Philosophy of science

[Anonymous No.20617877]

What are some anti-science intellectuals? Im not talking about left leaning gays that criticize science only when its wayciss.

Popper cucked later but his points were good, Feyerabend was high tier, who else exposed the modern cult of neo-enlightenment?

[Anonymous No.20617880]

>>20617877
Alan Sokal

[Anonymous No.20617902]

science isn't bad in the sense of scientific method but evolution is such obvious horseshit and at best a pointless construct, which actually hiddenly has the point of imposing an unjustified teleological metaphysics to history in a completely unjustified manner

[Anonymous No.20617906]

>>20617877
How does he explain all the fossils?

[Anonymous No.20617907]

evolution is just as bad as hegel and marx

[Anonymous No.20617922]

Christnigger seethe ITT

[Anonymous No.20617968]

>>20617880
>Alan Sokal

his memery was something brilliant, but other than that had he proposed some ideas or criterias towards science?

>>20617902
>teleological metaphysics to histor

the term is historiosophy, you are right its basically mythology of creation, all of its concepts are related to past and it makes not testabel (!) prediciton about the future. The real lunacy of evolution is visible in discussion of vestigial human organs...

>>20617907
>evolution is just as bad as hegel and marx

there is not much difference between hegel and darwin

[Anonymous No.20618001]

>>20617877
Lol this is why philosophyfags with liberal arts degrees should stay away from real hard science. They think they can use words to deny reality lol

[Anonymous No.20618002]

Kuhn

[Anonymous No.20618006]

>>20618001
>reality
good one

[Anonymous No.20618010]

>>20617968
>there is not much difference between hegel and darwin
The application of darwim metaphysics pushed the field of biology centuries ahead
The application of hegel/marx metaphysics drove the greatest massacres of human history,
It seems to me that the is quite a difference.

[Anonymous No.20618023]

>>20618006
>t.reality denier

Cope and seethe in your own head

[Anonymous No.20618026]

>>20618001
>should stay away from real hard science

what is that?

>>20618010
>The application of darwim metaphysics pushed the field of biology centuries ahead

Can you back that claim up because you should know that genetics started before darwin

[Anonymous No.20618028]

>>20617922
i'm not christian but i still believe in intelligent design
the theory of evolution does not reasonably explain the massive gap in intelligence between humans and other creatures

[Anonymous No.20618039]

>>20618028
>the theory of evolution does not reasonably explain the massive gap in intelligence between humans and other creatures

it does, it explains EVERYTHING, there is not fact in the world that can falsify it because its entirely UNFALSIFIABLE, a catch22 of science.

[Anonymous No.20618053]

>>20618039
what is the irrefutable explanation according to it?
>its entirely UNFALSIFIABLE
that makes it not scientific, you know

[Anonymous No.20618059]

>>20618026
>cross questioning and "no u" tier arguments

Just live in your own head theory.

[Anonymous No.20618069]

>>20618053
>what is the irrefutable explanation according to it?

what do you mean?

>that makes it not scientific, you know

yep, its not science, its mythology of creation, it makes no testable predictions about the future

>>20618059
recommend me a good ted talk by that black space universe man!

[Anonymous No.20618087]

>>20617877
God, those retarded people that can't wrap their heads around the fact that something don't need to be a scientific theory for it to be true or pragmatic.
Yep. It's a Metaphysical Research Program, and that doesn't mean its false or useless, you fucking morons.

[Anonymous No.20618101]

>>20618069
>what do you mean?
you said it explains everything, so i'm asking what is the explanation for the gap in intelligence
or was your post ironic and you're actually siding with me? i'm bad at reading irony

[Anonymous No.20618115]

>>20618087
are you sad because youve sunk in hundreds of hours to hegel and max only to realize that they don't have any privileged grasp on thousands of years of history: just a model, and an over-simplistic one at that. must be annoying, don't know how i would sleep if i were you desu

[Anonymous No.20618116]

>>20618087
>and that doesn't mean its false or useless

but its totally useless and totally circular otherwise it would already call out what vestigial organs do humans have other than goalpost every single time. Catch22 of science.

>>20618101
>you said it explains everything, so i'm asking what is the explanation for the gap in intelligence

oh that, I am siding with you - evolution is pseudoscience. regarding IQ gap, in 5 BILLION years anything can happen and any ga can be explained by natural selection and mutation, everything fits and everyday they are adding millions to 5 billion years

[Anonymous No.20618119]

>>20617906
Evolution.

Popper blends together Evolutionary Theory, Darwin's works, and "survival of the fittest", and this causes a number of headaches in his thought (that he struggled with). One of these is the common problem that >>20618039 brings up, which just raises the question of why you would even bother being a Creationist if you believe that evolution is demonstrably true and that the theory cannot be proven incorrect. When Popper says that "evolution" is a "metaphysical research program", he is referring to the idea of "evolution" as being the application of the idea of "survival of the fittest" to organisms. This naturally opens up all sorts of problems, like why there are herbivores and the like.

