To abstract or not to abstract

[Bartholomew Jones]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18810658/

So I've ruffled some feathers here saying such things as, "natural discovery is of an order higher than science," notwithstanding that I've also said, "science is one very useful way of looking at nature."

I've been working at home with my own ferments, as a way to preserve and enhance foods.  My methods are based on Biblical clues, and clues from Katrina Blair's, Wild Wisdom of Weeds.  I've accidentally developed skills manufacturing kombucha and kefir, carbonated kefir.

So in the abstract above, the paper isolates a bacteria from kombucha rather than studying the kombucha, and the kefir directly.

This is why I contend against this modern science.  It is optimal, for example to isolate such bacteria; to mass manufacture.

I'd rather pay a shoe maker to make me a pair of shoes and repair them if necessary; or draw water daily, than choose between Nike and another, or buy plastic water.  My point is that mass manufacturing diminishes the quality of life if you love diligence.

Also, were the strains from the kefir also isolated?  Are they bacteria?

[iNow]

Just now, Bartholomew Jones said:

So I've ruffled some feathers here saying such things as, "natural discovery is of an order higher than science,"

Aren’t the discoveries of science included within the umbrella of nature? Are you suggesting science is supernatural? 

2 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I'd rather pay a shoe maker to make me a pair of shoes and repair them if necessary; or draw water daily, than choose between Nike and another, or buy plastic water.  My point is that mass manufacturing diminishes the quality of life if you love diligence.

That’s fine, and that’s your choice, but you don’t get to impose that choice on everyone else when they might think and feel differently. 

4 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Also, were the strains from the kefir also isolated?  Are they bacteria?

Did you read the article you linked?

[Bartholomew Jones]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

5 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

So I've ruffled some feathers here saying such things as, "natural discovery is of an order higher than science,"

Aren’t the discoveries of science included within the umbrella of nature? Are you suggesting science is supernatural? 

Yes, if and when science discovers a truth, which in my view requires proof, not "mountains of evidence."

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

That’s fine, and that’s your choice, but you don’t get to impose that choice on everyone else when they might think and feel differently. 

What I offer is resistance, not imposition.  If I had an office affording a prerogative to enforce it, that would be an imposition I would make.  At the risk of being persecuted as preaching and violating a rule, I submit human testimony as evidence: Jeremiah 6:16.

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Aren’t the discoveries of science included within the umbrella of nature? Are you suggesting science is supernatural? 

That’s fine, and that’s your choice, but you don’t get to impose that choice on everyone else when they might think and feel differently. 

Did you read the article you linked?

Never mind I thought you might be sincerely helpful.  I have better kefir anyway.

 

[iNow]

54 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Yes,

Yes, you feel science is supernatural???

I mean, I think it’s pretty awesome, too. Don’t get me wrong. It’s really the bees knees, but supernatural? That’s a bit too far for me. 

55 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

when science discovers a truth, which in my view requires proof, not "mountains of evidence."

All I can do is repeat my previous correction. Science doesn’t deal in proofs. It deals in evidence. Any claims are always provisional and challengeable and subject to revision. Proofs are for math, but that’s different. 

57 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

If I had an office affording a prerogative to enforce it, that would be an imposition I would make. 

I’m sorry to hear that you don’t share my support of freedom and democracy. I understand authoritarian views like yours, I just don’t share them. 

58 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Never mind I thought you might be sincerely helpful.

So, no? You didn’t read the article you linked?

[Bartholomew Jones]

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Yes,

Yes, you feel science is supernatural?

No.  I believe science is included under the umbrella of nature when science discovers a truth.  I don't believe the things done by a divine nature are supernatural.  My God, who created the world and everything in it, who is a person, three to be more perfect, is of nature.  Jesus was born of woman, conceived of the Holy Spirit.  I'll be censored probably for that.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones
edit out extraneous is

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

No.  I believe science is included under the umbrella of nature when science discovers a truth

What about when it doesn’t? Are you saying it’s supernatural when it makes mistakes or doesn’t lead to successful discovery?

6 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

My God, who created the world and everything in it, who is a person, three to be more perfect, is of nature.  Jesus was born of woman, conceived of the Holy Spirit.  I'll be censored probably for that.

