Skip to comments.
On the Origins of Life
Commentary ^
| February 2006
| David Berlinski
Posted on 02/03/2006 10:23:55 PM PST by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300, 301-319 next last
To: longshadow; CarolinaGuitarman; bvw
I think this will help illuminate who is being disingenous, if not mendacious. Oh, there's no doubt about that. The sentences you highlighted are actually in CG's linked page and bvw omitted them (while copying several preceding paragraphs) then touted Popper's recanted claims. bvw is simply another creationist liar.
To: bvw
"general views of the problem situation in physical cosmology" are keys to the wiser that he means theology and the supernatural g_w:I generally don't attack creationists too much on these threads because I try to make allowances for their lack of scientific background.
g_w:But even for me, this statement is too much to let slide.
g_w:Whiskey...Tango...Foxtrot?
gw:Cheers!
bvw: Are you attacking a creationist?
No, but as I said, I can't let that statement slide.
However such behaviour is so atypical of me on these threads that I thought it just as well to explain why I was deviating from normal practice.
282
posted on
02/07/2006 8:48:19 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: bvw
Popper sees the supernatural aspects that nature's magic presents, he expresses it in his verbal dance against the bullets the unwashed poncho-wearing Sciencistas drunk on Darwin's cervesa fire wildly at him. If you have explicit quotes, either from his books or (previously) private correspondence, it would make you case a lot stronger.
If you are relying on "reading between the lines" of his work, there is such a thing as doing that, and it can be legitimate. But in general one should have fairly good reasons for justifying one's reading between the lines when a straightforward parsing of the text suggests something different. Private interpretations are the way to Marxist, gender feminist, and other goofball interpretations of things which ordinarily are thought to be beyond question, or mistake.
H'mm, that's funny, I just stepped in a possible land mine (with incoming fire from ALL sides) concerning biblical exegesis.
So, as Snagglepuss used to say, "EXIT!...Stage Right!"
Cheers!
283
posted on
02/07/2006 8:52:39 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: VadeRetro
That's a little too shifty for me. And the challenges are far from minor. The pendulum is on the other side these days. Marketers, lawyers, heck, all kinds of people rely on similar word usage when trying to advocate a controversial or partisan point of view.
Granted, scientists are supposed to be above this. But given all of the brouhaha over faked results in embryonic stem cells, cardiology, global warming, even the work of Nobelists being questioned (remember the whistleblower over Dr. Baltimore's results 12-15 years ago), well, what's a little semantic parsing among friends mortal enemies TM BWU-HAHAHAHAHAH! ;-)
Full Disclosure: When I first read that phrase "nothing has suggested" I took it to mean either "nothing disposative" or "nothing which worries ME". As RWP pointed out, it doesn't look like he's kept that close to the cutting edge. It could have been ignorance or "ignorance on purpose" : but I'm not familiar enough with the guy to know.
Cheers!
284
posted on
02/07/2006 9:00:08 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: longshadow
I think this will help illuminate who is being disingenous, if not mendacious. Not necessarily true at first, bvw could have just landed on the earlier text and gotten such a woody that he didn't know Popper had any subsequent writings on the subject.
However, given the subsequent postings to him in this thread, that would no longer be an acceptable excuse.
Cheers!
285
posted on
02/07/2006 9:02:21 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: RightWingAtheist
"Asimov (one of my heroes, and the man who taught me to love science and learning) was also a biochemist by training, but hated doing research. Harold Urey was one of his teachers."
A hero of mine as well. If I recall, Urey also taught Sagan. How would you like to have taken an undergraduate chemistry course with Asimov and Sagan as classmates and Urey as the professor? Wow.
286
posted on
02/07/2006 9:20:37 PM PST
by
stormer
(Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
To: VadeRetro
That's a little too shifty for me. And the challenges are far from minor. The pendulum is on the other side these days. Perhaps; I'll freely admit I don't keep up with this as much as many others here apparently do.
On the other hand, when I read over, for example, the description of Fegley's research on this particular topic, it seems to be based more on a fair number of historical assumptions run through a mathematical blender, and less on physical, measureable data. So, as Joe Layman lurking at these threads on a topic which has a strong philosophical component for both parties, it's awfully difficult to discern just how significant is that weight pushing pendulum around....
To: longshadow; grey_whiskers; edsheppa
Read those sentenses again, and again and again. Maybe you guys need to take some vitamin pills or some cognition enhanced diet, meditation, training .... something.
Popper's is very specific about what exactly he means when he says he changed his mind, and what he is recanting. He adds only this: "How the theory of natural selection could be untestable and yet of great scientific interest ... My solution was that the doctrine [note that word well!] of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme."
That is ... he is pulling the wool over your eyes, you confounded, self-made idiots, deluded by Darwinsism.
Just like Galileo under his breath ...
288
posted on
02/08/2006 4:00:11 AM PST
by
bvw
To: CarolinaGuitarman
And to you as well is my last.
