Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Self-Replicating Molecules.
How did certain chemicals combine to produce the first self-replicating molecules?
Answers
We don't know. Writings on the subject are still full of the words 'possibly' and 'perhaps'.
17:56 Wed 13th Nov 2013
"...without clear proof..."
There isn't any proof, no, except in the results that clearly show that the Scientific method works stupendously well.
"...that its judgements are absolutely valid."
They aren't absolutely valid -- but they weren't claimed to be. They are only valid up to a probability that in most cases approaches but is never exactly equal to one. It can't be exactly one since by construction all experiments fail to precisely replicate the real world -- they have to be controlled -- and all theories have to be more or less simplified versions of reality, otherwise we could never do anything with them.
Up to these inevitable and self-imposed constraints, the scientific method has advanced our understanding of the world at a phenomenal rate. It will never be perfect -- but it never claimed to be. On the other hand alternative ideas have even less going for them, such as little or no evidence in favour, and just as little prospect of this changing.
There isn't any proof, no, except in the results that clearly show that the Scientific method works stupendously well.
"...that its judgements are absolutely valid."
They aren't absolutely valid -- but they weren't claimed to be. They are only valid up to a probability that in most cases approaches but is never exactly equal to one. It can't be exactly one since by construction all experiments fail to precisely replicate the real world -- they have to be controlled -- and all theories have to be more or less simplified versions of reality, otherwise we could never do anything with them.
Up to these inevitable and self-imposed constraints, the scientific method has advanced our understanding of the world at a phenomenal rate. It will never be perfect -- but it never claimed to be. On the other hand alternative ideas have even less going for them, such as little or no evidence in favour, and just as little prospect of this changing.
Fred; I said "to understand and appreciate opera, you don't have to be a great singer." what have oboists got to do with it?
Also, are you suggesting that in building an opera the conductor does the 'music bit' and someone else does the 'singing bit'? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Also, are you suggesting that in building an opera the conductor does the 'music bit' and someone else does the 'singing bit'? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
//That the approach very clearly works is justification enough.//
Unfortunately the approach doesn’t always work, and there is no justification for broadcasting inaccurate information. Science does get it wrong.
//They aren't absolutely valid -- but they weren't claimed to be.//
That's a bit of a contradiction to your last statement regarding justification, but coming from someone who consistently bleats on about the unquestionable validity of science, it's convenient if nothing else.
//Science doesn't pontificate to any body and neither do many scientist.//
Not many, perhaps, but there are certainly some examples here.
Unfortunately the approach doesn’t always work, and there is no justification for broadcasting inaccurate information. Science does get it wrong.
//They aren't absolutely valid -- but they weren't claimed to be.//
That's a bit of a contradiction to your last statement regarding justification, but coming from someone who consistently bleats on about the unquestionable validity of science, it's convenient if nothing else.
//Science doesn't pontificate to any body and neither do many scientist.//
Not many, perhaps, but there are certainly some examples here.
Well, well. This thread certainly is still alive and kicking. Excellent!
One thing is clear, there is no value in my continuing to virtually write a simplified biochemical textbook I was beginning to bore myself anyway!
Many thanks to jomifl, jake-the-peg jim360 etc., for your impressive arguments with which I obviously totallly agree except for treating Khandro as a total write-off on this thread.
I hope to keep contributing as long as I think it's worth it to anyone.
Over the years I have always respected Khandro while disagreeing or being confused with much he has said. Certainly, unlike some, I believe there is a powerful intellect there. Unfortunately, like many, I have an idea of what he is "aganst" (everything - lol) but I don't know what he is "for".
I'm now going to address Khandro directly out of respect and curiosity.
Kindest regards to everyone,
SIQ.
One thing is clear, there is no value in my continuing to virtually write a simplified biochemical textbook I was beginning to bore myself anyway!
Many thanks to jomifl, jake-the-peg jim360 etc., for your impressive arguments with which I obviously totallly agree except for treating Khandro as a total write-off on this thread.
