The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Re: How did life begin on earth?  (Read 12029 times)

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #25 on: 31/10/2013 21:49:16 »
DQ

Do you actually have anything interesting, original or provable to contribute to this or any other discussion? Your postings seem very eloquent (if somewhat repetitious) but entirely devoid of content. Surely you must know or think something?
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #26 on: 31/10/2013 21:50:31 »

Don't be silly , sis :
Neither life nor reality as a whole are just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry = the latter are just the material physical biological side of the former = re-read what i said then to you .
Why did you have to bring up God and the rest in this discussion then ?

Materialism "makes science " consider life in general ,and the whole reality as a whole as such thus ,as just a matter of physics and chemistry = a false materialist belief assumption that gets sold to the people as science , while science in fact can only approach the material physical biological side   of life in general and of reality as a whole : see the difference ? .
Get that ?

Well, bro, what is so wrong about scientists investigating that biological side of reality? I'm sure the research I referenced above fails to support string theory, or predict what I'm making dinner tonight,  but that was not its intent. So, no, I don't get your point of your complaint.
« Last Edit: 31/10/2013 21:55:23 by cheryl j »
 

Offline Skyli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #27 on: 31/10/2013 22:14:09 »
"Science assumes ...science sees ...science does ...science says ..." were just metaphorical figures of speech : science is no "entity " , let alone that it is an "independent entity " = science is just the scientific method(s) practiced by scientists humans that are not perfect of course , as all human beings are not , not even remotely close thus .

Fine, I'll accept that. So your argument starts with..

Science that tries (yet another metaphorical figure of speech ) to explain and understand reality ,so , science must assume what the nature of reality might be , what it is   first ,before trying to understand it or explain it :

These are two consecutive sentences; they are blatantly contradictory. Science must not, should not and CANNOT assume anything; it is a tool that is used for a particular job. One wouldn't use a microscope to hammer in a nail and one wouldn't use science to investigate an aspect of Reality that was not observable.

I'm sorry; I am not prepared to wade through pages of literature in a discussion forum. Can you, in one or two sentences and without reference to any third party, explain what it is about Science or the way that it is conducted that you object to? Do you deny that Science is a tool and nothing else?
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #28 on: 01/11/2013 10:05:00 »
Donquichotte, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the nature of science. Currently science follows a principle of methodological naturalism. Both those words are central to the practice of science. You have misinterpreted this as the application of materialism. Admittedly there is some correlation, but precious little causation.

When we say science follows the principle of naturalism we mean several related things. Naturalism takes as axiomatic that the universe behaves according to certain rules. Further it believes these rules can be discovered through observation, experiment and inference. Moreover, the rules are applied consistently. Supernatural events do not occur. There are no interventions by a supreme being; no ghosts; no magic.

But more than this, science uses methodological naturalism. This is an important distinction. Pure naturalism rejects the existence of the supernatural. You could argue that this matches your claims for materialism. But methodological naturalism is different. It makes no claim as to the existence, or non-existence of the supernatural. It simply declares "we do not investigate the supernatural, we assume it does not exist, since if it did it would not be subject to investigation by the scientific process". So, science, currently acts as if there was no supernatural, while not actually denying the possibility of its existence.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #29 on: 01/11/2013 17:51:58 »
DQ

Do you actually have anything interesting, original or provable to contribute to this or any other discussion? Your postings seem very eloquent (if somewhat repetitious) but entirely devoid of content. Surely you must know or think something?

I am interested , most of all, in trying to make you ,folks, understand what science really is , in trying to make you , folks, realise that science must be liberated from that false outdated and superseded materialist mechanical secular religion  ideology misconscption of nature in science , then , and only then , we can talk ...pure science .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #30 on: 01/11/2013 17:56:31 »

Don't be silly , sis :
Neither life nor reality as a whole are just a matter of physics and chemistry or biochemistry = the latter are just the material physical biological side of the former = re-read what i said then to you .
Why did you have to bring up God and the rest in this discussion then ?

Materialism "makes science " consider life in general ,and the whole reality as a whole as such thus ,as just a matter of physics and chemistry = a false materialist belief assumption that gets sold to the people as science , while science in fact can only approach the material physical biological side   of life in general and of reality as a whole : see the difference ? .
Get that ?

