No, we’re deciding expertise. But I suspect that even you know that.
They all had testable hypotheses. IDcreationists don’t. They pretend that science is like high-school debate, as you do.
WRT “lone voice at first,” isn’t 21 years a long time for someone to have joined Axe’s chorus and done something to follow up? Not a computer program, not more rhetoric, but real experiments?
They aren’t, as those making them lack sufficient faith to do anything to test them.
Wrong. Conspiracy theorists, crackpots and other kooks are often very tenacious. Especially when there’s money to be made in the bargain.
LOL! It was refuted eight years ago on this very forum. Axe has never responded to this, and you have not provided any indication that you even understand the argument that was made here, never mind refuted it. If you disagree, please quote what you think was your best response. Linky linky, as you say.
And it’s true.
Well, it’s a relatively new journal, that doesn’t mean it’s a “crap journal”, as someone said.
Nope. They are making plenty of money producing empty rhetoric that people like you regurgitate.
By whom, and why?
No, they wouldn’t. “People” wouldn’t say that.
It was a failure of peer review. You didn’t answer my question, Black Knight:
It’s documented in the primary literature that you’re afraid (and/or unable) to read. I’ll repeat:
Because you’re the one defending his paper without understanding it. I suspect you’ve never really read that paper.
No, we aren’t. But you’re the one deciding truth on what “people will say”, which is frankly even dumber and more pathetic than counting papers.
It’s crap for all the reasons Tim listed. But really, the small number of papers is sufficient.
Remember my point about Axe’s sentence-readability argument undermining his own lab experiment if we accept it?
Well, it’s a relatively new journal, that doesn’t mean it’s a “crap journal”, as someone said.
Well, yes they do! Behe proposes an Edge of Evolution in his book by that title, Rob Stadler and James Tour have their video on a limit at about two mutations, when none of them are singly selectable, Douglas Axe in the subject of this thread(!) proposes to show the rarity of functional peaks, another thread here is about Tour’s challenges to OOL researchers, Bechly’s challenge on species pairs was brought up here. All these are eminently testable hypotheses and claims.
I mentioned Stadler and Tour examining a number of papers (mostly by evolutionists) about the limit of about 2 mutations for evolution, Behe quotes papers as well, in his book. That’s not nothing. That’s not mere rhetoric. And Axe is back in the lab, so we’ll see.
Do you even know what a scientific hypothesis is? Literally none of those are testing hypotheses at all. Okay except perhaps Behe. Some of his ideas have taken forms you could consider testable hypotheses.
Tour is just making claims and issuing challenges (and making a fuzz about how next to no-one in the field of origin of life research can be bothered talking to his substitute flat-earth-ism), zero hypotheses are proposed or tested.
Axe tried to estimate a fraction, he didn’t propose any hypothesis about what this fraction was going to be like.
Tour and Stadler propose no hypothesis and no experimental test on anything, rather it’s mostly Tour listening to Stadler bullshit him about studies that don’t say what he claims.
Bechly issuing a challenge isn’t a hypothesis and no test of such a thing is proposed or performed.
In case anyone was wondering why you are called “Dory.”
Um, Bechly lost his post, Axe lost his position at Cambridge, Tour has been denied membership in a prominent society, and has been denied funding because of his views, I don’t think they’re in this for the money! And I don’t think Behe and Bechly, who became convinced by the ID arguments, can be characterized as crackpots and so on.
I joined the thread where this issue, that I was interested in, had been raised, and I am discussing (at least I hope I still am, I haven’t seen Hunt respond for a while) Art Hunt’s criticisms of Axe’s paper with him. Both discussions are ongoing, and I think the best answer to the critics is that they haven’t given a good answer! But here is the best point I think I have presented here, a number of papers have come up with similar results:
But the papers were listed in the link, anyone can examine them, and I think that’s good confirmation of Axe’s paper.
But… a laptop isn’t reason. And a reasoning agent isn’t reason either. How is a laptop coming from the manufacture by a reasoning agent an example of reason coming from reason? Literally neither the source nor the outcome is reason. So what on earth are you talking about?
No, I do not say that. At best I may agree that on some level thinking – or reasoning, for that matter – is a sort of “motion of atoms”. But to be and to come from are different things, in my opinion.
I did not. And no, I am not going to scroll up and copy it for you again, just because you elected to not read it the first time around.
I didn’t.
No clue. But I think it is safe to say they are nothing like laptops that actually need an assembly line to come into being. They are not a product in such a literal sense. In my opinion, they are rather a high-level abstraction, a label put on a class of processes that occur in brains. I do not think thoughts are “produced”. I think they are more like “carried out”.
Sure. But we were talking about courts. And courts do not decide matters of fact. They decide matters of law. Of course there is a fact of the matter about who did what when and where. But whether or not somebody is guilty of a crime is not a question of what they did as a matter of fact. It is a question of what verdict the court was compelled to issue by legal arguments presented to it.
No, that’s not why I ever trusted any laptop.
But regardless, this does nothing to substantiate your claim that reason must come from self-existent reason, what ever that means.
Yes, that’s one option. Another option is the patient having actually consciously experienced the room in question (or one quite like it) before the interview, be it before or after the event. And that’s all assuming that the “oh yes, they totally saw that item in the corner that really was there during their NDE moment” is actually true.
Why would someone feed information to the patient like that? How should I know? I have no narrative to sell like them. What’s more odd to me is why someone who actually has faith in this whole magical ghost nonsense would not control for such information flow. Yet more odd is why it is that in all instances where proper controls are in place, that somehow blinds the magical ghost, too.
But that’s not for me to worry about. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim that information – a very much physical quantity – gets to flow through non-physical pathways. I needn’t come up with excuses for why they would conduct their studies so poorly that they cannot be replicated. Those excuses are for them to come up with.
Newton’s third law of motion states that every action comes with an equal and opposite reaction. Nothing in nature just acts nor can be acted upon. Everything rather interacts.
The “supernatural” therefore can behave only in one of three ways:
If option 3 is the case, then the “supernatural” is basically just another thing that’s perfectly natural and conventional scientific methodology should have no trouble investigating it.
If options 1 or 2 are the case, then the “supernatural” violates a very fundamental symmetry of physics. That makes it either physically impossible, or it makes literally all understanding we have about the natural world completely illusory and any perceived usefulness of science is purely due to luck and not to any genuine correspondence with what is actually true about the world around us.
What idea of Einstein’s was a “lone voice at first”, exactly? Which part of quantum mechanics were you thinking of when you included that in your list of alleged examples here?
Wrong. Why on earth would someone with bad ideas just “vanish” merely because the only people who listen to them are the ones paying them more handsomely than any academic institution ever could?
Cool stories. I wonder who told them to you?
Oh, I don’t believe you’ve been shown this, yet, have you?
Discovery Institute: Their 2017 Tax Return | The Sensuous Curmudgeon
Nice work if you can get it! Oh, and there’s this, too:
Douglas Axe | People, Biola University
I leave you to look up what an “endowed chair” is, and how many of them exist for programs that don’t even have graduate level students.
Uh huh, just like how this fight was an even draw (In case you don’t get it: You are Paul Newman, and Art Hunt or whichever other scientist you are “debating” is George Kennedy):
Did he? Evidence, please. Postdocs are supposed to leave, btw.
What’s Axe’s current salary? Bechly’s is obviously zero because he’s dead.
But your thoughts are untethered from all evidence.
They were. They were cherry-picked and none are as absurdly tiny as Axe’s extrapolation. The only people who might be convinced are those who don’t understand exponents.
Indeed, but you didn’t examine anything before flinging that hearsay at us, did you? Why are you not capable?
You didn’t search PubMed. Why not?
Your thoughts are uninformed by any examination of relevant evidence.
How is a “million million” a confirmation?
How is 10^-63 a confirmation of 10^-77? What’s the fold difference between them? Isn’t is more than a “million million”?
Show your math, if you are capable of doing so.
Not experiments. Only rhetoric, as I said.
Scientists rarely quote. They almost always cite. That’s a helpful way to spot pseudoscience.
Mere rhetoric precisely what it is. Note that you don’t check any of the papers cited.
Writing books aimed at ignorant laypeople is a marker for pseudoscience. Do you not know the definition of “rhetoric”?
We will. I predict that he will not produce a single experimental result. How about you?
Seeing as you feel free to attribute reasons to others, let me turn it around. I betcha that you actually trust your laptop because you know it works.
Admit it. That is all anyone cares about. Lots of designed stuff doesn’t work and isn’t trustworthy.