The Age of Gullibility

That this is the age of gullibility is proved by the fact that three of the most absurd frauds in history have become totally accepted and unquestioned in our age. The results of this universal credulity is a social disaster, the affects of which are apparent in every aspect of our culture. If you think something is terribly wrong with the society you live in, but have not been able to identify exactly what it is, this may help you.

No rational individual either doubts or questions the power of science to discover the truth. Much that goes by the name science, however, is not science at all. It is because everyone has seen what the application of scientific truth can do to improve their lives that the word "science" is invoked by those who wish to put something over.

True scientists often have knowledge that is unavailable to the average individual. Not many people understand quantum mechanics or understand what light "being in phase" means. We do not have to take the scientists' word on these things, however, because every day we use the results of the application of these scientific principles in every electronic device we take for granted from cell phones to computers. If the principles of science these things are based on were just "made up," they would not work—there would be no such thing as lasers, for example.

The true sciences have a set of standards, not as rules imposed by some authority, but principles derived from the nature of that which the sciences study, that determined what is truly science, and what is not.

The purpose of science is to discover the principles by which physical reality can be understood. Everything from Ohm's law to the periodic table is knowledge by which the behavior of things can be predicted with absolute certainty. It is that certainty that makes things like solid state electronics, which have completely changed the world, possible. Every electronic device in the world exists and works solely because the chemical and electrical characteristics of its components are scientifically predictable.

The principles of science are not "decided," they are discovered, based on objective reesearch. All science begins with the observation of things and how they behave. An observation, in science, is not a valid one if what is observed cannot be observed by more than one individual, or, in fact, by any individual with normal powers of observation. This insures that what science investigates is objective. In science, observation is not enough, it must also be accurate observation. Before Newton could discover his laws of motion, Galileo first had to demonstrate that things did not move quite as was supposed. It would have been impossible to discover laws of motion before that motion had been accurately observed and described.

Observation usually leads to a hypothesis, which is a plausible explanation of the observed phenomena. A hypothesis is a conjecture which might or might not be correct, but it is only a starting point for scientific investigation. No hypothesis is science.

To become science, if it does, a hypothesis must be "proved." It is the nature of science itself that determines what constitutes proof.

To prove something does not mean to convince someone something is true. Scientific proof establishes the certainty of a scientific principle by means of four criteria.

The first criterion is what constitutes an acceptable or valid hypothesis. A valid hypothesis must be provable. A hypothesis that cannot be proved is invalid. Invalid hypotheses of this type are almost never presented as unprovable, but as not being disprovable. To say that a hypothesis cannot be disproved, however, means that it cannot be proved. If there is no test for a hypothesis that can prove it is false, if it is, there is no test the can prove it is true, if it is. Without this criteria, just anything could be put forth as a scientific hypothesis.

The second criterion of scientific proof is repeatability. A test or experiment to verify a hypothesis that only worked once but could not be repeated would prove nothing. In fact, if a test or experiment only works sometimes it also cannot be used as proof. Only a test or experiment that always produces the same results is proof a valid principle has been discovered.

The third criterion of scientific proof is consistency. No scientific principle can contradict any previously discovered and proved scientific principle. New discoveries can bring refinements to scientific principles, but where conflicts seem to exist, there is some mistake or misinterpretation somewhere. Obviously, so long as more than one hypothesis exists for the same phenomena, neither can be a valid scientific theory. Any supposed scientific hypothesis that contradicted ohms law or the laws motion would be scientifically invalid. (Refinements of measurement or description, such as relativism's refinements of Newton are not contradictions).

The fourth criterion is predictability. It is ultimately the point of all science. Things may be studied for any number of reasons, including the normal human desire for knowledge, even if only to give one a better understanding of the world, or simply the enjoyment of knowledge for its own sake. There are many kinds of knowledge such as history, art, and technology, but, strictly speaking, only knowledge that helps us understand the fundamental nature of entities, substances, and events of the world in a way that makes us able to successfully deal with them and use them for our own benefit is scientific knowledge.

