Roosh's "Theory Of Evolution Does Not Apply..." Discussion

[Truth Teller]

My reading of the New Testament has launched me into yet another study of the historical life of Jesus, as I simply could not find the miracles performed by Jesus and the Apostles as believable. I think, to understand both the Old Testament (which I haven't read as completely as the New Testament yet) and the New Testament, at least in regard to the truth of it, the history of the time has to be understood.

Some of the big issues I have with the New Testament:
The NT was written in Greek due to Alexander the Great sweeping through the area a few centuries before. This colors the atmosphere heavily.
Rome was expanding at the same time as the New Testament, likely due to the effects that the Greeks had, meaning the entire area was in a very hostile, wild political environment. From the death of Jesus to the gospel of Mark is four decades. That is a lot of time for only the politically favorable parts of his life to get written down, or colored appropriately to be politically tenable. See how our language and communication with big media is now. The same old narrative keeps getting hammered into your skull, if you let it, over and over again. If only a few people in power 2000 years ago were willing and able to write down information about certain events, whose opinions are really being reflected? And how much of a role did the leading world empires at the time have in this? My guess is, HUGE.

The same goes for the OT, although I am even less familiar with that text and time frame, but this whole study has conveyed to me the import of understanding the Bible as a historical artifact reflecting the political environment at the time.

If you have an a priori bias against miracles, sure.

In terms of who the historical Jesus was, you're ignoring the earlier sources, namely the Pauline epistles. It seems much more likely that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet than a political revolutionary, and there are several scholars who've written books to this effect. You also have to keep in mind that there may be actual eyewitness testimony in the four gospels, although at least two of them (Matthew and John) are probably not written by the people whose names appear on them. Luke and Mark are a bit different.

The Roman Empire had almost no effect on Christianity until the 90s-100s, which is probably why Revelation was written, actually. This is why stuff like Caesar's Messiah (Atwill) is so nutty.

 

[CuntLord]

You are both wrong.

Both of your posts (@samseau and zelcorpion)shows a lack of familiarity with the laws of thermodynamics. The universe is inherently entropic. Slim Shady is 100% on the money.

All the questions and objections you are raising are already answered with rigorous mathematics, they[physicists and mathematicians] have gone further and farther than you know.


Be well,

CuntLord, the Dark Lord of Pussy

The Universe is inherently random. The fundamental way the Universe works, Quantum Electro-Dynamics [QED], is a probabilistic science. Every "particle" you are made up of is probabilistic. You can not deny this because it has been empirically observed over and over.

This is a metaphysical dogma with absolutely nothing to back it up. You may think it is random but how do you know?

If you believe in something and it cannot be falsified, it's no different than believing in a God.

This is what I was thinking too - how the fuck will you know if the universe is indeed random with our level of knowledge? Have we been suddenly able to map out and calculate movement of atoms and have we been travelling to thousands of solar system and checking out life on various stages of development?

What appears random to our eye - and that's pretty much all we have to "calculate" randomness - may have a superseding order to it all.

 

[H1N1]

You are both wrong.

Both of your posts (@samseau and zelcorpion)shows a lack of familiarity with the laws of thermodynamics. The universe is inherently entropic. Slim Shady is 100% on the money.

All the questions and objections you are raising are already answered with rigorous mathematics, they[physicists and mathematicians] have gone further and farther than you know.


Be well,

CuntLord, the Dark Lord of Pussy

The Universe is inherently random. The fundamental way the Universe works, Quantum Electro-Dynamics [QED], is a probabilistic science. Every "particle" you are made up of is probabilistic. You can not deny this because it has been empirically observed over and over.

This is a metaphysical dogma with absolutely nothing to back it up. You may think it is random but how do you know?

If you believe in something and it cannot be falsified, it's no different than believing in a God.

This is what I was thinking too - how the fuck will you know if the universe is indeed random with our level of knowledge? Have we been suddenly able to map out and calculate movement of atoms and have we been travelling to thousands of solar system and checking out life on various stages of development?

What appears random to our eye - and that's pretty much all we have to "calculate" randomness - may have a superseding order to it all.

Fred Reid actually has a good, related article on this, that may be of interest to the 'but, science' crowd:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Scientism.shtml


Some interesting bits, within the context of your retort:

'Logical systems, such as those to which scientists are tightly wed, depend on assumptions and undefined primitives. Their conclusions cannot go beyond results derivable from their assumptions.