Biologists do not adhere to "survival of the fittest" for life, but rather genes. This was the big breakthrough that Dawkins made palatable in The Selfish Gene, wherein genes that, via stochastic mechanisms, are more likely to get passed on, get passed on. This naturally creates a selection effect, and more importantly (despite the name) it leads to genes being altruistic to each other because an organism has many, many genes. Genes thus end up working together. They have to, because if an organism that has gene A and B reproduces, then both gene A and B both get passed on. This is in contrast to the theory of Social Darwinism, which predates Darwin himself (the name obviously doesn't however), which holds that survival of the fittest applies to ideas. The key difference is that whereas an organism has gazillions of genes (and two genes within an organism are not in competition because the organism CAN have many genes), an individual can only have one ideology in their brain. Thus, ideologies must compete with each other for space occupying brains. Thus, survival of the fittest (ideology).

This also raised problems in regards to stuff like non-genetic heredity, somatic mutation (tl;dr immune systems), and epigenetics, as it places ALL biological changes into the same bucket of some kind of competition between organisms to be the apex predator, which is not what we see because there isn't some kind of all against all arms race with all organisms in competition with each other (life actually seems to flourish better under conditions of a constant fluxing between specialization and generalization).

[Anonymous No.20618122]

>>20618115
Talking about darwin, not those two fuckers. They are rightly burning in hell.

[Anonymous No.20618125]

lits opinion on this nazi?

>>20618122
>Talking about darwin, not those two fuckers.

hegel = marx = darwin, get real nigga, also...hell? Are you a YEC?

[Anonymous No.20618129]

>>20618125
>hegel = marx = darwin
Take your meds
>Are you a YEC?
Don't even know what the hell is a YEC

[Anonymous No.20618133]

>>20617877
You unironically want Guenon. A big aspect of his work is that evolution and progress shouldn't be accepted as necessary facts, and he talks a whole lot about the meaninglessness of most material/modern sciences compared to the "sacred science" of tradition.

[Anonymous No.20618146]

>>20618129
>Don't even know what the hell is a YEC

the people who believe in "hell", are you a christian inteligent designer?

>>20618133
>Guenon

his critique is more of a moral one if I remember, Im more interested in logical/methodological critiques of science, I like them more, they seem more precise and criticise science with scientific method

[Anonymous No.20618161]

>>20618026
Oh man imagine walking up to them and asking them for evidence for racial equality

[Anonymous No.20618165]

>>20618119
>This was the big breakthrough that Dawkins made palatable in The Selfish Gene, wherein genes that, via stochastic mechanisms, are more likely to get passed on, get passed on.
I still can't see how that would be a breakthrough rather than simply a tautology. All that other stuff isn't theory of evolution anymore but just general study of genetics. So what is the point of raising this "whatever was selected, was selected" to any kind of important stature, if not the insistence to talk about it as some kind of selection which could at least theoretically follow a rational path and start to make suspicious applications of this idea of "selection" when other explanations that have nothing to do with the word select on that level are possible.

[Anonymous No.20618167]

>>20618146
Nope, I'm just someone that likes to use figures of speech.

[Anonymous No.20618179]

>>20617877
feyerabend

[Anonymous No.20618185]

>>20618165
>I still can't see how that would be a breakthrough rather than simply a tautology.
It's a breakthrough because up until the fuck 70s or so biology was concerned with "progress" and movement towards teleologies. That leads absolutely nowhere and has no explanatory power. What does work is looking at what make up organisms, and looking at how those components act and interact.

If you want to study life, you have to look at organisms, and what compose them. Yes, this is "the study of genetics". That's one very important aspect of biology. That's how it works.

[Anonymous No.20618186]

>>20618179
OP here, thanks anon, had never heard of the guy.

[Anonymous No.20618194]

>>20617902
That's a good strategy. Drag evolution down in the dirt by calling it "metaphysics" instead of science so you can equate it to all the other metaphysical bullshit that humanities midwits talk about

[Anonymous No.20618203]

>>20618185
idk if richard dawkins got the memo since he's still propagating for the theory of evolution and its acceptance as an unquestionable litmus test for anyone's scientific education

[Anonymous No.20618204]

>>20618069
Idc about that democrat voting nigger

[Anonymous No.20618211]

>>20618185
>That leads absolutely nowhere and has no explanatory power.

What worth is explanatory power in science? You have it religion as well. What science is primarily about is predictive not as much explanatory power and evolution has none of predictive power

>>20618194
>Drag evolution down in the dirt by calling it "metaphysics" instead of science

its not even falsifiable, its on the level of marxist sociology

[Anonymous No.20618219]

>>20618203
When biologists say "evolution", they mean what you call "the general study of genetics". You are either intentionally or ignorantly using a definition in opposition to what they are using for this word.

>>20618211
>What worth is explanatory power in science?
The entire point of science is explaining mechanisms in the world around. That is why we've been doing it since Aristotle. That's literally the point. If a scientific theory cannot explain something, it's worthless. Appeals to "progress" do not have any explanatory power. "This gene causes X and interacts with Y and blah blah blah" does.

[Anonymous No.20618224]

>>20618211
Its entirely falsifiable. What even? Point me to the contradiction here

[Anonymous No.20618241]

>>20618219
>The entire point of science is explaining mechanisms in the world around.

that is religion or mythology. What makes (should make) science different is prediction and control of facts, empirical testing, methodology. You can have explain every observation in the world with religion and not have scientific methodology.