The application of scientific principles to the real world is technology. That this is exactly what the real sciences have made possible is obvious. All machines, from engines of production to machines of transportation, are the result of the application of physics. Every new material, from fertilizers to plastics, is the result of the application of the principles of chemistry. All of modern medicine is the result of the application of the principles of biology and physiology. The fact that we can now feed a world population several times larger than historic populations that constantly suffered famine is the result of the application of botany and genetics.

The word science is used in two ways. One is very general and includes anything that uses the methods or principles of science. It is in this general sense that some industries classify some employees as scientists. They are scientists in the sense that they apply the principles of the sciences of physics or chemistry, for example, to specific technological problems. There are a great many fields of research that use scientific methods and principles, such as geology and astronomy, that are classified as sciences in this general way.

I am using the word science in a very narrow way to distinguish it from the more general use. The distinction is very important, and the importance is the way the idea of science is used in areas not directly related to science or technology, particularly as related to education, society, and politics. The significance is this: no choice or policy that violates an established scientific principle can be good or successful, because it would be contrary to the nature of reality itself. Unfortunately, a great many things are described as scientific principle which are mere conjecture, unproven hypotheses or even total fictions. Every day countless statements are made by "experts" claiming something is an established scientific fact, which are neither "established" or remotely scientific. To base any choices, decisions, or policies on such pseudoscience can only result in disaster.

The history of "phlogiston" is typical of this kind of pseudoscientific authoritarianism. The "theory" of phlogiston resulted from the casual observation that some materials, like wood, were lighter after they burned. "Obviously" they had given up something, and though no one knew what it was, it was given the name, phlogiston. When it is was observed that some things, like metals, were heavier after burning, rather than question the "scientific" hypothesis, it was simply revised with the explanation that "metallic phlogiston" had negative mass (by which "scientists" of that day meant weight). On further observation that some things neither gained or lost weight when they burned, another variety of phlogiston was invented which supposedly had zero mass.

Once the plausible view that combustion was a process in which something is "given up" by the burning material became the accepted scientific view, contradictory evidence never led to the questioning of that view. This very unscientific refusal to question the accepted view is what is wrong with all that goes by the name of science, but has no more scientific validity than the very plausible phlogiston theory. The pseudo-scientific hypothesis of phlogiston was exposed by the real scientist, and father of modern chemistry, Antoine Lavoisier.

Lavoisier proved his hypothesis by careful experiments that could be repeated by scientists anywhere, always with the same results. It was those repeatable experiments and the discovery of oxygen as a component of air that turned Lavoisier's hypothesis into the modern correct theory of combustion.

The primary characteristic of religion that makes it religion, rather than philosophy or science, for example, is that it's fundamental teachings cannot be proved. Though a great many religious people throughout history have gone to great lengths to "prove" the truth of their religion, the fact is, if they could be proved, another very important aspect of religion would not be necessary.

Religions are sustained and spread by means of persuasion which has included everything from threats of force (and actual force) to argument and evangelism. If the tenets of a religion could be proved, the way Lavoisier proved his theory of combustion, there would be no need to persuade anyone to embrace them. They would simply be facts that no one in their right mind could reject except to their own detriment. The point here is not about whether any tenets of any religion are true (although if any religion is true, all the rest cannot be), but the fact that they cannot be proven to be true.

That there are so many different religions is another characteristic of religion. Even for religions that go by the same name, such as Christianity, there are many varieties all in disagreement with each other and all certain that theirs is the true religion.

There is another characteristic of religion, that is not universal, but very common. Those who embrace some religion or another usually regard those who do not share their faith as wicked or sinful or, at best, deluded. The extreme variety of this is found in those religions in which some practitioners believe it is perfectly justifiable to kill or blow up unbelievers. The less extreme versions think it is perfectly justifiable to use the power of government to force everyone, especially non-believers, to conform to certain aspects of their religious convictions.