Consider plane geometry, a field encompassing the behavior of planes, lines, points, and angles. Like many branches of science and mathematics, it produces interesting and useful results. Yet it rests on things that cannot really be defined. (What is a point? “An infinitely localized whereness” perhaps?) It cannot explain things not contained in its premises. For example, it has nothing to say about mass, energy, volume, or chili dogs. Yet these things exist. If a plane geometer thinks only within the postultes of his field (which of course no plane gemoteter does), he cannot understand the greater part of reality.

The sciences as a whole enjoy the same strengths and suffer the same limitations. They deal with matter, energy, space, and time, however hyphenated, and nothing else. These are undefined. (Dorm-room definition: “Space is what keeps everything from being in the same place. Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.”)

Science enjoys great prestige as it has led to great results, such as iPhones. Perhaps bccause of this scientists, for some reason thought to be smarter than the rest of humanity, are seen as oracles and almost as priests. Yet they have nothing to say, and can have nothing to say, about meaning, purpose, origins, destiny, consciousness, beauty, right and wrong, Good and Evil, death, love or loathing.

These are matters of some importance to normal people whose thinking is not crippled by strict adherence to the Laws of Motion. A scientist, as a scientist, must dismiss them as empty abstractions, simply ignore them, or provide unsatisfactory answers and quickly change the subject. A physicist may speak solemnly of the Big Bang, but it has no more explanatory power than Genesis. A child of six years will ask, “But where did God come from?” Or the Big Bang.'

 

[philosophical_recovery]

No matter what evidence you give them they are going to the bible for the answer.

We agree, which is why I find it pointless to argue the topic, as it begins to become tiresome.

People need to stop lumping being religious in with "traditional values".

Traditional values existed long before religion as we know it existed.

This is a very strong point. The right formulations of why we should have traditional values, i.e. there were reasons that Christians and other peoples had these values (and they were all similar) because they promote a functioning society, stable families, etc. is key. I think that reasoning is part of what Roosh meant by Neomasculinity, and why he was careful on his discussion of evolution.

If you have an a priori bias against miracles, sure.

In terms of who the historical Jesus was, you're ignoring the earlier sources, namely the Pauline epistles. It seems much more likely that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet than a political revolutionary, and there are several scholars who've written books to this effect. You also have to keep in mind that there may be actual eyewitness testimony in the four gospels, although at least two of them (Matthew and John) are probably not written by the people whose names appear on them. Luke and Mark are a bit different.

The Roman Empire had almost no effect on Christianity until the 90s-100s, which is probably why Revelation was written, actually. This is why stuff like Caesar's Messiah (Atwill) is so nutty.

I do have a bias against miracles. The only evidence we have are some words written down by people 2000+ years ago.

Caesar was written about in the Bible, i.e. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Pontius Pilate, who ordered Jesus's crucifixion, was a Roman. Romans were breathing and living everywhere in the same area. Caligula, while not an emperor during Jesus's life (Tiberius was), was a living contemporary of Jesus. Lots of crazy things were happening in Rome, and it bled all the way to Jerusalem and further. That period was very tumultuous.

I've heard of Atwill, though I haven't read him.

 

[philosophical_recovery]

Fred Reid actually has a good, related article on this, that may be of interest to the 'but, science' crowd:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Scientism.shtml


Some interesting bits, within the context of your retort:

'Logical systems, such as those to which scientists are tightly wed, depend on assumptions and undefined primitives. Their conclusions cannot go beyond results derivable from their assumptions.

Consider plane geometry, a field encompassing the behavior of planes, lines, points, and angles. Like many branches of science and mathematics, it produces interesting and useful results. Yet it rests on things that cannot really be defined. (What is a point? “An infinitely localized whereness” perhaps?) It cannot explain things not contained in its premises. For example, it has nothing to say about mass, energy, volume, or chili dogs. Yet these things exist. If a plane geometer thinks only within the postultes of his field (which of course no plane gemoteter does), he cannot understand the greater part of reality.

The sciences as a whole enjoy the same strengths and suffer the same limitations. They deal with matter, energy, space, and time, however hyphenated, and nothing else. These are undefined. (Dorm-room definition: “Space is what keeps everything from being in the same place. Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.”)

Science enjoys great prestige as it has led to great results, such as iPhones. Perhaps bccause of this scientists, for some reason thought to be smarter than the rest of humanity, are seen as oracles and almost as priests. Yet they have nothing to say, and can have nothing to say, about meaning, purpose, origins, destiny, consciousness, beauty, right and wrong, Good and Evil, death, love or loathing.

