Does OOL research need a disclaimer?

If nobody is talking about combinatorial complexity, then it doesn’t exist.

Isn’t science called “methodological naturalism” for a reason? Are you aware of a way in which we can put God in a test tube? Do you think scientists would not want to perform experiments testing God’s methods of “creation” if they knew how to do it?

If God is not a willing participant in experiments, then scientists have no choice but to test things under natural conditions. How do they test them under supernatural conditions? Should they pray for life to spontaneously emerge, or just wish for it really intensely?

4 Likes

I have no idea what you’re talking about or how it is relevant to my response to you.

1 Like

So be upfront about the limits/limitations of the scientific method.
Instead of assuming MN and begging the question in articles to popularize science, be upfront and say these are the options currently available to explain the origin of lIfe.

Be upfront about the assumptions being made.

A disclaimer would work fine… In my country we have these disclaimers before Mutual fund adds. Perhaps scientists should tag in a disclaimer before going question begging about whether life arose by fluke of it was the “laws of nature”.

By the way, how do you test for unknown flukes/laws of nature? Why mention them if you are not in a position to test it?

1 Like

Who is under any illusions about them? This is ultra basic stuff and you’re making a big deal out of it as if it is being kept a secret. It’s ridicululous.

Instead of assuming MN

What else should they do, assume methodological supernaturalism? How does one do that? What even is that? The method is what, that we assume no sense can be made of the observed, or that it can’t even be observed?

and begging the question in articles to popularize science

Who does that? Where? Point out specific examples. Don’t give me vague handwaving generalizations. Give concrete examples. Links, quotes, with texts and sources.

be upfront and say these are the options currently available to explain the origin of lIfe. Be upfront about the assumptions being made.

But they literally are doing exactly that. Szostak does that in his article. He says some proposals involve RNA first, and even mentions that other researchers disagree. That’s true, and represents a true dichotomy. Either RNA was involved at the beginning or it was not. And there are people who think it was, and others who don’t. All possible options are thus exhausted.

A disclaimer would work fine… In my country we have these disclaimers before Mutual fund adds. Perhaps scientists should tag in a disclaimer before going question begging about whether life arose by fluke of it was the “laws of nature”.

But they have no choice but to do that. What the hell else should they be doing? How are they supposed to test supernatural creation methods? I’m serious. What is it you want them to do, at a real practical level. A scientist goes into a laboratory and does what experiment that tests the supernatural?

Wishing? Praying? Willing intensely till sweat builds up on their foreheads?

By the way, how do you test for unknown flukes/laws of nature?

By performing experiments and empirical observation. That’s how the laws of thermodynamics were discovered and formulated. Experiments lead to scientists being able to infer and formulate the laws of thermodynamics before they were known.

Why mention them if you are not in a position to test it?

You tell me. Why should God be mentioned in scientific articles if scientists are not in a position to test Him? What should it say in those articles? Do you want every research article in the origin of life field to end with a disclaimer “Oh btw maybe this isn’t how life originated at all and maybe God created life, we don’t know and we don’t know how to test it”? Should we start putting that into cancer research too? “Oh btw, maybe this cancer isn’t caused by this chemical, maybe it’s God’s supernatural powers, we don’t know and we don’t know how to test it”?

5 Likes

You cannot test for as yet unknown natural laws. Because you dont know what they are and what they predict. Its also not possible to predict unknown “flukes” when the scientists are still to establish even one process/series of steps by which the first cell came to be. You can only talk about probabilities and laws when you have a model to test.
These claims are just faith based claims.

The only factual scientific part of the discussion was about the RNA hypothesis and he was honest when dealing with it. He need not have embellished that article by referring to hoped for processes/ laws which no one knows about. Thats just the PN talking there.
Sticking to extant theories and the current state of research with synopsis of what has been done and what needs to be done would have been both educational and worthy of respect.

Edit: He could also have mentioned theories that have been ruled out. Thats also scientific progress.

Why are scientists assuming there is a naturalistic explanation for obesity? Or measles outbreaks? Or forest fires? Or acid rain? It’s time we demand that scientists be upfront about this assumption in their grant requests, so funding would dry up immediately.

This assumption that natural causes explain things has run it’s due course, and how successful has it been anyway? Hmm…

theonehorseracetoendthemall

6 Likes

How were the laws of thermodynamics discovered and formulated? Did Rudolf Clausius get them mailed from Heaven on stone tablets?

1 Like

He defintely didnt sit around saying there are some unknown “laws” to explain this.

He made testable hypothesis and tested it. That’s science.

Thats not the case here and you are diverting.
Tell me, how can speculation about still to be found laws and the probability of unknown miracles be called Science?
Even the claims of the multiverse is better than this. Atleast there is a solid proposal
eve though untestable with some math.

Tour says “He (Szostak) is lying to you!”

Call me crazy, but I interpret that as Tour accusing Szostak of lying.

How do you interpret that?

3 Likes

Because they are.

Also, when scientists are discussing the possible causes of heart disease, they don’t list malicious leprechauns as one of the possibilities, either.

Why do you think they should?

3 Likes

I also don’t expect them to talk about unknown laws and flukes that cause heart attacks.
I would be interested in what they actually know and can establish empirically. If they know zilch, I would expect to be told.

That’s why they perform experiments. Jack Szostak is an experimental research scientist. He designs and performs laboratory experiments.

3 Likes

But you agree they should not be including beings like leprechauns or God as possible causes, right? Good, so we agree.

The same should apply to other scientific topics like OOL, otherwise you are just engaging in special pleading.

3 Likes

What seems to have upset him was that I informed him of the video Gary Hurd was putting together (without mentioning Hurd by name) and suggesting that he (Tour) should consider taking down his video to minimize the damage that might ensue to his professional reputation.

Tour interpreted this as “extortion” and now believes I am “in control” of a “conspiracy” to destroy his career, and that I “hold the key” to set it in motion if he does not comply with what he interprets as my demand.

The terms in quotes above are the words he used in his email to my Dean.

3 Likes

Perhaps we should go over some of James Tour’s publications to see if God is credited with the possibility of having made some of the molecules Tour thinks were caused to combine or decompose by electromagnetic attraction or repulsion. Does James Tour write research proposals to funding organizations with disclaimers that he’s only considering naturalistic causes for the chemical transformations that take place in his experiments? Who knows, maybe he does.

3 Likes

I see claims made based on MN without corresponding evidence as the same category as claims about leprechauns. They are both philosophical/metaphysical claims.

Then he should have known that undefined laws and flukes cannot be tested for. So he should have known he was speculating based on philosophical commitments.

No, they are called “hypotheses”, arguably the most important part of the scientific process.

And, sure, there is no reason an investigator could not consider leprechauns or God as hypotheses. But there is no good reason that they must always be included in a list of hypotheses. Is there?

He made no mention of “undefined laws”. That part of his statement that you just made up yourself.

And flukes absolutely can be tested for, and incorporated into a scientific theory. Hence neutral/nearly neutral theory of evolution.

2 Likes

Unknown “natural laws” and an unknown series of flukes are not hypothesis.
It’s amazing you actually make such a claim.

Ok. Tell me which natural law makes the emergence of life inevitable?

Ok. What is the exact process by which the fist cell emerged and what are the flukes that are supposed to have happened?
The emergence of the first cell is an undefined process and hence flukes connected to it are also undefined. Can’t test this stuff.

2 Likes

I split out this part of the conversation because it is no longer about Tour and is now more generalized around Origin of Life research and whether researchers in this field are over reaching, need some sort of philosophical disclaimer, etc.

@Ashwin_s I think it would be helpful if you could grab a couple of the most egregious statements to you from OOL journal articles and post:

  1. a citation of the article so others can see the context
  2. the particular quotes you think are too much, begging the question, represent philosophical naturalism, etc.
  3. state what section of the paper the quote is in (most likely the abstract, introduction, or discussion/conclusions section)

I think that would really help others address your specific problems with this research area. Perhaps start with the Szostak and Sutherland paper?

Perhaps the others can give @Ashwin_s a bit of space to collect some specific statements before getting too distracted by a back-n-forth?

3 Likes