Monday, November 12, 2018

Tagged under: ,

A Morning Thought @ 184


24 comments :

DaithiD said...

Because a scientist assured them blindly agreeing with him is different to priestcraft.

Steve R said...

Difference is, you can look at how a scientist came to his conclusion and replicate his methodology.

Priests just spout hypocritical bollocks using a contradictory book as some sort of authority.

I know where I put my money.

DaithiD said...

Steve R, If you can replicate the methodology, then it wouldn't be blindly following would it? Im suggesting that without a grasp of such things, the conclusions are just as opaque to both sets of people. They have simply picked a different faith.

Steve R said...

DaithiD,

"Steve R, If you can replicate the methodology, then it wouldn't be blindly following would it?"

No....and hence it's not 'faith'.

" Im suggesting that without a grasp of such things, the conclusions are just as opaque to both sets of people"

Perhaps, but if that's true it then follows that either group 'chooses' according to what they are comfortable with, not necessarily what the truth is. I am not interested in comfort, I am interested in what is true.

"They have simply picked a different faith."

It's not 'faith' as you have pointed out in your first sentence..







DaithiD said...

Can you personally though Steve?
Unless you have an understanding of mathematics, you are accepting information without being able to verify: an element of faith. If for example you watch a science documentary on terrestrial tv about the origins of the universe and think that’s enough to wear those robes, it’s ignorant. I’m the one laughing in the context of the image above.

DaithiD said...

Ps I’ll give you one example of how quickly science train riders who proclaim their “ beliefs “ as loudly as they denounce others for theirs, will hop off at the first inconvenience.

It goes something like this : ok so God didn’t create the earths ecosystem/ humans etc (snigger optional), rather it is all the result of differentiation through natural selection. We are also told there are only superficial differences between races of people that occupied different habitats and climates for millennia, and it’s only manifest through minor things like different skin colour, not different average intelligence profiles for example.

My question, given the implication there are no heritable differences passed on to future generations, when did evolution stop for humans? Are we still laughing ?

Peter said...

DaithiD
The Scientific Method investigates nature. We don't all need to be experts in a field to have a reasonable confidence in the findings of science, given that the finest minds in the field have peer reviewed the work and will only publish "sound" work. When new data is observed then new ideas will be peer reviewed and our understanding of nature is advanced. This is not faith. I watched a theist say to an atheist that when he gets on a passenger plane he has faith that he will not crash. The atheist pointed out that given the European standards for planes, airports and pilot training and given the statistics for air disasters in Europe he doesn't have faith but a reasonable confidence given the evidence. The religious make claims of the supernatural that have zero evidence and cannot be demonstarted or tested and to believe this requires faith. As the OED states, faith is a strong belief based on spiritual conviction not evidence.

Steve R said...

DaithiD,

Yes I can, I've had to study evolutionary theory and paleontology as part of a hobby of mine for the past five years, so I have no intention, need nor desire to 'hop off' the truth train.

"My question, given the implication there are no heritable differences passed on to future generations...

Eh? All dogs come from wolves, right from the Saint Bernard to the teacup chihuahua, that's inheritable differences. You can even mate them (though I'd pay good money to see a chihuahua attempt to fuck a wolf!) Same with humans.

"when did evolution stop for humans?"

It hasn't. Just because you can't observe something with your eyes doesn't mean it isn't happening. At a cellular level we are in a state of flux and even our immune system is constantly adapting to fight hordes of unseen pathogens...and evolving the means of resistance to them. Not long ago our ancestors would have died from diseases that today barely warrant a cough from us. But if you think humans have stopped evolving because you can't see obvious changes then you really don't understand evolution.

Maybe you find comfort in priests in frocks. Are we still laughing?

Are we still laughing

DaithiD said...

Peter, all sound inferences.

So when did evolution stop with humans?

DaithiD said...

Steve R, you have just agreed to the central premise of race realism (formerly eugenics). The whole premise of social justice movements, most stark in the US, is that all humans are equally capable, therefore average black underachievement in say school exams is mainly attributed to institutional/cultural racism.Hence the quota system for admission to top colleges that penalises whites and Asians. But you have just contested it’s central plank, brave man, that’s why I’m laughing.