Another aspect of religion arising from its unprovable nature is that the basis for belief in its tenets is some authority. That authority may be in some document or documents, or its religious leaders, whose authority might be ad hoc, as in Islam, or extremely hierarchical, as in Roman Catholicism, or any combination of these.

The most important characteristic of religion is why people believe and practice them. Religion gives its practitioners a sense of purpose, of knowing what they are living for, and the conviction that the way they are living is important and good. All religions provide those who practice them a sense of being right and right with the universe—it's called righteousness. Certainly they would argue they believe and practice their religion because they believe it is true, but I do not think they would practice them if they made them feel guilty and worthless.

Except where religion directly contradicts science there is no inherent antagonism between them. For many people, religion and science address different questions and many scientists have also been religious. Einstein, Newton, and Pascal come immediately to mind.

Most scientists today are not religious themselves but are not particularly anti-religion either. Most just do not find anything convincing in any religion. There are those, however, who call themselves scientists who are truly, almost violently, anti-religious.

The very strange thing is, while they claim to despise the "superstition" of religion, they are themselves adherents of today's super religion, a triumvirate of mysticism comprised of the pseudosciences, psychology, evolution, and ecology.

This religion of so-called sciences, like all successful religions, has elements of truth and a degree of plausibility, but like many religions, the truth is mixed with baseless assertions, fantasies, and irrationality.

These so-called sciences have none of the characteristics of science and all the characteristics of religion—which is exactly what they are, PEEism (Psychology-Evolution-Ecologyism).

While the three faces of this religion are different, they share a common purpose which is the opposite of the purpose of the true sciences. The purpose of the true sciences is to discover principles by which the nature of the world can be understood and used for mans benefit and enjoyment. The purpose of PEEism is to invent excuses for controlling men, without regard to the harm it does to them.

Unlike the true sciences, no hypotheses of any facet of PEEism is even demonstrable, much less, provable.

Neurology is a true science that studies the brain and nervous system, a branch of physiology. Psychologists try to give their profession legitimacy by lumping it together with neurology, but the attempted amalgamation is a ruse by which the totally fictional ideas of psychology are mixed with the legitimate medical facts of neurology.

I've already exposed the origins of psychology and how the pseudoscience was begun and put over in the first of my uncompleted series on the subject, "Psychology's Anticivilizing Influence on the West." Here I'll concentrate on the unscientific nature of Psychology.

There is not one so-called psychological principle based on scientific evidence of any kind. In science, remember, all inquiry begins with observation of some existent, substance, or phenomena, the nature of which it is science's business to discover. None of the things that psychology presumes to investigate have ever been or ever will be observed. Though the list changes over time, included in the list of things psychology has presumed to study are consciousness, the sub-conscious, emotions, desires, personality, "repressed" desires, instincts, hallucinations, and dreams. None of these have ever or can ever be observed, because they are all subjective experiences.

Whether these exist or not (and some, like the so-called subconscious, invented by the cocaine addled Freud, do not), psychology must depend on the testimony of individuals about their own internal private experiences. Since their experience cannot be observed objectively, there is no way to investigate these things by means of objective science, much less test them.

If there truly were such a thing as mental disease, and there is great doubt about that, there is no way to scientifically establish or describe it. There is no way to objectively distinguish between the genuinely insane, if there be such, and those who are simply lying.

Psychology fails to meet any of the criteria of a science. None of what it studies can be observed or demonstrated, there is no way to test any of its hypotheses, it cannot predict anything, and it is totally inconsistent. There are, for example, as many different "theories" (really hypotheses) of personality as there are psychologists, for example.

