Yesterday, I burned my copy of Darwin's Black Box. Just so you know.

I guess I could have just thrown it away. But I was worried that 
somebody might, you know, read it...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Yesterday, I burned my copy of Darwin's Black Box. Just so you know.

> I guess I could have just thrown it away. But I was worried that 
> somebody might, you know, read it...

  One of the most common tactics used by all kinds of denialists,
young-earth creationists and the like is to try to come up with
objections or exceptions to a well-established scientific theory,
and then from that claim that the theory is completely false.

  True valid objections or contradictions with the theory are usually
extremely rare. In most cases they have an explanation that is completely
in accordance with the theory and do not even require any special
exceptions to be made. (In most cases these seeming contradictions are
nothing more than misinterpretations of the described phenomenon, often
done deliberately even after they are fully explained.)

  Even in the extremely few cases where a truly valid objection is
made, that doesn't mean that the theory is automatically false. Usually
it simply means that the real reason for the apparent contradiction
(which might be very simple) has not been found yet or, even more
rarely, the theory needs some fine-tuning to account the new data.

  For example, the newtonian theory of gravity is not wrong *per se*.
It's just that it applies (and pretty accurately at that) only at
normal everyday scales and velocities. It's only when you go very
small, very dense or very fast that it starts to deviate noticeably.
Newtonian gravity was insufficient to explain *all* phenomena, but the
theory that replaced it (ie. general relativity) doesn't actually contradict
it in those circumstances (ie. low velocities, everyday scales), but in
fact it can be reduced to the newtonian formulas.

  Likewise there are some observations made that seem to contradict
general relativity (such as the pioneer anomaly, the flyby anomaly
and the orbital velocities of stars in galaxies). However, these
unexplained contradictions do not mean that general relativity is
automatically false. It just means that either we have not yet found
the reason for them (which at least in the two first cases might be
mundane), or general relativity requires more fine-tuning to account
for them (something which so far seems unlikely).

  Anyways, these denialists and creationists seem to think that even if
there are hundreds and thousands of experiments that confirm a certain
theory, if you present a few dozens that seem to contradict it, that
means that the theory is completely false.

  What's funny is that this kind of thinking does not go only against
the scientific method, it actually goes against common sense and
everyday human experience.

  For example, if you take a stone with your hand and let go of it,
it will fall down. Take a pencil, same thing. Take a thousand different
objects, and the same thing. They all fall down. Hence the conclusion is
that all objects fall down. Moreover, you can make experiments to see
how fast they fall down: Do they all fall down at the same speed? Can you
devise a formula that will predict how long it will take for the object
to hit the ground?

  Then someone comes and says: "Hey, look at that bird. It's in the air
and it's not falling down. Or how about that helicopter. It isn't falling
down either. Clearly all these experiments and formulas of yours are
bollocks. It's all a big lie."

  The scientific way of thinking about that claim is, of course: "Hmm,
what is it that makes the bird and the helicopter keep in the air and
not fall down? Let's find out. Let's observe and do some experiments."
Then you study the phenomenon and see that it doesn't actually contradict
your experience of objects falling down. It's just that there's another
explanation for them not falling down.

  The creationist way of thinking seems to be: "Hah. These two examples
clearly show that the theory of objects falling down is bollocks. That's
enough for me."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 23/12/2011 04:12 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Yesterday, I burned my copy of Darwin's Black Box. Just so you know.
>
>> I guess I could have just thrown it away. But I was worried that
>> somebody might, you know, read it...

>    The creationist way of thinking seems to be: "Hah. These two examples
> clearly show that the theory of objects falling down is bollocks. That's
> enough for me."

"Quod enim mavult homo versus esse id porteous credit."

For what a man wishes to be true, that he more readily believes.

Nobody is lobbying Congress to say that the second law of thermodynamics 
is wrong. (And there are actual, valid scientific difficulties with that 
one.) Nobody is calling for Maxwell's equations to be taken out of the 
school curriculum because "a growing [but unamed] body of scientists 
doubt the validity of it". Einstein's theories of relavitivy claim that 
all sorts of mind-bending things are supposed to be possible, yet nobody 
objects.

And yet, the second you say that The Holy Bible is wrong... suddenly 
this crap happens.

It's not that these people misunderstand science or aren't good at 
logical reasoning. It's that they don't *care* about science - they just 
desperately want everyone to believe in the Bible. Scientists start from 
the facts, apply logic and end up with a conclusion. These people dearly 
want a particular conclusion, and will invent any spurious chain of 
logic which leads to the desired conclusion.

