[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interesting. Can you give some examples? If science is denying concrete evidence, I'd like to re-evaluate my position on science. It has always been my understanding that all evidence must be considered in science. Unlike pseudoscience, where inconvenient facts are dismissed. Often as part of a marketing campaign. Funny how those two things always seem to go together. You rarely, if ever, find pseudoscience where there isn't money to be made.

I've been thinking about this issue a little bit further, and discussing it with some people in my office who have advanced degrees or extensive knowledge of science and philosophy, and perhaps "evidence" is not the right word to use for the point I was trying to make earlier. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that science cannot evaluate certain propositions or explanations (for the origin of life, for example), as they are not within the realm of science, or cannot be directly verified in a positive way by scientific methods.

And I've think I've come to grips (i.e., acceptance) with the problem or circumstance with which we're presented, which is that we cannot discuss certain issues or aspects of certain issues on this forum due to the ban against political or religious discussion. That's sometimes frustrating to me (and others as well), although I think it is a salutary and necessary rule. So when we discuss an issue like the origin of life, for example, we can really only approach it on this forum from the scientific perspective. That's not because that's the only way to approach the issue, or necessarily the best way to ascertain "truth" in the larger sense of the word, IMO, but it's really the only way we can approach such issues on this forum, because of the forum rules. And that's the way it is. And that's fine.

So I'll withdraw from this discussion, or at least refrain from saying anything that would divert the discussion beyond the scientific realm (and hope others will follow suit). I really find these issues fascinating and fun to discuss (with almost everybody), but the rules are the rules.

P.S. Also, with regard to whether the OP had an axe to grind, I did not perceive that all. The axe grinding came thereafter, but I think it's water under the bridge at this point.

 

[FalconP]

I am interested as to why the finding of organic molecules from outer space (either through spectrometry, or, like this case, on objects fallen or collected from the great beyond) seems to get a disproportionate share of attention. Panspermia -- even though it might have been true in the case of Planet Earth -- can never be the answer to the ultimate question: how biologically-relevant molecules are spontaneously generated; it merely shifts the scene elsewhere.

There are never short of theories postulating that life-engendering molecules originated right here at home (from the classical "Prebiotic Soup" of Miller, to modern theories like the Iron-Sulphur World hypothesis). All of these theories have their critics, and perhaps it is because the lack of consensus right here on earth that drove people gazing the skies.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

kwkarth: It's nice to see a post from you. I thought you fell off the planet

As far as this topic is concerned, of course this has implications regarding both science and religion. Unfortunately one side really does not get their say due to forum rules, and that in a way prevents a true discussion/debate, but I still think there is plenty to discuss while staying within the prescribed parameters. There are still many things of the scientific nature that can be explored because of this discovery. I understand the lopsidedness at hand, but I really do not want to have another thread shut down due to people letting their emotions get the best of them. So far so good though

As far as science is concerned, in my opinion, there are two basic rules that should be kept in mind at all times:

1. The objection of science is to try to understand things that are unknown or are in need of further exploration. There is no room for proving a point, because that clouds judgment and introduces bias.

2. In real science, all there is is proof and evidence, whether it confirms or refutes hypotheses. Once data is either added to or omitted, it stops being real science.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif kwkarth: It's nice to see a post from you. I thought you fell off the planet As far as this topic is concerned, of course this has implications regarding both science and religion. Unfortunately one side really does not get their say due to forum rules, and that in a way prevents a true discussion/debate, but I still think there is plenty to discuss while staying within the prescribed parameters. There are still many things of the scientific nature that can be explored because of this discovery. I understand the lopsidedness at hand, but I really do not want to have another thread shut down due to people letting their emotions get the best of them. So far so good though As far as science is concerned, in my opinion, there are two basic rules that should be kept in mind at all times: 1. The objection of science is to try to understand things that are unknown or are in need of further exploration. There is no room for proving a point, because that clouds judgment and introduces bias. 2. In real science, all there is is proof and evidence, whether it confirms or refutes hypotheses. Once data is either added to or omitted, it stops being real science.

Well said, and thanks for the rewelcome. I was off planet for a while, but got homesick and had to come back!

 

[Uncle Erik]

The problem with untestable theories and beliefs is that there are a whole lot of them. That doesn't necessarily mean that any particular one is untrue.

However, many of them directly contradict each other. There is usually no way to reconcile the belief systems, either. Multiply that across many belief systems, and how do you know which way is up?

You cannot go on sincerity or kindness. And if you throw out any kind of validation through testing, that leaves you nowhere. All you are left with is listening to the testimonials of others, then having to decide which to believe. How do you choose?

If you want to put this in the audio context, there are many products out there that promise miraculous results while insisting that they cannot be tested by any method known to man. OK. I can accept that there are things we do not know and cannot be tested today. That is well within the realm of possibility.

However, what if there is another product that promises similar or the same results, cannot be tested, but has a completely different design from the first product?

There are three possibilities. One of the products could work while the other doesn't. Both products could work, despite being contradictory. Or maybe neither product does anything at all. Further, how do you decide in the absence of objective, repeatable testing?