These are matters of some importance to normal people whose thinking is not crippled by strict adherence to the Laws of Motion. A scientist, as a scientist, must dismiss them as empty abstractions, simply ignore them, or provide unsatisfactory answers and quickly change the subject. A physicist may speak solemnly of the Big Bang, but it has no more explanatory power than Genesis. A child of six years will ask, “But where did God come from?” Or the Big Bang.'

Fred Reed had a strong point there. This is further emphasized if you read something like Godel Escher Bach, or know about Godel's incompleteness theorem:

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

This appears to doom mathematics and science to only be able to self consistently prove a limited amount of things. The rest may be thought to be true, but hard evidence will be impossible. For similar reasons, proving parts of history will be impossible, because we can't go back and see it again. There will always be unknowns. There may be completely useful heuristics that we can use, which cannot be proven in a mathematical framework, only rationalized. See Nassim Taleb's writing about that, he loves those kinds of things.

 

[Blaster]

I don't think we don't know that it hasn't. What if a single-cell organism spontaneously formed yesterday then died within 10 minutes left no trace it ever existed?

We will know because it will leave fossil records. It will leave behind genetic traces, cellular fragments, etc. and radiocarbon dating will confirm its evolutionary date.

Fossils only occur under specific conditions. It is certainly possible that something like a bacterium could form and then die without leaving any evidence that it ever lived.

On top of that, there will be mass quantity of them. Not just a few. It will occur en masse.

There's no way of knowing what the quantity will be. Suppose for a moment that the conditions for abiogenesis still exist somewhere on the planet. Suppose that once a day, a few new microbes are born from nothing. When this happens on the planet, as it exists today, millions of already-existing microbes with millions of years of evolutionary advantages out-compete these few new microbes and they die within hours.

 

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

Your argument is, at best, an overly reductionist one. Religion and science aren't at war in the least. Part of my academic work is in this area, and the conflict thesis was taken apart by professional historians of science over 50 years ago. Indeed, many mainstream churches quickly accepted evolution. The infamous Huxley-Wilberforce debate was not "religion vs. science," it was about the validity of evolution as a scientific theory. Wilberforce only disputed evolution on scientific grounds and left God out of it. Darwin himself actually conceded that Wilberforce had some strong objections, and devoted part of his revised Origin of Species to answering them.

The creation myths are of theological and literary significance. They were never meant to be taken as literal history. The people who wrote them knew this to be the case. Genesis 1 is possibly a polemic against the Babylonian Enuma Elish.

With regard to origin of life and evolution as a scientific theory: I think that evolution is more dogmatically defended than any other scientific theory out there. I still think that it has good evidence, but it seems absolutely absurd the extent that some have gone (or will go) to defend it. That's not reason to think it false (on the contrary, I think it's the best explanation), but it does suggest that there's something deeper that we're missing. Of course, biology is in a fairly mechanistic stage. You discover the mechanistic parts first because they're easier. See, for example, the history of physics. Newtonian mechanics reigned supreme for 3 centuries, until Planck discovered quantum mechanics. QM are very non-mechanistic.

I suspect that biology is the same way. A new discovery may be made that radically changes our understanding. It's very possible.

In terms of origin of life, that's another interesting question. I'm convinced that there is some sort of naturalistic explanation. The bigger question is: why did it only happen once on Earth? Shouldn't we have other life origination events if it's all the result of a primordial soup? I think panspermia only shoves the question up another level, and I don't think that panspermia is actually an answer. There have been some promising developments in origin of life, but there are still some big questions. There's no reason why life has to use left-handed amino acids; it can use right-handed amino acids as well. It can't use a combination, however.

Whenever you have a racemic mixture, you have a 50%-50% distribution of left and right-handed molecules. But that's not the case here. It's only left or right-handed ones that work, not both.

I don't have much to add to the above comment. I just thought it was worth calling out again. This is the smartest comment on the entire thread and demonstrates a level of objectivity and understanding that other commenters should strive for when discussing topics that touch on both science and philosophy.

 

[Blaster]

Fred Reid actually has a good, related article on this, that may be of interest to the 'but, science' crowd:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Scientism.shtml

If you make a statement like "the Theory of Evolution is wrong" then you are talking about science. In that scenario, a scientist is supposed to respond "as a scientist" to use Fred's idiom. "Science doesn't work that way" is exactly how a scientist is supposed to respond to deeply flawed criticism.