What's the difference between a physical disease and a mental disease? In 1948 neurology and psychiatry were distinct: 'neurology,' a branch of physiology dealt with physical diseases, like dementia and Parkinson's; 'psychiatry' dealt with those conditions that had no apparent physical cause and were presumed to be mental, emotional, or behavioral. The legitimacy of this arrangement itself is questionable, but there was, at least, a clear distinction between physical diseases which could be attributed to some physical cause, and mental diseases, which were regarded mental precisely because no physical cause could be identified.

"Between 1952 and 1994, the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) grew from 112 'disorders'/'diseases' in 1952, to 163 in 1968, 224 in 1980, 253 in 1987, and 374 in the 1994.

"The ADHD, 'epidemic' (by whatever name) has grown from 150,000 in 1970, to a half million in 1985, a million in 1990, and to 6 million today [2000]."

"In the 60's, psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry launched a psychopharmacology marketing strategy. They would call all emotional/behavioral problems "brain diseases." Thus, the public came to believe in "chemical balancers" -- pills--for 'chemical imbalances' (of the brain)."

To this day, no such chemical imbalances have ever been found or identified. These drugs correct nothing and cure nothing. That they harm a great many people, especially children, including killing them, is a well established fact. Can you imagine any branch of medicine that continuously failed to cure anyone and regularly prescribed drugs that killed its patients being called a science?

Whether the evolutionary hypothesis is true or not, it certainly cannot be proved, and for it's most important claims, there is no evidence at all. Evolutionists become very agitated if someone casually mentions their whole case is bunk. They shrilly point out something like the Galapagos Islands where the animals have all obviously evolved. The phrase it all started with, however, they studiously avoid—"origin of the species,"—not changes within them—so show us an example of a new species.

Of course they cannot. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it does mean that evolution is not a science, not a theory, but a hypothesis, one with some extremely important unanswered questions, and it is wholly untestable. There is no way to test it at all, and certainly no way to repeat non-existent tests.

Evolution is an accepted plausible hypothesis, exactly like phlogiston. And just like the phlogiston hypothesis, for every piece of new evidence that doesn't fit the currently accepted explanation, a new explanation is invented.

In the course of any science's development there will frequently be more than one hypothesis proposed to explain certain phenomena, but they remain hypotheses until they are tested and one is proved to be correct, if any of them are. Evolution is not a science, because, as yet, there are no proven hypotheses, and in fact there are several evolutionary hypotheses which are sources of strong debate within the evolutionary community, such as the big debate between Phyletic Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium or any of the lesser debates like Great White Shark Evolution Debate. So which one is it that is meant when the evolutionists insist evolution is a proven fact?

And what, exactly, can evolution be used to predict? For that matter what can evolution be used for at all? There is not a single technology or useful product that requires a single "principle" of evolution. It does have a use, however, besides providing employment for a lot academic types. Evolution is used by both psychologists and environmentalists as support for their own pseudosciences.

All of ecology, and its most virulent form, environmentalism, is steeped in pseudoscience, which is too bad, because ecology started out as legitimate science, as did climatology. The current day manifestation of these are the absurd rantings of the greens and the bunk of global warming. I'm not the one who calls it bunk, however (I call it something worse), it is real scientists like TIM Ball, Fred Singer, and Reid A. Bryson who literally and correctly call it bunk.

It is true that the global-weather-change alarmists are certainly claiming the ability to make predictions by their "science." The fact that none of their past predictions have ever been correct is conveniently forgotten. Though it is only test of their hypothesis, and though it has always failed that test, just like those religious nuts who predict the end of world every few years—they are sure they are right this time.

While no aspect of PEEism, psychology, evolution, or ecology, have any of the characteristics of a true science, they do have all the characteristics of a religion.

An exact analogy between the other religions and this new one is not possible, but in a general way, evolutionists, together with some psychologist, are the theologians of PEEism, defining origins, values, and basic doctrines about the nature of man. The psychologists are the religion's counselors and teachers, but also dabble in doctrine as well, especially as applied to people. The ecologist, especially the environmentalist are the evangelists and crusaders of the religion.