Well, bro, what is so wrong about scientists investigating that biological side of reality? I'm sure the research I referenced above fails to support string theory, or predict what I'm making dinner tonight,  but that was not its intent. So, no, I don't get your point of your complaint.

Once again, sis :
Modern science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry , to just biological physical material processes since the 19th century at least , thanks to materialism , while science should in fact restrict and confine itself only to the observable , empirical ....part of reality , the rest does "fall " both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well thus .
 

Offline Skyli

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #31 on: 01/11/2013 22:02:57 »
Modern science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry  since the 19th century at least  , to just biological material physical processes , thanks to materialism .

No. This is nonsense. Modern Science is not reducing anything. It doesn't limit itself to the observable because of "materialism", it limits itself to the observable because that's its job!. How can anybody fail to understand this?

I would not accept once of the members of a discussion in the cafe constantly imposing on the rest of us to "read this!" and will not do it in this discussion either. Please explain, as briefly as possible and in your own words, what you think science is and what you think is wrong with it. Can you do that?

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #32 on: 01/11/2013 23:13:35 »
Quote
3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line.
    In this thought experiment, ball 2 exists and it's change in velocity is caused by ball 1, but to any observer unable to register ball 2, it remains completely invisible and undetectable. My conjecture is that qualia are like ball 2, which is why the conscious experience of other human beings is impossible to detect, the causal interaction is one way.

The author of this drivel asks you to imagine a universe in which momentum is not conserved. Has he been watching too many cartoons, or has he smoked some reeeeeally good stuff?  Either way, you won't wake up in his universe, so why bother reading his ravings?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #33 on: 03/11/2013 17:43:23 »
Modern science has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry  since the 19th century at least  , to just biological material physical processes , thanks to materialism .

Quote
No. This is nonsense. Modern Science is not reducing anything. It doesn't limit itself to the observable because of "materialism", it limits itself to the observable because that's its job!. How can anybody fail to understand this?

You did ,obviously, not understand what i was saying , once again :
I said : science has been pretending to know the nature of the whole reality as a whole as  such already , by reducing it to just material physical biological processes , thanks to materialism , = by reducing the whole reality as a whole as  such to just physics and chemistry + to their materialist macroscopic extensions , while science should in fact limit itself only to the observable, empirical ...
Who said that the whole reality as a whole as such  as allegedly  being just material physical biological processes = just physics and chemistry ...who said that that allegation , or rather materialist false belief assumption in science is an ..."empirical observable ...fact " ? : see the materialist dominating meta-paradigm in all sciences and elsewhere for that matter , a meta-paradigm's core materialist belief assumption that does consider the whole reality as a whole as such as just being material physical ..= a materialist meta-paradigm belief assumption that pretends to be 'scientific " ...

Get that ,or not yet ?


Quote
I would not accept once of the members of a discussion in the cafe constantly imposing on the rest of us to "read this!" and will not do it in this discussion either.


I am not imposing anything : i just refer you , folks, to relevant links on the subject , that's all : it is your own free choice to read it ot not : Sheldrake, for example,  is a qualified scientist on the subject: he did write a whole scientific book on the subject i have been providing you, folks, with important and relevant excerpts from  .

Quote
Please explain, as briefly as possible and in your own words, what you think science is and what you think is wrong with it. Can you do that?

What do you think i was doing all along ? = see above .
« Last Edit: 03/11/2013 17:47:40 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #34 on: 03/11/2013 17:58:57 »
Quote
3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line.
    In this thought experiment, ball 2 exists and it's change in velocity is caused by ball 1, but to any observer unable to register ball 2, it remains completely invisible and undetectable. My conjecture is that qualia are like ball 2, which is why the conscious experience of other human beings is impossible to detect, the causal interaction is one way.

The author of this drivel asks you to imagine a universe in which momentum is not conserved. Has he been watching too many cartoons, or has he smoked some reeeeeally good stuff?  Either way, you won't wake up in his universe, so why bother reading his ravings?
[/quote]

Never mind that :
Just tell me this :  this is the core issue here by the way , once again :
Do you think that the whole reality as a whole as such is just material physical ? = just a matter of physics and chemistry = everything can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry + just in terms  of those materialist macroscopic extensions of that materialist core belief assumption regarding the nature of the whole reality as a whole as such ?
Is that an "empirical , observable ...fact , or assumption ? " = of course not : well, that's what science has been doing = considering reality as a whole as such as just being material physical, thanks to materialism , while science should in fact confine itself only to the observable, empirical...part of reality it can deal with , the rest is both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisidction as well .