Fred's article is very good, if flawed. One of the central themes of the article about distinguishing science from non-science is very important, and he does a mostly good job of it. But it's important to note that nearly all of the actual criticism in that article is against "scientism" which is something that is also, for the purposes of the essay, defined by Fred himself.

Evolutionary theory of course says that traits that make for successful reproduction will flourish in a population. This makes sense and can be observed in many things. It fails badly in the case of homosexual men. As these produce no or few children, the selective pressure to eliminate them from the population would seem to be great. Yet they are not eliminated. Scientism cannot say that here perhaps is something not explained by the theory. That would shake the whole edifice. How does it manage this difficulty?

First, Fred has a simple logical mistake in this paragraph. Just because traits that make for successful reproduction will flourish in a population does not imply that only reproductively successful traits will flourish. That mistake aside, science absolutely can accommodate this, which is probably why Fred attacks "scientism". In fact, when you have an established theory, observations that at first seem to not fit that theory are often the most promising sources for new knowledge.

The huge flaw that philosophers and other non-scientists make when discussing these observations is seeming to believe that contrary evidence somehow automatically and immediately makes the entire field of study invalid and worthless, as if the issue at stake is winning an argument rather than advancing scientific knowledge. Fred falls into this trap as well, although he does a better job than most of toeing the line with his mostly careful distinction between science and scientism.

What actually happens is that contrary evidence usually invalidates only an isolated hypothesis that had been generated in the context of the theory, at which point scientists develop a new hypotheses that explain the observation then continue testing and eliminating hypotheses until you find one that works. Most often, any of the evidence that philosophers bring up to try and "disprove" evolution are really just disproving hypotheses that scientists eliminated a long time ago but persist in the public consciousness for various reasons.

For example, the question "why does homosexuality persist in a population if they (generally) fail to breed?" As far as I know, science does not yet have an answer to this. There are hypotheses, and lots of experiments and new observations have been uncovered in relation to this question, but very little has been confirmed. Fred mentions one hypothesis: homosexuality is caused by an as-yet-unknown pathogen. Greg Cochran makes a case for this hypothesis. That I can tell, he does not advocate for people to take this as an actionable article of faith, rather as a basis for further study.

The biologist Greg Cochran says that homosexuality is a disease caused by a virus. Which virus is that? We don’t know because it has not been discovered. What is the evidence for it? Why, homosexuality. Round and round….

Again this is framed as a philosophical argument rather than scientific pursuit. The evidence pointing to a "gay virus" was described by Cochran in his blog and is not intended to be conclusive. The next step in science is to begin searching for the pathogen. If you never find it, and someone else finds and confirms a superior explanation for homosexuality, then your hypothesis was wrong. If there is an actual argument here at all, it's about which hypotheses deserve more time, attention, and resources.

To amuse ourselves, let us assume that something physically inexplicable actually happened. Let us suppose that the shade of Elvis appeared in my living room, sang Blue Moon over Kentucky, and disappeared in a flash of green light. Remember, for the moment we assume that it really happened. How could a scientist, or the science, handle this?

Note that Fred's answer abandons the careful distinctions he made earlier between scientists "as scientists" and just normal people. All his answers are from normal people or scientists as normal people, not scientists as scientists. Scientists as scientists have a very particular answer to this kind of question, which I'll describe below.

I could tell my friend the astrophysicist about it, but he would assume that I was joking, lying, or delusional. I could tell him that my neighbors heard it, but he would say that it was a recording. I could say that people walking in the street saw it though my window, but he would say that it was an Elvis impersonator. The event not being reproducible, I could not possibly convince him—even though it had actually happened.

In all of these examples, the fact that his friend is an astrophysicist is irrelevant. The person is responding as a person. The real answer is that a scientists can not answer this question or even generate reasonable hypotheses about this due to a lack of evidence and a lack of existing knowledge that could provide reasonable explanations.

What science could do here is attempt to generate a model of physics that could account for spontaneous appearances of Elvis in Fred's living room. But if that never happens again and nothing like it ever happens again, and this alternate model of the universe doesn't provide any otherwise useful knowledge, then science is not going to care about its existence. The paper will be buried under reams and reams of other research papers that never amounted to anything, either. Ultimately, the truth of what happened is irrelevant.

Of course, most scientists are going to look to the future, do a quick risk/effort/reward analysis, and decide that investigating the appearance of Elvis in Fred's living room is not a good way to spend their time, no matter what they might actually believe.