Rational debate is futile. These people do not care about being 
rational. They only care about making everybody believe their story. 
Because it doesn't really /matter/ what the truth is, so long as they 
can go along happy in the knowledge that they were right, and everyone 
believes them.

Rational debate may, however, work on innocent people who have 
mistakenly fallen for this BS...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:01:39 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> On 23/12/2011 04:12 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>> Yesterday, I burned my copy of Darwin's Black Box. Just so you know.
>>
>>> I guess I could have just thrown it away. But I was worried that
>>> somebody might, you know, read it...
> 
>>    The creationist way of thinking seems to be: "Hah. These two
>>    examples
>> clearly show that the theory of objects falling down is bollocks.
>> That's enough for me."
> 
> "Quod enim mavult homo versus esse id porteous credit."
> 
> For what a man wishes to be true, that he more readily believes.
> 
> Nobody is lobbying Congress to say that the second law of thermodynamics
> is wrong. (And there are actual, valid scientific difficulties with that
> one.) Nobody is calling for Maxwell's equations to be taken out of the
> school curriculum because "a growing [but unamed] body of scientists
> doubt the validity of it". Einstein's theories of relavitivy claim that
> all sorts of mind-bending things are supposed to be possible, yet nobody
> objects.
> 
> And yet, the second you say that The Holy Bible is wrong... suddenly
> this crap happens.
> 
> It's not that these people misunderstand science or aren't good at
> logical reasoning. It's that they don't *care* about science - they just
> desperately want everyone to believe in the Bible. Scientists start from
> the facts, apply logic and end up with a conclusion. These people dearly
> want a particular conclusion, and will invent any spurious chain of
> logic which leads to the desired conclusion.
> 
> Rational debate is futile. These people do not care about being
> rational. They only care about making everybody believe their story.
> Because it doesn't really /matter/ what the truth is, so long as they
> can go along happy in the knowledge that they were right, and everyone
> believes them.
> 
> Rational debate may, however, work on innocent people who have
> mistakenly fallen for this BS...

Last night we watched the 2009 "Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless 
People" - very good.  I particularly liked the bit where Robin Ince was 
talking about how, if you reject the Theory of Evolution, you really are 
rejecting the scientific method, and as such, shouldn't really be 
'believing' in anything like medicine because those use the same method 
to be validated.

"Oh, you don't feel well?  Too bad you don't believe in the scientific 
method as a valid way of approaching the world - medicine probably would 
be useful, but since you reject the scientific method, you can't have 
medicine.  I'll go find an old witch doctor to wave a twig over your head 
- I hear that works in some cases!"

:)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12/23/2011 11:00, Jim Henderson wrote:
> "Oh, you don't feel well?  Too bad you don't believe in the scientific

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/2005/12/1218doonesbury_lg.gif

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

> Last night we watched the 2009 "Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless
> People" - very good.  I particularly liked the bit where Robin Ince was
> talking about how, if you reject the Theory of Evolution, you really are
> rejecting the scientific method, and as such, shouldn't really be
> 'believing' in anything like medicine because those use the same method
> to be validated.

I think that logically they should also try top get rid of all animal 
testing of drugs. It hampers companies in making money and it is useless 
anyway as man is not in any way related to e.g. mice.
Then again, it is hard for me to understand their logic, if it exist at all.

> "Oh, you don't feel well?  Too bad you don't believe in the scientific
> method as a valid way of approaching the world - medicine probably would
> be useful, but since you reject the scientific method, you can't have
> medicine.  I'll go find an old witch doctor to wave a twig over your head
> - I hear that works in some cases!"
>
> :)
>
> Jim


-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the floor.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/23/2011 15:17, andrel wrote:
> anyway as man is not in any way related to e.g. mice.

Sure he is.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2352-just-25-of-dna-turns-mice-into-men.html

Indeed, each type of animal has specific types of similarities. Guinea pigs 
(and pigs in general) have very similar blood chemistries, which is why it's 
easy to get diseases from undercooked pork and why "guinea pig" is slang for 
"subject of an experiment".

Rabbits have very similar eyes and skin, which is why makeup testing uses 
rabbits.

Chimpanzees have very similar immune systems, which is why you always hear 
in fiction about evil biotech weapon companies having monkeys in cages.

Mice are because peopl ehave developed a strain of white mice that are 
genetically very similar, so you can do repeatable experiments on generic 
animal type stuff (i.e., the 95% or so of DNA we share with all mammals).

> Then again, it is hard for me to understand their logic, if it exist at all.

