lightgigantic:
So what causes a star - tell me
That's a strange way of putting the question. Are you asking "How do stars form?" or something else? Be specific.
Last year Science Journal published 125 questions "What we don't know"
amongst them are
What is the universe made of?
What is the nature of gravity?
How do planets form?
Did you read that article?
It elaborated in some detail what aspects of these things are known and unknown. Your attempt to claim that we know nothing about these questions is easily refuted just by reading the article.
Molecular evolutionists have never seriously tried to explain consciousness, because the symptoms of consciousness awareness are simply beyond the realm of molecular description - in other words what if the gap cannot be filled by analysis of dead matter?
The level of description at which you examine something is always something you choose depending on what features you consider important. If I want to know the essential features of a tennis ball as it pertains to the game of tennis, I don't look at the ball on a molecular level and start my description with "A tennis ball is a combination of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms..."
Similarly, when it comes to consciousness, people generally approach it first at a general level. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, best understood in a simple way at a level above molecular biology.
To quote bohr "An analysis of the very concept of explanation would naturally begin and end with a renunciation as to explaining our own conscious activity" - since bohr felt that everything could be explained by quantum theory he had no choice but to "renounce" consciousness.
Can you provide the context of that quote, please? (i.e. quote the entire paragraph rather than one sentence.) I can't tell from this amount of text what Bohr was really trying to say.
so to get back to the original question whether scientific knowledge comes from science or people .....
I've already answered that one. Did you re-read my response? Did you understand it?
......you seem to be saying that it is people (scientists) that give us knowledge in science
Science is a human enterprise. It's factual content is obtained by people.
I can't see why you are laboring to sort out this simple matter. What's so difficult for you?
It usually means we have obtained new insights based on new evidence. That isn't guesswork, either.
It does however indicate that the previous body of knowledge that is superceeded is guesswork
Not at all. It simply means that the conclusions arrived at previously were mistaken or incomplete.
Well I may have a different set of morals - my case might be different - you however said that you do unto others, and it is obvious that you don't...
You presume too much. You don't know me or what I do or don't do.
You seem to be saying that it is enough to merely think that doing good unto others is enough to make one moral.
I have no idea how you managed to reach that conclusion. Regardless, you're wrong.
From what I have understood of morals regarding atheism (from your own example) and the morals of theism they are completely different.
Then I suggest you look into the matter more careful. Go off and read some atheist material on morality, and I think you will find many parallels to religious morality. There's plenty of stuff on the web where you can begin your education.
Well, stars are rather large and unwieldy things to try to keep in a lab...
Well you are the one who is saying you know how to make them
Yes, I am. So what?
So we can't even produce a rain cloud but I am supposed to accept that you can tell me how to build a star (when you have only observed stars form with a mechanism that operates on principles of uniformity that cannot be verified)????
Wrong on two counts:
1. We can produce a rain cloud. Every time you step out of the shower in a cloud of steam, you have produced something which is in essence a rain cloud.
2. The "principles of uniformity" you mention, known to science as the laws of physics, can be and in fact are very well verified indeed, both in general and in terms of their specific relation to star formation.
Maybe you need to learn some science. Making silly incorrect statements doesn't give your arguments much credibility.
Sure - you may a clue how a star is formed and quite a few educated guesses to boot but star formation doesn't fit so snuggly in the easy bin
As I said before, a star is actually a much less complicated object than you imagine it is. In physical terms, stars are in the "easy bin" compared to many other things. I mean, for a start, a star is composed mostly of just one element, hydrogen. The gross form of a star is determined by just two factors: thermal pressure and gravitation. Easy ... if you know a little physics, that is.
Well if you were going for brain surgery would you rather someone who was experienced doing th e operation or someone with theoretical knowledge?
There are two types of knowledge, sometimes called "procedural" and "declarative" knowledge. A surgeon needs both.
But so far, intelligent design theorists, to take one example, haven't produced any useful research outcomes.
Probably because they run the risk of getting fired the moment they mention the word "intelligent design"
Not at all. There is huge funding and political support for intelligent design in the United States. For example, look up the "Discovery Institute", which employs and otherwise funds many ID propagandists.
Nor have they suggested any promising new avenues of future research. What does that suggest to you?
that you have a habit of throwing in the trash bin anything that mentions ID unless it written to put it in a bad light
Well, given your limited knowledge of science, that you think this doesn't surprise me. I think you need to widen your learning. Your views are very limited at present.
In other words you refuse to entertain ideas that run parallel to theism simply because they are theistic?
No. I'm quite happy to entertain ideas which run "parallel".
But even if you make the perfect arrangement for life by material arrangement, life may or may not appear...
On what do you base that conclusion?
...and once life has appeared it can go at any moment, despite all attempts to house it in a suitable material environment
Life going is always accompanied by physical changes, as I pointed out earlier.
There are physical differences between a dead body and a live one. These differences can be measured objectively.
