It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

page: 10
54
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 05:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: EnPassant

This is coming from the guy who denies the role of genes in development, using the example of a Laura Croft 3D model to "debunk" it?


I used the Laura Croft image in relation to the amount of information it takes to define images on screen. It is a valid point. I did not deny the role of genes in development. I said - and I am correct - that there is no evidence that genes are primarily responsible for growth and form. I repeatedly asked for evidence and nobody gave it. Instead they persisted in ignoring my request and insisted they were right despite the lack of evidence. This is scientism.


Well . . . all current evidence points to gene expression being the sole reason for growth and form. But, if you say you are correct . . . well . . . it must be so. Perhaps you have evidence that goes against all current evidence? Or any evidence at all to support your claim? Assertions abound in those that have no evidence . . . just like the case of "scientism". And since quotes equal "evidence" to those mired in assertion . . . here's one:

Philosopher Daniel Dennett responded to religious criticism of his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by saying that "when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'".


As for actual evidence of gene expression being the catalyst for growth . . . there have been numerous studies done turning on/off or duplicating genes and in all cases the predicted outcome was confirmed. Showing that the gene in question was responsible for "growth and form" Whether that was making chickens grow teeth, extra wings, or numerous other experiments where the hormones/proteins activated by the genes were stopped to halt the development of the organism, both in embryo and juvenile. We have seen this with maize in the 50's and E. Coli in the 60's. Heck . . . there are hundreds of studies alone (you know evidence), just messing with fruit flies.

While the gene is the primary mover . . . it cannot act alone. There are several factors now believed to be responsible for growth and expression; however, this does not mean that the gene is not the primary factor. Genes regulate hormones/proteins that start/stop growth, but hormones/proteins can switch a gene on/off. Survival in a specialized environment depends on genetic expression, but the environment can switch genes on/off.

The development of an organism — from a fertilized egg, through embryonic and juvenile stages, to adulthood — requires the coordinated expression of sets of genes at the proper times and in the proper places. Studies of several bizarre mutations in the fruitfly, Drosophila, provided keys to understanding the molecular basis of large-scale developmental plans. Early embryonic genes express proteins that set up the orientation and define the body segments of the fly embryo. Then "homeotic" genes act on the segments to make the body parts distinct to each segment.


A number of genes can regulate the growth of a specific part/organ, as the human eye needs a group four genes to need regulatory proteins to promote or enhance development in different stages. When we simply delete a gene . . . the area is not promoted or enhanced, showing that is was the gene that was responsible for the function, albeit coordinating with those proteins that create the pathways for development.

Next, this topic room turns to the regulation of genes. Genes can't control an organism on their own; rather, they must interact with and respond to the organism's environment. Some genes are constitutive, or always "on," regardless of environmental conditions. Such genes are among the most important elements of a cell's genome, and they control the ability of DNA to replicate, express itself, and repair itself. These genes also control protein synthesis and much of an organism's central metabolism. In contrast, regulated genes are needed only occasionally — but how do these genes get turned "on" and "off"? What specific molecules control when they are expressed?


Regulated genes are those are dependent on their environment (promotion sequences and proteins being present) . . . like eyes, organs, limbs. Regulated gene sequences are turned on and off at different times to start or stop the expression (the expression is what you call "growth and form"). So, we may not know everything about expression and regulation, and genes may need some "help" in knowing when to start or stop . . . but, it is clearly the gene that is the primary factor in how "growth and form" is expressed.

By all means though . . . I'm very interested in your evidence (since you deemed yourself correct) as to genes not being primarily responsible for growth and "form". If you truly are "correct" . . . you have Nobel prize coming your way. Or . . . is this the usual assertion that is typical of the "science is a fraud" threads?




posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Solomon's Path, Kashai

I've been reading your exchange with interest.

Solomon, you have all but five of Freud's collected works, that is, those published in book form. But there are sure to be journal articles, letters to editors, etc., which he wrote and that you do not have because they never appeared in books. Then, of course, there would be private papers that were never published, but which would have been collected by his literary executors after his death. Maybe what Kashai saw is a reproduction from some such document.

Then again, Kashai, I went looking for drawings by Sigmund Freud on the internet and didn't find anything remotely fitting your description, but of course that doesn't mean anything definitive. However, I found this article about Freud's art, which doesn't mention anything remotely like the pictures you described.