Like all unprovable systems of belief, PEEism is spread by means of persuasion, not proof or evidence. Because it calls itself science to disguise the fact it is just another "faith," it is taught in schools and spread by government programs without concern for separation of church and state. Like other religions, there are many varieties of PEEism, some sharing the same evolutionary view, but having different psychological beliefs, or interpreting "environmental data" differently, for example.

Like all religions, the faithful PEEists despise those who do not share their faith, branding them as heretics, deniers, or worse. They do this in the name of science claiming those who do not agree with them are anti-science. Though other religions have attempted to claim a "scientific" basis (Christian Science and Scientology come to mind) PEEism is the first to get away with it.

The basis of PEEistic faith, like all other religions, is not evidence or proof, but authority. They have their great historic prophets and teachers, like Darwin, and Freud, and Rachel Carson, just like any other religion.

There is perhaps no religion so zealously and religiously pursued by its adherents as PEEism because of the sense of righteousness it gives them. They know they are the only ones right with "Nature," the true God of PEEism. They take their worship very seriously, faithfully sorting their trash, and if they sin, they win forgiveness by purchasing "indulgences" called carbon credits.

Perhaps you thought evolution was just another hypothesis about the origin of various forms of life. You might wonder what it has to do with psychology, or ecology.

Evolution is about everything. Like Islam, it is a religion that determines every aspect of life. The following is from, a "Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology," abstract and illustrates its relationship to psychology as well as being the basis in this religion of "moral" principles:

"Illustrates how evolutionary theory can help explain moral behaviors. ... evolutionary theory is equipped to integrate psychological approaches to morality, resolve many of their differences, and steer the study of morality in new, more productive [read collectivist] directions. Specific topics addressed include: evolution of respect for authority; evolution of justice; evolution of care; evolution of altruism; can moral behaviors evolve through group selection; interaction among mechanisms of selection; evolution of cheating; and the psychological models of morality revisited."

Not convinced? It is the intention of evolutionists to influence and ultimately control all of science and society. This is from Dr. Thomas R. Meagher, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, the executive summary of an intended white paper, "Evolution, Science, and Society," representing 13 Universities, 9 scientific societies, The A. P. Sloan Foundation and The National Science Foundation.

"The methods, concepts, and perspectives of evolutionary biology have made and will continue to make important contributions to other biological disciplines, such as molecular and developmental biology, physiology, and ecology, as well as to other basic sciences such as psychology, anthropology, and computer science.

"In order for evolutionary biology to realize its full potential, biologists must integrate the methods and results of evolutionary research with those of other disciplines both within and outside of biology. We must apply evolutionary research to societal problems, and we must include the implications of that research in the education [read evangelization] of a scientifically informed citizenry."

Is PEEism truly a religion? It does not claim to be a religion and even claims to abhor religion, though what it abhors about religion, it is the champion of, authoritarianism that demands unquestioned credulity. If it is not truly a religion, it is at least an ideology.

Religion, all by itself is never dangerous, but any religion, or ideology, that uses political force either to enforce its doctrines on others or to prevent others from practicing their own beliefs, whether religious or not, is very dangerous. Whether you regard PEEism as a religion, or only an ideology, it is the most dangerous in existence today.

No other ideology or religion is allowed to be taught in public schools, but both evolution and ecology are. No other religion is given government grants to study their doctrines or to promote them, but psychology, evolution, and ecology are.

On the word of a PEEistic priest (psychologist) thousands of children and adults are incarcerated in psychiatric institutions (prisons) restrained, and drugged, "kept against their will until their insurance benefits run out." This is done entirely outside any due process of law.

Thomas Szasz compares psychiatrists to snake oil salesman. Snake oil salesmen sold imaginary cures for real diseases; he suggests, but psychologists sell real cures for non-existent diseases. There is another difference Szasz does not point out. While both the snake oil salesmen and psychologist lighten people's wallets, and cure nothing, snake oil seldom, if ever, killed anyone; the psychologist's "snake oil" is deadly.