If you think that personal listening experience is enough, what if you enjoy the sound of two products with contradictory design? How do you reconcile that?

This is where non-scientific thinking breaks down for me. While any one presently untestable theory or belief system might be plausible, there is always a contradictory untestable belief. While you can't necessarily prove either wrong, the fact that there are competing and contradictory beliefs necessarily means that if one is right then the others are wrong.

Not every belief can be right but all of them can be wrong.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is where non-scientific thinking breaks down for me. While any one presently untestable theory or belief system might be plausible, there is always a contradictory untestable belief. While you can't necessarily prove either wrong, the fact that there are competing and contradictory beliefs necessarily means that if one is right then the others are wrong.

Some beliefs, explanations, or propositions may not be "testable" or verifiable in the scientific sense, but the evidence pro and con can still be examined by a rational mind and conclusions can be drawn that are meaningful to a particular person. The evidence may not be evidence that a scientist would accept in the scientific realm, but it still may constitute evidence worthy of evaluation on the issue or proposition at hand. Science, like other disciplines, can only take us part way on some matters -- and sometimes this is inherent in the nature of the scientific methodology, and sometimes it's just a matter or practicality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not every belief can be right but all of them can be wrong.

True, but another possibility is that one can be right, and the rest of them wrong (as you acknowledge in the beginning of your post). The key is to thoroughly examine the evidence for each one and make a determination. Many people don't thoroughly examine competing beliefs, theories, explanations, or propositions, for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes they're realy not that interested, sometimes they're "too busy," sometimes they are afraid of what the answer (of the implications) might be, etc.

 

[aaron313]

I find that science is very elegant and instructive on a macroscopic scale, but highly turbulent and indeterminate on the lowest levels. Newton's work, the Theory of Evolution, and numerous other theories are so elegant that one cannot help but think that they are correct. On the scale at which their approximations converge to being the observable "truths" about our planet and universe, these theories are satisfying to our minds. However, when one begins to examine nature at a subatomic level, intuition begins to fail. Having studied quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, and nuclear reactor physics, I recognize the limitations of extrapolating elegance to smaller scales. Yes, humans are able to make sense of many confusing things and package them neatly (cute names, patterns, etc.), but the truth is that much of this stuff is bizarre beyond our wildest dreams.

When I speak of inelegance, I refer to nonlinear, random, or probabilistic behavior. Take radioactive decay, for example. On the macroscopic scale, we understand very well how decay chains work, and can make highly accurate predictions based on equations. Yet, the fact remains that it is impossible to predict when a single, particular, decay will occur. All we know is the half life of the material, and what the group behavior is. It is almost as though we were never meant to understand it on the lowest level. Did life evolve in such a way as to be suited specifically to interact with macroscopic objects? I would say so, but humans have clearly transcended that in the past century.

I was always fascinated with nuclear reactor physics because of the unique properties of nuclei. They behave in a highly nonlinear, seemingly illogical, manner. In a reactor, neutrons fly around and attempt to interact with nuclei, hopefully inciting fission. But the neutrons don't all have the same energy (kinetic), and certain nuclei prefer neutrons of certain energy levels. You would think that there would be some logic behind this, but I haven't found any: The cross section of a nucleus is a function of the energy of the neutron that attempts to make contact with it. Furthermore, the plot of cross section versus energy looks like an audio waveform (literally). The analogy would be if a strike zone in baseball varied in size based on the velocity of the pitch; in addition, small changes in speed would either shut down the zone completely (valleys in waveform), or perhaps make it enormous (peaks). On the macroscopic scale, with many trials, we can predict the group behavior of neutrons. That is how we reliably predict reactor behavior. But it is mind blowing how turbulent quantum behavior can be.

So, when scientists make a fantastic discovery such as the one that is the topic of this thread, I am excited. Much attention is focused on the lowest levels of our universe, but it is the macroscopic levels that will save us (DNA is macroscopic). Surely, understanding how Evolution started is important. Also, having potential for life external to Earth is interesting. Whenever I think about science, life, and the universe, I always end up directing my attention to what confuses me most, which is a problem. I could have gone into one of those esoteric fields of study, but chose to stay in the macroscopic world, where I can actually help other people. I now accept that I will never discover the truth of our Universe, but perhaps can help discover the truth of human existence.

 

[DanielCox]

Oh I don't know. Yes the macroscopic stuff is beautiful (my favorite being Maxwell's equations) - the super-macroscopic stuff is also delightfully simple (relativity) but I find QM and the microscopic world to be the most interesting and beautiful of all. Unfortunately it is not simple as you say.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've been thinking about this issue a little bit further, and discussing it with some people in my office who have advanced degrees or extensive knowledge of science and philosophy, and perhaps "evidence" is not the right word to use for the point I was trying to make earlier. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that science cannot evaluate certain propositions or explanations (for the origin of life, for example), as they are not within the realm of science, or cannot be directly verified in a positive way by scientific methods.

this is correct, and science as a discipline (despite protests to the contrary) is self-limiting in this respect. that is, science only concerns itself with the natural, observable universe. what lies outside the realm is not the domain of science. there are some who believe that nothing is beyond the natural realm, and others who believe that the most important things lie "outside" the known universe (be they supreme beings or parallel universes).

