5 ms·
> I find there is too much suppression of dissenting views in evolutionary and climate science, I think idiots are not ignored enough in our current society.
by pif 7y ago
> I find there is too much suppression of dissenting views in evolutionary and climate science,
I think idiots are not ignored enough in our current society.
Science is about what can be observed. Theories are only useful as long as they predict right results. Opionions are irrelevant.
- EGreg 7y agoExactly. Theories are only useful as long as they predict right results. That’s what separates, say, the theory of common descent, from the current crop of theories about HOW flight evolved. They have ZERO predictive power. They are closer to “just-so” stories. Such theories should be rightly called unscientific compared to theories that have far more falsifiability and predictive power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
- philbarr 7y agoAre you suggesting that creationism is a valid theory?
- foldr 7y agoThere's nothing in EGreg's comments to indicate that. I don't think accusing people of being creationists when they say something mildly critical of some branch of evolutionary biology is conducive to a good discussion.
- philbarr 7y agoIn their initial comment they write: ...and turn “evolution” into a religion in our quest to replace creationist accounts.
- war1025 7y agoHe means it in a sense of turning it into a new creation story that is above reproach instead of treating it as a working theory that needs to be continually investigated and refined.
- philbarr 7y agoPossibly, or possibly he's finding reasons to rebuff evolution so that the only remaining answer is intelligent design. But neither of us know that, so that's why I asked.
- foldr 7y agoPossibly you are finding reasons to smear anyone who disagrees with you as a creationist.
- philbarr 7y agoWhere on earth did you get that? And you are clearly incorrect as he/she hasn't answered my question. Therefore I cannot be "smearing" him for a response he hasn't given. What ridiculous ad hominem. I asked a genuine question that hasn't been answered and you inferred far more from it than there really was.
- foldr 7y agoI was paralleling your own baseless speculation about someone’s motives: “Possibly, or possibly he's finding reasons to rebuff evolution so that the only remaining answer is intelligent design.”
- philbarr 7y agoFair enough, but had he answered, "no", to, "do you think creationism is a valid theory" I would have been happy to accept his premise that he was only interested in scientific discovery. That's why I asked that specific question. To clarify my possibly incorrect assumption that he believes in creationism and is only saying what he is to further that agenda. That's why I asked. I could well be wrong about that. But he hasn't answered.
- Scarblac 7y agoPresumably not, since he is against "just-so stories" and surely Creationism is the greatest example of that in history.
- Scarblac 7y agoSo what's your competing theory of how flight evolved?
- foldr 7y agoHow is that a relevant question? You don't have to have a competing theory of some phenomenon before you can point out weaknesses in existing theories.
- Scarblac 7y agoYou do though. Weakness of theories is only relevant compared to each other, we use the best we currently have.
- foldr 7y ago> Weakness of theories is only relevant compared to each other, Surely not. We're also interested in how explanatory a theory is, and in whether or not we have strong grounds to think it true. If what you were saying were correct, it would have been wrong to point out in 1860 that Newton's theory made incorrect predictions regarding the orbit of Mercury.
- flukus 7y ago> How is that a relevant question OP said alternate theories where being suppressed but has yet to name one or provide any evidence of that they're being suppressed. That's why I and others strongly suspect they are a creationist sowing doubt and not interested in any legitimate debate. The playbook of a creationist or climate "skeptic" is to sow doubt and then claim their theory is just as good because "nobody really knows". If they'd name what dissenting theory is being suppressed I'd give them a lot more benefit of the doubt.
- EGreg 7y agoI could point to many theories that were declared debunked but were later revived under different names, eg Lamarckian evolution, now a hot field again under the name epigenetics. I could say that it is New Kind of Science type explanations which defy simply analytic explanations the same way machine learning is not reducible to explanations involving simple syllogisms. But let’s give you what you want, because I want to get to the heart of the issue. What if the competing theory was, in fact supernatural, some form of intelligent design or theistic evolution? Go ahead, make your point. Because I am interested in just how much an attitude of anti theism motivates otherwise rational people to refuse to admit that an unfalsifiable theory (like that ALL speciation proceeds by random mutation and natural selection, ie things we understand which we call natural) is falsifiable? And that a fancy sounding just-so story actually passes for science as long as it assumes the above is true? You just prefer that currently understood processes are involved, instead of saying that it’s stuff beyond your comprehension. I will directly ask: how is that more rational than theism?