Luc Turpin

Do you not believe that science would be better off without bias? Why does it matter is dependent on the impact bias has on science. If it is a minor impact, then I agree with both you and swansont that it does not matter much. But if the impact is major, then it matters as we would no longer be as confident as we are about the validity of results. A single cut or death by a thousand cuts. It's the cumulative affect that bothers me. One scientific finding used as a precursor to another finding then used as a foundation for another finding. There is also the cumulative effect of various types of biases culminating into possibly more influence than one would expect of biases over science. I agree on this one that the links were to say the least very disappointing. I am trying to correct this, with no luck so far. Agree, should have said "might" expect instead of expect. That all three sets of mathematical equations follow the same pattern and that this pattern is found in linguistics is to say the least, confounding. No, no, not arguing deep meaning on this one, but that there "might" be biases brought about by how human brains work. That a law borne out of linguistics be possibly applicable to physics "might" imply that the former has some sort of sway over the latter. Physics should be all about the laws of nature, not about the laws of language. Zipf's law possibly applying to physics might be yet another example of bias seeping into science.

The timeline for post was merely mentioned to show that all of us are more dismissive of ideas that run counter to our belief system than ideas that do not. It's human nature. That there is bias in science is irrefutable. What is at stake here is whether or not the "warping" effect of bias has made understanding how nature behaves indistinguishable from its real occurrence. I provided yet another example of how bias might immerse itself in the scientific process, that is all that I have done. And I also share many of your concerns and have too not been able to fully access the article. The quote was taken from here "“You might expect that this [distribution] would differ quite significantly between the three different sets of equations because they come from different places,” says team member Deaglan Bartlett at Sorbonne University in France, but to their surprise, that wasn’t the case. Instead, all three sets seemed to fit the same pattern. That wasn’t true when applying the same analysis to randomly generated mathematical expressions." I reiterate, it is expected that three different sets of equations coming from different places should show no pattern. Then comes next the question of why something shows up if it does show up?

Why does it show up "between three different sets of equations....coming from different places" but does not show up in randomly generated mathematical expressions? Obvious that it would not show up in the latter, but not so much so in the former!

Not searching for bias; it just came up! 1. Yes Zipf's law shows up in more than physics, but why in physics? 2. Could not get to the methodology part either. 3. How nature behaves is part of reality. The analysis, if it holds up, still implies that there is some sort of pattern in the use of symbols, which should not be occuring. Did not catch the irony! But how many conincidences will be required before it is no longer interpreted as a coincidence? Your "account" of what might be going on may very well be true, but finding a pattern when there should not have been one is still worth consideration, even if it eventually leads to an impasse. And scientistis prefering to calculate the easy way is stil some sort of bias. A pause to contemplate before outright dismissal is a good thing in science. The speed a which you responded speaks loudly.

Coincidence!

ZIPF Law “A strange pattern running through the equations of physics may reveal something fundamental about the universe or could be a sign that human brains are biased to ignore more complex explanations of reality – or both.” If it is the former, what is this fundamental aspect of our universe? Order in disorder? An underlying template to the apparent chaos? Or, if it is the latter, can it just be human brains doing what human brains do; paint-in a picture of reality based on an unintentionally biased interpretation of facts. https://institutions.newscientist.com/article/2452341-the-laws-of-physics-appear-to-follow-a-mysterious-mathematical-pattern/

If trust always has conditions, then it is a better word than faith for science. As Ronald Reagan used to say, "trust but verify". And I wil add, never take it a 100% full face value, because it's not!

We should have faith in the methodology, but not unconditional faith. Unconditional agreement to all of your statements. Agree!

"us", including myself to try and keep it polite Natural and social sciiences is large segment of science.

Correction - With all of this being said, should we maintain our unconditional faith in science as some of us do?

Replication is a major pilar of science. However, some say that there is a replication crisis in natural and social sciences. In a 2016 Nature survey more that 70% of researchers tried, but failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiment results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis. And there is more to the confidence in science story. Even with all of the measures taken to reduce it as much as possible, bias in science remains an issue. You can reduce it, but not remove it as it is “baked into” us from early childhood and plays a predominant role in all of our undertakings. https://biasinsideus.si.edu/online-exhibition/the-science-of-bias. Continuing in the same vein, false positives and false negatives also unintentionally inject false results in science False positives and false negatives - Wikipedia. Data dredging is an issue Data dredging - Wikipedia, and misconduct prevalent in science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct. With all of this being said, should we maintain our absolute faith in science as some of us do?

A meaningless expanse of mostly nothing, yet we stand, breathe and think.

Life’s complexity making the step from molecules to life that much more difficult to contend. Conditions required to transition doing the same it is not proof of concept, but might be an indication of a need to recalibrate

I am aware of these findings. Some even consider this matter to be post biotic rather than prebiotic. Your count is too high No, I am too stupid. How about NDE’s; there’s a lot to learn even if they may not be what they intend to be Doing the best that I can but guess that I am not smart enough for you. attack ideas, not people.