P.S.: see that materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences and elsewhere for that matter , once again, a materialist meta-paradigm that does consider the whole reality as a whole as such as just being material physical :
How can science pretend to know the nature of the whole reality as a whole as such already , as science has been doing , thanks to materialism for so long now ?
Just do try to tell me about it ...
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #35 on: 03/11/2013 18:51:04 »
If you have a point to make, by all means make it. But don't use obvious nonsense as an analogy - it weakens an already flimsy case. 

And remember that, despite what Goebbels said, repetition is not proof. 
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #36 on: 03/11/2013 18:59:28 »
If you have a point to make, by all means make it. But don't use obvious nonsense as an analogy - it weakens an already flimsy case. 

And remember that, despite what Goebbels said, repetition is not proof.
[/quote]

Just answer my questions , instead of these silly empty rhetorics of yours .
Is reality as a whole as such just physical material ?
Is that a 'scientific empirical observable verifiable falsifiable reproducible testable ...assumption or fact " , as science has been "assuming " all along , for centuries now , or is that just a materialist false assumption or a materialist false conception of nature in science , that has been taken for granted without question as science , for so long now ?
The answer  to that question  is so obvious and simple that it would not have to cost you any intellectual effort to see ...as a scientist .
Use your mind then , not your head = your mind is not in your brain, not in your head , your mind is not your head , is not your brain .
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #37 on: 03/11/2013 20:51:08 »
Quote
Is that a 'scientific empirical observable verifiable falsifiable reproducible testable ...assumption or fact " , as science has been "assuming " all along , for centuries now , or is that just a materialist false assumption or a materialist false conception of nature in science , that has been taken for granted without question as science , for so long now ?

No.

You are right - no intellectual effort was required, once I had squeezed some kind of meaning from your mangled question.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #38 on: 03/11/2013 21:22:04 »
Quote
Is that a 'scientific empirical observable verifiable falsifiable reproducible testable ...assumption or fact " , as science has been "assuming " all along , for centuries now , or is that just a materialist false assumption or a materialist false conception of nature in science , that has been taken for granted without question as science , for so long now ?

No.

You are right - no intellectual effort was required, once I had squeezed some kind of meaning from your mangled question.
[/quote]

haha

Well, good for you : you just went against the mainstream materialist "scientific world view " , as you should do  indeed , a materialist 'scientific world view " you do take for granted without question, despite your "no " here .
Congratulations .
« Last Edit: 03/11/2013 21:23:45 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #39 on: 03/11/2013 22:47:46 »
What "mainstream world view"? You asked if something had been taken for granted, and I said no. By the definition of science, nothing is taken for granted in the world of science. That is the mainstream world view, with which I have agreed.

Do not tell me what I think. You make yourself look foolish. 
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #40 on: 04/11/2013 16:48:21 »
DQ, I would appreciate it if you would address my dismemberment of your assertions about the nature of science as posted on 1 November.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #41 on: 04/11/2013 19:53:43 »
DQ, I would appreciate it if you would address my dismemberment of your assertions about the nature of science as posted on 1 November.
[/quote]

There was no such a thing as "dismemberment " of my allegations regarding science  to be detected in your above mentioned post , that one that dates back to the first of November thus  , i am with you regarding what science actually is and should be as a result , science as just a human effective and unparalleled tool instrument method to deal with the observable, empirical ...........via multiple ways that are specific to their corresponding specific sciences , there are sciences indeed , as there are many forms of the scientific method, not just one : cosmologists do not deal with the cosmos like biologists do in relation to life etc...

Naturalist science has been dominated by the materialist reductionist naturalist false conception of nature , in the sense that reality as a whole is just physical material, and therefore there is no such a "being " such as God, no immaterial side of reality you do call the 'supernatural " , the latter that's just semantics that mean nothing = the immaterial side of reality is in fact ...normal, not paranormal ;the  "paranormal "  label  is just the materialist way of dismissing what it , per definition, rejects ,that's all .

That reality as a whole is just physical material is just a materialist dogmatic belief assumption, no empirical one , but that materialist core belief assumption has been taken for granted as science , for so long now thus , once again .