Well, this IS a science site and that’s clearly not science, so... you may as well be claiming that Harry Potter was a real boy or that Odin and Zeus are real. They’re roughly equivalent. 

[Bartholomew Jones]

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

Proofs are for math,

Before the term, "proof," was admitted as a technical term in math, it was a general term: to prove something in general one needs proof.  That's the sense I'm using.

[iNow]

Anyway, WTF does Jesus have to do with isolating kefir bacteria? You really jump around with your thoughts. It’s like playing whack-a-mole sometimes with you. 

Just now, Bartholomew Jones said:

Before the term, "proof," was admitted as a technical term in math, it was a general term: to prove something in general one needs proof.  That's the sense I'm using.

So NOT in the scientific context? Uhm... okay. 

[Bartholomew Jones]

45 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes, you feel science is supernatural???

I mean, I think it’s pretty awesome, too. Don’t get me wrong. It’s really the bees knees, but supernatural? That’s a bit too far for me. 

All I can do is repeat my previous correction. Science doesn’t deal in proofs. It deals in evidence. Any claims are always provisional and challengeable and subject to revision. Proofs are for math, but that’s different. 

I’m sorry to hear that you don’t share my support of freedom and democracy. I understand authoritarian views like yours, I just don’t share them. 

So, no? You didn’t read the article you linked?

Freedom must be found in one's heart.  Democracy is an an ideology I believe in and support.  There are various forms.  American Democracy, which I do support, is Republican Democracy.  Sometimes an officer is granted executive power.  Sometimes legislative prerogative.  Sometimes judicial care.  In any case, the officer exercises a kind of prerogative or authority; it ought not be authoritarian.  As executive, I would enforce said measures by vetoing "progressive" economy, if by line item.  If I were a legislative officer I might be more proactive with said policy measures.  I'm not qualified judicially.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones
exercise s

[iNow]

I appreciate you. Your thoughts on this interest me. 

My comment, however, was about forcing people to buy cheap cobbler shoes and manually haul buckets of water instead of letting their lives and minds open more broadly by allowing use of modern conveniences like plumbing and shoe stores. 

[Bartholomew Jones]

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

What about when it doesn’t? Are you saying it’s supernatural when it makes mistakes or doesn’t lead to successful discovery?

Well, this IS a science site and that’s clearly not science, so... you may as well be claiming that Harry Potter was a real boy or that Odin and Zeus are real. They’re roughly equivalent. 

I'm saying there's no such thing as supernatural.  Everything God does is of nature.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I appreciate you. Your thoughts on this interest me. 

My comment, however, was about forcing people to buy cheap cobbler shoes and manually haul buckets of water instead of letting their lives and minds open more broadly by allowing use of modern conveniences like plumbing and shoe stores. 

I'm not for cheap cobblers.  I'm for shoe stores, custom built, custom repaired.  I'm for the primary form of proper exercise: real work while maintaining proper posture.  Proper posture may always be enforced and reinforced.  Thank you for your ear.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Everything God does is of nature.

In which case, God is subject to experimentation. Define it and we can test it

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I'm for shoe stores, custom built, custom repaired.  I'm for the primary form of proper exercise: real work while maintaining proper posture. 

Once again, you’re welcome to this view and I support you in it. I support freedom and democracy. Where we quarrel, however, is when you say you’d impose this view on to the rest of us if you were somehow able to achieve sufficient authority to mandate it. I find that mindset repugnant. 

[Bartholomew Jones]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Everything God does is of nature.

In which case, God is subject to experimentation. Define it and we can test it

God as axiom is equivalent with the ancient Hebrew, el, in singular, and elohim, in plural form.  Singularity vs plurality in ancient Hebrew is more discrete than I understand.  But our definition here is sufficient.

el, is the same term, when used by ancient Hebrews as terms used equivalently for the gods of non-Hebrews, contemporary with them.  It was used by Hebrews interchangeably, whether of the Hebrew God, or by non-Hebrews.

Hebrews, however, and following with the people called Christian, also by tradition call the God beginning with the name, el, and elohim, by other, more discrete names: YHWH God ("the LORD God") being the first alternate name in the scriptural text (Genesis 2:4); YHWH being the first alternate name in scriptural history (Genesis 4:26).  Names of God scripturally convey different persona of the one God.

Far eastern notions shouldn't be elusive either.  Of India, would equate with elohim.  Of China, Bhudda, equates with atheism, as there's no notion of god.  I'm not familiar with the other groups.  Arabic stems from that language shared with ancient Hebrews, that being Aramaic.  The Muslim religion (sic) came six or seven hundred years after Jesus.  It contradicts the Biblical Christian God.  The name allah, however is related to the Hebrew term, el.  Muslim doctrine denies that Jesus died.

This last entry is an attempt at defining God by name.

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

In which case, God is subject to experimentation. Define it and we can test it

Once again, you’re welcome to this view and I support you in it. I support freedom and democracy. Where we quarrel, however, is when you say you’d impose this view on to the rest of us if you were somehow able to achieve sufficient authority to mandate it. I find that mindset repugnant. 

I said if I were in an office, I would enforce older economy, not a particular view.

God as it, is not common traditionally; rarely the Holy Spirit is referred to by his pronoun, it, usually He.

This is my quarrel: I'm going to be censored for questions philosophical because they center metaphysically, particularly favoring the way called Christian.

Science, removed from modern science, wouldn't discriminate.  It might nonetheless be fractious.

[iNow]

Any censor you receive will be for lying; failing to abide by the rules to which you agreed when accepting your membership in this community; breaking your promise to engage with the members here in accordance with the site standards and rules.

As for the rest? It sounds like childish fairy tales to me. Meaningless and misguided pablum. I don’t suggest you not be allowed to believe any silly thing you want. In fact, I’d sacrifice myself in defense of your right to be autonomous and believe whatever you desire... but you likewise shouldn’t protest when I in parallel bluntly tell you it reads to me like silly nonsense equivalent to astrology or claims from children that the floor is made of lava, worth neither time nor merit within the mind of a critical thinker or honest human. 

More to the point, it has literally zero to do with the thread topic, namely which strain of bacteria is to be found in your fancy drinking yogurt. 

Edited December 18, 2020 by iNow

[joigus]

6 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

At the risk of being persecuted as preaching and violating a rule, I submit human testimony as evidence: Jeremiah 6:16.

It is ironic the way in which the persecutors par excellence like to play mentally with the idea of being persecuted.

5 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Jesus was born of woman, conceived of the Holy Spirit.  I'll be censored probably for that.

No, not censored. You are just ignorant. "Virgin" in "virgin Mary" (parthenos, in the Septuagint) is a mistranslation from Hebrew almah ("young woman".) As the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown, there is no trace of the Hebrew word bethulah ("virgin") referring to Mary.  So for all we know from science (archaeology), Mary was not a virgin, but just a "young woman."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Christian_use

3 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

Hebrews, however, and following with the people called Christian, also by tradition call the God beginning with the name, el, and elohim, by other, more discrete names: YHWH God ("the LORD God") being the first alternate name in the scriptural text (Genesis 2:4); YHWH being the first alternate name in scriptural history (Genesis 4:26).  Names of God scripturally convey different persona of the one God.

El and YHWH (probably "Yahweh", archaic Semitic scripts had no vowels) were different deities. One came from Canaan, the other from the outskirts of the Sinai desert. One was a god of the Canaanite hills, the other from the desert. There were many Canaanite deities, like Ashera, or Baal. It was king Josiah who fused together El and Yahweh, decreed a unified place of worship in Jerusalem, and substituted all of them for the common name adonai as a conveniently ambiguous placeholder for "god". It is not Yahweh the name for "the lord" in Hebrew, it is adonai. All for political reasons well understood in terms of the decline of the Assyrian Empire and the political situation that resulted --need for unification of two kingdoms.

Some of these points are debatable, and different scholars hold different views, but what seems to emerge clearly from the ground is that the Israelites and Judahites were not de facto monotheists until after the Babilonian takeover.

There were many deities among the Nabateans too --the precursors of Islam, which is the reason why Ibn S'ad, Ibn Ishaq ol Al-Tabari mention them in the so-called Satanic Verses, but they were conveniently whitewashed by later traditions. There are still death penalties for those who dare talk about it. Whitewashing, abrogation... very common in faith-based religions.

As I imagined, nothing whatsoever on this thread having to do with "the abstract vs not the abstract."

You could at least learn a bit about where your book comes from. 