>>20618224
>Its entirely falsifiable.

what would falsify it? A rabbit in precambrion wouldnt.

[Anonymous No.20618254]

/lit/ thinks it can deny the truth of evolution by using words like "tautology", "metaphysics" and naming names like fucking Hegel lmfao. As if they are making a real point.

This is what happens when you don't leave your rooms

[Anonymous No.20618260]

>>20617877
Popper said and did a lot of shit. Just because he came up with falsifiability as a criterion of what can be considered science.

[Anonymous No.20618268]

>>20618241
> A rabbit in precambrion wouldnt?
How?

[Anonymous No.20618271]

>>20618260
The nice thing is that the schizo that is shilling his take on evolution is probably the same type of person to viscerally hate his biggest child: Soros.

[Anonymous No.20618279]

>>20618219
>You are either intentionally or ignorantly using a definition in opposition to what they are using for this word.
Yet Dawkins was perfectly content to apply his "strictly genetic" notions to creating the concept of "meme". Does this seem like Dawkins' conception of evolution is truly as limited as you say?
>Ideas and concepts, from fashion to music, take on a life of their own within society and, by propagating and mutating from mind to mind, affect the progress of human evolution.
This is Dawkins' worldview. Now, is the evolution truly, really restricted to genetics as described in my previous post here?

[Anonymous No.20618290]

>>20618260
>Just because he came up with falsifiability as a criterion of what can be considered science.

you disagree?

>>20618268
rabbit mutated in precamb and died off, billions years later mutated from fishbird and now its here! Fossil proof yet to be discovered as with 99% of evolution. Try disproving my claim.

>>20618254
>by using words like "tautology", "metaphysics" and naming names like fucking Hegel lmfao

REACTIONARIES DESTROYED BY BIG SCIENCE BOOM PAF!

[Anonymous No.20618292]

>>20618219
>You are either intentionally or ignorantly using a definition in opposition to what they are using for this word.
Yet Dawkins was perfectly content to apply his "strictly genetic" notions to creating the concept of "meme". Does this seem like Dawkins' conception of evolution is truly as limited as you say?
>Ideas and concepts, from fashion to music, take on a life of their own within society and, by propagating and mutating from mind to mind, affect the progress of human evolution.
This is Dawkins' worldview. Now, is the view of evolutionhere truly, really restricted to genetics as described in my previous post here?

[Anonymous No.20618308]

>>20618290
>Try disproving my claim.
Nah I'm good. I come here for books, not to debate creationist dimwits who think they can use their gross misunderstandings of scientific process to make non-arguments against literal facts. just because they don't like those facts

[Anonymous No.20618316]

>>20617877
Popper is a brainless retard, he has contributed nothing of value to any school of thought and should be met with strict ridicule.

Evolution isn't testable? RETARD. You can literally watch bacteria evolve.

[Anonymous No.20618319]

>>20618308
>Nah I'm good.

dont even try, my claims are unfalsifiable. Evolution wins. I win.

>not to debate creationist dimwits who think they can use their gross misunderstandings of scientific process to make non-arguments against literal facts. just because they don't like those facts

based happy closed minded closed hegelian system enjoyer!

[Anonymous No.20618337]

>>20618290
Finding rabbit fossils in precambrian would actually be a huge blow to scientific understanding of evolutionary history. (And a lot of other fields, like paleontological study). It would raise a lot of questions.

But of course dishonest creationists would rather think up than do some due diligence

[Anonymous No.20618344]

>>20618337
>Finding rabbit fossils in precambrian would actually be a huge blow to scientific understanding of evolutionary history.

yes, you would need to revision a lot of things. It would be revisioned and it would be right again...sounds familiar?

>But of course dishonest creationists would rather think up than do some due diligence

you are right every time, why arent you happy?

[Anonymous No.20618349]

>>20618319
Yeah. Take this win. I hope you are happy that you proved an evolutionist "wrong" (Lol).

Keep on believing whatever fiction you have cooked up instead. That'll keep you happy and content

[Anonymous No.20618355]

>>20618349
>Yeah. Take this win.

Not I, Holy wisdom of rightful Evolution.

[Anonymous No.20618358]

>>20618344
>and it would be right again

Your intellectual dishonesty is showing anon

[Anonymous No.20618364]

>>20618358
>>and it would be right again

wouldnt it be? You have 5 billion years, nuclear exolitions, craters...and total lack of fosil evidence, even a retard could figure something out, its not like you need to back up every single claim with fosils

[Anonymous No.20618381]

I don't understand in what way exactly the theory of evolution is a de-facto disproval of the existence of god

[Anonymous No.20618397]

>>20618364
Only 3 kind of people would fall for this Oversimplified grossly inaccurate rhetoric.

> a retarded dimwitted hillbilly

> the /lit/ "philosopher" who thinks he can decipher this universe by shutting himself in his room and reading phil books and pondering on them. (Though he may spend his time watching anime and jacking off instead)

> a child

Certainly not someone who actually knows what goes in research

[Anonymous No.20618399]

>>20618381
Because there is some special kind of religious schizo that has to take his holy book literally.