But fact is , once again : thanks to materialism , the 'scientific world view " is materialist = reality as a whole is just physical material = see that materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences for that matter , and elsewhere , and therefore is the human mind or  human intellect , memory in general, consciousness, emotions, feelings  , ...are just products of the physical brain's neuro-chemical  activity= materialist belief assumptions , no empirical ones .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #42 on: 04/11/2013 20:15:56 »
What "mainstream world view"? You asked if something had been taken for granted, and I said no. By the definition of science, nothing is taken for granted in the world of science. That is the mainstream world view, with which I have agreed.

Let me try to reconstruct for you the 'scene of the committed crime " haha, before it gets "infected , messed with and distorted " beyond any recognition then  :

I asked you the following :

Do you think that reality as a whole is material physical ? You answered no .
But , ironically and pradoxically, modern science has been in fact assuming that reality as a whole thus is just material physical, thanks to materialism , a "scientific " assumption that has been just a materialist core belief assumption, not an empirical or scientific one .
So,when you said no , that meant you were against that materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " as a result , a 'scientific world view " you have been taking for granted without question as the scientific one , despite your "no ".

So, make up your mind then :
Is reality as a whole just material physical ? , if not , as you answered previously , then you are against the 'scientific world view " on the subject , if yes , then you have been deluded into assuming that that materialist core belief assumption has been  "the scientific world view " , either way , you have to explain your position predicament .

Will you do just that ? 

Quote
Do not tell me what I think.


I was not telling you what to think , i was just asking you a question you responded to , a response of yours that did go against the materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " or 'scientific consensus " on the subject thus .

Quote
You make yourself look foolish.

No, i don't think so , see above .
You have been  putting  yourself , as a scientist thus, in a weird paradoxical ironic situation predicament , as the majority of scientists today have been doing , you should try to solve  for yourself at least  .
Will you do just that , as i asked here above ?


 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #43 on: 04/11/2013 22:23:53 »
A quick heads-up: Cheryl's prescient prediction of post #15 is already being realised.

As Yogi Berra said, "It's déjà-vu all over again". We've been over this ground for weeks on the Human Consciousness thread, and Don has been unable or unwilling to support any of his assertions with reasoned argument, let alone examples or evidence. He can't say what science could do differently, or how it would be better without the 'reductionist materialist ideology' he complains of. He just repeats the mantra. If pushed, he will resort to invective or will post pages of Nagel or Sheldrake, or whichever pseudoscientific screed he's currently enthusing about. He will tell you what you believe and what you don't believe whether it contradicts what you've said or not.

Personally, I think he's afraid that science is encroaching on his precious immaterial beliefs.

And now, back to the fun...
« Last Edit: 04/11/2013 22:26:57 by dlorde »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #44 on: 04/11/2013 22:34:07 »
Don, if science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or has been dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then please explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #45 on: 05/11/2013 00:37:00 »
What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "how did life begin on Earth?"
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #46 on: 05/11/2013 01:05:57 »
What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "how did life begin on Earth?"
It's now been discovered that organic synthesis, including simple amino acids, can occur in gas clouds in space, which was a surprise, given the low temperatures and diffuse nature of the clouds.

It's also worth remembering that the first life appears to have begun almost as soon as the Earth had cooled enough for the chemistry to hold together, and that conditions were very different to those today - lots of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulphide, and practically no free oxygen, which was extremely toxic to early anaerobic life.

Quite a few naturally occurring organic polymers can self-organize to form bi-layer membranes and proto-organelles, with phospholipid chains being the likely starting point. In oceanic vents & flumes, there are often pockets and chambers where currents are minimal and thermal and chemical gradients are reasonably stable. These do seem good candidate environments, with chemically rich, porous surfaces where redox reactions can take place. As I understand it, there's quite a bit of support for RNA providing the initial replication machinery, with more complex DNA making its appearance a fair bit later, after the rudimentary transcription machinery and other RNA gubbins had evolved. But there are almost as many ideas as there are research groups, it's a very active field.