Still, the pictures may well exist. But are you quite certain your memory isn't playing you false? Memory can be a funny thing: are you sure what you saw weren't portraits of women by Lucien Freud's friend Francis Bacon? One like this, for example? Or [url=http://www.francis-bacon.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FBE264_Three-Studies-for-Portrait-of-Isabel-Rawsthorne-1966SMALLER_thb.jpg]this[/url ]?

It has been 24 years since you saw them, after all.


edit on 29/4/14 by Astyanax because: of a malformed URL



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant


As Arthuc C. clark said, highly developed science is like magic.

He didn't say that. What he said was 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'

Oh, and it was Clarke, not Clark.


in many ways 'paranormal' is just a word for what science does not understand. Calling it 'delusion' will not make it go away.

You're not getting the point. Things you like to call 'paranormal' may exist but they are unexplained. Any attempt to explain them in nonscientific terms explains nothing; they remain mysteries. And they will continue to remain mysteries until science explains them.

If, of course, there is anything to explain.

Any luck with the answer to my question?
edit on 29/4/14 by Astyanax because: of birds, stones.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai
I'm not sure what point your trying to make with these drawings.

You're saying that they are drawings used to document some cases. They in no way reflect on Freud.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: EnPassant


As Arthuc C. clark said, highly developed science is like magic.

He didn't say that. What he said was 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'

Oh, and it was Clarke, not Clark.


in many ways 'paranormal' is just a word for what science does not understand. Calling it 'delusion' will not make it go away.

You're not getting the point. Things you like to call 'paranormal' may exist but they are unexplained. Any attempt to explain them in nonscientific terms explains nothing; they remain mysteries. And they will continue to remain mysteries until science explains them.

If, of course, there is anything to explain.

Any luck with the answer to my question?


That is my point - the paranormal is unexplained (at least in scientific terms). I just have issues with people who dismiss people as 'deluded' [Dawkins] when they don't accept the scientific consensus. What question?
edit on 29-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: EnPassant

Except you're wrong, you were shown to be wrong on numerous occasions and in numerous ways and yet you still cling to this delusion. Again, another proponent of this idea of "scientism" falls foul of their own definition.


Numerous ways? No matter how many ways you state a hypothesis that does not make it true. People just kept throwing the consensus at me hoping if they said it enough times they would make it true. I asked for EVIDENCE and nobody gave it to me. I also tried to educate some people in the rudiments of information theory but they just did not get it. Information is information no matter what domain it is in and the same mathematical rules apply no matter if it is computer generated imagery or genetic information. There are rules and limits concerning the compression and manipulation of information. Look up Information Theory.
edit on 29-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax Any attempt to explain them [the paranormal] in nonscientific terms explains nothing?


That sounds too much like scientism to me; if science cannot explain it, never mind using intuition, common sense, the higher faculties of consciousness...

Those who don't get with the consensus are deluded?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: EnPassant

Except you're wrong, you were shown to be wrong on numerous occasions and in numerous ways...

"Science" has ALSO been shown to be wrong on numerous occasions...


"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control. ...they demonstrate a systematic destruction of proofs that show another reality than that the official story. Falsifications and even destruction of such proofs has been common for more than two hundred years." LINK

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe. They accomplished this by adopting new rules in regards to scientific research.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

"Throughout recorded history, the Illuminati has successfully withheld from humankind major aspects of history and science in order to subjugate the masses"

"Historical, religious and political truths have been withheld from the general public in order to perpetuate armed conflict," he continues. "Similarly if the presently suppressed technology were to be made commercially available, disease, famine and environmental pollution virtually would become eradicated."

By manipulating the souls evolving on earth, the Illuminati have deliberately suppressed the spiritual facts of life, not to mention liberating technologies, which could bring plenitude to all.

Secrets of Suppressed Science and History



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
That sounds too much like scientism to me

Almost accused you of using the term incorrectly but thought I should get a concrete definition of scientism.

It is such a loosly defined term and used in so many different ways, by different authors, that it is pretty much useless.
edit on 29-4-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: EnPassant
That sounds too much like scientism to me

Almost accused you of using the term incorrectly but thought I should get a concrete definition of scientism.

It is such a loosly defined term and used in so many different ways, by different authors, that it is pretty much useless.