[Anonymous No.20618414]

>>20618397
>Oversimplified

that word reminds me of Hegel and Darwin...

>Certainly not someone who actually knows what goes in research

you retarded cultist, pic rel

>>20618381
I dont understand how little analytic reasoning one have to have to pose such a kneejerk question

[Anonymous No.20618435]

>>20618414
>Anon can't deal with the fact that his worldview is inauthentic.

Ngmi

[Anonymous No.20618449]

>>20618435
>authentic science

I wish Feyerabned would return, put on his ww2 Nazi uniform and fireblast all of you queers with his anti-science nazi flamethrower

[Anonymous No.20618463]

>>20618010
>killing is LE BAD because... IT JUST IS OKAY???

[Anonymous No.20618481]

>>20618449
>making it about politics.

[Anonymous No.20618566]

>>20617877
Pooper wasn't anti science you fuck.

[Anonymous No.20618664]

I recommend him for literally everything these days but Spengler.

[Anonymous No.20618667]

Evolution is blind faith. There is no observable change of kind, a bird develop something new, but never stop being a bird, yet they want us to believe we and monkey have a common ancestor. Every example of evolution in this "change of a kind" is "look at x billion of years ago", how the fuck is not that blind faith?

[Anonymous No.20618742]

>>20618664
>I recommend him for literally everything these days but Spengler.

who do you recommend?

>>20618667
>There is no observable change of kind, a bird develop something new, but never stop being a bird

when someone says that they usually point to longterm e coli experiment which was a total failure and they fished for hypothesis AFTER the experiment and presented it as experimental proof and never redid that failure of pseudo experiment

[Anonymous No.20618746]

>>20618316
>You can literally watch bacteria evolve.
When was the last time you saw a bacteria evolving into a human being?

[Anonymous No.20618778]

>>20617877
Saved this from a post on /lit/ sometime ago:

E.A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science

Amos Funkenstein, Theology and the Scientific Imagination

Alexandre Koyre, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe

Richard Popkin, The History of Scepticism: From Savonarola to Bayle

Pierre Duhem, To Save the Phenomena: An Essay on the Idea of Physical Theory from Plato to Galileo

William James, Pragmatism, Essays in Radical Empiricism

Alfred North Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas and Science and the Modern World

Gaston Bachelard, The Formation of the Scientific Mind and The New Scientific Spirit

Wilfred Sellars, various things

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, On Certainty, and Remarks on the
Foundations of Mathematics (and anything else you're interested in, aside from the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, unless you have a specific interest in reading that)

Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions and The Essential Tension

Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science

Paul Feyerabend, Against Method and various other books, especially For and Against Method
(his debate with Lakatos)

W.O. Quine, Two Dogmas of Empiricism

John H. Zammito, A Nice Derangement of Epistemes: Post-positivism in the Study of Science from Quine to Latour (this is a good, short touchstone for postpositivist philosophy of science)

Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, Objectivity

Ian Hacking, The Taming of Chance and The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas about Probability

[Anonymous No.20618789]

>Im not talking about left leaning gays that criticize science only when its wayciss
at least those people have a solid ideological motive for wanting to deny scientific research whenever it contradicts their worldview. how is what you're doing any less ridiculous? Look around you nigger, every piece of electronics you use proves that scientific methodology is capable of consistently and reliably producing knowledge. Read Duhem and go from there.

[Anonymous No.20618801]

>>20618789
>at least those people have a solid ideological motive
>not truth

>every piece of electronics you use proves that scientific methodology is capable of consistently and reliably producing knowledge

you dont think that science is stagnating? Shouldnt we MSGA?

[Anonymous No.20618825]

>>20617877
Bait thread for creationogroids to reveal their sub zero iq

[Anonymous No.20618830]

>>20618801
>reposts infographic
>refuses to elaborate further
the replication crisis isn't an argument against the scientific method, it's an argument against that method working when the institutions are corrupt and there's shit like citation cartels, data-fishing and blatant ideological "refusing to evaluate evidence honestly" going on. soviet science and nazi science were trash, too.
now, what scientific theories in particular do you have a problem with and on what basis? that's the conversation we'd need to have if you wanted it to be productive.

[Anonymous No.20618835]

I don't care how many philosophers of science you bring into it, this thread belongs on /sci/

[Anonymous No.20618838]

>>20618023
no, i deny your description of reality as objective reality. You confuse the two.

[Anonymous No.20618863]

>>20618825
>Bait thread for creationogroids to reveal their sub zero iq

but that is EXACTLY how a retard atheist evolutionist with an evolutionary demon would respond! When has your evolutionary demon obsession started?

>>20618830
>the replication crisis isn't an argument against the scientific method, it's an argument against that method working when the institutions are corrupt and there's shit like citation cartels, data-fishing and blatant ideological "refusing to evaluate evidence honestly" going on.

duh! So shouldnt we fix the culture of science aka neo-enlightenment?

>what scientific theories in particular do you have a problem with and on what basis?

evolution. Its enitrely unfalsifiable. The rest of sciences that have prefix "science" in them, they are unfalsifible as well since they are based on Hegelianism, not scientific method. You can put theoretical phisics and astronomy in it as well.