Psychiatry has convinced a majority of the public that up to 20% of our children are "mentally ill" and need ... drugs to correct their "brain imbalances". So ... "prescription of drugs to treat ADHD increased by 274 percent between 1993 and 2003." There are "4 million children taking Ritalin in America today."

"Between 1990 and 2000 there were 186 deaths from methylphenidate (Ritalin) reported to the FDA MedWatch program, a voluntary reporting scheme, the numbers of which represent no more than 10 to 20% of the actual incidence." Which means there were probably more than a thousand deaths caused by the psychiatrists snake oil in that ten year period.

Ritalin is a poison that has no therapeutic benefit and cures nothing at all, but has terribly dangerous side-effects. These are just some of them:

If any other religion or ideology was able to lock people up or force them to take poison on the opinion of its priests or authorities it would be called religious oppression, which is exactly what it would be.

School teachers, CPS social workers, and psychologists have teamed up, and parents are threatened by them with the loss of their children if they do not give them the prescribed poison. "A local CPS office cannot demand that a child be medicated -- yet -- but it can ascertain whether a child is safe in his or her parents' home. Legally, CPS can alert parents that their child's uncontrollable behavior, which puts the child at significant risk of abuse at home, must change. If they feel this advice is not being taken, the agency can remove children from their homes.

What is worse is, that it is very likely to be the brightest children, and their parents, who are threatened with this oppression. As Thomas Soul points out:

"All it takes to have Ritalin prescribed is a label of "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" (ADHD). And there are lots of little tin gods in the schools who are ready to put this label on children who are bored and fretful at the uninteresting and unchallenging material presented to them. Very bright children are particularly likely to be frustrated and acting out."

Psychology, Evolution, and Ecology are not science, they are the tenets of a faith, a faith that appeals to the gullibility of a society made ignorant by an educational system designed to intentionally "dumb down" those in its clutches. I am not attempting to convince anyone who worships at this new alter of pseudoscience. It will no doubt anger those who do, but they have nothing to worry about from me.

This is to those who already know there is something wrong with a society in which Draconian economy-destroying laws are made based on pseudo-scientific fables, like global warming, not based on scientific evidence, but on Hollywood movies; where perfectly healthy children are drugged out of their minds; and where hedonistic subjectivism, collectivism, and cultural nihilism are promoted on the basis of evolutionary fairy tales. It is a warning to you to be very alert to what is happening in your society, because a society gullible enough to swallow PEEism is ripe for totalitarianism and will fall for any political lie that promises security and unearned wealth.

I am in agreement that there is nothing as perplexing as an “evangelical” atheist.

It’s more than that, I think. I find the attitude in many atheist today toward Christians akin to the attiude in Germany toward Jews before the war. I think it’s a bit frightening.

I’m an atheist but the last thing I want to see happen in this country is its secularization like that of Europe. I think it is dangerous to take all of a person’s values away, even if the source of them is mistaken. You can at least reason with a person who believes in something, the people of Europe believe in nothing, and what you get is a society of subjectivist hedonists with no values and nothing to live for but the next immediate pleasure.

“prefer my own source”

The other is not “my source” because I distrust most statistics. Personally I don’t care about the numbers and the original point was that for most very serious scientisits, their religious position, whatever it might be, in my experience at least, is a separate issue from their science.

Thanks for interesting and reasonable comments, by the way.

Hank

You’re kidding right?

It’s snowing in Denver today, interstates are closed, but the algoreacle crowd say there’s simply no longer a debate...global warming sky is falling is hardly science!

Yet algore has an army of scientists proclaiming it so! AND just like the anti-ID crowd, there’s TO BE NO debate! EVER!

Additionally...take a medication, it’s all about concensus. Some doctors will prescribe medication A, others won’t. Based on many variables, often having NOTHING to do with science!

