Re: Pseudo-science


Greg G. wrote:
mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
A.Carlson wrote:
On 12 May 2006 15:28:06 -0700, mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:


Greg G. wrote:
mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Watch out for evidence of pseudo-science.

1. Usually the proponent of pseudo-science dismisses falsified
so-called "proofs" with ready catch-phrases that state that improvement
or advancement has falsified the "proof". But pseudo-science doesn't
wish to admit guilt nor admit to wishful thinking.

2. When wishful thinking establishes proof for pseudo-science, and
this is debunked, the proof is sometimes blamed on "nationalism" and
not on the truth, namely wishful thinking.

3. Pseudo-science is long on claiming that their point of view is
science when in fact what they really mean is that their point of view
is naturalism.

The last word of that sentence is spelled S-U-P-E-R-S-T-I-T-I-O-N.

False. Science is merely experimentation.

Science is not JUST experimentation, as others have pointed out, it is
also observation which includes taking into account the results of
experimentation and coming up with a viable explanation and then going
on from there to further test any viable explanation.

Uh, experimentation implies observation. Why would anyone experiment
and not observe?

There's observation without setting up an experiment. You can learn
alot by observing stars but you can't experiment on them.

True. You can tell what chemical composition they are made of, the
speed and velocity of rotation of each star, where they have been and
where they are going, etc.






"Goddidit" and any other such baseless *explanations* not only do not
really explain anything in the long run, not to mention the fact that
it makes virtually any conceivable explanation under the sun plausible
under their own constructs, such *explanations* also have a long
history of being proved wrong based on more concrete evidence.

Actually since science is merely experimentation,

You were wrong two days ago when you started saying this and you're
wrong again.

Science is a method that is well defined. It starts with observation,
hypothesis forming, testing, and futher testing until the hypothesis
turns into a theory. With subsequent observation you have proven fact.




a method, anyone can
use it. There is nothing in science that says that we have to explain
everything through naturalistic means.

Actually, when you resort to non-naturalistic explanations, you have
entered pseudo-science.

Not so. Naturalism isn't science. Naturalism is an artificial
construct that says everyone must obey and try to figure out how
everything came to be through nature.



In fact, all the
experimentation in the world says, "INTELLIGENCE DID IT." Why?
Because every attempt to show that nature did it is an invalidation of
the whole point, because intelligence operated those test tubes.

What evidence do you have for that? (I won't embarrass you by thinking
you are talking about the trivial case of humans handling the test
tubes.)

Miller and Urey did some experiments with the origin of life using
complicated set of tubes. They didn't go very far and only prove that
intelligence can do it.





If one wants to conclude
that naturalism is the case through science all he has to do is show
that the experimentation adds up to the view in contention.

You are conveniently leaving out the not so insignificant fact that
empirical evidence is also required, something that the ToE has in
spades and your mythical ark fantasy (particularly Ron 'The Con's
version) has none to speak of.

There is not a shred of empirical evidence that shows that
experimentation adds up to the naturalistic point of view regarding
origins.

But all the observed empirical evidence does indicate the naturalistic
point of view regarding origins. An experiment would require millions
of years in a sterilized earth-sized test tube.

Empirical evidence has shown that an elaborate laboratory would be
needed to cool some aminos quickly with precise timing, heat others at
the right time, and so fourth. Billions of precise mechanics are
involved with precise timing demanded. It is much more complicated than
an engine in a car. How could that happen? It didn't. Naturalism
forces all the scientists to shrug their shoulders and say, well, "it's
complicated, we canna do it, but it happened anyway." For that reason
naturalism forces people to have sub-intelligence. It's like saying
that two martians came to earth and had to interpret Mt Rushmore as a
product of wind, erosion and rain, and intelligence was off limits.






If
creationists want to prove that every experiment proves that only
intelligence can produce then all he has to do is show the
experimentation.

Bullshit! Pay attention to the word 'only' in that sentence. To
prove *only* intelligence can produce something, you have to prove
conclusively that there is no other possible way that something can be
produced.

All you have to do is prove that there is an exception to the rule,
that intelligence produces complex things.

Intelligence produces complex things? I think you left out an "only".

Intelligence produces only complex things. No.

Name one exception.