[Anonymous No.20618868]

>>20618863
what aspect of evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable?

[Anonymous No.20618874]

>>20618868
the fact that its correct every time and revisions itself, so all of it.

[Anonymous No.20618877]

>>20618874
is physics unfalsifiable?

[Anonymous No.20618885]

>>20618838
>i d-d-deny your reality b-b-because its yours and n-n-nnot objective

Whatever you say delusional faggot. Lmao @ being a creationist subhuman in 2022

[Anonymous No.20618894]

>>20618877
>is physics unfalsifiable?

why would physics (mainstream tv astrophisicist are total quacks doe) be unfalsifiable and why are making stupid questions? Make your claims and Ill respond, dont try some low tier gotchas.

[Anonymous No.20618896]

>>20618001
You're retarded. Your 'real hard science' describes this:
>>20618023

According to your interpretation of science everything is literally in your skull, in the brain so you can never know reality at all. You have it backwards (although this is not uncommon). If anyone is seething in their own heads it is you.

[Anonymous No.20618898]

>>20618894
physics is correct every time and revisions itself, retard
post another wojac and I won't bother responding to you anymore

[Anonymous No.20618906]

>>20617902

What the fuck are you even talking about, it is the unifying principle of modern biology. Point out exactly what is flawed about our current theories of evolution. Do you disagree with sympatric speciation? Gene flow and genetic drift? Natural selection? Protein homology and DNA sequencing as a means of deducing phylogenetic relationships?

Sure as far as scientific models go there is plenty we don't know, but evolutionary theory is on par with relativity and quantum mechanics with the amount of evidence we have supporting our current models.

[Anonymous No.20618907]

>>20618885
absolute dimwit, im not a creationist lol those are my only posts in the thread. You are so insecure you project all kinds of shit on me. I hope you find some peace brother

[Anonymous No.20618917]

>>20618896
>According to your interpretation of science everything is literally in your skull, in the brain so you can never know reality at all

Lmfao no scientist actually believes that. It is liberal art hoe philosophy fags who never leave their rooms who say such retarded bullshit.

Straight up lying besides 60 iq rhetoric. Creationists just can't stop taking Ls

[Anonymous No.20618921]

>>20618917
>everyone who disagrees with me is a creationist

Are you 14?

[Anonymous No.20618929]

>>20618907
>what is reality?

Just kys tranny. Join the 40%

[Anonymous No.20618931]

>>20618898
>physics is correct every time and revisions itself, retard

If you throw an object in the air it either accelerates or it doesnt, where do you see revisionism of that empirical testing you twat?

>>20618906
>Point out exactly what is flawed about our current theories of evolution.

unfalsifiable. circular. mythological, retroactive and not proactice, megalomaniacal. shiteed for midwits.

>Gene

you simpleton, genes were already a thing before evolution and genetics would exist without evolutionary mythology which acted as an ugly ungodly DECORATION. It has no epistemiological function as a paradigm for genetics.

[Anonymous No.20618932]

>>20618917
If you believe that the brain is what creates consciousness that is what you end up accepting.
>>20618929
seek help

[Anonymous No.20618938]

>>20618921
You aren't?

So another reality denying philosofag. K.

[Anonymous No.20618951]

>>20618938
You are so confused.

[Anonymous No.20618956]

>>20618932
>Dimwit didn't even realize that he only replaced "the brain" with "consciousness" without resolving the original conflict.

Step 1: Go out
Step 2: Touch grass

[Anonymous No.20618958]

>>20618742
nice webm! gonna show my 12 year old think he'll really like it =)

[Anonymous No.20618974]

>>20618956
How do so many kids end up on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.20618979]

>>20618958
>nice webm! gonna show my 12 year old think he'll really like it =)

do that, ask him about black swans, familiarize the young with importance of falsifiabiltiy criteria when they are young, kid is going to popperslap all the scientists/government/grant workers and make a better world one day

[Anonymous No.20618985]

>>20618974
>How do so many ki-ACK

[Anonymous No.20619008]

>>20618985
what makes you think someone who disagrees with you on ontology is a tranny? if you want to discuss that id happily do it on /pol/ and we might even share views politically but you are just outing yourself as a schizo now. You think most trannies aren't into 'real hard science'? Your religion of science has become twisted up in it on a deep level.

[Anonymous No.20619027]

>>20619008
>what makes you think someone who disagrees with you on ontology is a tranny?

*epistemiology

This thread is about epistemiology. Please, sit down enjoy the non-ontological episteomiological discussion, start from OP post and falsifiabiltiy criterion.

[Anonymous No.20619032]

>>20619008
Trannies are unironically more into philosophy because it helps them use smart sounding words to pseudo-legitimize their delusions. So kind of like creationists and spiritualists in that regard.

But they do try to misappropriate science often as you pointed out because even they know how much more authentic science is.

[Anonymous No.20619037]

>>20618906
Funny how you described it as the unifying principle of modern biology yet invite me to respond to particular sub-theories of it. If it's a unifying principle of everything that you mentioned, we should talk about IT rather than some particular manipulation of the DNA.