Here's a quote from your link-

Scientism is a term used to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

It is this exclusion that bothers me most. The human mind does not normally function in a scientistic way. We normally operate our minds - in everyday life - on a more subtle level. If someone tells you a joke you don't need to consult a scientific dissertation to make up your mind if it is funny. If you make an appraisal of somebodies character you do it intuitively, you don't need a book on psychology.

The mind has higher awareness and consciousness that trump the pedantic intellect. This is how we function and knowledge gained in this way is legitimate.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: EnPassant

Except you're wrong, you were shown to be wrong on numerous occasions and in numerous ways and yet you still cling to this delusion. Again, another proponent of this idea of "scientism" falls foul of their own definition.


Numerous ways? No matter how many ways you state a hypothesis that does not make it true. People just kept throwing the consensus at me hoping if they said it enough times they would make it true. I asked for EVIDENCE and nobody gave it to me. I also tried to educate some people in the rudiments of information theory but they just did not get it. Information is information no matter what domain it is in and the same mathematical rules apply no matter if it is computer generated imagery or genetic information. There are rules and limits concerning the compression and manipulation of information. Look up Information Theory.


I gave you evidence above . . . but that doesn't fit your narrative, so I'm assuming it doesn't count as "evidence"?

It seems you have generated such a strong bias to there being no evidence that you don't know the difference between what is and what isn't.

Information Theory (or in this case Semiotics, since you are discussing transcription and translation) is a flawed premise, in regard to inheritance, translation, transcription, expression. It doesn't account for the other factors involved in determining when and where the expression occurs. You seem to overlook protein regulation, law of inheritance, environmental factors, and random (non-sentient) mutation.

But, as before, I would love to see YOUR evidence . . . or does your argument rest solely in assertion and incredulity?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
It is this exclusion that bothers me most.

Why?


The mind has higher awareness and consciousness that trump the pedantic intellect. This is how we function and knowledge gained in this way is legitimate.

Even if it is legit, it doesn't fill the requirements to fit in that circle. Why not just accept it for what it is or work on filling those requirements?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: solomons path

I have told you repeatedly; it has been estimated that the genome contains 480 Mb capacity. This is not enough to define a human body. You are not following the discussion. Anyhow, that discussion is in another thread. Read my posts in that thread and answer there.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: EnPassant
It is this exclusion that bothers me most.

Why?


Because it is arrogant and limiting to say the only legitimate knowledge is scientific knowledge.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: solomons path
This is not enough to define a human body.


Why? What evidence do you present? And no, "because Lara Croft" is not evidence. Bring some actual, scientific evidence to the table instead of "because I said so".



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: solomons path
Well . . . all current evidence points to gene expression being the sole reason for growth and form.


This is what I am asking for evidence for. You are quoting an article of faith. Simply saying it does not make it true. IT HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT GENES ARE THE SOLE REASON. It is merely an article of faith that they are.


As for actual evidence of gene expression being the catalyst for growth . . . there have been numerous studies done turning on/off or duplicating genes and in all cases the predicted outcome was confirmed. Showing that the gene in question was responsible for "growth and form" Whether that was making chickens grow teeth, extra wings, or numerous other experiments where the hormones/proteins activated by the genes were stopped to halt the development of the organism, both in embryo and juvenile. We have seen this with maize in the 50's and E. Coli in the 60's. Heck . . . there are hundreds of studies alone (you know evidence), just messing with fruit flies.


Extra teeth are not concerned with form; they are merely a rearrangement of form. Show me a paper that demonstrates that genes make the SHAPE of a tooth.

As for genes disrupting growth and form by halting "the development of the organism, both in embryo and juvenile."

This merely shows that damaged genes DISRUPT that process of growth. That is not equivalent to genes DETERMINING growth and form. If you mess with the genes it is no surprise that there is a knock on effect but it is not the evidence I am asking for.


While the gene is the primary mover . . . it cannot act alone. There are several factors now believed to be responsible for growth and expression; however, this does not mean that the gene is not the primary factor. Genes regulate hormones/proteins that start/stop growth, but hormones/proteins can switch a gene on/off. Survival in a specialized environment depends on genetic expression, but the environment can switch genes on/off.


Listen carefully: The article of faith that says genes determine growth and form asserts that the information for form is primarily in the genes. You now assert that the environment can switch genes on/off in a way that tells the genes about form. This means that INFORMATION about inherited form is in the environment: Your argument concerning growth and form is saying, implicitly, that the environment 'knows' about form and tells the genes how to create it. We are speaking also about inherited form; what makes a child look like one of its parents.

