The Limits of Objectivity: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Nature of Existence

[LRT]

@AnEvolvedPrimate

Unfortunately this doesn’t really answer the questions I posed.

Your objections in the thread seem to be related to science as a means of epistemology. My questions was that if you feel science is inadequate as a means of epistemology in addressing things like gaps in understanding of origin of life, what is the alternative approach?

Positing something like a “life force” isn’t changing the approach. It’s simply hypothesizing a missing ingredient in both the definition of life and origins thereof.

Going to my baking analogy, just because you don’t know all the ingredients for a recipe doesn’t mean there is a problem with baking itself.

And in the case of life’s origins, just because we don’t know all the ingredients doesn’t mean there is a problem with science.

Thank you for being patient with me.

What would happen if you had all the right ingredients but no heat to bake? Not heat as a source of energy, but as a crucial missing element in the process. This is my point: at some stage, we might need to consider this idea. If we’re getting closer to solving the mystery of life’s origin, the chances of needing to address this possibility decrease significantly. However, if things are turning out to be more complicated than expected and we’re actually moving further from resolution, then the likelihood of needing to consider this idea may increase.At this point, science may not need to change fundamentally, but rather adapt to new circumstances.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@LRT

The first catalysts weren’t true enzymes, but simple chemical reactions that happened naturally, likely in places like deep-sea vents, where minerals and environmental conditions played a role.

This is incoherent. You don’t seem to be aware of the fact that all enzymes are catalysts, but not all catalysts are enzymes.

And again, like so many creationists, you don’t appear to understand what catalysts can and cannot do. It’s an integral part of the definition.

@LRT

At this point, science may not need to change fundamentally, but rather adapt to new circumstances.

Yet vitalism has been in constant retreat for decades. Why do you think that is the case? Do you realize that some vitalists set the goalposts at DNA replication in the 1950s? Whatever happened to that idea?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Giltil

@LRT

@Mercer

Speaking of evidence, in your claimed 40 years did you become familiar with the strongest evidence for RNA preceding proteins? It can be stated as a single sentence.

One word, “ribosomes”

Why are ribosomes the strongest evidence for RNA preceding proteins ?

I know why, but I’d rather see LRT address your question.

[LRT]

@Faizal_Ali

Again: Is there any reason to believe this possibility is any more likely re: the OOL than it was re: the cause of the flu? OOL is a far more complex and difficult problem, so it is only to be expected that it would take us longer to figure out.

Is OOL simply more quantitatively complex, rather than qualitatively different from current models? I argue that the challenges we’re encountering may indicate a need for a fundamentally different approach—one that isn’t rooted in conventional chemical-physical explanations.

@Faizal_Ali

What a strange thing to say. What is stopping those who believe in non-physical/chemical processes from "explor(ing) other avenues right now? More than one hypothesis can be evaluated by different people at the same time, you know.

Many things might be stopping those who believe in non-physical/chemical process for exploring other avenues: reputational risk, funding, institutional pressure, loss of credibility, fear of backlash, skepticism, dismissal

@Faizal_Ali

Irrelevant. Quantum mechanics does not involve non-physical processes.

While quantum mechanics does not invoke non-physical processes, it presents an alternative framework for understanding consciousness, distinct from traditional chemical processes.

@Faizal_Ali

Yes. And why not, do you think?

Could it be because of a predominating worldview?

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

Since you are the one who made the claim, you are the one who ought to answer, not @LRT.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

I asked a question.

[Faizal_Ali]

@LRT

Is OOL simply more quantitatively complex, rather than qualitatively different from current models? I argue that the challenges we’re encountering may indicate a need for a fundamentally different approach—one that isn’t rooted in conventional chemical-physical explanations.

Well, you certainly assert that. We are still waiting for you to provide a good argument for that assertion

@LRT

Many things might be stopping those who believe in non-physical/chemical process for exploring other avenues: reputational risk, funding, institutional pressure, loss of credibility, fear of backlash, skepticism, dismissal

Keep going…

@LRT

While quantum mechanics does not invoke non-physical processes, it presents an alternative framework for understanding consciousness, distinct from traditional chemical processes.

Yes. But you are trying to argue that something other than physical/chemical processes are responsible for consciousness and the OOL. Since QM involves physical processes, it doesn’t help your argument one bit.

@LRT

Could it be because of a predominating worldview?

That’s all you can think of?