Intelligence only produces complex things. No.

Name one.

Only intelligence produces complex things. No.

Name one.


Intelligence produces complex things that are only as complex as
necessary. Excess complexity results from the lack of intelligence,
even if some intelligence is involved. Natural processes can produce
complexity and natural processes can delete excess complexity through
trial and error if given enough chances.

DNA is a big molecule that functions through the natural process of
simple chemistry.

You haven't done much research I see. DNA is a complex molecules in
which thousands if not billions of chemical reactions are currently in
operation.


Mutations are a result of the natural process of
chemistry.

Which result in damaged fruit flies.


Mutations can increase complexity, create excess complexity,
and delete complexity through natural processes.

You haven't named one.









It is a blatantly obvious false analogy when Creationists argue that
because an experiment that was by necessity designed in order to be
carried out somehow proves that intelligence is the only way that the
results could have occurred outside of the experiment itself.

Actually, it's quite simple. Scientists have observed billions of
examples where intelligence has created complex things. But no
observation to the contrary.

You have repeated this again and again, yet it is still as wrong as the
first time you said it.

You haven't named an exception.






Much of what is known about our natural world is based on observations
made outside of experimentation. Experiments themselves are often
complimentary to what is observed and are designed in a way to help
better understand what is occurring and being observed in nature on
its own.

But to state that the only explaination must be
naturalistic is not science.

To state otherwise makes invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti
monsters, and the like just as plausible as anything else.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to support anything supernatural to
begin with. Look up the term 'empirical evidence'.

We've seen those, actually. We've seen pink proto-cells, Haeckel's
pink monera, and by the way, flying spaghetti and monsters definitely
fall into the naturalistic scheme as does aminos producing proto-cells
and wiggly worms.

I like a good sense of humor. 80)


JM





JM

Science and naturalism are two different things.
Science is the use of the scientific method via experimentation.

and observation.

Any particular reason why you didn't address this?

Have you addressed this anywhere yet?


Naturalism is the forced conclusion that everything has to be explained
by a naturalistic process whether observed or not.

Completely wrong. Appealing to miracles leaves to many things
unexplained that could be understood with more study. Naturalism allows
the development of the germ theory of disease rather than maintaining
the demon theory of disease.

Any particular reason why you didn't address this?

Have you addressed this anywhere yet?


4. Pseudo-science attempts to force one to go through their process of
approval rather than through direct argumentation. In this way a small
group of people control what you read.

Science requires evidence and discourages making stuff up and wishful
thinking.

Any particular reason why you didn't address this?

Have you addressed this anywhere yet?


5. Pseudo-science claims that every quote that counters their point of
view is "quote-mining".

"Quote-mining" is taking a quote out of context so it *seems_ to
counter a point when, if it is relevant at all, it actually supports
the point when taken in context. The New International Version of the
Bible has 13 verses that say "there is no god". That is a quote mine,
as the verses mentioned say things like "The fool in his heart says
'There is no god'" which is the opposite of the quote-mined phrase. See
the difference?

Any particular reason why you didn't address this?

Have you addressed this anywhere yet?

--
Greg G.

Much that is weird could happen on a world on the back of a turtle.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pseudo-science
    ... Science is merely experimentation. ... Science is not JUST experimentation, as others have pointed out, it is ... history of being proved wrong based on more concrete evidence. ... Naturalism isn't science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pseudo-science
    ... Science is merely experimentation. ... Science is not JUST experimentation, as others have pointed out, it is ... history of being proved wrong based on more concrete evidence. ... Naturalism isn't science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pseudo-science
    ... Science is merely experimentation. ... Science is not JUST experimentation, as others have pointed out, it is ... history of being proved wrong based on more concrete evidence. ... that naturalism is the case through science all he has to do is show ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pseudo-science
    ... Science is merely experimentation. ... Science is not JUST experimentation, as others have pointed out, it is ... history of being proved wrong based on more concrete evidence. ... Naturalism isn't science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pseudo-science
    ... Usually the proponent of pseudo-science dismisses falsified ... Science is merely experimentation. ... Science is not JUST experimentation, as others have pointed out, it is ... that naturalism is the case through science all he has to do is show ...
    (talk.origins)