There is evidence that life is much more complex than anticipated. There is mounting evidence that the conditions required to make it happen were exceptional. And not wanting to upset Zapatos again, but we still have not figured out how to do it.

You cannot prove this. I cannot disprove it. But you have a theoretical framework for it and I have no such framework if it is not as you describe it. So you are one up on me. Assumptions yes. Agenda no. Evidence will lead where it shall.

MAN is an amalgamation of cells and they replicate. Do they have no or low metabolism-respiration? I thought that it was the latter not the former. Nonetheless, you are starting to convince me that there may be exceptions to the rule. Then, might we be entertaining core attributes with others being secondary? If the cells are still alive, then it is not even partway. take dead cells and reanimate them and then I will admit that we are partway. But they have to really be dead before reanimation.

Because it is the main point of the thread and if we have not done so, then maybe there is another reason beyond low probability of success for not doing so that should be contemplated. If we close the door by creating life from nonlife then no other alternative explanation is required. Science has been very fast and efficient at explaining a lot of things. It has been less fast and effective and successful at explaining life. Is it low probability of success or something else? I forgot to mention computational biology. Does it not make it so much faster that we should have gotten the life recipe by now?

Convincing argument. Nonetheless, are we not able to manipulate variables that nature cannot do to get faster to the intended goal? Also, is it not faster to copy something that already exists? A monkey banging on a typewriter and getting out a shakespeare play would be in the realm of probability that you indicated. How about us humans typing away with a shakespeare play at hand and having to just copy away. Does that not at least make for a much higher probability of success?

The prospect of creating life has become more ELUSIVE than anticipated as a result of the increase in the number of steps required to make it happen and the level of complexity of the endeavour. Denver did not move away; it just got more complicated getting there. So, I could have said HARDER rather than FARTHER. The point still remains though that we have not done so, create life.

You get it that Denver was an analogy; not the real thing, right?

The point being made here is that we did not lose knowledge, but realized that Denver was FARTHER away than we thought. We got closer to Denver, but Denver got FARTHER away. We have the capacity to vastly accelerate the experimentation through technology and knoweldge. Mother nature used trial and error until it stumbled on the winning combination. We are not doing it this way, which should have dramatically increased the process of figuring out how its donw. 1- Hearth cells are not dead yet; just in a stupor. Electric reanimation does not work beyond a certain point! When cells are dead. Even after death, some cells continue to live. You can do things with those, but not with dead ones (e.g. transplantation). 2- Because I felt that we were in the semantics of things with your man-men example, not in the essentials of the debate. There will always be exceptions to a rule and this would be a minor one. Change men to humans and the problem goes away.

I would share your optimisim in turning nonlife into life if we were getting closer to doing it, but reiterate that what I have read on the subject matter seems to indicate that the process is much more complex than anticipated and that we are getting farther, not closer, in making it happen. Its not about "me"; it's about what the experts are saying that it is, and some-most are saying that it revolves around cells and what cells do! And agree that we may never-ever know. I start with cells for the living, which is a shared premise by many in the field of science. And I share the same point of view with many in the science field that viruses are a tricky one. They are so close to the edge of the living that some contend that they are while others say they are not. The only thing that I will add to this is that a lot of recent research seems to demonstrate that viruses do much more than invade and replicate. They have very sophisticated means of avoiding the imune system of organisms for example. To be honest with you, I din't quite get what MigL was getting at. It might be the same point that Zapatos is trying to make. I am not sure that I get your point, but here goes: Were cells created from water and sodium without the advent of cells? Take water and sodium and whatever, except life, and wait for it turn all to itself into life. So far, that has not been done. That life uses matter to its benefit or turns it into life is not controversial. It's doing it without life that is still not demonstrated.

We still don't know if viruses cut the grade to be considered alive. They do amazing things. A good example of you thinking that I am atacking you, while I am just trying to have a discussion with you by following your lead and adding to it! The inner layer of the trunk is dead, the outer layer is alive. Agree with this statement until one decides that a cell is the starting point for all the living So, then why have we still not been able to take nonlife and turn it to life? We have been hacking away at this one for ages and some in the field feel that we are getting farther not closer to being able to do so. And I acknowledge that if ever we are able to do so, then I will have to eat crow. Note: I am having difficulties with the "quote" function.

Evolution requires life for the process of change to occur. The other processes you identify do not. I am not saying that evolution has a goal or aim, but I am saying that with life involved, we just don't know. Hence, one of the unrecognized falacies of most jumping to the conclusion that it has no aim nor goal. It is either a crap game in which there is no aim or goal or something else; both options still remain on the table according to my lecture of the situation. And, I acknowledge that I might very well be wrong.