Well then “I prefer the source I cited to the source you cited”.

The one I cited seemed more applicable to what “Scientists” believe (those being faculty at elite Universities), and the other to what members of the National Academy of Sciences believe (high muckety-muck faculty at elite Universities).

Anyway I disagree with the premise that both hardcore atheists and hardcore “cdesign proponentists” attempt to promulgate that most/all Scientists are atheists. It just isn't the truth that has been polled, and it isn't the truth that I have experienced in my professional and academic life as a Scientist.

Sorry if things got heated on the other thread(s). I suppose I can come off as a condescending jerk sometimes, but I know what I know and I know what isn't so and it is hard for me to “suffer foolishness gladly” without having a bit of fun. I try to always AT LEAST be reasonable and interesting, if not always tactful or diplomatic. ;)

Diplomacy: The fine art of telling someone to “go to Hell” in such a way that they look forward to the journey.

The exchange about the drugs reminds me of a conversation I had once with a neurologist about anti-depressants. The gist of it was that we know what anti-depressants do in the body, and we know that one of the effects of taking them in to relieve depression, but we don’t know what the connection is between the two. He agreed with me that “anti-depressant” was kind of an unfortunate name for them, because it implied a condition that carried a stigma—the person we were trying to convince to take them kept insisting she wasn’t depressed (and, in fact, that wasn’t what they were being prescribed for). I started calling them “neurotransmitter supplements” in order to remove the stigma.

(This was all a while back—they may know more now.)

So are you another one of those whose still waiting for more data on whether or not heavier than air human flight is possible?
Just wondering, since you don’t think its been proved that it is possible.

"Proof that something is possible?" You are correct, anything is possible. That is why scientific theories can't be 'proved.' They can only be demonstrated to our satisfaction or limits of our measuring ability.

Now on the other hand if there was a scientific theory that Man couldn't fly, then all it would take would be one man flying to disprove that theory. That is what falsifiable means and that is the basis of Scientific theory.

When I pick up a rock and drop it, does that 'prove' the Theory of Gravity? No, because all it would take is a single instance of the rock not falling and that would disprove gravity.

So my question to you is this. Has Newtons Theory of Gravity been proved?

Our society is suffering from another ailment: political correctness. It infests people across the board, a psychotic liberal phenomenon we’re all aware of; where people bend over backwards to not offend someone and often end up offending everyone.

Reminds me, I need to get one of those bumper stickers: “bitter clinger”!

Anyway, we’ve all been afflicted by it, guilty of it, but mostly victims of it.

Recently, (I’m a hospice nurse) a nervous old lady has her mother on hospice (Mom’s late 90’s, she’s late 70’s, early 80’s) and asked everyone on hospice what their sign is. I told he Aquarius, the SW hers, and she made the comment “everyone in hospice is so kind and they don’t get mad with me when I ask (about their horoscope), you know some people are really religious”.

So she’s afraid of offending, then does EXACTLY that!

That tickled me, I wanted to say lady I’m religious but it doesn’t offend me if you’re a satan worshipper, but of course...I could only laugh at and with her.

“Now on the other hand if there was a scientific theory that Man couldn’t fly, then all it would take would be one man flying to disprove that theory. That is what falsifiable means ...”

That may be what you mean, but the concept of falsifiablility in science comes from Karl Popper and peratains only to hypotheses or propositions and states they are only valid or scientific if they are falsifiable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

That link, or a quick Google search of Karl Popper will expalin it all—but to save you time:

Falsefiability means, that for any proposition or hypothesis there must be some test that would prove the proposition or hypothesis false if it is false. Any proposition or hypothesis that cannot be proven false, if it is, is not a valid proposition or hypothesis—because otherwise just anything could be presented as the hypothetical explanation of anything—the fairies at the bottom of the garden did it, which a dear loved one frequently gives as an example, because you cannot prove that is false.

