Hijack from Are there any practical uses for Darwin's tree in applied biology

[Reg Prescott]

7 hours ago, Arete said:

If the OP had a genuine question about the practical utility of phylogenetic inference, I would have thought a handful of review papers explicitly explaining how it is used in various applied fields would be a useful answer - but as was demonstrated it was a disingenuous OP and they were rejected out of hand.

Probably should've just said "Sure bud" and gone back to doing useful things with phylogenies, but hey, I had beer that needed drinking and the TV was boring. 

 

And this is precisely why, in a place like this, any thread challenging evolutionary orthodoxy -- as I've learned from personal experience myself -- is invariably an exercise in futility. The OP is not asking you to rehearse established dogma; he is asking you to question the presuppositions which underwrite that dogma. He's asking you to think for yourselves.

And that's just what no one here has shown any willingness to do. Our chapel is sound, thank you very much.

Consider yourself hoping -- somewhat quixotically -- to take a poke at established dogma on a Moslem website, for instance. Your suspicion is that the site members have never challenged the assumptions that underlie their own beliefs. What you do not want is for them to dutifully post a link to the Quran and say "It's all in scripture. You'll find everything you need to know in there. Go read it".

And then when you demand that they do their own thinking, as opposed to simply reciting verse after verse from their holy book, you're told:

"If the OP had a genuine question about the omnipotence of Allah, I would have thought a handful of scriptural verses explicitly explaining how his omnipotence has been explicitly shown would be a useful answer - but as was demonstrated it was a disingenuous OP and they were rejected out of hand. And I bet he didn't even read the Quran anyway. What a charlatan!"

 

Disingenuous, you say? "Yes, disingenuous, the OP clearly has no intention of embracing Allah. He's just here to cause trouble."

The OP is suggesting that certain assumptions are simply taken for granted, and asks for them to be examined. This being a science, and not a religious, site, one might have thought it a reasonable request. In return for his invitation to think critically, however, he is rewarded with links to sources that take the very same claims for granted. Then again, one might have known better.

In one particularly insightful and intelligent passage, Francis suggests:

"I come across this sophistry a lot.  If you dig a little into such a claim, you will find that what is happening is this:  Scientists discover certain facts pertaining to microbiology or genetics that prove useful in producing an effective vaccine.  These same facts may also be used as evidence of common descent - ie, Darwin's tree.  But then something strange happens in the minds of some of these scientists - they somehow CONFLATE the FACTS that proved useful with the THEORY that uses these fact as evidence.  But the facts came first and their usefulness in producing a vaccine doesn't depend in any way, shape or form on the theory that came later.  So in the case you allude to, the existence of the flu vaccine needed the useful facts, but the vaccine didn't need the Darwinian theory built on those facts - at all."

 

It's a familiar fabric that the overzealous defenders of Darwinism spin a lot of, namely, taking credit for just about everything in the sublunar realm. E.g. 

"Oh look! They've found dinosaur fossils in Antarctica. Another prediction of Darwinian theory has been borne out. Another stunning confirmation of the prodigious explanatory power of the theory. Who could possibly doubt its truth now?"

Seems to me that dinosaur fossils in Antarctica can be inferred using nothing more than simple induction (they've been found in every other continent, so why not Antarctica?), perhaps with a little continental drift thrown in.

See this link, for example. Darwinian theory is (implicitly) being credited for a phenomenon that does not require Darwinian theory.

https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Plate-Tectonics/Chap1-Pioneers-of-Plate-Tectonics/Alfred-Wegener/Fossil-Evidence-from-the-Southern-Hemisphere

 

These are the kinds of assumptions Francis is asking you to subject to scrutiny; not simply repeat.
 

[StringJunky]

18 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

And this is precisely why, in a place like this, any thread challenging evolutionary orthodoxy -- as I've learned from personal experience myself -- is invariably an exercise in futility. The OP is not asking you to rehearse established dogma; he is asking you to question the presuppositions which underwrite that dogma. He's asking you to think for yourselves.

And that's just what no one here has shown any willingness to do. Our chapel is sound, thank you very much.

Consider yourself hoping -- somewhat quixotically -- to take a poke at established dogma on a Moslem website, for instance. Your suspicion is that the site members have never challenged the assumptions that underlie their own beliefs. What you do not want is for them to dutifully post a link to the Quran and say "It's all in scripture. You'll find everything you need to know in there. Go read it".

And then when you demand that they do their own thinking, as opposed to simply reciting verse after verse from their holy book, you're told:

"If the OP had a genuine question about the omnipotence of Allah, I would have thought a handful of scriptural verses explicitly explaining how his omnipotence has been explicitly shown would be a useful answer - but as was demonstrated it was a disingenuous OP and they were rejected out of hand. And I bet he didn't even read the Quran anyway. What a charlatan!"

 

Why are you conflating the scientific method with religion?. One is based on evidence and the other is based on faith. 

[Reg Prescott]

17 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Why are you conflating the scientific method with religion?. One is based on evidence and the other is based on faith. 

1. There's no such thing as "The Scientific Method". Add another myth to your collection.

2. The religious person, by and large, says "It's in scripture. Squawk!"

The scientist or science fan, by and large, says "We have lots of evidence. Squawk!"

But whenever I ask my interlocutor for an account of what does, and what does not, constitute evidence, and the precise nature of the relationship that evidence bears on theory, the result is generally deafening silence. How, for example, can people like myself know when the epistemic warrant purportedly supporting a particular scientific claim, theory, hypothesis, etc. has reached such a degree as to merit a commitment to believing that claim?

Edited November 3, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[StringJunky]

44 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

1. There's no such thing as "The Scientific Method". Add another myth to your collection.

Evidence?

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Why are you conflating the scientific method with religion?. One is based on evidence and the other is based on faith. 

That's a good question and I believe the answer is patently obvious.

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

1. There's no such thing as "The Scientific Method". Add another myth to your collection.

No, that's simply rubbish and incorrect and half of the reasons why your other baseless claims have been rejected and threads closed. I'm hazy now to actually count how many reputable links I gave to support the fact that as usual, you are simply posting unsubstantiated, philosophically inspired nonsense.  The scientific methodology exists...The theory of evolution is as certain as any scientific theory can be...Those are what mainstream science is all about. Not your pretentious, contentious, philosophical inspired unsupported nonsense, instead of having the intestinal fortitude to admit your errors.

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

2. The religious person, by and large, says "It's in scripture. Squawk!"

The religious person also is well known for consistent derision of science and scientific methodology, including evolution, as a supposed means of retribution for science having pushed any religiously inspired claim or need of a creator, into near oblivion.

Quote

The scientist or science fan, by and large, says "We have lots of evidence. Squawk!"

And that is quite correct, despite your obvious attempts and now confession in your religious person quote. Science is based on evidence..that is the basis of the scientific methodology, that wish you are trying to wish into mythical status but obviously failed.

Edited November 3, 2018 by beecee

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

That's a good question and I believe the answer is patently obvious.

No, that's simply rubbish and incorrect and half of the reasons why your other baseless claims have been rejected and threads closed. I'm hazy now to actually count how many reputable links I gave to support the fact that as usual, you are simply posting unsubstantiated, philosophically inspired nonsense.  The scientific methodology exists...The theory of evolution is as certain as any scientific theory can be...Those are what mainstream science is all about. Not your pretentious, contentious, philosophical inspired unsupported nonsense, instead of having the intestinal fortitude to admit your errors.

Philisophy with no respect for  science  is just vacuous.

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Philisophy with no respect for  science  is just vacuous.

Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know.

Bertrand Russell:  English philosopher, mathematician.