DaithiD said...

And if you are a brave common sense warrior who thinks being publically shamed would not effect them , I suggest reading Jon Ronson’s So You've Been Publicly Shamed .It covers ordinary people’s lives that were reduced to utter misery for saying the wrong thing , like evolution has effected races differently.

Steve R said...

DaithiD,

Trying to conflate what I have stated and your assertion of 'race realism' is a straw-man argument. I made no comment regards the different races of Homo Sapien.

It is telling that you went straight for the racist card however.

Usually it's the reserve of the faith afflicted to penalize other groups so perhaps that is to be expected I suppose.

I am an egalitarian, I support the crazy notion that despite our differences all shades of humans should be treated equally and afforded the same opportunities.

Most unlike religion which has tried it's damnest to subjugate women, gays, other faiths and many others in the name of a book full of utter shite.

That's why I'm laughing.

DaithiD said...

Steve R, treated equally and same opportunities isnt the same thing as equal capabilities. Either you believe in evolution, or we all equally capable regardless of race, its really that simple, and you dodge it for good reason.
I havent gone straight for a straw man, we can meander through all the Science we agree on, I myself did a degree in Theoretical Physics at UCL, but it wouldnt get to point I alluded to of science train riders jumping off at the first inconvenience.

DaithiD said...

Ps and remember Steve, the “white supremacists” who constructed simple tests of IQ, show Ashkenazi Jews and North East Asians (Chinese+Japanese etc) as the population with highest average, much above Whites (we are third in the hierarchy).

Now it is not to say there are no black outliers in the data who perform to a level several standard deviations above the average white, and it maybe the outliers who drive society’s advances, thus isn’t an arguement for any type of segregation. But as an advocate of the scientific method, your conclusions should be based on the data, not some, dare I say, secular equivalent of Gods grace. I think this understanding would improve race relations.

The data does not conclusively support the theory I’ve given, but not one proper measure since the 60’s supports yours. Why would inquisitive minds even bother when they can see the lack of support people like Charles Murray received for drawing conclusions on the data is, not what society wants the data to be. I’m at least clever enough to realise it would be much easier for me not to have this conversation in public as I can imagine how these comments about data are enough to prove me a racist to brave “Science advocates” who will defer to it when it suits them in matters of countering say, religious explanations for certain phenomena, without a grasp of the implications beyond what’s needed to score cheap points.

We can stop laughing now, it might look weird.

Steve R said...

". Either you believe in evolution, or we all equally capable regardless of race, its really that simple, and you dodge it for good reason."

When did I 'dodge it'?

I don't 'believe' in evolutionary theory, it has been observed numerous times for it to be accepted as fact. Egalitarianism has fuck all to do with race, you appear to be hell bent on trying to shift the argument into eugenics which is the opposite of evolution, why?

"Now it is not to say there are no black outliers in the data who perform to a level several standard deviations above the average white, and it maybe the outliers who drive society’s advances, thus isn’t an arguement for any type of segregation. But as an advocate of the scientific method, your conclusions should be based on the data,"

Conclusions for what exactly Daithi, I am very curious to know your answer?

"The data does not conclusively support the theory I’ve given, but not one proper measure since the 60’s supports yours. "

What conclusion of mine? Are you having a conversation with yourself here?

" I’m at least clever enough to realise it would be much easier for me not to have this conversation in public as I can imagine how these comments about data are enough to prove me a racist to brave “Science advocates” who will defer to it when it suits them in matters of countering say, religious explanations for certain phenomena, without a grasp of the implications beyond what’s needed to score cheap points."

Aye Daithi, whatever you say pal.










DaithiD said...

Steve, I’ve little more to add, you can query the terms I’ve used and protest that without it you cannot understand what I have written. Others can decide if things like “I don't 'believe' in evolutionary theory...” were indicative of genuine impediments to your addressing the substance of my points or were examples of you dodging them.

I’ve explained repeatedly that deferring to science to counter religious dogma is hardly controversial, following the same scientific method with some other topics does require bravery.

But it’s pointless to carry this on now.Keep fighting the good fight.

Steve R said...

