It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
While you are attempting to dispute my claims, even Popper himself teaches that dogmatic science exists.
No, I mispresented nothing
Who is Popper anyway? I didn't see you challenge anything on that.
Argument from authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common logical fallacy.
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence.
The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.
Falsifability In Principle states that neither the past nor future can be measured.
Evolution is not scientifically proven.
Even when he says evolution based on his own priori, he says we have to get out of that idea that is not well-tuned for seeking atoms and galaxies.
a pri·o·ri adjective \ˌä-prē-ˈȯr-ē, ˌa-; ˌā-(ˌ)prī-ˈȯr-ˌī, -ˌprē-ˈȯr-ē\
: relating to what can be known through an understanding of how certain things work rather than by observation
Full Definition of A PRIORI
a : deductive
b : relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions — compare a posteriori
c : presupposed by experience
a : being without examination or analysis : presumptive
b : formed or conceived beforehand
Evolution then becomes less certain.
Presumptive in the definition? yes.
Trolling on my part? no.
Dismissive on your part? Yes.
You SHOULD know Popper, he's the guy taught most in Philosophical Science courses and well-known in the scientific community. The mere fact that you don't know Popper, shows me that you have little interest in actual science.
His terms are bandied about in science, including Falsifiability and pseudo-science. Also he introduced "critical rationalism".
dog·ma (dôg′mə, dŏg′-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-mə-tə)
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them:
One essential feature of empirical science is that the truth or falsity of its theories cannot be definitively established.
Science should leave dogmatism to religion if it is to continue to be a rational enterprise, for rational knowledge of reality is admittedly fallible. We agree with Miller (1999) when he states that giving science its conjectural character back might reduce the number of disappointed people who increase the legions of irrationalism (although we think that the absolute skepticism he advocates is not an answer, because beliefs are simply inevitable; see Bunge 2001, chap. 7).
The ideas in this paper were originally presented at a symposium of the Second World Meeting on International Education, Integration and Development, held at Buenos Aires (Argentina) 28-30 July 1999.
The big-brain vision has no real scientific basis. The fossil record of skull sizes over the past several thousand generations shows that our days of rapid increase in brain size are long over. Accordingly, most scientists a few years ago would have taken the view that human physical evolution has ceased. But DNA techniques, which probe genomes both present and past, have unleashed a revolution in studying evolution; they tell a different story
do you believe the current evolutionary model?
I have 2.9% Neanderthal in my genome, that doesn't fit with the current evolutionary model. This is a new discovery that now scientists are trying to determine just how this is possible. Do I need to show you my 23 and Me account to prove this about my genetic testing? And yet, may scientists are still holding to Darwinian evolution. Why? Because it worked for them, regardless of new information and data.
I carefully chose only scientific sources to make my rebuttals from, not one of them was from religious sites or Creationist sites.
As those are unacceptable for you, and hence you call me a troll based on your own unacceptance and attempts to dissuade the very argument raging within the scientific community itself, would you call every scientist who no longer believe in Darwinian evolution also trolls when they talk about how they once held to Darwinian evolution and now don't?
You simply are going to have to address dogma within the scientific community, as the scientific community grapples with it also.
Just because you don't want to see the elephant in the room doesn't mean the elephant is pink or blue or even big, it means the elephant is in the room. You must be comfortable with the elephant being in the room, however, others are not. And many who are not, are scientists.
"One essential feature of empirical science is that the truth or falsity of its theories cannot be definitively established."
I didn't make that up, scientists did. Choose to ignore that statement if you wish. Consequently, Evolutionary theory based on empirical evidence can never be definitive. Truth or falsity, will never be definitive. But as you propose, it must be definitive because you believe it to be, doesn't make it so.
While the above link is about challenging dogma within the theories about ecology, the same concept applies toward the Theory of Evolution, because it is still called a theory, so theoretically, evolution is nothing more than dogma. So why the demand that others accept it as definitive if even scientists cannot prove the truth or falsity of it? If there is no truth definitive in evolution, then it's just you who are a Dogmatic Darwinian.
Educators said this and made the claim that dogmatism within the scientific community exists, whether or not people want to see it.