Out of those, natural selection is the one who most approaches the "general principleness" you referred but didn't stick to, I guess? Theory of evolutionary selection, as an unifying principle as you call it, is either tautological, useless or unjustified for the following reasons:
1) if the only claim it makes is that "whatever exists was what was selected" it is tautological: it doesn't explain anything, it doesn't even really say anything, it's just nonsense.

Then we start to talk about selective pressure, and we theorize about whatever traits a human might have that it is as a result of the selection, because people that had such traits got to reproduce. Yet we can't predict this trait formation into the future at all. So what are we really doing and what basis do we have for saying of any trait that it's as a result of so-called selection pressures, unless we, again tautologically define whatever change as a result of selection pressure? Let's take the bird nesting proceduses for example: isn't it completely imaginable that the procedure was taken up out of pure whim and it just persisted because nobody bothered to change it? Someone did it first and others thought oh thats cool. But no, in selective pressure, the changes have to be explained in terms of a very clear advantage (note that here whatever facticity about birds doesn't matter: you can imagine any number of cases spanning the whole "evolutionary" history that might be like this, but the darwinian straitjacket forces the "scientists" to interpret the past from the perspective of a very limited lens)

[Anonymous No.20619039]

Does there exist some particular data that isn't compatible with evolution?

[Anonymous No.20619043]

>>20619032
>Trannies are unironically more into philosophy because it helps them use smart sounding words to pseudo-legitimize their delusions.

Philosophy tube guy actually went trans after he was a leftist for a long time and that other trans guy on yt was already a tranny when he started, sad. Both were highly educated and high IQ but totally dishonest about topics they had a lot of invested in. High IQ just guarantees efficient rationalizations not honesty (which comes from wisdom and wisdom from fear of God).

[Anonymous No.20619048]

If we built a time machine, and travelled 6000 years back in time to see God create all the different kinds of animals
that would be evidence against the theory of evolution, right?

[Anonymous No.20619058]

>>20619048
Well, on the other hand, we can just right now look at 65 billions years ago and see evolution working. I mean, that is how most examples work "look at 65 billions years ago".

[Anonymous No.20619060]

>>20618906
Funny how you described it as the unifying principle of modern biology yet invite me to respond to particular sub-theories of it. If it's a unifying principle of everything that you mentioned, we should talk about IT rather than some particular manipulation of the DNA.

Out of those, natural selection is the one who most approaches the "general principleness" you referred but didn't stick to, I guess? Theory of evolutionary selection, as an unifying principle as you call it, is useless or unjustified for the following reasons:
1) if the only claim it makes is that "whatever exists was what was selected, whatever happened must have been selection of some sort and thats it" it is useless: it doesn't explain anything, it doesn't even really say anything, it's just nonsense.

2) Then we start to talk about selective pressure, and we theorize about whatever traits a human might have that it is as a result of the selection, because people that had such traits got to reproduce. Yet we can't predict this trait formation into the future at all. So what are we really doing and what basis do we have for saying of any trait that it's as a result of so-called selection pressures, unless we, again tautologically define whatever change as a result of selection pressure? Let's take the bird nesting proceduses for example: isn't it completely imaginable that the procedure was taken up out of pure whim and it just persisted because nobody bothered to change it? Someone did it first and others thought oh thats cool. But no, in selective pressure, the changes have to be explained in terms of a very clear advantage (note that here whatever facticity about birds doesn't matter: you can imagine any number of cases spanning the whole "evolutionary" history that might be like this, but the darwinian straitjacket forces the "scientists" to interpret the past from the perspective of a very limited lens)

[Anonymous No.20619065]

>>20619039
>Does there exist some particular data that isn't compatible with evolution?

no data is or can be un-compatible with evolution. Its a perfect "theory" and those are perfectly un-falsifiable.

>>20619048
yes, that could-a-should-a-would-a be evidence against evolution and would a could-a-should-a-would-a be evidence against evolution if we travel 1 billion years in future and notice that predictions were wrong.

[Anonymous No.20619071]

Can any of the sciencelets seething in this thread explain how we, after 100 years of trying, have never been able to replicate evolution in an experimental setting?

[Anonymous No.20619079]

this thread is giving me a headache. is this the power of the american education system?

[Anonymous No.20619083]

>>20619079
>is this the power of the american education system?

its mostly continental krauts that tore down the evolutionary myth of creation

[Anonymous No.20619085]

>>20618931
you try to use big words to make your stupid ideas sound smarter. nobody is fooled by you, pseud

[Anonymous No.20619095]

>>20619085
what of those bigbig words do you not understand? Lets learn new things.

[Anonymous No.20619101]

>>20618801
ahhh, yes, the problem endemic to psychology

[Anonymous No.20619106]

>>20619071
The absolute state of creationistfags lmfao. Lol even

[Anonymous No.20619114]

>>20619065
there seems to be a some tension between the two replies in your post

[Anonymous No.20619119]

>>20619071
would that be expect on evolution?