 

[Giovonny]

Lots of theories, but no evidence.

I will give the only honest answer:

WE DON'T KNOW.

Any answer other than this is literally the scientific equivalent to astrology, palm reading, or tarot cards.

The most spiritual answer is..

WE DONT KNOW

Being honest with yourself is key to "spirituality".

The most scientific answer is..

WE DONT KNOW

Being honest about the Scientific Method is key to "science".

---

Most people cant handle the truth.

So, they create a little story to help their mind cope with the uncertainty.

I am comfortable with the uncertainty. I am comfortable spirituality and scientifically, with not knowing.

 

[Sooth]

The problem with someone saying "I DON'T KNOW" is that they usually come back into the conversation telling you what you know or simply saying "YOU'RE WRONG" even though they have given up knowledge.

"I don't know, but you're wrong" is a common shut down with these arguments.

 

[CuntLord]

....
The huge flaw that philosophers and other non-scientists make when discussing these observations is seeming to believe that contrary evidence somehow automatically and immediately makes the entire field of study invalid and worthless, as if the issue at stake is winning an argument rather than advancing scientific knowledge. .....

otd:

+1 for this. That highlighted quote explains everything.

The reason is because their field[humanities/liberal arts] is all about winning arguments. That is what all their mountain of paper and "research" is all about. Nothing really real. Just argumentation left and right, and foamy relativism. Advancing actual, practical results is not really their #1 concern, these are neither engineers nor physicists trying to land a satellite on a comet millions of miles away. In a nutshell they are all about winning arguments. You think the mathematics and astrophysics that Matt Taylor used to land rosetta satellite on that comet didn't make assumptions?

Consider this Sorites philosophical argument for example, between a hypothetical RVF scientist and RVF philosopher.

RVF Scientist: Based on my physics calculations, if i stand 10 meters away and i point a .50cal gun at you and shoot you in the head; your head will explode.

RVF Philosopher: What is the distance between your gun and my head?

RVF Scientist: 10 meters.

RVF Philosopher: So the fired bullet will need to travel 10 meters to hits its target?

RVF Scientist: That is correct.

RVF Philosopher: From your mathematical studies, integers are infinite is that correct?

RVF Scientist: Yes. 1...2...3...4... these are integers, and yes they are infinite. They go all the way to infinity, never ending....

RVF Philosopher: And these very same integers are used to make the calculations that the bullet will hit me in the head if standing 10 meters
away?

RVF Scientist: That is correct. I did my calculations with integers, 1...2....3...4..etc.

RVF Philosopher: So, the bullet will need to travel to 1 meter before it can travel 2 meters...and so forth?

RVF Scientist: Very true

RVF Philosopher: That means the bullet will need to travel 1 meters then 1.5 meters... then 1.7 meters... 2.0 meters... then 2.1 meters... then 2.2meters... then 2.3 meters...then 2.4meters....then 2.44 meters... then 2.445 meters... then 2.444444444445 meters..... then 2.(an infinite set of numbers) since integers are infinite.. the bullet will keep traveling 2.(something set of infinite numbers) and it will never even get to 3meters... that means, the bullet will never get to hit me in the head. Afterall, your calculations are based on using numbers that are integers. So by the very laws of integers, the bullet should never reach me because integers are infinite.

RVF Scientist: You are a retard, i am going to kill you!.

RVF Philosopher: I won!!! lolololol.


Is any sane man going to stand in front of a loaded and ready to fire .50 cal because of these philosophical arguments? Of course not. But these vein of discussion in one form or the other, permeates scientist vs liberal arts majors. The philosopher or liberal arts or humanities major will try and look for contradictions within the premise, latching on to axioms, etc attacking it like this is some abstract argument in a philosophy class. The scientist will keep the issue grounded in the brutal reality of math, science and engineering that prevent your bridges from falling off, your car from suddenly exploding, the electricity that powers your house, etc.

You can fill a book with all the assumptions and axioms of math and physics and electrical engineering, that is necessary for the invention of the internet and software codes that allows us to share our thoughts on RVF. So because of these assumptions, therefore, the internet cannot be made real and utilized? Of course it can! Otherwise we won't be having this conversation .

Be well,

CuntLord, the Dark Lord of Pussy

 

[H1N1]

Fred Reid actually has a good, related article on this, that may be of interest to the 'but, science' crowd:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Scientism.shtml

If you make a statement like "the Theory of Evolution is wrong" then you are talking about science. In that scenario, a scientist is supposed to respond "as a scientist" to use Fred's idiom. "Science doesn't work that way" is exactly how a scientist is supposed to respond to deeply flawed criticism.

