Most Published Scientific Research Is Wrong

DreamStalker wrote:

rooster wrote:BTW, Darwin is best known for describing how species mutated over time. Darwin's most famous work was titled On the Origin of Species. This seems to be a strange title for a tome that has not one bit of evidence or even a discussion of the origin of anything. What say ye, Circle?

Uhhhhh ... species "originate" by mutating from other species, over time ... and more accurately, the discussion is about "natural selection".

Maybe Darwin aptly titled his work On Natural Selection and the scientifically illiterate, market savvy publisher said On the Origin of Species is sexier and will sell more.

rooster wrote:
Maybe Darwin aptly titled his work On Natural Selection and the scientifically illiterate, market savvy publisher said On the Origin of Species is sexier and will sell more.

It was published. So it is likely mostly wrong anyway.

rooster wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:

rooster wrote:BTW, Darwin is best known for describing how species mutated over time. Darwin's most famous work was titled On the Origin of Species. This seems to be a strange title for a tome that has not one bit of evidence or even a discussion of the origin of anything. What say ye, Circle?

Uhhhhh ... species "originate" by mutating from other species, over time ... and more accurately, the discussion is about "natural selection".

Maybe Darwin aptly titled his work On Natural Selection and the scientifically illiterate, market savvy publisher said On the Origin of Species is sexier and will sell more.

I suppose. Leave it to the capitalists to spin the truth ...

BTW - I like your Little Red Rooster music video link

The real and non-abbreviated title of Darwin's book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

The work covers Darwin's theories about the adversity-based or environmentally-imposed effects of genetic mutation---leading to both speciation (the creation of new species via genetic mutation) and favorable adaption within species (again via genetic mutation). That speciation part of Darwin's theory, as Roberto correctly pointed out, is where the origin of species undoubtedly comes into play regarding that title selection. I agree that a better title might have been selected.

I bet D'Souza's not too fond of good old delusional Darwin...

Another one I'm a bit fond of is Huttonism (father of geology).

... and based on some circles, a new evolution of D'Souzaism may be in the works

... how about some Roosterism?

I would like to add that Darwin's ideas have not been hijacked by atheists anymore than by the creationists (like D'Souza).

-SWS wrote:......
I bet D'Souza's not too fond of good old delusional Darwin...

I have only read a few of D'Souza's works, seen him on a televised debate once, and heard him on the radio a couple of times. So I can't be sure, but when the subject of Darwin or natural selection came up, there was no indication of bad will toward Darwin. In fact D'Souza indicated appreciation of Darwin's work, particularly On the Origin of Species. Although he does have a problem with the title just as you do.

The rub is with Darwinistic atheism or any brand of philosophical atheism. "Philosophical atheism is narrowly dogmatic because it closes itself off from knowledge that does not conform to materialism and naturalism. Only data that fits the theory is allowed into the theory (tsk, tsk).

By contrast the theist is much more reasonable and open-minded. The theist does not deny the validity of scientific reasoning. On the contrary, the theist is constantly reasoning in this way in work and life. The theist is entirely willing to acknowledge material and natural causes for events, but he also admits the possibility of other types of knowledge.

Just because science cannot admit that the evidence of a Big Bang points to the existence of a creator doesn't mean that this is not a valid inference for theists to make. Just because science cannot show that human beings have a spiritual dimension that is not present in other living (or nonliving) creatures doesn't mean that such a conclusion, derived from experience, is unreasonable or inadmissible.

Scientific truth is not the whole truth. It cannot make the case for naturalism or materialism because it operates within naturalism and materialism. When we realize this, then philosophical atheism becomes much less plausible. Then we can let science do its admirable job without worrying that its procedural atheism provides any support for atheism in generally."

Relax. Use procedural atheism in all your endeavors just like we theists do. But don't think that makes philosophical atheism valid!

rooster wrote:

-SWS wrote:......
I bet D'Souza's not too fond of good old delusional Darwin...

I have only read a few of D'Souza's works, seen him on a televised debate once, and heard him on the radio a couple of times. So I can't be sure, but when the subject of Darwin or natural selection came up, there was no indication of bad will toward Darwin. In fact D'Souza indicated appreciation of Darwin's work, particularly On the Origin of Species. Although he does have a problem with the title just as you do.

The rub is with Darwinistic atheism or any brand of philosophical atheism. "Philosophical atheism is narrowly dogmatic because it closes itself off from knowledge that does not conform to materialism and naturalism. Only data that fits the theory is allowed into the theory (tsk, tsk).

By contrast the theist is much more reasonable and open-minded. The theist does not deny the validity of scientific reasoning. On the contrary, the theist is constantly reasoning in this way in work and life. The theist is entirely willing to acknowledge material and natural causes for events, but he also admits the possibility of other types of knowledge.

Just because science cannot admit that the evidence of a Big Bang points to the existence of a creator doesn't mean that this is not a valid inference for theists to make. Just because science cannot show that human beings have a spiritual dimension that is not present in other living (or nonliving) creatures doesn't mean that such a conclusion, derived from experience, is unreasonable or inadmissible.

Scientific truth is not the whole truth. It cannot make the case for naturalism or materialism because it operates within naturalism and materialism. When we realize this, then philosophical atheism becomes much less plausible. Then we can let science do its admirable job without worrying that its procedural atheism provides any support for atheism in generally."

Relax. Use procedural atheism in all your endeavors just like we theists do. But don't think that makes philosophical atheism valid!

Wha? ... there are brands and flavors of atheism just like there are in Chirsitanity and religion? I always thought that there were just atheists and agnostics and never knew there were different brands and flavors ... man I gott'a get out more

... and theists are open-minded? ... Do you mean they are Schizophrenists?

This discussion is getting too complex for me ... I think I'm more comfortable being a plain old living creature with an appreciation for naturalism and just a little materialism.

Well, I'm certainly not an atheist. However, as a theosophist, I am a big fan of the common underlying tenets of love and acceptance of all humanity espoused by many benevolent religions. Any religion can be pursued with an open or closed mind. My observation is that both regularly occur today, as has always been the case throughout history. For any who are interested:

Darwin's religious views:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Da ... ious_views

D'Souza's web site:
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/

And since Rooster is going to be away for most of the weekend, I can only assume that he is flying to the Galápagos Islands, with Darwin's and D'Souza's books in hand for an introspective weekend of comparison and hands-on observations about speciation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galapagos_Islands

Only kidding, my good man, Rooster! Have a great weekend, friend!

Maybe I'm too simple minded on all of this. But my view is that I do not use my religious beliefs to condemn anyone's scientific work and I hope no one uses their scientific beliefs to condemn my religion. It doesn't bother me one way or the other what someone else's choice is, religious or atheistic. What you believe is a personal choice. So is how you feel about the beliefs of others. And I find atheists and nonatheists alike perfectly capable of reasonable conversation and civility. And I find religious people and nonreligious people equally capable of bigotry.

A reasoning atheist can operate from the position that he has no moral ground to judge others' beliefs. A reasoning religious person can operate from the position that the higher power(s) have not delegated to him the job of judging others, either.

If someone does good, or bad, I do not attribute it to the color of their skin, their background, or their beliefs about atheism or religion, or their level of education. I simply attribute their actions to their individual choice and leave it to them to decide their reasons. I only have to find a way to deal with what people do, not why they do it.

But hey that's just me.

I don't know what bin I fall into. I feel I have a sense of spiritual love and compassion for all things living and non-living as preached by the theists but I have no desire to practice a formal religion. I also find it hard to argue against many atheistic perspectives but have no desire to defend their cause ... so maybe I'm agnostic (what brand who knows?).

Do have a safe and enjoyable weekend Rooster.

-SWS wrote:........
And since Rooster is going to be away for most of the weekend, I can only assume that he is flying to the Galápagos Islands, with Darwin's and D'Souza's books in hand for an introspective weekend of comparison and hands-on observations about speciation:
.............

No Galapagos this weekend. As you might guess, I am off to enjoy our National Religion, http://glenalans.blogspot.com/2006/09/t ... igion.html

9-1 expecting to be 10-1.

Hope ya'll enjoy yours.

Didn't Galileo have to rebuke his Copernican ideas under threat of excommunication?

Ganesha wrote:Didn't Galileo have to rebuke his Copernican ideas under threat of excommunication?

Ganesha,

My first thought when I read your post was, "So you have to go back 375 years to find a complaint against the Catholic Church regarding science?"

After I thought about it a little longer, I could answer my own question with, "Yes, you probably do have to go back 375 years!"

The case was an anomaly, a momentary break in the otherwise harmonious relationship that existed between Christianity and science. Indeed there is no other example in history of the Catholic church condemning a scientific theory.

Anyway, the case is much more complicated than presented by various detractors of the Catholic church. Galileo was a great scientist but he acted with very little common sense. He was right about heliocentrism, but several of his arguments and proofs were wrong. The dispute his ideas brought about was not exclusively between religion and science, but also between the new science and the science of the previous generation. The leading figures of the church were more circumspect about approaching the scientific issues, which were truly unsettled at the time, than the impetuous Galileo.

If you are further interested, you might want to read historians Gary Ferngren and Thomas Lessl to understand some of the complications.

Sanity check. What the hell am I doing on a Saturday afternoon defending the Catholic Church! I am part of the Protestant Reformation!

Have a good weekend,

Rooster,

No criticism intended, no defense needed.
I am impressed with your knowledge of scientific history.
Happy Easter!

Ganesha wrote: .......
I am impressed with your knowledge of scientific history.
.......

I am sure my friends will be along shortly to convince you to the contrary.

Regards,