But these are differences of functional aspects of the body - its not like the actual compounds are any different.
Again, you're confused about the difference between the raw materials and the arrangement of those raw materials. When functional aspects of a body change, there are associated changes in the body's physical structures, even though the raw materials of those structures do not change.
Suppose we were looking for a fire (soul) - Suppose I said if you look for something that is hot, smokey and emitting light (living symptoms) that is actually a fire.
How would that be begging the question?
Inother words you are assuming that the symptoms of the soul (consciousness - or being alive) are the cause of the soul, when it is the other way around - the difference between the soul and "being alive" is that the soul is the cause, just as fire is the cause of the smoke, heat and light.
If you want to establish that A causes B, you must first establish the existence of A. You can't assume that A exists just because you don't know what causes B.
Your reasoning is circular because your argument is:
1. I assume that A causes B.
2. B exists.
3. Therefore B was caused by A.
Or perhaps your argument is slightly different:
1. B exists.
2. I can't think of anything that might cause B apart from A.
3. Therefore B was caused by A and A exists.
Can you see the flaw in that argument? (Insert A=soul B=life if in doubt).
Here is a quote from Roger Penrose
The issue of "responsibility" raises deep philosophical questions concerning the ultimate causes of our behaviour ... is the matter of "responsibility" merely one of convenience of terminology, or is there actually something else - a "self" lying beyond all such influences - which exerts a control over our actions? The legal issue of "responsibility" seems to imply that there is indeed, within each os, some kind of independent "self" with its own responsibilities - and, by implications, rights - whose actions are not attributable to inheritance, environment, or chance. If it is other than a mere convenience of language that we speak as though there were such an independant "self", then there must be an ingredient missing from our present day physical understandings. The discovery of such an ingredient would surely profoundly alter our scientific outlook"
I agree. But notice the big "if".
Anyway DR Singh has offerred axiomatic breakdown of matter and life
Who is Dr Singh?
MATTER
1.Is the inferior energy of the absolute truth
2. Satisfies conservation of (material) energy
3. Eternal
4. Obeys the laws of physics and chemistry to some extent
5. Lacks consciousness and inherant meaning and purpose
(1) is problematic and circular. It assumes an "absolute truth" is given, when in fact that is part of what needs to be established.
(3) is incorrect. Physics tells us matter is not eternal.
(4) The words "to some extent" are weasel words. The fact is: there is no evidence that matter doesn't obey the laws of physics and chemistry ALL THE TIME.
(5) "Meaning" and "purpose" are only definable in terms of human values. Here, Singh seems only to be defining his values, rather than saying anything useful about matter.
LIFE
1. The superior energy of the absolute truth
2. Satisfies conservation of (spiritual) energy
3. Eternal
4. Non -physical and non-chemical
5. Possesses consciousness and inherant meaning and purpose
(1) suffers the same problems mentioned above.
(2) "Spiritual energy" is not defined.
(3) I don't know what it means to claim that life is eternal.
(4) Biology shows us that life is clearly physical and chemical, so this is just wrong, or at least wildly non-specific and unhelpful.
(5) Many forms of life possess no consciousness. The same problems of meaning and purpose apply here as above.
Matter by itself
1. Inert and dead
2. Characterized by either low information content or absence of specific form beyond atomic and molecular structures
3. Reduces to thermodynamicaly stable states
4. Exhibits less organized flow of matter
5. Tends to lose form or pattern under transformation
6. Grows by external accumulation only (eg Crystal>>Crystal)
Exhibits only passive resistance (eg mountain)
(1) simply creates arbitrary categories. It is definitional rather than informative.
(2) I don't know how "information content" is being measured here.
(3) In many cases this is obviously not true, except in the extreme long term. But the same thing can be said of life.
(4) "Organisation" is also a loaded concept. We need a precise definition.
(5) Not true. Consider water forming ice, for example. The molecular structure
gains form and pattern in the transformation.
(6) Very vague.
Matter associated with Life
1. Animated substance or entity (eg a vehicle with a driver or a bird etcetc)
2. Characterised by high information content and very specific form
3. Thermodynamically unstable states play a dominant role
4. Exhibits a precisely regulated flow of matter (metabolism)
5. Undegoes transformation without loss of complex pattern (reproduction).
6. Grows from within by an intricate construction process (Eg Baby > Child > Youth > Old age)
7. Adaptive: tries to actively over come obstacles
(1) "Animated" is another loaded term. Is a flying arrow "animated"?
(2) How is information measured?
(3) Can't see too many problems with this, but the same applies to "matter".
(4) Seems ok, although the question may be asked: what kind of "regulation" is he talking about?
(5) How does this apply to a simple bacterium?
(6) "Tries" is another loaded word.
Of course he went into details to explain these points more clearly...
Please link me to the original source. I think his definitions are unworkable, for the above reasons. What have other critics had to say?
I don't think your analogy works. The universe is not a country.
Why not?
Think.