Fred's article is very good, if flawed. One of the central themes of the article about distinguishing science from non-science is very important, and he does a mostly good job of it. But it's important to note that nearly all of the actual criticism in that article is against "scientism" which is something that is also, for the purposes of the essay, defined by Fred himself.

Evolutionary theory of course says that traits that make for successful reproduction will flourish in a population. This makes sense and can be observed in many things. It fails badly in the case of homosexual men. As these produce no or few children, the selective pressure to eliminate them from the population would seem to be great. Yet they are not eliminated. Scientism cannot say that here perhaps is something not explained by the theory. That would shake the whole edifice. How does it manage this difficulty?

First, Fred has a simple logical mistake in this paragraph. Just because traits that make for successful reproduction will flourish in a population does not imply that only reproductively successful traits will flourish. That mistake aside, science absolutely can accommodate this, which is probably why Fred attacks "scientism". In fact, when you have an established theory, observations that at first seem to not fit that theory are often the most promising sources for new knowledge.

The huge flaw that philosophers and other non-scientists make when discussing these observations is seeming to believe that contrary evidence somehow automatically and immediately makes the entire field of study invalid and worthless, as if the issue at stake is winning an argument rather than advancing scientific knowledge. Fred falls into this trap as well, although he does a better job than most of toeing the line with his mostly careful distinction between science and scientism.

What actually happens is that contrary evidence usually invalidates only an isolated hypothesis that had been generated in the context of the theory, at which point scientists develop a new hypotheses that explain the observation then continue testing and eliminating hypotheses until you find one that works. Most often, any of the evidence that philosophers bring up to try and "disprove" evolution are really just disproving hypotheses that scientists eliminated a long time ago but persist in the public consciousness for various reasons.

For example, the question "why does homosexuality persist in a population if they (generally) fail to breed?" As far as I know, science does not yet have an answer to this. There are hypotheses, and lots of experiments and new observations have been uncovered in relation to this question, but very little has been confirmed. Fred mentions one hypothesis: homosexuality is caused by an as-yet-unknown pathogen. Greg Cochran makes a case for this hypothesis. That I can tell, he does not advocate for people to take this as an actionable article of faith, rather as a basis for further study.

The biologist Greg Cochran says that homosexuality is a disease caused by a virus. Which virus is that? We don’t know because it has not been discovered. What is the evidence for it? Why, homosexuality. Round and round….

Again this is framed as a philosophical argument rather than scientific pursuit. The evidence pointing to a "gay virus" was described by Cochran in his blog and is not intended to be conclusive. The next step in science is to begin searching for the pathogen. If you never find it, and someone else finds and confirms a superior explanation for homosexuality, then your hypothesis was wrong. If there is an actual argument here at all, it's about which hypotheses deserve more time, attention, and resources.

To amuse ourselves, let us assume that something physically inexplicable actually happened. Let us suppose that the shade of Elvis appeared in my living room, sang Blue Moon over Kentucky, and disappeared in a flash of green light. Remember, for the moment we assume that it really happened. How could a scientist, or the science, handle this?

Note that Fred's answer abandons the careful distinctions he made earlier between scientists "as scientists" and just normal people. All his answers are from normal people or scientists as normal people, not scientists as scientists. Scientists as scientists have a very particular answer to this kind of question, which I'll describe below.

I could tell my friend the astrophysicist about it, but he would assume that I was joking, lying, or delusional. I could tell him that my neighbors heard it, but he would say that it was a recording. I could say that people walking in the street saw it though my window, but he would say that it was an Elvis impersonator. The event not being reproducible, I could not possibly convince him—even though it had actually happened.

In all of these examples, the fact that his friend is an astrophysicist is irrelevant. The person is responding as a person. The real answer is that a scientists can not answer this question or even generate reasonable hypotheses about this due to a lack of evidence and a lack of existing knowledge that could provide reasonable explanations.

What science could do here is attempt to generate a model of physics that could account for spontaneous appearances of Elvis in Fred's living room. But if that never happens again and nothing like it ever happens again, and this alternate model of the universe doesn't provide any otherwise useful knowledge, then science is not going to care about its existence. The paper will be buried under reams and reams of other research papers that never amounted to anything, either. Ultimately, the truth of what happened is irrelevant.