Therefore, an extreme empiricist approach naively pretending to work only with facts would be just a blind approach, making it impossible for researchers to recognize their own prejudices (hidden accepted theories or hypotheses), and people cannot subject to criticism that which is hidden from them. Thought should be “moving” before hands start to move. Enter the role of lectures: These may sometimes contribute to a particular process of inquiry, guiding the students in posing ecological problems and making them aware of the theoretical framework any possible question assumes. For example, some lectures encouraging epistemological or methodological discussion of the importance of assumptions in scientific research would encourage students to be more suspicious of—and therefore less vulnerable to—fashionable theories or practices.
As I am 2.9% Neanderthal, as well as Todd Disotell, then Darwinian evolution no longer is applicable. Your side now has to tell us how it is possible outside of Darwinian evolution, are you prepared for the many changes and upcoming changes to the once revered model?
The Ascent of Man is no longer that. Why is it important now that Neanderthal percentages are in the AMH genome? Because it disputes Out of Africa. It disputes Darwinian evolution. Even Todd Disotell bragged that he has 2.9% Neanderthal, he said that is apparently unique, it is not unique, I have that much and other people have more.
Given that Neanderthal DNA is now shown presently in those of European descent, and not found in those in Africa, it now challenges the evolutionary model. Facts and evidence that Carl Linnaeus and Charles Darwin didn't have.
The origin of Neandertals
Western Eurasia yielded a rich Middle (MP) and Late Pleistocene (LP) fossil record documenting the evolution of the Neandertals that can be analyzed in light of recently acquired paleogenetical data, an abundance of archeological evidence, and a well-known environmental context. Their origin likely relates to an episode of recolonization of Western Eurasia by hominins of African origin carrying the Acheulean technology into Europe around 600 ka.
That is why abiogenesis is a Hypothesis.
But as your side has never presented empirical evidence of the primordial goo that your side claims life crawled out of
Evidence for big bangEvidence for human evolution
you also do not have the empirical evidence to support any theory between the Big Bang to man standing upright.
Once held as scientific, the big brain theory, now out the _ No scientific basis but once taught as scientific. Can you see now the dogmatism?
reply to post by Grimpachi
I am sorry if the professor of physics says that science "proves" nothing and neither is it certain. That's not my problem to deal with as he is on your side.
My original thesis was that science is dominated by dogmatism. I have proven that by the very scientific websites from very scientific scientists who make the statements. I am sorry, but a charge of dogmatism made within the scientific community from scientists toward scientists, then my thesis holds true, so many scientists are dogmatic that it is a problem.
Author Prof Teruhiko Wakayama said: "It is no longer clear what is right."
The future of regenerative medicine is pinned on stem cells, which can transform into any other type of tissue. They are being investigated for restoring sight to the blind and repairing the damage caused by a heart attack.
'Mistakes have emerged'
The original study, published in the journal Nature, became a huge story around the world and was described as "remarkable" and as a "major scientific discovery".
It said stem cells no longer needed to be taken from embryos or made by complicated and costly genetic tinkering.
Instead, shocking skin cells with acid could drive them back into a stem cell state.
The breakthrough findings have not been discredited, but they have come under intense scrutiny.
The Reuters news agency reports Prof Wakayama, of the University of Yamanashi, told Japanese TV: "When conducting the experiment, I believed it was absolutely right.
"But now that many mistakes have emerged, I think it is best to withdraw the research paper once and, using correct data and correct pictures, to prove once again the paper is right.
"If it turns out to be wrong, we would need to make it clear why a thing like this happened."
Then why do you believe it?
If no step in the process asks for belief, then why do you believe it?
reply to post by WarminIndy
Then why do you believe it?
If no step in the process asks for belief, then why do you believe it?
Some things I do not personally believe. Some things I simply think are plausible explanations some I do not even think that. I am not required to believe any of it. As for the things I do believe the simple answer: Because I can review replicate and verify findings on any given subject. No belief or faith in any of it if I doubt any particular finding all I need is the motivation to do the work myself to either verify or falsify the findings and if I can falsify the findings then those findings once verified will be celebrated not shunned.
Sorry that is as simple an explanation as I can give for my own stance.