Quote:

And I've think I've come to grips (i.e., acceptance) with the problem or circumstance with which we're presented, which is that we cannot discuss certain issues or aspects of certain issues on this forum due to the ban against political or religious discussion. That's sometimes frustrating to me (and others as well), although I think it is a salutary and necessary rule. So when we discuss an issue like the origin of life, for example, we can really only approach it on this forum from the scientific perspective. That's not because that's the only way to approach the issue, or necessarily the best way to ascertain "truth" in the larger sense of the word, IMO, but it's really the only way we can approach such issues on this forum, because of the forum rules. And that's the way it is. And that's fine.

i share your frustration; i'd like to discuss them openly as well. "Truth" is a word "rarely" used in science, especially in the sense that you mean, because it is not something that science is attempting to discover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FalconP /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am interested as to why the finding of organic molecules from outer space (either through spectrometry, or, like this case, on objects fallen or collected from the great beyond) seems to get a disproportionate share of attention. Panspermia -- even though it might have been true in the case of Planet Earth -- can never be the answer to the ultimate question: how biologically-relevant molecules are spontaneously generated; it merely shifts the scene elsewhere.

actually, this is not entirely true. we've known the building blocks of RNA for quite some time, and just this past spring, scientists managed to fuse them together to synthesize RNA for the very first time.

in fact, it is only a matter of time before some team of scientists creates life from non-life. this event will have profound reverberations, both scientific and philosophical. i hope i'm around to witness the hubbub.

Quote:

There are never short of theories postulating that life-engendering molecules originated right here at home (from the classical "Prebiotic Soup" of Miller, to modern theories like the Iron-Sulphur World hypothesis). All of these theories have their critics, and perhaps it is because the lack of consensus right here on earth that drove people gazing the skies.

naturally. it is the duty of science to ponder and explore what it has not yet begun to understand. Abiogenesis is still one of the great mysteries of biology, and there are many different ideas being explored.

although by "theories" you mean, of course, "hypotheses."

once there is a body of evidence that builds enough support for one hypothesis over the others, we will begin to see the foundations of a Theory of Abiogenesis. if it is not falsified, this theory will continue to be reinforced and refined by the addition of more observable evidence and data.

 

[DanielCox]

Science only concerns itself with the natural universe because it is not possible to observe anything outside the natural universe (and by this I mean 'super natural' - not a multiverse).

 

[kwkarth]

Even if one could observe, it's well known and accepted that through the act of observation, one alters the observed, and therefore does not observe the object as it really is.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwkarth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even if one could observe, it's well known and accepted that through the act of observation, one alters the observed, and therefore does not observe the object as it really is.

a body of evidence is required, not just a single observation.

not to mention i would take issue with this... measuring microwaves moving through space or the circumference of a tree does not, in fact, alter either one.

even if it did, a set of evidence collected based on the same criteria would take into account any alteration, because that alteration would be consistent from datum to datum if the observation methodology is the same for each.

 

[aaron313]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif a body of evidence is required, not just a single observation. not to mention i would take issue with this... measuring microwaves moving through space or the circumference of a tree does not, in fact, alter either one. even if it did, a set of evidence collected based on the same criteria would take into account any alteration, because that alteration would be consistent from datum to datum if the observation methodology is the same for each.

Wave-particle duality of electrons falls under this directly, because our observation directly alters the behavior of the electrons. It's really the whole "if a tree falls in the woods" situation, so we have to be creative about how the data are collected (indirectly, perhaps). Of course, for large scale observations, we don't change anything to a measurable degree.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wave-particle duality of electrons falls under this directly, because our observation directly alters the behavior of the electrons. It's really the whole "if a tree falls in the woods" situation, so we have to be creative about how the data are collected (indirectly, perhaps). Of course, for large scale observations, we don't change anything to a measurable degree.

but isn't the location of electrons is measured in terms of probability, in the form of a wave, in order to account for this? so the measurements still provide a consistent picture within that threshold.

and as far as i'm aware, there's nothing analogous to this in biology.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif but isn't the location of electrons is measured in terms of probability, in the form of a wave, in order to account for this? so the measurements still provide a consistent picture within that threshold. and as far as i'm aware, there's nothing analogous to this in biology.

I'm not a biologist, but if a biological example comes to mind, I'll share it.

In my realm, even on a relative macro scale, the act of measuring virtually anything in electronics alters the parameter which is being measured. The change may be very, very, very small as we become more and more cleaver in how we perform the measurement, but the parameter being measured is in fact altered by the act of measurement.

Simplistically, if you were to measure voltage, amperage, or resistance in a circuit, you have altered the values that you measure to a finite degree.

Such is life.

BTW, in most cases, this has very little practical relevance any more, but since we're discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...