably the truth." This is why I saw the horse race analogy as flawed because it assumes that the truth is represented by a horse currently in the race. Whereas, in reality, the theory representing the truth may not even be imagined yet. This I believe is a crucial point in order to grasp the major beef I think is being expressed in this thread. Saying a theory is most likely when it has not closed the gaps can seem to some people as if some assumptions are being made that probably shouldn't be.
 
  • #103
Originally posted by Fliption
I've also seen what looks like some semantic confusion with the term "most likely". Based on Tom's usage of it coupled with his horse race analogy, he is interpreting "most likely" to mean "of all the theories we know about, this one is probably closer to the truth." Whereas, I (and I assume Les) interpret it to mean "this theory is probably the truth." This is why I saw the horse race analogy as flawed because it assumes that the truth is represented by a horse currently in the race. Whereas, in reality, the theory representing the truth may not even be imagined yet. This I believe is a crucial point in order to grasp the major beef I think is being expressed in this thread. Saying a theory is most likely when it has not closed the gaps can seem to some people as if some assumptions are being made that probably shouldn't be. [/B]

Yes, I agree. I presented the horse race analogy not to justify labeling the theory as "most likely correct", but to bridge the gap between AG and LW Sleeth. If you follow AG's discussion, you will see that that is what he means, as evidenced by his asking Les twice for an alternative model.
 
  • #104
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well, whether you will admit it or not, you do have clout; most of us who’ve been here awhile respect and maybe are even a little intimidated by your position. And actually I have usually read your posts when you were participating in an area of PF I was too. But by “hammer” and “censure” I meant debating in an attacking style. The technique appears to be to ignore my reasons for not answering certain of your questions, and level an inordinate amount of personal shots. If that is how you are going to debate, why should I participate since you aren’t responding to my objections, and all I’m going to get out of it is an ad hominem battering?

I didn't ignore any of your reasons for not answering my questions. I countered them by noting that the "other side" doesn't see another option, and that is why an answer is needed.

As for that "hammer", that was in response to what I saw in this thread. I see AG asking you to give him something to consider as a competitor to the model he considers most likely correct, and I see you not wanting to enlighten him, calling those like him ignorant for not being so enlightened, and complaining that he is not open to your perspective. When I see things like that, you can be sure I will step in and intervene. If you knock it off, then so will I.

In any case, I am glad you decided to be more forthcoming. I'll get to the rest of your post later.
 
  • #105
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
\Notice how she says “mere collection of chemicals”? And “expanding organization”? Notice how awed they all are by life, that they consider it a mystery. Just about everyone not trying to win a debate or who’s not turned into a cold calculating machine notices there is something unique about life.
Accepted, there is something different between 'living' and 'non-living', but I thought we had already covered this, and decided to move on from it. Life does having something more to it, but that doesn't stop it from being nothing more than chemicals (in a physical sense). It is just a fact about those chemicals, that they happen to be in a particular system that repeats a particular process that results in copies of itself (or something that gives rise to itself) to be created. (Where 'itself' is the system at large).

Life is just chemicals, but chemicals that acheives a particular system dynamic. There is no definite line that separates these two ideas, there is no line that demarcates 'cyclical system that gives rise to offspring' and 'everything else'. We just happen to be able to easily observe when it does happen, and when it does not. When the line is blurred, (such as in the case of viruses) we debate pointlessly over a definition which isn't necessary.


the materialist goes further to assume that what is unavailable to senses and or logical analysis does not and cannot exist.

I wouldn't say that they assume that exactly. And if they do, then I am not a materialist, so whatever.

What I would say, is that what cannot be measured, is of no interest to anyone, and so may as well not exist. Materialism never claimed to be able to look at the workings of Heaven, or of hell, it's goal is to look at the reality that we experience.

Anything which cannot be measured, doesn't exist within our universe. It exists somewhere else, and it has no consequences on our lives. String theory is either untrue (for our universe), or it can be measured. If it cannot be measured, then it is having no effect. If it has an effect, then it can be measured. Materialism concerns itself, with that which is measurable (empirically), and pays no head to that which cannot be. (For good reason)


Because the only thing revealed through the senses and logical analysis are material processes, the materialist concludes existence is purely physical.
The materialist concludes, in their premise, that nothing other than the physical (ie: Everything measurable (Energy included)) matters to us. Whether there is something outside of that, is irrelevent.