[Anonymous No.20619125]

>>20619095
i know all your words. i just think its pathetic when people try to make their dumb ideas sound more complex than they really are by using unnecessarily big words in an awkward way

[Anonymous No.20619128]

>The Bibble doesn't say it so it can't be true!
The Christcuck seething in this thread is hilarious

[Anonymous No.20619131]

>>20619119
Yes it would be. And the funniest part is that the brainlet here doesn't even realise that we can and do replicate evolutionary processes on smaller time scales. Horse breeding is literally that lol.

[Anonymous No.20619132]

>>20619060
>what basis do we have for saying of any trait that it's as a result of so-called selection pressures, unless we, again tautologically define whatever change as a result of selection pressure?
the answer to this one is very straightforward, actually. when you're dealing with simple organisms that don't do much other than reproduce themselves, you can calculate out over how many generations a gene that confers x% greater fitness will become near-universal within a given population. you can falsify that something is the result of evolutionary pressures simply by looking at timescales. human civilizational advancements over the last 1000 years, for instance, were not directly driven by evolution, nor even greatly affected by evolutionary factors.

[Anonymous No.20619137]

>>20618931
do you think evolution being true, does not make predictions?

[Anonymous No.20619139]

>>20619131
that's micro-evolution, tard
completly diffrent thing

[Anonymous No.20619141]

it's all so tiresome

[Anonymous No.20619142]

>>20619114
>there seems to be a some tension between the two replies in your post

you are just not smart or intellectually honest enough, Im sorry.

>>20619125
>>20619128
but that is EXACTLY how a retard atheist evolutionist with an evolutionary demon would respond! When has your evolutionary demon obsession started?

>>20619131
>Horse breeding is literally that lol.

genes dont mutate in selective breeding you SELECT from existing genepool. pic rel for a twat

>>20619137
dont talk like a faggot with these gay gotcha attempts, make your statements

[Anonymous No.20619153]

>>20617877
>>20617902
>>20618001
>>20618254
>>20618087

science is utterly retarded: you have atheists who claim that immaterial math formulas they invented run the material universe every miliseconds across billions of light years.
Oh and by the way, when they are asked to say where do those immaterial formulas live and where they come from and how they act on matter, they can't fucking answer, can they?
You know how atheists say retarded humans personalized nature when they said gods were like humans and such? Well atheist bugmen created machines and now they say the universe is a machine too lol. That's how dumb atheists are.

[Anonymous No.20619155]

>>20619142
oh, youre just some schizo christian sperg. got it

[Anonymous No.20619156]

>>20619106
I am amazed how atheists have turned genes into the new god. Make me laff when they say their dad was a fish too.
Guess which theory is true according to them

theory 1 : humans descent from humans, which is verified at every human birth

theory 2: humans descent from a fish, then a monkey, yet it was never observed and fishes today dont become monkeys and monkeys today dont become humans, just trust me bro

[Anonymous No.20619158]

>>20619139
>"iq = size of my dick in inches take

Never began 4 u

[Anonymous No.20619161]

>>20619142
>but that is EXACTLY how a retard atheist evolutionist with an evolutionary demon would respond! When has your evolutionary demon obsession started?

[Anonymous No.20619162]

>>20619142
If you are going to deny that evolution makes predictions
There would be no point in me telling you that it does, it you are in denial about this piece of data

If we agree that it does, we can discuss how to interpret that

[Anonymous No.20619166]

>>20619132
>you can calculate out over how many generations a gene that confers x% greater fitness will become near-universal within a given population
but you won't know in advance which gene will bring x% greater fitness, if any. you won't have any idea how to distinguish fitness changes motivated by other factors.

As a sidenote there's been many studies about inheriting memories from one's parents and while I'm not going to comment on their methodology etc. here, they might complicate the picture further, for example.

[Anonymous No.20619167]

>>20619142
>village nigger has no idea we can mutate genes in a lab

The Ls never end

[Anonymous No.20619168]

>>20619158
jokes on you, my dick is 65 centimeteres long

[Anonymous No.20619169]

>>20619153
science isn't the same as materialist metaphysics, science only tries to understand the universe in terms of material forces. yeah, science can't explain consciousness, but science can make a pretty damn convincing case that the earth isn't 6000 years old and that you can't travel faster than light. get the picture?

[Anonymous No.20619180]

>>20619161
>>20619155
>oh, youre just some schizo christian sperg. got it

but that is EXACTLY how a retard atheist evolutionist with an evolutionary demon would respond!

Ive just proved that you are an irrational person with an evolutionary demon. Next step is changind that and turing you into a rational being.

>>20619156
>I am amazed how atheists have turned genes into the new god.

not genes, but evolution. Genetics existed before evolution and would exist without it.

>>20619162
>If you are going to deny that evolution makes predictions

it makes no FALSIFIABLE predictions.

>>20619167
>no idea we can mutate genes in a lab

cute. are they heritable?

[Anonymous No.20619187]

>>20619142
So, like, you agree that we can breed weird horses
but you think there is something mysterious preventing us from breeding continually weirder horses, to the point we wouldn't recognize it as a horse?

btw, the fact that you have to make these awful multireply posts should tip you off that you are in the wrong
you being retarded seems like a great explanation for why everyone disagrees with you, accounts for all the data

[Anonymous No.20619201]

>>20619187
>but you think there is something mysterious preventing us from breeding continually weirder horses, to the point we wouldn't recognize it as a horse?

then do it faggot! Can I empirically test any of your claims or are you just talking MYTHOLOGY?

[Anonymous No.20619202]

>>20619180
>it makes no FALSIFIABLE predictions.
If we didn't see the prediction we predicted, what would that be?

[Anonymous No.20619204]

>>20619180
>yes retard they are

[Anonymous No.20619206]

>>20619166
>you won't have any idea how to distinguish fitness changes motivated by other factors.
in controlled environments there aren't any other factors, nigger. you can absolutely make predictions about how single-celled organisms will evolve under different conditions and try to falsify those predictions with experiments.

[Anonymous No.20619210]

>>20619201
there is something mysterious preventing us from doing that
got it

[Anonymous No.20619213]

>>20619202
>If we didn't see the prediction we predicted, what would that be?

FALSIFIABLE. PREDICTIONS. faggot. what are your falsifiable predictions based on evolutionary MYTHOLOGY?

[Anonymous No.20619219]

>>20619206
>in controlled environments there aren't any other factors, nigger.
lmao and how is this supposed to be an advantage to your argument, since the history of life natural selection attempts to depict isn't a controlled environment? The theory of natural selection, which you're now pretending to "test", never limited itself to certain controlled spaces, but it makes claims about existing qualities and their developmental histories in the real world.

[Anonymous No.20619221]

>>20619201
No, but seriously.
Why would there be a limit of what we can do to horses.
Do you really believe there exist 1 THE WEIRDEST horse, which we cannot go further beyond? That's the logical conclusion.

[Anonymous No.20619222]

>>20619166
>you won't have any idea how to distinguish fitness changes motivated by other factors.

How about we wait a 10 million years for you to finish your IRL evolution experiment? then surely youll be right? We cant do that because those are 10 million years? I guess you are right again. HOW CONVINIENT!

[Anonymous No.20619223]

I'm not even here to debate. Just laugh at creationoworms

[Anonymous No.20619229]

>>20619213
Do you think evolution should be 1 grand theory that falls apart if some prediction it makes about how genes would look like is wrong?

[Anonymous No.20619236]

>>20619221
>>20619229
FALSIFIABLE. PREDICTIONS. faggots. what are your falsifiable predictions about the future of humans based on evolutionary MYTHOLOGY? What new organs will we have and how do we test for it?

[Anonymous No.20619264]

>>20619219
>The theory of natural selection, which you're now pretending to "test", never limited itself to certain controlled spaces, but it makes claims about existing qualities and their developmental histories in the real world.

but unlike evolution myth of creation, you can test the simple natural selection theory pretty well in controlled experiments. And before you start, YEC "believe" in natural selection.

[Anonymous No.20619274]

>>20619264
inb4
>but you can't prove it applies to the real world

[Anonymous No.20619293]

>>20619274
the claims it makes is about the real world though. in actual hard sciences, you say nothing farther outside the bounds of the experiment, but in natural selection, it is used very casually to depict the "reasons" for bird's nesting habits. It's like you didn't even read my post.

[Anonymous No.20619305]

>>20619293
>it is used very casually to depict the "reasons" for bird's nesting habits.
it isn't, there are all kinds of behaviours that we don't explain by referring to genetic mutation, like crows and racoons adapting to life in the city.

[Anonymous No.20619313]

>>20619274
natural selection applies to the real world and is empirically testable, falsifiable and its falsification process proved it correct. Unlike evo...

>>20619293
they are highly dishonest, they use natural selection as proof of evolution (!?). Look how in the first sentence they defined evolution the way you define natural selection, they do it all the time.

[Anonymous No.20619319]

>>20619236
Is there some particular problem with my falsification taking thousands of years?

I guess you don't accept indirect evidence. far away stars just bright light on the inside of a dome until we travel to them in a rocket.

[Anonymous No.20619320]

>>20619305
bird nesting is constantly explained in terms of natural selection, despite much room for different explanation. you are simply wrong.

[Anonymous No.20619338]

>>20619319
>my falsification taking thousands of years?

*billions. can you wait that long and present us your proof about what future brings?

>indirect evidence

ah yes.

>far away stars just bright light on the inside of a dome until we travel to them in a rocket

yet, you see the light NOW and can present it, get a crystal ball you mythologist and present us what you see inside of it to prove your billions years of prediction.

[Anonymous No.20619448]

>>20619338
that's just light though, no evidence of stars
it comes from a glowy spot on the dome as far as I'm concerned, until someone takes a trip to the so-called "star" in their rocket, samples some of the hydrogen, etc

[Anonymous No.20619455]

fucking hell why is this board so fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.20619457]

>>20619153
>WHERE DO THE MATH FORMULAE LIVE??
smartest theist intellectual

[Anonymous No.20619464]

Oh my fuck I thought /lit/ was on average over 18. You asshats still reply to bait threads? Even the posters pretending to be retarded ITT are embarassments.
STOP REPLYING. DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE WITH YOUR LIVES.

[Anonymous No.20620442]

>>20619457
>>20619457
>theist
*atheist

[Anonymous No.20620883]

>>20617877
What the fuck does that even mean? Jesus Christ I hate academia so much it's unreal