Of course, most scientists are going to look to the future, do a quick risk/effort/reward analysis, and decide that investigating the appearance of Elvis in Fred's living room is not a good way to spend their time, no matter what they might actually believe.

I really enjoyed your response mate. My initial post was a bit rushed, but you've actually expressed a lot of things I lacked the fluency with the subject matter to fully give voice to my own doubts on. You make a lot of excellent points.

As someone who is not religious, and probably not even all that spiritual, I want science to explain the questions I have so that the answer I'm left with is not 'because, God'. But equally, I am completely with Fred with regards to the fact that there is too much 'worship' of science as a religion (something most scientists would reject themselves, I'm sure). I think the main problem is that 'science' and 'evolution' is a standard line pushed by the only partially informed, and increasingly so, with the same dogmatic puritanism that many religious people push religion.

I also think the point that he is trying to push is a true one - that people are so preoccupied with being 'right' and explaining things (I believe there is a fundamental human imperative for most people to need to be able to fit things into neat boxes), that they push science, and the understanding it brings, as the highest good. In doing so, perhaps some (not necessarily the scientists) fail to appreciate some of the wonder and magic religion and myth bring to natural events. For example, for me, although I understand broadly the science behind stars, I still find the night sky more compelling for an understanding of the Greek myths and the legends of great warriors being strung up in the stars by the gods, and the sheer humbling magnitude and overwhelming beauty, than I do for knowing broadly what the physics behind it might be. I think Fred is right that in attempting to reduce everything to impartial 'scientific' certainty, we can forget just to revel in the mysterious beauty of things.

Again though, great post, and thank you for taking the time to be so comprehensive, I took a lot from it.

 

[H1N1]

....
The huge flaw that philosophers and other non-scientists make when discussing these observations is seeming to believe that contrary evidence somehow automatically and immediately makes the entire field of study invalid and worthless, as if the issue at stake is winning an argument rather than advancing scientific knowledge. .....

otd:

+1 for this. That highlighted quote explains everything.

The reason is because their field[humanities/liberal arts] is all about winning arguments. That is what all their mountain of paper and "research" is all about. Nothing really real. Just argumentation left and right, and foamy relativism. Advancing actual, practical results is not really their #1 concern, these are neither engineers nor physicists trying to land a satellite on a comet millions of miles away. In a nutshell they are all about winning arguments. You think the mathematics and astrophysics that Matt Taylor used to land rosetta satellite on that comet didn't make assumptions?

Consider this Sorites philosophical argument for example, between a hypothetical RVF scientist and RVF philosopher.

RVF Scientist: Based on my physics calculations, if i stand 10 meters away and i point a .50cal gun at you and shoot you in the head; your head will explode.

RVF Philosopher: What is the distance between your gun and my head?

RVF Scientist: 10 meters.

RVF Philosopher: So the fired bullet will need to travel 10 meters to hits its target?

RVF Scientist: That is correct.

RVF Philosopher: From your mathematical studies, integers are infinite is that correct?

RVF Scientist: Yes. 1...2...3...4... these are integers, and yes they are infinite. They go all the way to infinity, never ending....

RVF Philosopher: And these very same integers are used to make the calculations that the bullet will hit me in the head if standing 10 meters
away?

RVF Scientist: That is correct. I did my calculations with integers, 1...2....3...4..etc.

RVF Philosopher: So, the bullet will need to travel to 1 meter before it can travel 2 meters...and so forth?

RVF Scientist: Very true

RVF Philosopher: That means the bullet will need to travel 1 meters then 1.5 meters... then 1.7 meters... 2.0 meters... then 2.1 meters... then 2.2meters... then 2.3 meters...then 2.4meters....then 2.44 meters... then 2.445 meters... then 2.444444444445 meters..... then 2.(an infinite set of numbers) since integers are infinite.. the bullet will keep traveling 2.(something set of infinite numbers) and it will never even get to 3meters... that means, the bullet will never get to hit me in the head. Afterall, your calculations are based on using numbers that are integers. So by the very laws of integers, the bullet should never reach me because integers are infinite.

RVF Scientist: You are a retard, i am going to kill you!.

RVF Philosopher: I won!!! lolololol.


Is any sane man going to stand in front of a loaded and ready to fire .50 cal because of these philosophical arguments? Of course not. But these vein of discussion in one form or the other, permeates scientist vs liberal arts majors. The philosopher or liberal arts or humanities major will try and look for contradictions within the premise, latching on to axioms, etc attacking it like this is some abstract argument in a philosophy class. The scientist will keep the issue grounded in the brutal reality of math, science and engineering that prevent your bridges from falling off, your car from suddenly exploding, the electricity that powers your house, etc.