Tell me, how does the information get into the environment? If you want to backtrack on this and say the information is not in the environment you would have to argue that it is in the genes only in which case you are back to square one.


Studies of several bizarre mutations in the fruitfly, Drosophila, provided keys to understanding the molecular basis of large-scale developmental plans. Early embryonic genes express proteins that set up the orientation and define the body segments of the fly embryo. Then "homeotic" genes act on the segments to make the body parts distinct to each segment.


Again, you are confusing the mere arrangement of sub forms with form. Messing with genes to make the ARRANGEMENT of sub forms go askew is not evidence that genes determine growth and form.


A number of genes can regulate the growth of a specific part/organ, as the human eye needs a group four genes to need regulatory proteins to promote or enhance development in different stages. When we simply delete a gene . . . the area is not promoted or enhanced, showing that is was the gene that was responsible for the function, albeit coordinating with those proteins that create the pathways for development.


No. This is not form. This is showing that messing with genes is going to mess things up. Not what I am looking for. Genes are part of the whole system and if you mess with them there is going to be a knock on effect. That is not evidence that GENES DETERMINE GROWTH AND FORM. You only barely grasp the question I am asking.


So, we may not know everything about expression and regulation, and genes may need some "help" in knowing when to start or stop . . . but, it is clearly the gene that is the primary factor in how "growth and form" is expressed.


No, it is not clear. You are saying that (inherited) characteristics of form are determined, in part, by the environment. If that is the case how does the INFORMATION about inherited formal characteristics get into the environment?

Almost everything you are telling me has been put into your head by the propaganda that says genes do everything; scientism.
edit on 29-4-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
Because it is arrogant and limiting to say the only legitimate knowledge is scientific knowledge.

But, it is true when speaking of that type of "knowledge".



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: EnPassant
Because it is arrogant and limiting to say the only legitimate knowledge is scientific knowledge.

But, it is true when speaking of that type of "knowledge".


Yes, but that is not the problem. The problem is that scientism tries to denigrate knowledge that is attained by other means and by the higher faculties of the mind.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: solomons path

I have told you repeatedly; it has been estimated that the genome contains 480 Mb capacity. This is not enough to define a human body. You are not following the discussion. Anyhow, that discussion is in another thread. Read my posts in that thread and answer there.


You haven't told me, I've only posted to you twice and this is your first response to me. If you have evidence to support your claims, then please post or give me a link.

So far, you rely on incredulity and assertion. You don't seem to understand how genetics work and so you equate it to computer code and storage. Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence beyond your asserting it so.

480mb is not a number I can find anywhere except your post. Fire Ants are at 480, as are Populus trees. Could a human's genome only have 480,000,000 base pairs . . . sure, but that person would have some issues in functioning. The correct number of base pairs is currently at 3.2 billion base pairs, according to the Human Genome Project in 2013. That is 3.2Gb!!

Homo sapiens estimated genome size 3.2 billion bp

You don't seem to be accounting for coding, noncoding, introns, transposons, repetition, pseudogenes, deletions, additions, etc. Or, you just don't understand the process at a biochemical level . . . it's not a straight code, like A means A, B means B, and so forth. A much better analogy is that of a book. The book has 23 chapters and each chapter has millions of subchapters, with each subchapter having thousands of variations.

Furthermore, single genes can regulate multiple proteins which aid in disparate areas of development.

You are wrong on the amount of "bytes" of info contained in the human genome and whether there is enough "memory storage" is complete assertion based on incredulity. And, you (as must laypeople) having more knowledge of computers than biochemistry, so of course that makes more sense to you.


The Human Genome Project produced the first complete sequences of individual human genomes. As of 2012, thousands of human genomes have been completely sequenced, and many more have been mapped at lower levels of resolution. The resulting data are used worldwide in biomedical science, anthropology, forensics and other branches of science. There is a widely held expectation that genomic studies will lead to advances in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases, and to new insights in many fields of biology, including human evolution.

Although the sequence of the human genome has been (almost) completely determined by DNA sequencing, it is not yet fully understood. Most (though probably not all) genes have been identified by a combination of high throughput experimental and bioinformatics approaches, yet much work still needs to be done to further elucidate the biological functions of their protein and RNA products. Recent results suggest that most of the vast quantities of noncoding DNA within the genome have associated biochemical activities, including regulation of gene expression, organization of chromosome architecture, and signals controlling epigenetic inheritance.