289
posted on
02/08/2006 4:02:07 AM PST
by
bvw
To: bvw; longshadow; edsheppa
He still refuses to admit he is lying and dissembling like a Clinton. How he can justify this blatant prevarication with his alleged Christianity is beyond me. It's plain to anybody who reads what Popper wrote that he:
1) Said that natural selection is testable
2) It is not a tautology (Popper thought it was earlier because, as he admits, he misunderstood it.)
3) He never equated evolution with *religion*; he was quite explicit about what he meant by metaphysical research programme:
"I call these research programmes 'metaphysical' also because they result from general views of the structure of the world and, at the same time, from general views of the problem situation in physical cosmology. I call them 'research programmes' because they incorporate, together with a view of what the most pressing problems are, a general idea of what a satisfactory solution of these problems would look like." (page 161).
http://www.the-rathouse.com/popmeta.html
Apparently he thinks it is OK to Lie for the Lord.
290
posted on
02/08/2006 4:48:15 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: bvw
I read those sentences, bvw. But you know, those aren't the only sentences he wrote: and apparently those sentences have been superseded by some of his later writing.
For another analogy, the saying "scripture interprets scripture" might be applicable here: wouldn't one want to look at the totality of an author for illumination of a controversial passage? (Some Roman Catholics might not agree with that principle, so your mileage may vary...)
291
posted on
02/08/2006 5:22:13 AM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: stormer
A hero of mine as well. If I recall, Urey also taught Sagan. How would you like to have taken an undergraduate chemistry course with Asimov and Sagan as classmates and Urey as the professor? Wow. The air of concentrated smugness in that room must have rivalled NPR...
Cheers!
292
posted on
02/08/2006 5:23:49 AM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: apologist
On the other hand, when I read over, for example, the description of Fegley's research on this particular topic, it seems to be based more on a fair number of historical assumptions run through a mathematical blender, and less on physical, measureable data. That's why I mentioned the other links on the thread. Can you only keep one thing in your head at the time?
The geochemical results, together with sedimentological data, strongly support: (1) deposition of Dresser Formation and Strelley Pool Chert carbonates from Archaean seawater, in part as particulate carbonate sediment; (2) biogenicity of the stromatolitic carbonates; (3) a reducing Archaean atmosphere; (4) ongoing extensive terrestrial erosion prior to 3.45 Ga.Geological and trace element evidence for a marine sedimentary environment of deposition and biogenicity of 3.45 Ga stromatolitic carbonates in the Pilbara Craton, and support for a reducing Archaean ocean
Here's a site which gives a Mickey-Mouse, For Dummies, overall summary of
the Archaean.
The atmosphere was very different from what we breathe today; at that time, it was likely a reducing atmosphere of methane, ammonia, and other gases which would be toxic to most life on our planet today.
What I'm saying is that, to further his agenda, Berlinksi misrepresents or cultivates a studied ignorance of precisely what he purports to describe. Of course, he probably gets more of his material from the infamous YEC "geologist" John Woodmorappe (not even his real name). Berlinski and Philip Johnson have cited him frequently and he's bogus as a three dollar bill.
293
posted on
02/08/2006 6:26:56 AM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: grey_whiskers
"The air of concentrated smugness in that room must have rivaled NPR..."
No doubt, but I think I would appreciate the osmotic effect.
294
posted on
02/08/2006 8:02:32 AM PST
by
stormer
(Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
To: stormer; grey_whiskers
Asimov and Sagan were about a decade apart, but that would still be cool. Even cooler would have been serving on the same Naval Station with Asimov, Heinlein, AND L.Sprague DeCamp!
To: bvw
When he suggests that "really severe tests" are "hard to come by", the intellectually adept reader will most likely infer that Popper means the theory is not really testable.
They are busy attacking you on this with all their usual methods. But I have yet to see any examples of the 'severe tests, or "tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry" come from the group here, scientist or not.
This is simply yet another demonstration that shows that evos have to depend on various debating tricks to try to win their arguments, because the facts are not there for them.
Wolf
296
posted on
02/08/2006 8:56:14 AM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: RightWingAtheist
"Even cooler would have been serving on the same Naval Station with Asimov, Heinlein, AND L.Sprague DeCamp!"
Probably some long nights in the O-club.
297
posted on
02/08/2006 9:37:54 AM PST
by
stormer
(Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
To: grey_whiskers
Marketers, lawyers, heck, all kinds of people rely on similar word usage when trying to advocate a controversial or partisan point of view. My point. Berlinski is not doing what her purports to do, writing a "where things are in abiogenesis summary." It is irrelevant that ad agencies also do this, except to note that the Discovery Institute is far more of an ad agency than a "think tank" and Berlinski is a huckster for ID, not a commentator in science history.
298
posted on
02/08/2006 11:31:18 AM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
You talking to me? My metaphysical research programme is non-christian, fwtw.
299
posted on
02/08/2006 1:36:13 PM PST
by
bvw
To: bvw
"You talking to me?"
I was before you started lying about what Popper plainly said. BTW, when Dinero used that line it sounded tough, when you use it it sounds pathetic. :)
"My metaphysical research programme is non-christian, fwtw."
And as Popper used the phrase, it had nothing to do with religion at all, since most metaphysical subjects do not involve religion or spirituality.
300
posted on
02/08/2006 1:41:28 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300, 301-319 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson