- #106
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 988
- 4
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
In this thread I made the challenge to abiogenesis after witnessing the assumption in Nautica’s thread (first by AG) that abiogenesis created life; it’s an assumption, I believe, that doesn’t properly reflect the problems with the theory. Now, you want to switch the subject and tell me I have to present an alternative model or shut up, or at least that’s the attitude I picked up on in your last posts, and which then AG joined in demanding.
I quote myself:
Not that not having an alternative theory can ever be a counter argument, and so I am not trying to use it as such, but this comment forces me to ask: What alternative promising approaches?
there was nothing combative about that, but my very point, as TOM tried to point out, was that When there is only one horse, that horse is the most likely.
IF that horse had no legs, then you could easily argue a point, but this horse has legs, it is just possible that maybe one of them will break before he finishes the race. Nonetheless, we are still willing to bet that it will win (since there are no other horses.). It is still, even in light of your criticisms of the organisational structure of chemistry, 'the most likely'.
ALl you needed to do is present one other theory, by name, by concept, be reference alone, that was in the race, and then there would be some reason for us to start wondering if this horse wasn't the most likely horse.
Now that we all know you are writting a book on an alternative hypothesis, GREAT. I can't wait to read it (And I promise right here and right now that I will.) I am not opposed to having theories challenged, I just don't get into the habit of denying theories which are 'Most likely' at explaining the phenomenon.
See, I strongly believe Evolution is a FACT in the strongest sense of the word: But you show me an alternative theory which explains everything better: And you have a convert. Just because the world accepts Abiogenesis as the most likely theory doesn't mean anything about the bias of the world. It is just a representation of the worlds knowledge.
If you ahve done a good job, then maybe it will have a challenger as the most likely theory very shortly.
Hopefully you understand now, no one wanted to hear your theory necessarily, we just wanted to know that there was another horse in the race, and that it even might be able to keep up. You didn't show any hint at there being one.
I responded to that petition in several ways, and you ignored every reason I gave and just demanded again. (Believe me, it takes reading my entire book to get the model . . . it took me twelve years of full-time work to come up with it, and fifteen years of preparation before that. Also, I have obligations to my publisher not to give any of the ideas away before the book is out.) Yet even if I could answer it in a brief space, I would not do it on principle.
Again, hopefully you understand by now, that its not a refutation to your point so much as just a fact that without an alternative, and while being logically consistent, Abiogenesis must be necessity remain 'the most likely'.
Is that how you run your life -- never questioning anything except what you are ready to replace with your own ideas?
To recap the scientism approach I object to, it is to first define all that’s real as only knowable through sense experience (and that essentially is physical processes)
The base assumption, agreed. (Of course, assuming that you mean 'sense experience' as in "Measurable by something, which can report to our sensory perception")
it is to judge all other experience by empirical standards and therefore justify ignoring other possible legitimate conscious experience and consequently any evidence the experience might offer;
You might have to throw out some useful information, but if you don't, how will you ever get through all of the completely irrelevent, misleading, useless BS present in the minds of Humans? there needs to be a method of scrutinization. There is an empirical method, based on measurable, verifiable standards. Without that verifiability, the information is useless to us.
and, in the case of abiogenesis, it is to exaggerate it’s ability to explain the origin of life while being utterly unwilling to admit to the theory’s main problem, which is that chemistry cannot be shown to get “progressive” (as defined).
OK, I will accept this criticism whole heartedly. It has become common practice to exagerate Abiogenesis, but in the defence of all exageraters by my side: The question of where life came from has been around for so long, and since God was first put into doubt, Abiogenesis has been like the 'Only' reasonable theory presented. (Prove me wrong on that one...) When a couple of hundred years have passed, and there is still only one horse in the race, even if there is still a rumour of its leg possibly breaking, you still bet on it.
You are justified in challenging it without an alternative model: The alternative model simply would have allowed your point to be made without necessarily breaking the horses leg.
Now, why am I not justified in challenging that approach without having to offer an alternative model? I am complaining about a sort of incestual standard among scientism devotees that interferes with objectivity, openness, depth of education, and encourages exaggeration. I am not complaining that someone has a model I don’t agree with.
Even if there is exageration as to how likely chemical organisation may be, you still cannot show that it can't, and hasn't happened: So abiogenesis is still the most likely. If you could present an alternative, you would make your point without needing to logically show that it couldn't happen.