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Anyway, WTF does Jesus have to do with isolating kefir bacteria? You really jump around with your thoughts. It’s like playing whack-a-mole sometimes with you. 

So NOT in the scientific context? Uhm... okay. 

You asked about science being supernatural.  I answered not so.  But that I believe in a divine God; that there's no phenomena counted as supernatural.

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, joigus said:

No, not censored. You are just ignorant. "Virgin" in "virgin Mary" (parthenos, in the Septuagint) is a mistranslation from Hebrew almah ("young woman".) As the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown, there is no trace of the Hebrew word bethulah ("virgin") referring to Mary.  So for all we know from science (archaeology), Mary was not a virgin, but just a "young woman."

Ruins this joke
https://imgflip.com/i/wa6ee

More importantly it ruins what is seen as part of the "unique selling point" of Christianity. Their prophet was special- conceived through God.
(Yes, you and I know it's not remotely unique, but the early Christians put a lot of effort into suppressing that sort of knowledge in order to seem "special")

Archaeology is science, but the dead sea scrolls are hearsay. Science can't even tell us that Mary was real.

The scrolls tell you what was said, but not what was true.
She might have been a virgin; we don't know.
But , if she was, you would have thought they would have mentioned it in the scrolls.

 

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Anyway, WTF does Jesus have to do with isolating kefir bacteria? You really jump around with your thoughts. It’s like playing whack-a-mole sometimes with you. 

So NOT in the scientific context? Uhm... okay. 

By the same measure, how can science exclude the ideal of proving a theory?  In fact, when I was formally taught the definition of science as a youth it began as hypothesis, proceeded to a theory, and was perfected as a law; that is, a principle.

[John Cuthber]

1 minute ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

By the same measure, how can science exclude the ideal of proving a theory?  In fact, when I was formally taught the definition of science as a youth it began as hypothesis, proceeded to a theory, and was perfected as a law; that is, a principle.

And, from time to time, the "laws" get overturned as Relativity did with Newtonian physics.
Which is why science has the sense to say that (outside of maths) nothing gets proved. It may be that we simply haven't done a clever enough experiment yet.
The law has similar  understanding, whence the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt".

[Bartholomew Jones]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Any censor you receive will be for lying; failing to abide by the rules to which you agreed when accepting your membership in this community; breaking your promise to engage with the members here in accordance with the site standards and rules.

As for the rest? It sounds like childish fairy tales to me. Meaningless and misguided pablum. I don’t suggest you not be allowed to believe any silly thing you want. In fact, I’d sacrifice myself in defense of your right to be autonomous and believe whatever you desire... but you likewise shouldn’t protest when I in parallel bluntly tell you it reads to me like silly nonsense equivalent to astrology or claims from children that the floor is made of lava, worth neither time nor merit within the mind of a critical thinker or honest human. 

More to the point, it has literally zero to do with the thread topic, namely which strain of bacteria is to be found in your fancy drinking yogurt. 

You've spent more time here, as I have, than on the question at hand which is yet yet not fully navigated.  So were the 10 studied components of the kefir also isolated, judging from the abstract given?  We're they bacteriaYahweh

I'm not being lazy, but prudent, by asking in this format rather than reading beyond the abstract.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

It is ironic the way in which the persecutors par excellence like to play mentally with the idea of being persecuted.

No such thing as excellence in persecution.  That's like excellence in crime or in malpractice.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

No, not censored. You are just ignorant. "Virgin" in "virgin Mary" (parthenos, in the Septuagint) is a mistranslation from Hebrew almah ("young woman".)

Though written originally in Greek they were conveying Hebrew thought in Greek terms.  The Hebrew term was used interchangeably to convey a virgin, defacto, or a young woman.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

It is ironic the way in which the persecutors par excellence like to play mentally with the idea of being persecuted.

No such thing as excellence in persecution.  That's like excellence in crime or in malpractice.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

El and YHWH (probably "Yahweh", archaic Semitic scripts had no vowels) were different deities. One came from Canaan, the other from the outskirts of the Sinai desert. One was a god of the Canaanite hills, the other from the desert. There were many Canaanite deities, like Ashera, or Baal. It was king Josiah who fused together El and Yahweh, decreed a unified place of worship in Jerusalem, and substituted all of them for the common name adonai as a conveniently ambiguous placeholder for "god". It is not Yahweh the name for "the lord" in Hebrew, it is adonai. All for political reasons well understood in terms of the decline of the Assyrian Empire and the political situation that resulted --need for unification of two kingdoms.