You can fill a book with all the assumptions and axioms of math and physics and electrical engineering, that is necessary for the invention of the internet and software codes that allows us to share our thoughts on RVF. So because of these assumptions, therefore, the internet cannot be made real and utilized? Of course it can! Otherwise we won't be having this conversation .

Be well,

CuntLord, the Dark Lord of Pussy

Ironically, this is Xeno's paradox, a philosophical argument originally posited as a race between Achilles and a tortoise. Not that that undermines your post at all, which was a good one. Just enjoying the irony.

 

[Truth Teller]

I do have a bias against miracles. The only evidence we have are some words written down by people 2000+ years ago.

Caesar was written about in the Bible, i.e. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Pontius Pilate, who ordered Jesus's crucifixion, was a Roman. Romans were breathing and living everywhere in the same area. Caligula, while not an emperor during Jesus's life (Tiberius was), was a living contemporary of Jesus. Lots of crazy things were happening in Rome, and it bled all the way to Jerusalem and further. That period was very tumultuous.

I've heard of Atwill, though I haven't read him.

Read Craig Keener's Miracles, if you think that the only evidence we have is people writing things down 2000+ years ago. Also, keep in mind that we know ancient history largely through people writing down words 2000+ years ago.

Yes, the Romans were in control. I agree with that. Palestine was a backwater at best. The argument that the gospels are tied to political phenomena is strange. Remember, several of the apostles were killed by the Romans for preaching about Jesus. Their preaching was very similar to the gospel message, if not the same as the gospel message. The Romans were not involved in the creation of the gospels.

Atwill's thesis is that Jesus was a 3rd century Roman construction by the Flavians. It doesn't make any sense if you actually know the sources and evidence. For example, why was Diocletian persecuting the Christians beforehand? Why was Nero? If they created Christianity, then you'd think that they'd try to promote it, not quash it.

 

[Truth Teller]

Is any sane man going to stand in front of a loaded and ready to fire .50 cal because of these philosophical arguments? Of course not. But these vein of discussion in one form or the other, permeates scientist vs liberal arts majors. The philosopher or liberal arts or humanities major will try and look for contradictions within the premise, latching on to axioms, etc attacking it like this is some abstract argument in a philosophy class. The scientist will keep the issue grounded in the brutal reality of math, science and engineering that prevent your bridges from falling off, your car from suddenly exploding, the electricity that powers your house, etc.

You can fill a book with all the assumptions and axioms of math and physics and electrical engineering, that is necessary for the invention of the internet and software codes that allows us to share our thoughts on RVF. So because of these assumptions, therefore, the internet cannot be made real and utilized? Of course it can! Otherwise we won't be having this conversation .

Be well,

CuntLord, the Dark Lord of Pussy

There's objective truth outside of math and science. History has objective truth within it. We can't really get to it, but it's there. The same is true with philosophy. The issue is that reality is deep. Far deeper than we'd ever imagine. Science gives us only some of reality.

 

[Truth Teller]

This discounts the Catholics which account for a majority of the Christian population.

Whether or not most practicing Catholic's know it. The Roman Catholic church has decided it supersedes the bible and all it's teachings.

They believe that they are the final authority on earth.

Not at all. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus himself. It has the authority to "bind and loose," that is, make decisions on doctrines of faith.

Matthew 16:15-19: "But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." And Jesus answered him "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter (Petros in Greek), and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

[Darius]

Not at all. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus himself. It has the authority to "bind and loose," that is, make decisions on doctrines of faith.

The Christian church was founded by Jesus.

The Roman Catholic church was founded in 313 AD by Emperor Constantine who established himself as the head of the church.

 

[Truth Teller]

The Christian church was founded by Jesus.

The Roman Catholic church was founded in 313 AD by Emperor Constantine who established himself as the head of the church.

Peter was the first pope. He and his successors have authority from Jesus Himself.

 

[Darius]

The Christian church was founded by Jesus.

The Roman Catholic church was founded in 313 AD by Emperor Constantine who established himself as the head of the church.

Peter was the first pope. He and his successors have authority from Jesus Himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

The term didn't even exist when Peter was alive.

 

[Sonsowey]

People are starting to ask "where will it stop?".

People may be asking that question but it in no way is "stopping" anything.

People have in fact been asking this question for hundreds of years. It has never stopped.