"Steve, I’ve little more to add, you can query the terms I’ve used and protest that without it you cannot understand what I have written"

I thought you'd say as much. I've pulled you up on your bullshit and you've realised you cannot answer my questions (about you making assertions that somehow I stated 'conclusions')

Keep talking shite DaithiD, I'm sure you think you have me 'on the ropes' again.

DaithiD said...

Steve, if understand it enough now to conclude it’s shite, that’s progress of sorts. Give it another day you might see where you have made conclusions.

Well remembered quote at the end, that interaction hadn’t bothered you either I presume.

I’m very happy with the outcome above Steve, each iteration refines it further. But Anthony has better use of time than putting up insults to each other, so I will not reply further.

Steve R said...

Indeed Daithi, I am sure I am not the only person to see this exchange as I do. Let's end it now before you dig yourself further in the pseudo-intellectual quagmire.

frankie said...

Stevie, Daithi..

So two 'educated men' who both live on two seperate islands miles apart are reduced to a 'my dick is bigger than your dick' argument while having an online chat about life.

Stevie.....Yes I can, I've had to study evolutionary theory and paleontology as part of a hobby of mine for the past five years, so I have no intention, need nor desire to 'hop off' the truth train.

Daithi.....myself did a degree in Theoretical Physics

Why don't you both take time out and listen to Morgan Freeman ....Or if you don't like Morgan and 3hrs+ is too much then Event Horizon's bonus video called Is Our Understanding of the Universe Wrong? may do the trick (little over 15mins)...

Steve R said...

Frankie,

Well I can laugh at myself so thanks for that! Perhaps Daithi and I have different viewpoints because he is naturally inclined to find out the mechanics behind the universe in which a 'first cause' allows for a 'creator', whereas I am more interested in 'Life' in general on this planet of which it's stark brutality destroys such notions for me.

DaithiD said...

Measure nothing Frankie!

With that you reveal you have fallen for the biggest conspiracy of them all, there is no such thing as “numbers”, just the illusion of plurality. There is but a single one : love.

frankie said...

Stevie, Daithi,...

Daithi you have a degree in theoretical physics. Maybe you can help me get my head around something. I can't join the dots. I can get my head around Hubble's Law and the universe expanding into a nothingness. Hubble confirms, more or less Einstein and relativity, and the maths add up .But when I factor in The Great Attractor, the maths don't add up.

Daithi are we expanding into a nothing or being sucked into a something?

Stevie Stevie you have studied paleontology among other things in your spare time. Whats your take on 75-million-year-old dinosaur blood and collagen discovered in fossil fragments ..

If collagen and red blood cells can survive for 75 million years, what about dinosaur DNA, bearing the genetic code to design, or potentially even resurrect, the beasts?

Do you think New Zealand could become a real Jurrassic Park...?

Personally I am with Graham Hancock and a huge piece of mankind is unknown because we got slam dunked 12,800 yrs ago like T-rex got hit 65 million years ago.

Evolutionary theory? Reads like spliff time and looking at the stars.....

Steve R said...

I'll leave the physics to Daithi but the dinosaur blood is an interesting curiosity, though the sensationalist headlines of the tabloids cloud the science.

They got lucky with that find, and the process of which is laborious. That's not to say pointless, but remember; the last of the clade dinosauria were wiped out by the K-T extinction event, that big bolide (asteroid) which smashed into roughly the Gulf of Mexico around 66m years ago.

Only one group survived (Aves-Birds). But even if you could extract sufficient amounts of usable DNA, and found a bird that could surrogate say a theropod dinosaur, once it was born it would probably instantly die due to not having evolved to breathe in our current atmospheric gas concentration. Put simply, it would choke then suffocate as it missed out on 60 million years of evolution and change to the earths atmosphere. If by some miracle it survived, it would then soon die of airborne pathogens that again it never evolved to deal with either.

This is the reason why paleontologists laugh at Jurassic Park! So no, NZ will never become a theme park like that!

Hancock makes big claims but little evidence, and that's concerning, but most alarming of all is his penchant for ignoring inconvenient data. Years ago I read a book of his on the pyramids and about how they supposedly lined up with a constellation. Major problem with that is he ignored all the positioning of the other pyramids to fit his theory!

That's not science.