It may be interesting, but the Philosophers are the only people who could possibly hypothesise about it: Not that anyone hypothesis has any credit over any other. Outside of the interest factor, it is irrelevent.


What do I want? I want scientists to acknowledge that chemogenesis is only a working hypothesis for some of them, to be 100% objective about how close they are to proving chemogenesis, to openly say what the difficulties are with the theory, and to stop saying chemogenesis is “most likely” until they can demonstrate non-living chemistry can transform itself into living chemistry.
Tom asks this in his next post, so I will have to keep reading (Sorry, been gone for the weekend, catching up), but in the absence of any other theory, considering that life is just chemicals doing something particularly specialised, and that there is some reason to think that it may have happened by organised chance interactions: Chemogenesis IS the most likely option.
 
  • #106
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
In this thread I made the challenge to abiogenesis after witnessing the assumption in Nautica’s thread (first by AG) that abiogenesis created life; it’s an assumption, I believe, that doesn’t properly reflect the problems with the theory. Now, you want to switch the subject and tell me I have to present an alternative model or shut up, or at least that’s the attitude I picked up on in your last posts, and which then AG joined in demanding.

I quote myself:

Not that not having an alternative theory can ever be a counter argument, and so I am not trying to use it as such, but this comment forces me to ask: What alternative promising approaches?

there was nothing combative about that, but my very point, as TOM tried to point out, was that When there is only one horse, that horse is the most likely.
IF that horse had no legs, then you could easily argue a point, but this horse has legs, it is just possible that maybe one of them will break before he finishes the race. Nonetheless, we are still willing to bet that it will win (since there are no other horses.). It is still, even in light of your criticisms of the organisational structure of chemistry, 'the most likely'.

ALl you needed to do is present one other theory, by name, by concept, be reference alone, that was in the race, and then there would be some reason for us to start wondering if this horse wasn't the most likely horse.

Now that we all know you are writting a book on an alternative hypothesis, GREAT. I can't wait to read it (And I promise right here and right now that I will.) I am not opposed to having theories challenged, I just don't get into the habit of denying theories which are 'Most likely' at explaining the phenomenon.

See, I strongly believe Evolution is a FACT in the strongest sense of the word: But you show me an alternative theory which explains everything better: And you have a convert. Just because the world accepts Abiogenesis as the most likely theory doesn't mean anything about the bias of the world. It is just a representation of the worlds knowledge.

If you ahve done a good job, then maybe it will have a challenger as the most likely theory very shortly.

I responded to that petition in several ways, and you ignored every reason I gave and just demanded again. (Believe me, it takes reading my entire book to get the model . . . it took me twelve years of full-time work to come up with it, and fifteen years of preparation before that. Also, I have obligations to my publisher not to give any of the ideas away before the book is out.) Yet even if I could answer it in a brief space, I would not do it on principle.
Hopefully you understand now, no one wanted to hear your theory necessarily, we just wanted to know that there was another horse in the race, and that it even might be able to keep up. You didn't show any hint at there being one.


Is that how you run your life -- never questioning anything except what you are ready to replace with your own ideas?
Again, hopefully you understand by now, that its not a refutation to your point so much as just a fact that without an alternative, and while being logically consistent, Abiogenesis must be necessity remain 'the most likely'.


To recap the scientism approach I object to, it is to first define all that’s real as only knowable through sense experience (and that essentially is physical processes)

The base assumption, agreed. (Of course, assuming that you mean 'sense experience' as in "Measurable by something, which can report to our sensory perception")

it is to judge all other experience by empirical standards and therefore justify ignoring other possible legitimate conscious experience and consequently any evidence the experience might offer;

You might have to throw out some useful information, but if you don't, how will you ever get through all of the completely irrelevent, misleading, useless BS present in the minds of Humans? there needs to be a method of scrutinization. There is an empirical method, based on measurable, verifiable standards. Without that verifiability, the information is useless to us.

and, in the case of abiogenesis, it is to exaggerate it’s ability to explain the origin of life while being utterly unwilling to admit to the theory’s main problem, which is that chemistry cannot be shown to get “progressive” (as defined).