« Last Edit: 05/11/2013 01:08:07 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #47 on: 05/11/2013 18:58:28 »
Human intelect and memory can be accounted for by what we already know about mechanistic computation systems. Life can be accounted for as complex chemistry. I see no point in imagining magical solutions for those to use in place of perfectly good mechanistic models which already work perfectly. The only difficulty left is consciousness.
[/quote]

The mechanistic deterministic materialist 'scientific world view " has been shattered and demolished by the maths of chaos :
If everything can be explained just in terms of mechanical cause and effect , just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics , as the Newtonian science has been assuming reality as a whole to be just some sort of mechanic clock work mechanisms , then, we should , logically , empirically , expect to be able to predict everything as a result: the maths of chaos have been destroying that materialist determinist mechanical belief assumption ,as follows :

I thought that the maths of chaos , or the butterfly effect  theory  , and modern physics had  already kissed that outdated , superseded  , largely discredited and  largely refuted  Newtonian-Cartesian presumed absolute predictability goodbye , a long time ago , that physicists and mathematicians can only talk in terms of ...probability  nowadays  , as a result , not to mention that uncertainty principle .

Try to read the following and  try to watch this extremely enlightening and interesting top docu on the subject :

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/high-anxieties-the-mathematics-of-chaos/

High Anxieties: The Mathematics of Chaos


High Anxieties: The Mathematics of ChaosThe documentary looks at the modern advances in mathematics and how they affect our understanding of physics, economics, environmental issues and human psychology.

The film looks at how developments in 20th Century mathematics have affected our view of the world, and particularly how the financial economy and earth’s environment are now seen as inherently unpredictable.

The film looks at the influence the work of Henri Poincare and Alexander Lyapunov had on later developments in mathematics. It includes interviews with David Ruelle, about chaos theory and turbulence, the economist Paul Ormerod about the unpredictability of economic systems, and James Lovelock the founder of Gaia theory about climate change and tipping points in the environment.

As we approach tipping points in both the economy and the climate, the film examines the mathematics we have been reluctant to face up to and asks if, even now, we would rather bury our heads in the sand rather than face harsh truths.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #48 on: 05/11/2013 19:05:17 »
1) You won't or can't address the glaring contradiction in your argument: that science must be "liberated" from materialism so it can be free to investigate or obtain information about the immaterial, which you've already said it cannot do. So what is the benefit of this "liberation?"

I used to make a mistake when i used to say that science can deal only with the material (I see i was also a relative victim of materialism in science thus ) , science can rather deal with all it can observe, test , study ...empirically + not everything can be explained just via the laws of physics , not everything is just a matter of cause and effect thus , as mechanistic materialism  assumes (Major examples ? : science cannot handle the nature or origins of consciousness,of  human intellect ,of  feelings ,of  emotions , of memory ....science cannot handle the nature and origin of human conscience , science cannot explain life as a whole just via physics and chemistry , let alone life's origins , evolution and emergence ...fully) .
See how Sheldrake has been studying telepathy, for example, scientifically .

Quote
2) There is no materialist conspiracy

Who said there is one ?

Quote
. First off, your history of the relationship between the Catholic church and scientists is factually inaccurate
.

What do you mean exactly ?
The medieval church used to be against science , wasn't it ?
The medieval church that used to see itself as the one and only undisputed ultimate authority : anyone who used to challenge it , used to face dire consequences ,as you know  .
The medieval church used to plant the seeds of its own decline , and those of the rise or birth of mechanistic materialism thus as a result .

 
Quote
They were generally in opposition

Scientists were , yes ? indeed ,so .

Quote
. Secondly, the fact that scientific discoveries were about material processes is not proof that people were prevented by some social force from attempting any other kind of investigation.

I was just talking about the secular materialist establishment as the newly born ultimate authority that had replaced christianity ,metaphorically speaking ,  as the concept of the nation-state had replaced that of the church : the secular materialist establishment as the new then undisputed ultimate authority whose main 'ally " was / has been science , when science became materialistic mechanistic , thanks to materialism thus .

Quote
Chemists doing chemistry experiments will probably derive theories involving chemistry (ideas about molecules and atoms.) Physicists doing physics experiments will also come to conclusions having to do with physics. They are unlikely to spontaneously generate theories or conclusions about the immaterial things which have nothing to do with their own research. Science is not dominated by materialism, in the sense that it is being coerced by some authority to be that way. Scientific knowledge simply contains more information about the material world because that is what individual scientists chose to observe and measure, because that is what they can observe and measure, not because somebody forced them to or censored them.

Wrong :
Science has been assuming that everything is material physical, thanks to materialism  = everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , or just by physics and chemistry , so, everything that would have  "supernatural " claims would be , per definition, not only branded as unscientific , but also as ...false , including the claims of religions ....
While science in fact should restrict itself only to what it can deal with empirically .