El, was used as axiom in all very early time periods universally to convey the notion of a god or of gods or of the Hebrew God.  By the third generation of men stemming from Adam through Seth to Enosh, "men began to call on the name of the LORD (translated in all caps means the name YHWH)."  Genesis 4:26.  That's the historical first use.  The first use in Scripture is Genesis 2:4, coupled with el, "the LORD God," or, el Yah(weh).

5 hours ago, joigus said:

There were many Canaanite deities, like Ashera, or Baal.

These and other deities were NAMED thus, but when referred to generically were called "gods," that is, elohim, singularly, el.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones

[studiot]

30 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

And, from time to time, the "laws" get overturned as Relativity did with Newtonian physics.
Which is why science has the sense to say that (outside of maths) nothing gets proved. It may be that we simply haven't done a clever enough experiment yet.
The law has similar  understanding, whence the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt".

All agreed, but John, I'm disappointed, you didn't tell Bartholomew Jones (why do you have to have such a long name to write out ? ) about the Scottish verdict.

In point of fact there are three increasing levels of proof required in an English prosecution ( and a different one for civil matters called the balance of probabilities).

The Police require the lowest level of evidence to charge someone

The Crown Prosecution service requires a higher level to take the case to court reflecting the likelyhood of a successful prosecution.

The Court requires the ultimate beyond reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict.

 

It is customary here for someone (usually Strange) to post the cartoon about peer review.

 

43 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

By the same measure, how can science exclude the ideal of proving a theory?  In fact, when I was formally taught the definition of science as a youth it began as hypothesis, proceeded to a theory, and was perfected as a law; that is, a principle.

 

I'm going to say +1 for being (I hope as well as appearing) open minded enough to ask a sensible question.

In fact proof was not mentioned in you question. To proceed is not synonymous with to prove.

In technical terms  'Theory'

may include several 'Principles', which are the scientific equivalent of mathematical proofs.
An axiom or principle is a statement offered without proof but in the knowledge that it is not known to be contradicted within the conditions of application.

All too often the conditions part are forgotten, particularly in arguments (of the disagreement type).

 

12 hours ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

I'd rather pay a shoe maker to make me a pair of shoes and repair them if necessary; or draw water daily, than choose between Nike and another, or buy plastic water.  My point is that mass manufacturing diminishes the quality of life if you love diligence.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view emboldened.

For instance shoe manufacturers  (or is it shoe retailers?) have stopped offering half sizes  -  which is very difficult for me as I am a half size.

Definitely a retrograde development.

Other clothing retailers do the same thing with other garments.

But my point to you is that, once again your approach is an all-or-nothing (binary) approach to something which has a scale from good to bad or black to white with many many shades of grey in between.

It is therefore possible to proceed too far in either direction away from a comfortable middle way.

And the greed of some humans  feasts on this to the detriment of all others.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

. It was king Josiah who fused together El and Yahweh, decreed a unified place of worship in Jerusalem

That was a reinstatement a few generations before Babylon toppled them.  David instituted the first unified place of worship in Jerusalem 14 generations prior to Babylon.

54 minutes ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

It was king Josiah who fused together El and Yahweh,

No, that's begins in Genesis 2, by Moses.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Bartholomew Jones said:

So were the 10 studied components of the kefir also isolated, judging from the abstract given?  We're they bacteriaYahweh

I'm not being lazy, but prudent, by asking in this format rather than reading beyond the abstract.

Agree to disagree 

[Bartholomew Jones]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

As the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown, there is no trace of the Hebrew word bethulah ("virgin") referring to Mary.  So for all we know from science (archaeology), Mary was not a virgin, but just a "young woman."

Again, the original text was in Greek because Hebrews in Roman time only wrote in Greek, like the rest of the world.  They were conveying Hebrew thoughts in Greek.

No, the plot makes very clear Mary and Joseph had not come together and that she was confirmed to Joseph as not having been with a man.  Also she states she had not been with a man.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Bartholomew Jones

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

It is customary here for someone (usually Strange) to post the cartoon about peer review.

I’m no Strange, but happy to oblige