I hope to keep contributing as long as I think it's worth it to anyone.
Over the years I have always respected Khandro while disagreeing or being confused with much he has said. Certainly, unlike some, I believe there is a powerful intellect there. Unfortunately, like many, I have an idea of what he is "aganst" (everything - lol) but I don't know what he is "for".
I'm now going to address Khandro directly out of respect and curiosity.
Kindest regards to everyone,
SIQ.
Yes, I do not what I am talking about. I go to the opera. I know what work is done backstage and beforehand.
Now what has the diversion got to do with science ? Ah yes, your belief that someone who has little or no science is as just as able to correctly criticise their findings and methods as another scientist has. Has this got anything to do with your religious beliefs? Laymen are just as able to criticise a product, such as a table, but not when to do so requires specialist knowledge.
Now what has the diversion got to do with science ? Ah yes, your belief that someone who has little or no science is as just as able to correctly criticise their findings and methods as another scientist has. Has this got anything to do with your religious beliefs? Laymen are just as able to criticise a product, such as a table, but not when to do so requires specialist knowledge.
Dear Khandro,
Generally you have knocked scientists and those from other disciplines for failing to do the impossible: supply a no-holds barred, absolutely cast iron statement lacking any word or phrase like "probably, "possibly" or the implication "to the best of our current understanding".
In an early answer to Naomi, you said "primeval soup or higher power? Its a leap of faith". As you know our knowledge, intellect and understanding are still buried in time re our future developement. Hence the necessary qualified statements even when those qualifications were not overtly stated.
So, why, in the name of all that creeps, did you ask the question?
SIQ.
Generally you have knocked scientists and those from other disciplines for failing to do the impossible: supply a no-holds barred, absolutely cast iron statement lacking any word or phrase like "probably, "possibly" or the implication "to the best of our current understanding".
In an early answer to Naomi, you said "primeval soup or higher power? Its a leap of faith". As you know our knowledge, intellect and understanding are still buried in time re our future developement. Hence the necessary qualified statements even when those qualifications were not overtly stated.
So, why, in the name of all that creeps, did you ask the question?
SIQ.
Well said Fred. Throughout my scientific life, child kitchen-chemist, student and researcher I have always adopted the policy of viewing a problem with the eyes of a child. "Why?", "How?" "what if..?" etc. In fact I follow that philosophy in all walks of life.
So of course science is open to scrutiny by anyone. Indeed some of our great leaps forward have come from non-scientists. Edward Jenner (cow-pox/smallpox hero) was a country doctor when immunisation/vacccination meant nothing to anyone.
I have views on art etc., but I've never studied it or have any qualifications in art - so what? I can still discuss it.
Regards,
SIQ.
So of course science is open to scrutiny by anyone. Indeed some of our great leaps forward have come from non-scientists. Edward Jenner (cow-pox/smallpox hero) was a country doctor when immunisation/vacccination meant nothing to anyone.
I have views on art etc., but I've never studied it or have any qualifications in art - so what? I can still discuss it.
Regards,
SIQ.
"...Science does get it wrong."
Indeed -- but rather less often than most other people.
"That's a bit of a contradiction to your last statement regarding justification, but coming from someone who consistently bleats on about the unquestionable validity of science, it's convenient if nothing else."
I don't like to think of myself as "bleating on", but never mind. More to the point, though, the rest of your comment is just utter nonsense. Unquestionable validity? That's never what I've said. Rather, that Science is the best method we have for understanding the world around us, and that its track record is phenomenally impressive.
Most of your own criticisms of the subject seem somewhat vague, based on speculations about the future that have little basis over than the fact that there will always be a tiny difference between 100% absolute certainty about anything, and the 99.99997% probability that is required at least in particle physics these days. But your criticisms earlier in this thread have little basis indeed: if there is a theory that cannot be adequately tested for want of technology, someone will work on developing it. If, on the other hand, a theory can be reasonably tested now, then if it fails the test it can be just as reasonably rejected. Such a rejection grows stronger if that theory fails the test repeatedly... but now I'm flogging a dead horse I guess and certainly am "bleating on". Oh well. My long-term plans are either to become a scientist, or a teacher and communicator of what I know and love to others, which explains why I'm spending so much time trying my best to communicate it here. I suppose it relies a bit on those people I'm talking to to be willing to listen.
In a nutshell, though: your comment about stifling imagination isn't valid because the number of theories that have been imagined, tested and rejected vastly outnumber those theories that have passed the test; and the possibility of future technology confirming some theory that can't be tested without it is the driving force behind much of the new technology we have today.
As you said yourself in another thread, there is a good reason behind the claims Science and scientists make. That includes claims that some ideas can be rejected, as the best assessment is that there is enough evidence to rule them out. Constantly relying on the future to save pet ideas is an unfalsifiable idea and not worth having unless you also do something about it -- such as trying to develop the ideas needed to test something in the future for yourself.
To SIQ, and jomifl, thank you for your support.
Indeed -- but rather less often than most other people.
"That's a bit of a contradiction to your last statement regarding justification, but coming from someone who consistently bleats on about the unquestionable validity of science, it's convenient if nothing else."
I don't like to think of myself as "bleating on", but never mind. More to the point, though, the rest of your comment is just utter nonsense. Unquestionable validity? That's never what I've said. Rather, that Science is the best method we have for understanding the world around us, and that its track record is phenomenally impressive.
Most of your own criticisms of the subject seem somewhat vague, based on speculations about the future that have little basis over than the fact that there will always be a tiny difference between 100% absolute certainty about anything, and the 99.99997% probability that is required at least in particle physics these days. But your criticisms earlier in this thread have little basis indeed: if there is a theory that cannot be adequately tested for want of technology, someone will work on developing it. If, on the other hand, a theory can be reasonably tested now, then if it fails the test it can be just as reasonably rejected. Such a rejection grows stronger if that theory fails the test repeatedly... but now I'm flogging a dead horse I guess and certainly am "bleating on". Oh well. My long-term plans are either to become a scientist, or a teacher and communicator of what I know and love to others, which explains why I'm spending so much time trying my best to communicate it here. I suppose it relies a bit on those people I'm talking to to be willing to listen.
In a nutshell, though: your comment about stifling imagination isn't valid because the number of theories that have been imagined, tested and rejected vastly outnumber those theories that have passed the test; and the possibility of future technology confirming some theory that can't be tested without it is the driving force behind much of the new technology we have today.
As you said yourself in another thread, there is a good reason behind the claims Science and scientists make. That includes claims that some ideas can be rejected, as the best assessment is that there is enough evidence to rule them out. Constantly relying on the future to save pet ideas is an unfalsifiable idea and not worth having unless you also do something about it -- such as trying to develop the ideas needed to test something in the future for yourself.
To SIQ, and jomifl, thank you for your support.
SIQ; (continues next morning) I see no reason why one shouldn't ask a question of which one already has an opinion, it happens all the time on AB and it throws a subject open to interesting discussion - as it clearly has done in this case -. This is done all the time in student debating societies, eg. 'There are no trees in Canada' (amazingly Oliver Letwin upheld this motion at Cambridge!)
Also on AB people make lots of unsubstantiated statements; on another thread for example jomifl said that people had sex in publicly-funded bus shelters. When I asked him how he knew this to be a fact, and what evidence he had for this assertion, he declined to reply , remaining mysteriously silent, (I think we might all draw our own conclusions here!).
Also on AB people make lots of unsubstantiated statements; on another thread for example jomifl said that people had sex in publicly-funded bus shelters. When I asked him how he knew this to be a fact, and what evidence he had for this assertion, he declined to reply , remaining mysteriously silent, (I think we might all draw our own conclusions here!).
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles36 mins ago