Quote
Don, if science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or has been dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then please explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.

Just be serious , come on :
Just answer the question, come on.
Be serious, ok ?
Well, when science will cease to "see " everything as being just material physical through just the key hole of materialism ,while pretending that all what it can see through that materialist mechanistic key hole is all what there is to reality , then  science will realise the fact that there is more to reality than just that it has been confined to , science that tries to understand and explain reality thus .
Science will be then put  on a new  path that might lead to new  unimaginable  discoveries as a result : do you want me to draw you a pic ?

Science has been just deluded into "thinking " , thanks to materialism thus , that the material physical side of reality is all what there is to reality = a distortion of reality .

When science will be liberated from materialism, then science will be able to "see " or rather try to approach the whole pic of reality or rather  science will be able to approach the parts of the whole pic of reality it  can deal with empirically , instead of confining itself to just the material physical side of reality , science has been taking for the whole real thing = the scope realm , jurisdiction and reach of science will be then extended exponentially ,relatively speaking then, while there are some significant parts of reality as a whole that will remain beyond both science's realm and beyond science's jurisdiction as well thus  .

Quote
... see how even telepathy is studied scientifically by Sheldrake, for example
Quote
.
Yeah, right. Whatever happened to the telepathy revolution...?

Maybe he's still looking for a way to distinguish between telepathy, clairvoyance, and remote viewing (etc.), or maybe the communication companies have bought him off, or are suppressing his work; but on the other hand, with no credible replications, maybe he's just chasing the magic butterfly of his imagination down the corridors of pseudoscience with a butterfly net of leaky protocols and flaky analysis ;)

Did you take a close look at Sheldrake's scientific work on the subject ? Guess not : go back and check his evidence , and then we can talk when you would come back .

Sheldrake has been dealing with both telepathy and his morphic resonance theory scientifically , relatively speaking , he has been practicing science as scientists should do whe science would be liberated from materialism : that's 1 of the major reasons why most scientists , including yourself , has been considering his work as being a form of pseudo-science , while it is in fact the other way around : materialism in science is pseudo-science , Sheldrake has just been demolishing those materialist dogmatic orthodox beliefs idols in science that has been taken for granted as science by the materialist mainstream scientific priesthood and their followers  .


 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #49 on: 05/11/2013 19:14:26 »
A quick heads-up: Cheryl's prescient prediction of post #15 is already being realised.

As Yogi Berra said, "It's déjà-vu all over again". We've been over this ground for weeks on the Human Consciousness thread, and Don has been unable or unwilling to support any of his assertions with reasoned argument, let alone examples or evidence. He can't say what science could do differently, or how it would be better without the 'reductionist materialist ideology' he complains of. He just repeats the mantra. If pushed, he will resort to invective or will post pages of Nagel or Sheldrake, or whichever pseudoscientific screed he's currently enthusing about. He will tell you what you believe and what you don't believe whether it contradicts what you've said or not.

Personally, I think he's afraid that science is encroaching on his precious immaterial beliefs.

And now, back to the fun...
See above .
No, you are completely wrong , on all accounts :
I have been put in a position where i have been forced to repeat the same facts over and over again regarding the core fact that materialism is no science , simply because you refuse to acknowledge those simple facts : i did even post a lots of material on the subject that has been supporting my allegations , and more .

Besides, God or religions , any world views for that matter , including materialism thus , materialism as just a secular dogmatic orthodox religion in science , are both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well .
So, materialism has been reducing reality as a whole to just physics and chemistry in science , while selling that materialist core belief assumption to the people as science , in order to reject all non-materialist world views , including religions thus , "scientifically ", and in order for materialism to try to "validate " itself through science as science , in order thus for materialism to try to prove itself as being " the one and only scientifically true world view " , as the 'scientific world view ", in vain of course : no wonder that materialism in science has been sold to the people as "the scientific world view " , materialism that's just a false conception of nature that has thus absolutely nothing to do with science , science that should try to deal with all parts of reality it can deal with empirically , not just with the material part of reality science has been confined to , thanks to materialism , the material side of reality that science has been assuming that it is all what there is to reality as a whole  .
I cannot be any clearer than that .
« Last Edit: 05/11/2013 19:21:48 by DonQuichotte »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Re: How did life begin on earth?
« Reply #49 on: 05/11/2013 19:14:26 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums