Um, we do admit that there is no known natural explanation yet to explain every step in OOL. How can anyone make statements about unknown natural explanations?
2 Likes
That does not seem vague at all. It is precise and accurate.
OTOH, saying “We will never know”, which seems to be what you are suggesting (correct me if I am wrong), would not be accurate, and would be making a claim that cannot be justified by the available evidence.
2 Likes
What are the “other fields of study” you are referring to? Can you give some examples of the diseases they have cured, physical laws they have discovered, or new technologies they have invented after scientists had given up and passed the job on to them?
Oh. So would I be justified to say that according to current research over several decades science has not come up with an evidential case for OOL from natural causes. Therefore we can tentatively conclude from scientific research that there is no known natural cause and therefore a metaphysical cause could be an acceptable explanation until such a time as new evidence is revealed that would change things?
The last time science included a hefty component of Theism and religious metaphysics was when the Christian Alchemists were trying to get the help of angels to convert lead into Gold… and to create the Philosopher’s Stone.
Alchemy and Chemistry used to be synonyms. But as what we call Chemistry started to work better and better (without praying to God or his angels)… the separation between Alchemy and Chemistry became larger and larger. Chemistry as we know didn’t really come to exist until AFTER America won its Revolution against Britain… then the French scientists won their victory over alchemical foolishness!
1 Like
Yes, but several decades is not long at all. By the same logic, we would have concluded flying was impossible, nuclear fission and fusion are imposssible, etc.
Totally false. That is just not how science works.
Absolutely not.
Regardless where the science is here, it is reasonable to wonder if God made the first cell. If that is all you are hoping for, you already have it.
5 Likes
Umm, I don’t see the relevance of your questions. Different fields of study have there place of usefulness. Is the usefulness of one area of study make it superior to another? And what does that have to do with what I’m talking about? Explain to me the relevance if you can.
No.
“Metaphysical cause” does not qualify as a fall back option that is automatically assumed to be correct until a physical explanation is elucidated. It should be an explanation that requires the same degree of evidential support as a scientific explanation. Though what that evidential support would consist of is unclear to me. Can you describe what the metaphysical equivalent is of a hypothesis that has been demonstrated to be true thru empirical evidence?
1 Like
You are the one who is suggesting that there are other fields of study that can accomplish what science can, but don’t get the chance because scientists are doing all the work and not letting the practitioners of these other fields get their turn. If these fields of study, instead, have a different purpose or usefulness, then I don’t see why you are bringing them up in this discussion as an alternative to the scientific method.
1 Like
That is just not true.
1 Like
Which part are you saying isn’t true, @swamidass?
I’m relatively knowledgeable on the topic of Alchemy
Scientists are well aware of that need.
Yes, they sometimes come up with speculative hypotheses. But scientists well understand that speculative hypotheses are not scientific conclusions.
5 Likes
Given what you’ve written, I would be justified to say that you’ve never looked at any actual OOL research.
1 Like
@mercer he has freely noted at the beginning of this that he is a “layman”. Perhaps show him something interesting.
1 Like
No. That’s called the “God of the Gaps” argument and was rejected by science as valueless over 250 years ago.
Science relies 100% on MN in scientific work for the simple reason it works. It produces productive, tangible, valuable results. If anyone could figure out a way to incorporate the supernatural into scientific research which worked better than MN they’d be laughing all the way to the bank while they picked up their Nobel Prize. There’s nothing wrong in science with saying “we don’t know yet” to difficult problems. With OOL we are trying to recreate conditions and events which happened close to 4 billion years ago. We may never find the specific steps but that doesn’t mean we use OOGITY BOOGITY! as the fall back. Can you imaging what would happen if police detectives said “we have no leads in this drive by shooting so we’ll close the case and declare a trigger happy invisible pixie did it”. 
3 Likes
Here’s something interesting: your avoidance of substance when it comes to Tour. In the video, he is obviously lying about Szostak’s Nature paper.
You asked for the timestamp, it was provided, but…nothing of substance from you on this matter.
How about if you give Jim a brutally honest assessment of Tour’s accuracy?
1 Like
It does seem accused Sostack of lying when he was not lying.
Here’s my 2nd reminder… if something is untrue, I want to learn what it is as soon as possible.
Maybe it turns out what I wrote was true?
There are many people trying to do away with MN even today. So the last time was not that far back.
Then your impression is wrong and flatly ridiculous.
Seems to me that after looking into something for a substantial amount of time that there needs to come a point where the only reasonable response is to say that it’s been extensively researched and with the available evidence so far there has not been any possible natural explanation within reason.
That is literally always the case when at the forefront of current scientific knowledge. When we don’t know, we don’t know.
Barring further new evidence to the contrary the tentative conclusion is that there is no natural explanation.
No, the tentative conclusion is that no explanation is currently known, not that there is none. Once you start saying no explanation exists you’ve given people an excuse to stop trying to find one. How many times in history could we have given up when we ran into difficult stumbling blocks that took decades if not centuries to solve?
But the impression I get is that because of MN that just isn’t an option. Kind of like it’s my way or the highway type situation.
Which is a wrong impression. Completely.
But is that really a healthy approach?
No, that would not be a healthy approach, which is why it isn’t an approach anyone takes.
The actual approach is this: Until we figure out what the explanation is, we will simply say we don’t know, and try to find out. That’s it.
It seems to me that after extensive research it would be wise to move on to other issues that would be of greater usefulness than to keep pouring into an area where no significant progress is being made
If in fact no progress has been made for a very long time then maybe you can put things on pause and come back later. Of course it isn’t really the case that no progress is being made for any of the questions discussed in this thread. Whether you happen to find that “significant” enough for your personal tastes if of zero value or consequence.
and let philosophers and metaphysicians spend some time on it and see what they come up with.
Nobody is preventing philosophers from doing metaphysics on any questions whatsover, so they can come up with whatever they want and if it is a help to scientific progress then I’m pretty sure no actual scientist will have a problem with it.
But of course that might open the door to Theism which for some reason it seems in the scientific community is anathema. Not a very objective approach to take in my opinion.
This is just a silly story you tell yourself because it’s one way for you to deal with the fact that there are scientists who don’t tell you things you would like to hear from them, or who tell you things you don’t want to hear from them. There’s a vast body of theistic apologetics work designed to push these buttons in your psychology. The output from James Tour alone is getting voluminous.
1 Like