As you can see, this is the very opposite of your incorrect use of the concept. I’m not blaming or judging you. Karl Popper’s concept is misunderstood by most college professors, and most people are taught the wrong meaning of it.

As you can see, it’s real meaning is that a correct hypothesis is proveable. Here’s why. Since a valid proposition or hypothesis must have a test that will prove it false, if it is, if the test is made on such a hypothesis, if it fails to be proven false, then it must be true, and therefore, proven. Amazing, huh? If a test is made on a hypothesis it must fail if it is false, and it does not fail, it must be true, because if it were not, it would have failed.

Now I have to ask why you dodged the question. Everything can be put in a negative light, such as you did with heavier than air human flight. Of course any false hypothesis will be disproved by the proving of a true own. The possibility of heavier than air human flight was a great scientific debate right up to and beyond the first flights of the Wright Brothers. Since the possibility of heavier than air human flight is a fact, why won’t you admit that hypothesis is now a proven theory?

Do you think Ohms law has not been proved?

Do you think the nature of combustion as described by Lavoisier has not been proved?

Do you think the nature of the human circulatory system as described by William Harvey has not been proved?

It would take an entire encyclopedia just to name all the things that have been proved in science.

Your Humean skeptec teachers have done you a great disservice, I think.

Hank

“... the mechanism of action of these antidepressants is well known.”

There’s no argument about that. In fact they do know them, and know the very harmful things they do, and still use them.

What is not known, is any chemical or physical disorder of the brain that causes, so-called, psychological problems as “brain disease.” (Brain diseases there are aplenty, but they can be detected by physical examination and treated physiologically, if they can be teated at all. There are exceptions here too, such as Lewy Body dimentia which cannot be absolutely diagnosed except by autopsy, which is a bit late.)

“Our brains have an intricate punishment/reward system ...”

Yes, but it’s only at the physiological level. Psychologically it works emotionally, and is developed through learning and habituation...but that is philosophical and I know you have no use for that, so I’ll stop.

Hank

One reason I question the current evolutionary hypothesis is just that. What is the test that can be made to prove it false if it is false? That does not mean it is not true, only that it cannot technically be called science. Just questioning what you think about that.

Biology is not a 'hard' science like physics and that makes falsifying it more difficult. Experiments are often inconclusive so the best method seems to be obtaining direct evidence, fossil and DNA in particular.

The theory of a common origin of species is very falsifiable. DNA testing could easily have falsified that theory and yet it has verified it at every point. A species just appearing out of nowhere unrelated to any other species would invalidate it, etc. etc.

The simple theory that species have a common origin is falsifiable and has yet to be falsified. But and this is a big but, how the evolutionary system works may not be falsifiable. The theory of Natural Selection may not be falsifiable and this is where ID jumps in and says that GOD did it. ID doesn't seem to be falsifiable either.

So, we are left with two gaping holes. How did life originate and what is the controlling mechanism?

We have three basic life forms Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, & Viruses and no evidence at all to suggest how they spontaneously appeared. We do have strong evidence that all life on earth is based on those three forms.

That brings us to the big question. What is the controlling mechanism in a cell? When they discovered DNA they thought that was the answer, but evidence is mounting that DNA is nothing more than a templet repository that the cell uses to create what it needs. The real missing link is what is the controlling mechanism of a cell.

So does that answer your question? I think the basic Origin of Species theory is falsifiable and well tested much like Newtons Theory of Gravity. The problem with it is much like Newtons Theory of Gravity, the mechanism is unknown. Einstein provided the mechanism for Gravity (curved space), but no one as of yet has provided the mechanism for what controls cells. The problem is that it is likely to be many mechanisms, working variably and interrelated.

Solving the controlling mechanism problem, may answer the origin of life problem : ) In any case, the solution will not contradict Darwins theory, just like Einstein's theories didn't 'disprove' Newtons theories. It may completely change our view of what life is though :)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.