You're wrong . . . And instead of admitting that you don't know what you are talking about you promote the notion that the geneticists are wrong and everyone is sheep. That's called delusional.
edit on 4/29/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: solomons path
Well . . . all current evidence points to gene expression being the sole reason for growth and form.


This is what I am asking for evidence for. You are quoting an article of faith. Simply saying it does not make it true. IT HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT GENES ARE THE SOLE REASON. It is merely an article of faith that they are.


As for actual evidence of gene expression being the catalyst for growth . . . there have been numerous studies done turning on/off or duplicating genes and in all cases the predicted outcome was confirmed. Showing that the gene in question was responsible for "growth and form" Whether that was making chickens grow teeth, extra wings, or numerous other experiments where the hormones/proteins activated by the genes were stopped to halt the development of the organism, both in embryo and juvenile. We have seen this with maize in the 50's and E. Coli in the 60's. Heck . . . there are hundreds of studies alone (you know evidence), just messing with fruit flies.


Extra teeth are not concerned with form; they are merely a rearrangement of form. Show me a paper that demonstrates that genes make the SHAPE of a tooth.

As for genes disrupting growth and form by halting "the development of the organism, both in embryo and juvenile."

This merely shows that damaged genes DISRUPT that process of growth. That is not equivalent to genes DETERMINING growth and form. If you mess with the genes it is no surprise that there is a knock on effect but it is not the evidence I am asking for.


While the gene is the primary mover . . . it cannot act alone. There are several factors now believed to be responsible for growth and expression; however, this does not mean that the gene is not the primary factor. Genes regulate hormones/proteins that start/stop growth, but hormones/proteins can switch a gene on/off. Survival in a specialized environment depends on genetic expression, but the environment can switch genes on/off.


Listen carefully: The article of faith that says genes determine growth and form asserts that the information for form is primarily in the genes. You now assert that the environment can switch genes on/off in a way that tells the genes about form. This means that INFORMATION about inherited form is in the environment: Your argument concerning growth and form is saying, implicitly, that the environment 'knows' about form and tells the genes how to create it. We are speaking also about inherited form; what makes a child look like one of its parents.

Tell me, how does the information get into the environment? If you want to backtrack on this and say the information is not in the environment you would have to argue that it is in the genes only in which case you are back to square one.


Studies of several bizarre mutations in the fruitfly, Drosophila, provided keys to understanding the molecular basis of large-scale developmental plans. Early embryonic genes express proteins that set up the orientation and define the body segments of the fly embryo. Then "homeotic" genes act on the segments to make the body parts distinct to each segment.


Again, you are confusing the mere arrangement of sub forms with form. Messing with genes to make the ARRANGEMENT of sub forms go askew is not evidence that genes determine growth and form.


A number of genes can regulate the growth of a specific part/organ, as the human eye needs a group four genes to need regulatory proteins to promote or enhance development in different stages. When we simply delete a gene . . . the area is not promoted or enhanced, showing that is was the gene that was responsible for the function, albeit coordinating with those proteins that create the pathways for development.


No. This is not form. This is showing that messing with genes is going to mess things up. Not what I am looking for. Genes are part of the whole system and if you mess with them there is going to be a knock on effect. That is not evidence that GENES DETERMINE GROWTH AND FORM. You only barely grasp the question I am asking.


So, we may not know everything about expression and regulation, and genes may need some "help" in knowing when to start or stop . . . but, it is clearly the gene that is the primary factor in how "growth and form" is expressed.


No, it is not clear. You are saying that (inherited) characteristics of form are determined, in part, by the environment. If that is the case how does the INFORMATION about inherited formal characteristics get into the environment?

Almost everything you are telling me has been put into your head by the propaganda that says genes do everything; scientism.


Well . . . since all you have are arguments from incredulity . . . I'd like some evidence beyond assertion and proselytizing.

You've shown you don't know how many base pairs the human genome contains.

You've shown you don't understand how transcription or translation works . . . let alone more specific function like coding vs. non.

Since you don't grasp simple concepts and disregard or ignore any evidence that goes against semiotics or information storage . . . I'm going to take the word of those at the Human Genome Project over yours.

Not because I have "faith" in them . . . but, because they know what they are talking about and are more than happy to actually provide the evidence for it.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join