Well, put it this way. They don't spend money on animal testing because they 
don't like animals.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 00:17:46 +0100, andrel wrote:

>> Last night we watched the 2009 "Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless
>> People" - very good.  I particularly liked the bit where Robin Ince was
>> talking about how, if you reject the Theory of Evolution, you really
>> are rejecting the scientific method, and as such, shouldn't really be
>> 'believing' in anything like medicine because those use the same method
>> to be validated.
> 
> I think that logically they should also try top get rid of all animal
> testing of drugs. It hampers companies in making money and it is useless
> anyway as man is not in any way related to e.g. mice.
> Then again, it is hard for me to understand their logic, if it exist at
> all.

Well, of course, that would be part of the rejection of the scientific 
method which would invalidate those who reject it from being eligible for 
modern medical treatments.

I also liked the "Trial by a jury of your peers?  Nah, you get a faith-
based trial." :)

The logic is ultimately pretty simple, though - if reality gets in the 
way of the 'accuracy' of their religious beliefs, then clearly reality 
has got it wrong.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 17:05:23 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> On 12/23/2011 15:17, andrel wrote:
>> anyway as man is not in any way related to e.g. mice.
> 
> Sure he is.
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2352-just-25-of-dna-turns-mice-
into-men.html
> 
> Indeed, each type of animal has specific types of similarities. Guinea
> pigs (and pigs in general) have very similar blood chemistries, which is
> why it's easy to get diseases from undercooked pork and why "guinea pig"
> is slang for "subject of an experiment".
> 
> Rabbits have very similar eyes and skin, which is why makeup testing
> uses rabbits.
> 
> Chimpanzees have very similar immune systems, which is why you always
> hear in fiction about evil biotech weapon companies having monkeys in
> cages.
> 
> Mice are because peopl ehave developed a strain of white mice that are
> genetically very similar, so you can do repeatable experiments on
> generic animal type stuff (i.e., the 95% or so of DNA we share with all
> mammals).
> 
>> Then again, it is hard for me to understand their logic, if it exist at
>> all.
> 
> Well, put it this way. They don't spend money on animal testing because
> they don't like animals.

Methinks you missed the ironic twist in what he was writing, particularly 
given his background. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12/23/2011 9:12 AM, Warp wrote:
>    Anyways, these denialists and creationists seem to think that even if
> there are hundreds and thousands of experiments that confirm a certain
> theory, if you present a few dozens that seem to contradict it, that
> means that the theory is completely false.
>
>    What's funny is that this kind of thinking does not go only against
> the scientific method, it actually goes against common sense and
> everyday human experience.

Actually, in my experience, its worse than that. Usually the papers they 
quote fall into one of several categories:

1. A laundry list of objections, based on how evolution contradicts 
their beliefs, with no science in it.

2. Something that might be mistaken for science, until you ask someone 
who knows the specific subject better, whether it be thermodynamics, 
statistics, genetic mutation, etc.

3. Stuff they just didn't understand, or intentionally misquoted, which, 
when examined, actually says the exact opposite.

In category #2 is, for example, "junk DNA". A good article on just what 
that really means is here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/junk_is_what_junk_does.php

Basically, the short version is 23% = 868,000 copies of a virus fragment 
that simply endlessly copies itself, called SINE,(or at least 20-50% of 
the copies can) + 1.6 million copies of a fragment of that fragment, 
called SINE, that can only replicate by hijacking LINE's replication 
function. A bunch of the genes are also "retrotransposons", which just 
move from place to place, sometimes into places that break things 
(another fragment from viruses). And, well, there is a video from some 
conference that PZ went to, where he goes into more depth. But, there is 
a lot of what he describes as, "they are the plastic boxes and styrofoam 
packing peanuts of the functional elements of the genome." And then, of 
course, the copy function in DNA works real badly, so we have a stupid 
number of fragments tacked onto the end of every functional sequence, so 
that, when copied, we only lose the mess off the end, not a critical 
piece of genetic material.

And, then there is the joke of how genes themselves get encoded. Imagine 
50 feet of rope, with multiple sections colored red, some of them feet 
apart. To "read" the working bits, we strip off all the blank parts, and 
patch back together the 3 inches of red parts.

So, if 65% of the entire genome is this shit, how the hell does "every 
gene have a purpose"? lol

As I said, the problem isn't just that they have some objection, its 
that they have completely stupid objections, which have no basis, at 
all, in reality. And, what science they attempt to do (the closest any 
of them ever tried was Behe and his horribly wrong math), has about as 
much to do with reality as early movies, like, "Them", had to do with 
the real effects of radiation. lol

Post a reply to this message