OK, I will accept this criticism whole heartedly. It has become common practice to exagerate Abiogenesis, but in the defence of all exageraters by my side: The question of where life came from has been around for so long, and since God was first put into doubt, Abiogenesis has been like the 'Only' reasonable theory presented. (Prove me wrong on that one...) When a couple of hundred years have passed, and there is still only one horse in the race, even if there is still a rumour of its leg possibly breaking, you still bet on it.


Now, why am I not justified in challenging that approach without having to offer an alternative model? I am complaining about a sort of incestual standard among scientism devotees that interferes with objectivity, openness, depth of education, and encourages exaggeration. I am not complaining that someone has a model I don’t agree with.
You are justified in challenging it without an alternative model: The alternative model simply would have allowed your point to be made without necessarily breaking the horses leg.

Even if there is exageration as to how likely chemical organisation may be, you still cannot show that it can't, and hasn't happened: So abiogenesis is still the most likely. If you could present an alternative, you would make your point without needing to logically show that it couldn't happen.
 
  • #107
OK, i am finally to the end. Hopefully what I have just said has cleared things up a little though...?

An alternative is not required for you to present an argument, but since your argument is not conclusive (even if it raises a valid point), presenting an alternative will achieve your goal nonetheless.

You criticisms of the exageration is accepted, and in the future it would probably be easier to just point those out rather than critice 'Scientism' as a whole. I think my reasons for the exageration are reasonable, but you may want to reply to them still.

Looking forward to it.
 
  • #108
How we did we focus this to a one horse race? How do we deal with those that would suggest that "Creation" is in this race? Help me understand how "Creation" is impossible.

John
"Canadian Idle"
 
  • #109
Originally posted by full-time-climb
How we did we focus this to a one horse race? How do we deal with those that would suggest that "Creation" is in this race? Help me understand how "Creation" is impossible.

John
"Canadian Idle"

Yep, I agree it is being presented as a one horse race. I am preparing an answer questioning that assumption.
 
  • #110
AG, I suspect that ultimately we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that, but I do appreciate your efforts in the last three posts to acknowledge both sides of the argument.

I am going to change the focus a little with this post to discuss what I see as the biggest communication problem we’ve been having at this thread. I hope you don’t mind that I am using your last posts as examples. I am not picking on you, but rather I think you generally reflect one side of the discussion we've been having.

I am sure you are familiar with the suffix –centric, and how it is sometimes used to describe human psychological traits, such as “ethnocentric.” I believe a lot of what you and others say here might be called empiricentric.

To explain “empiricentric” I’ll start with an analogy. I was raised in a fundamentalist religious family, and when a bunch of them would get together to explain, say, the origin of the universe, the group had standards they agreed upon about what was acceptable as evidence. In the discussion, obeying the standards of evidence was more important than if the evidence was true. Further, one wasn’t allowed (as I would try to do) to challenge the standards; that was the ultimate crime against the philosophical stance they’d chosen as the “true” stance.

Similarly, those who’ve chosen empirically-supported materialism as the “true” philosophical stance (what I’ve referred to as “scientism”) have standards as well for what is acceptable as evidence. Scientism devotees all agree on the standards, and don’t have the slightest openness (that I’ve seen) to those standards being questioned. And me? Well, I commit the ultimate sin when I am in a setting where scientism belief is prevalent, and I challenge the very standards that define the scientism philosophical system. Let me see if I can clarify why am I am behaving like the proverbial tiny fly biting the big and powerful horse.

I believe the instant one assumes a philosophical stance that one claims reveals all revealable truths, one has stepped away from the truth. That’s because one now becomes more concerned with practicing, maintaining and defending the standards of the stance than one is concerned with truth finding. It’s been said that God is a jealous God, but I think the truth is even more jealous, and resists fully showing itself to any philosophy that claims it alone is the way to truth.

How specifically does assuming a philosophical stance interfere with truth finding? It acts as a filter which judges all reality by its standards, and then strains out anything which doesn’t meet the standards of the stance. Rather than creating an open objective mind, it narrows and opinionates and biases the mind. It makes one behave like (slightly adjusting an old business aphorism) someone who thinks that the only worthwhile tool is a hammer, and so goes around treating everything like a nail.

I will give a few examples before my conclusion.

You say, “Anything which cannot be measured, doesn't exist within our universe. It exists somewhere else, and it has no consequences on our lives. String theory is either untrue (for our universe), or it can be measured. If it cannot be measured, then it is having no effect. If it has an effect, then it can be measured. Materialism concerns itself, with that which is measurable (empirically), and pays no head to that which cannot be.”

I would agree that measurement is necessary for empirical work. In empirical research to be used in technology, for instance, it really doesn’t matter if something exists or not unless it can be detected and utilized. It is a practical matter. If as a way of remembering one needs detectable, measurable data to proceed in empirical research, one says “Anything which cannot be measured, doesn't exist . . .” that is fine with me.

But that is not the same as saying if it cannot be measured by empirical means it doesn’t exist! If one says and means that, one is revealing his/her bias for empirical standards by claiming they apply to everything. It is completely possible that empirical standards only apply to material processes, and what they do not reveal is simply due the limitations of the empirical method. So why aren’t scientism devotees content to say “if something exists other than physical processes, it is outside the scope of empiricism”? I say it is because they are working to establish the absoluteness of their philosophy.

Here’s another statement: “Even if there is exaggeration as to how likely chemical organization may be, you still cannot show that it can't, and hasn't happened: So abiogenesis is still the most likely. If you could present an alternative, you would make your point without needing to logically show that it couldn't happen.”

That statement assumes in advance the accuracy of the materialist model, and that empirical standards can reveal everything. Yet it violates the empirical standard itself by suggesting abiogenesis has to be disproved. Well, can anyone disprove that supernatural forces did it? God? Whatever? The responsibility for proof is on whomever makes the claim something is true. Then from that to conclude “So abiogenesis is still the most likely” demonstrates empiricentrism because to whom is it “most likely”? Not to me, and not to a few billion other people on the planet. It is "most likely" to scientism devotees and their standards, period.

Another example of empiricentrism is revealed in this statement, “The question of where life came from has been around for so long, and since God was first put into doubt, Abiogenesis has been like the 'Only' reasonable theory presented. (Prove me wrong on that one...) When a couple of hundred years have passed, and there is still only one horse in the race, even if there is still a rumor of its leg possibly breaking, you still bet on it. . . . Just because the world accepts Abiogenesis as the most likely theory doesn't mean anything about the bias of the world. It is just a representation of the worlds knowledge.”

To whom is God in doubt? To whom has abiogenesis been the “only reasonable theory presented”? Whose race is it? Is it the world community of human beings, or is it a scientism race which only allows materialist horses in the race?

You go on to say, “You might have to throw out some useful information, but if you don't, how will you ever get through all of the completely irrelevant, misleading, useless BS present in the minds of Humans? there needs to be a method of scrutinization. There is an empirical method, based on measurable, verifiable standards. Without that verifiability, the information is useless to us.”

Again, useless to whom? If you first set up standards which judge as useful only that which can be verified by the standards of your philosophy, then aren’t you arrogating the path to useful, truth, etc.?

Finally, you say: “Materialism never claimed to be able to look at the workings of Heaven, or of hell, it's goal is to look at the reality that we experience. . . .

First you define reality as only that which sense experience reveals; that consequently relieves you of investigating any other sort of experience which might provide information; and that in turn allows you to discount everything that is unable to meet the standards of scientism philosophy.

Here’s what I believe would be the proper philosophical and objective attitude.

Because empiricism has only revealed a material universe, we are justified in assuming empiricism only reveals physical processes. We are NOT justified in assuming that the failure of empiricism to reveal anything metaphysical means there is nothing metaphysical.

There are people who a great many of us believe have achieved something metaphysical. Their expertise has not been about physical processes. The empirical standard is superbly equipped to describe the physical aspects of the universe, it can say nothing of value about anything that is metaphysical.

In life and consciousness, there clearly are monumental amounts of physical processes going on. But there are a few things which have not been accounted for by that. There are great many educated people who think something metaphysical could be involved in certain of those unknown areas. Further, it doesn’t mean it isn’t true just because scientists can’t measure it because the metaphysical influence might not be measurable that way. Therefore, scientism devotees cannot yet say those areas are “most likely” physical since they’ve neither proven that, nor is the rest of the world in general agreement with them. Scientism devotees consequently must be content to say these horrible words -- WE DON’T KNOW – and leave the question open to other possible explanations.
 
  • #111
Originally posted by Another God
Again, hopefully you understand by now, that its not a refutation to your point so much as just a fact that without an alternative, and while being logically consistent, Abiogenesis must be necessity remain 'the most likely'.

Well, I still haven't understood Tom's objections in this thread and seeing these words makes me feel even more strongly. I do now understand what you mean when you say "most likely" but I have to say that it is an "extreeeeeemely deceptive" choice of words. I'll repeat what I said before, to use those words assumes that the "truth" (how life actually started) is captured in a horse that we currently know about. When in actuality, science is full of instances where new horses just popped into the race out of no where because some brilliant scientist somewhere made a discovery. In fact, this almost always happens when the current horses all have limps. By your standards, the theory that the Earth is flat was at one time "most likely". We now know it isn't even close to the truth. The term "most likely" seems meaningless to me when used this way.

I'm arguing that this phrase is being used for more reasons than the fact that it is the only one we currently know of.
 
Last edited:
  • #112
I think you underestimate me Les. I have never minded admitting that I don't know. I do it quite regularly. I don't even mind finding out that I am wrong. As long as it is actually shown to me, and I am not just accused of it.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
To explain “empiricentric” I’ll start with an analogy.
...
Scientism devotees all agree on the standards, and don’t have the slightest openness (that I’ve seen) to those standards being questioned.
...
I would agree that measurement is necessary for empirical work.
...
But that is not the same as saying if it cannot be measured by empirical means it doesn’t exist! If one says and means that, one is revealing his/her bias for empirical standards by claiming they apply to everything. It is completely possible that empirical standards only apply to material processes, and what they do not reveal is simply due the limitations of the empirical method. So why aren’t scientism devotees content to say “if something exists other than physical processes, it is outside the scope of empiricism”? I say it is because they are working to establish the absoluteness of their philosophy.

It is hard to express, so i will just try to say it again in another way, and hope you get what I mean: If something, anything, has any influence on our universe...it is measurable. Whether we actually can measure it or not isn't the point here, it is whether it is measurable or not. If it has an influence, it is measurable, and so it is within the scope of empiricism, within the scope of 'scientism'. So whether you want to talk about the existence of neutrons, strings, or personal experience: They are all measurable: They all have some impact on the universe. Just as I cannot see an atom, I cannot see that you love your wife: But the existence of an atom may be measured by weight, and the presence of your love may be measured by your actions, your words, and your brain activity. (And possibly something much more sophisticate in the future)

And thus I present my bias to you out in the open, no denying it: I want to say "For everything in existence, there is a direct interaction with something else, and we can either measure that first thing, the second thing, or something else down the track of causality which in turn may indicate the existence of the first thing. And thus EVERYTHING is measurable." But that isn't entirely true. I know that. The truth is that there are probably things which don't interact, and so aren't measurable. They exist nonetheless right? And this is the important part: It is not that anyone is trying to force a philosophy into absolute acceptance here, it is just that there is no point considering those non-interactive factors. They have NO role in our universe. So we can just ignore them.

No fault in doing that, it's just practicality. All of this, is practicality to the nth degree.

That statement assumes in advance the accuracy of the materialist model, and that empirical standards can reveal everything. Yet it violates the empirical standard itself by suggesting abiogenesis has to be disproved.

It's a progression. You want us to say "Oh, we can't be certain, we should stop assuming we know anything"? We have to work with what we have, and what we have so far, is the way things seem to us. And the way things seem to us right now, are all pointing towards Abiogenesis. If everything of our current world view is pointing towards abiogenesis, then we are going to assume there is a good reason for it. And at no time does it assume that it has to be disproved. It just needs to be replaced with a better model. Same with every other theory. Until it is either disproved or replaced with a better model, then it will remain the accepted model.

Remember: That was the whole point of me asking if there was another option outside of Abiogenesis: You could achieve your point without disproving it.

...not that you need to disprove it, but its just that as long as it is the only model, and everything in it is functionally possible, and there is no conclusive evidence either way, it will be accepted as 'the most likely', and will remain so until one of those 2 elements is broken: It becomes 'not the most likely' or 'it is not functionally possible.' It's all very simple really.

OK: I ahve to sort of step back and make a very serious point here: Why do you keep pushing with some of these points. You ask some questions which, well, have either been asked several times over, or a blatently obvious to anyone who wants to think about it, yet you ask them nonetheless as if they are problematic for the 'Scientism devotee
'. If you stopped for a second with this Crusade complex, and start tto discuss this topic with a mind towards solving problems, not creating them, then perhaps this could all be a little more progressive. Instead you keep asking why 'it needs to be disproved' when no one said anything about that. And you ask 'Why you should need a replacement theory first', when no one said you did. Maybe you didn't get it at first, hopefully you do now, and we can move on from this point.

A practice that is useful to get into: Try to answer your own questions before you ask them. I find that you wil tend to be able to.


The question of where life came from has been around for so long, and since God was first put into doubt
Sorry, i worded this terribly. I meant to say that it has been around since the single Creation event was put into doubt: ie: Since Lyel and his dynamic geology theories, and Darwin and the Origin of the Species. Of course these works were largely denied in the begining, because it didn't fit in line with the Bible world view, but the question was finally out there, and as long as a few people doubted creation, then the question was being worked on "Well, if God didn't do it, how did it come to be?"
[/quote][/b]
Whose race is it? Is it the world community of human beings, or is it a scientism race which only allows materialist horses in the race?
[/quote][/b]
You know, this is a good point, because the answer is exactly what you fear it would be: It is a scientism race that only allows materialist horses in the race because 'the human race' is stupid and have no idea about how their world functions (I'm sure that will get soments here...), and only materialism ever produces winners. (Yes, even by the materialist method of rating winners!) Funnily enough, the materialistic method of rating winners, also happens to be the 'Human' method of rating winners : ie: Which one has acheived something.

Like the philosophy behind it or not, it is the human method, just refined a little.

Again, useless to whom? If you first set up standards which judge as useful only that which can be verified by the standards of your philosophy, then aren’t you arrogating the path to useful, truth, etc.?
I feel like this is another one of those questions just put in here to make me answer more. Something you could have answered for yourself if you had have thought about it, but you chose not too, because the more questions you ask, the more problematic my stance appears.

That which is useful, is apparent. It is clear. It doesn't need to be explained. You know what is useful, and I know what is useful. What is useless, is everything outside of that which is useful. These things can be considered on an individual level, or they could be considered on a global level, or on a community l;evel, whatever. But for each case something can be easily chosen as useful, or useless without me needing to sit here and explain it to you.


Because empiricism has only revealed a material universe, we are justified in assuming empiricism only reveals physical processes.

And because material universe is all we are interested in, who cares about the rest?

The empirical standard is superbly equipped to describe the physical aspects of the universe, it can say nothing of value about anything that is metaphysical.
Metaphysical doesn't mean what you think it does: Materialism is a metaphysical theory. Metaphysics is the term used to refer to a philosophical world view. It comes from the naming of Aristotles books, and the book about his theories of 'how things really are' was chronicaled before his book on Physics: Hence 'Meta=physics', before physics.

Anything which is not-physical, has no role in the physical, and thus can't influence us. Since we are, physical beings. Yes, we have subjective minds, but that mind is nothing more than an emergent property of a physical body. remover the physical body and suddenly you have no subjective. Change the subjective, the physical changes. Change the physical, the subjective changes. 1 to 1 ratio all the way. We are physical, our unvierse is physical, and that which isn't physical, is of no regard to us.
 
  • #113
Originally posted by Fliption
By your standards, the theory that the Earth is flat was at one time "most likely". We now know it isn't even close to the truth. The term "most likely" seems meaningless to me when used this way.
It is being used because all of the evidence thus collected points towards it. It is being used because it is logically coherent. It is being used because life is chemical, thus it makes sense that life should have come from chemicals. There is no other option presented. Chemicals, no option, had to come from somewhere...DAMN GOOD OPTION. MOST LIKELY OPTION. ONLY OPTION.

But yes, it might be wrong. What do you want? Oh, it might be wrong, let's pretend we have NO IDEA how it happened, and make all the fundamentalist christians happy because they are the only people with a 'theory' (not that they even have one) and Science has NO IDEA, they must therefore be right?

It is the Most Likely theory, because when u consider everything, it IS bloody likely. It is just not certain.

A better analogy than the flat Earth one (because that was never a theory), would be the EArthcentric view. When Ptolemy made his solar model, it was most likely that Earth was the center, and I will stand by that. It has since been proven 'Wrong', but that doesn't stop it from having been the most likely at the time. It was a good model. It was consistent, it explained everything reasonably well. It was only better by ...that guy with the steel nose. Copernicus worked under him for a while: He propossed that the sun went around the earth, and everything else went around the sun. That was a great model because it explained everything that they saw, and it had less premises than Ptolemys model did. So it was 'the most likely' for a while, but it also was wrong.

Abiogensis isn't certain. Nothing is. But when u look at everything, it is the most likely. The phrase is no more misleading than you try to make it. It means exactly what it sounds like it means: It is more than likely TRUE, but not certainly so.
 
  • #114
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Yep, I agree it is being presented as a one horse race. I am preparing an answer questioning that assumption.
What assumption? Have you taken the LW Sleeth who has been participating in this thread, and replaced him?

Since when did we assume it was a one horse race? Haven't we asked, like..i dunno...10 times now for any nominations as a potential other candidate? There are none.

Creation isn't a theory, its an empty claim. It explains nothing, and relies on nothing.

Intelligent design also has no basis and explains nothing, relying on 'That which we don't understand, we explain by the God factor'. It tells us nothing.
 
  • #115
Originally posted by Another God

But yes, it might be wrong. What do you want? Oh, it might be wrong, let's pretend we have NO IDEA how it happened, and make all the fundamentalist christians happy because they are the only people with a 'theory' (not that they even have one) and Science has NO IDEA, they must therefore be right?

I don't think you understand my objection. Let me say that I think it is purely semantic. I don't have a problem with anything you have said here. If it's the only theory we have then it is the best theory we have. That makes sense to me. But the words "most likely" don't mean that to me. It's probably just the way we define words and phrases differently, but to me "most likely" means this theory is the best theory of all theories that will ever be known. Again, to use it the way you have and say that it was most likely back then but it turned out not to be true makes that phrase a meaningless one. Why not just say "it's the best theory we have" instead? You accomplish the same thing without the semantic confusion.

BTW, whether flat Earth was a theory or not is completely irrelevant to my point. That's why I wasn't picky with the example. Just want to make sure you understand where I'm coming from.
 
  • #116
Originally posted by Another God
Intelligent design also has no basis and explains nothing, relying on 'That which we don't understand, we explain by the God factor'. It tells us nothing.

I'm not necessaily a proponent of any of these theories you've blasted but where is the rule that's says the truth has to have immediate explanatory value? Perhaps the very loose guide of Occams Razor but that is all I can think of. The fact that these theories aren't testable is probably closer to the real reason why they aren't on your radar screen. Which really just takes us back to LWS's point.
 
  • #117
Why not just say "it's the best theory we have" instead?
Fine we'll say that. Whatever.

This whole point has been a waste of time IMO.
 
  • #118
Originally posted by Another God
This whole point has been a waste of time IMO.

I agree. People debating something that amounts to mere definition differences is a complete waste of time. Which is why I pointed it out. It is my opinion that the reason you rarely see progress made or minds changed in these topics is because this medium of communication is very weak in sorting out semantic problems. But that's why I'm here. PF Doesn't pay me to do this for nothing:smile:

Now if you meant that me pointing this out was a waste of time, then I think I have another theory as to why little progress is ever made.
 
  • #119
We talk as though the universe exists in a random state. If Albert E has taught me anything it is that "the multiverse exists in perfect harmony." Therefore if chemo genesis is "it" then not to worry as it will reveil itself as did E=MC^2.
In the mean time we need to cherish that "which is not" as it is the only thing that will lead us to "that which is"

I expect that "that which is" will also come from a "Dream state" and then be validated in the laboratory and not the other way around.

This discussion has not been a waste of time unless that is the meaning you give it.

John
"Canadian Idle"
 
  • #120
Originally posted by Another God
OK: I ahve to sort of step back and make a very serious point here: Why do you keep pushing with some of these points. You ask some questions which, well, have either been asked several times over, or a blatently obvious to anyone who wants to think about it, yet you ask them nonetheless as if they are problematic for the 'Scientism devotee
'. If you stopped for a second with this Crusade complex, and start tto discuss this topic with a mind towards solving problems, not creating them, then perhaps this could all be a little more progressive. Instead you keep asking why 'it needs to be disproved' when no one said anything about that. And you ask 'Why you should need a replacement theory first', when no one said you did. Maybe you didn't get it at first, hopefully you do now, and we can move on from this point.

A practice that is useful to get into: Try to answer your own questions before you ask them. I find that you wil tend to be able to.


The reason I “push points” is because you seem unable to acknowledge that there might other points of view besides your own which are as valid. Then, at 20-something years old, you condescend to tell me I have a crusade complex (not to mention to explain metaphysical to me . . . give me a break AG). The theme of this thread wasn’t your idea you know, it was mine, and I started it to push the very points I am pushing.

Think about how I’ve debated you. I have never ever denied the validity of what science actually achieves. I believe in science, and love it dearly. I hope through it we are able to understand the universe and humanity much better. But I don’t think your attitude reflects good science, it reflects the materialist religion, cloaked in science; and I also think what you are doing is going on quite a bit in the science community.

I just about despise religion no matter what guise it comes in because in my experience it is never objective; thus you have the reason for this thread: to argue for objectivity in science claims. That’s it, no other motivation. NONE. It is precisely because I love science that I question how honest some scientism devotees are being in their claims, and how fairly they look at other points of views. I suppose “crusade” is how it sounds when I explain what I have to say a dozen different ways trying to connect, only to have you once again repeat your own views without the slightest acknowledgment you’ve understood me.

Because you think you have the only way to the truth, you don’t feel like you have to listen. Yet I know for a fact there is at least one other way to explore the universe besides through science, and just because you “aren’t interested” in and refuse to investigate that possibility doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Great tactic . . . “I won’t look, and it ain’t relevant anyway.”

And do I have evidence of your attitude? Why yes, you provided it yourself:

“It is a scientism race that only allows materialist horses in the race because 'the human race' is stupid and have no idea about how their world functions . . . only materialism ever produces winners. (Yes, even by the materialist method of rating winners!) Funnily enough, the materialistic method of rating winners, also happens to be the 'Human' method of rating winners : ie: Which one has achieved something.”

Just in case you’ve forgotten, you are member of that stupid human race. And thank you for helping us all understand how to judge who’s “achieved something.” I now see that what is important to you to achieve is the standard for achievement the whole world should live by. I wish the Buddha were still alive so I could explain to him what he should have achieved instead of dumb, er stupid, ol' enlightenment.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Why does biology deal with why questions?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
The Origin of Life, the relationships between life and Energy
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
New Scenario for Early Earth History and the Origin of Life
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
The Life and Career of Chestermiller
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
Can Humans Metabolize Alien Life Forms on a Colonized Ocean World?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Synhelion -- Using solar heliostat farms to create liquid fuels from Water Vapor and CO2
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Studying Approaching My 10 Week "Summer" Study Plan
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Is my fictional Solar System stable and realistic?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Quantum Workforce Elements, Toolbox for QIS Programs at Universities
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
A Quantization isn't fundamental
  • · Replies 163 ·
6
Replies
163
Views
27K