Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-12-2017, 07:43 AM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 07:15 AM)Huggy Wrote:  
(14-12-2017 07:39 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  The thing about appealing to scientific theory is that you're always appealing to a falsifiable claim.
...
*Emphasis mine*

Question, if all scientific theory is falsifiable, how do you explain abiogenesis?

Welcome to TTA.

Answer: Category error.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
27-12-2017, 07:55 AM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 07:43 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(27-12-2017 07:15 AM)Huggy Wrote:  *Emphasis mine*

Question, if all scientific theory is falsifiable, how do you explain abiogenesis?

Welcome to TTA.
Thanks
Quote:Answer: Category error.

Thumbsup

How so?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2017, 08:16 AM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 07:55 AM)Huggy Wrote:  
(27-12-2017 07:43 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Welcome to TTA.
Thanks
Quote:Answer: Category error.

Thumbsup

How so?

Because there was no first living thing.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2017, 08:27 AM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 08:16 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(27-12-2017 07:55 AM)Huggy Wrote:  Thanks

How so?

Because there was no first living thing.

Big Grin

I'm not sure I follow.

If one states that all scientific theory is falsifiable, and (correct me if I'm wrong) abiogenesis is the prevailing theory of how life came to exist, in what way is this theory falsifiable?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2017, 08:42 AM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 08:27 AM)Huggy Wrote:  
(27-12-2017 08:16 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Because there was no first living thing.

Big Grin

I'm not sure I follow.

If one states that all scientific theory is falsifiable, and (correct me if I'm wrong) abiogenesis is the prevailing theory of how life came to exist, in what way is this theory falsifiable?

Nope. Abiogenesis is not a theory; it is a category of (potential) theories.

Any theory of the origin of life within the category of abiogenesis must be testable, falsifiable etc. to qualify as a theory.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
27-12-2017, 09:14 AM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 08:42 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(27-12-2017 08:27 AM)Huggy Wrote:  I'm not sure I follow.

If one states that all scientific theory is falsifiable, and (correct me if I'm wrong) abiogenesis is the prevailing theory of how life came to exist, in what way is this theory falsifiable?

Nope. Abiogenesis is not a theory; it is a category of (potential) theories.

Any theory of the origin of life within the category of abiogenesis must be testable, falsifiable etc. to qualify as a theory.

Thumbsup
*emphasis mine*

I agree with you 100%.

I believe Robvalue accepts abiogenesis as the most plausible scenario for the origin of life, which means he has also accepted an untested, unfalsifiable claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2017, 09:41 AM
Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 09:14 AM)Huggy Wrote:  I believe Robvalue accepts abiogenesis as the most plausible scenario for the origin of life, which means he has also accepted an untested, unfalsifiable claim.

Since the planet was created and initially had no life upon it and it now obviously has life, it’s clear that between those 2 states, life had to have arisen. The controversy is how this happened.

There are 2 competing ideas (not theories): one is chemistry. The other is a supernatural deity. The two ideas do not have equal weight. There is ample evidence for chemistry. In fact, self-replicating molecules similar to RNA have been replicated in the laboratory setting.

In sharp contrast, there is no data available concerning the abilities of any hypothetical supernatural deity.

Of those 2 possibilities, chemistry seems to be the more likely scenario barring the uncovering of empirical evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity and its alleged ability to create objects ex nihilo and imbue them with an equally hypothetical “magic spark” of life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Rachel's post
27-12-2017, 10:04 AM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
All scientific theories have to be capable of potential falsification. There is no point at which this ceases to be true
because that would then mean that a theory had been proven. But science does not deal in proof. Only deductive
disciplines like mathematics and syllogisms deal in proof. Science is an inductive discipline which deals in evidence

A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes surreptitious57's post
27-12-2017, 11:20 AM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
(27-12-2017 09:41 AM)Rachel Wrote:  
(27-12-2017 09:14 AM)Huggy Wrote:  I believe Robvalue accepts abiogenesis as the most plausible scenario for the origin of life, which means he has also accepted an untested, unfalsifiable claim.

Since the planet was created and initially had no life upon it and it now obviously has life, it’s clear that between those 2 states, life had to have arisen. The controversy is how this happened.

There are 2 competing ideas (not theories): one is chemistry. The other is a supernatural deity. The two ideas do not have equal weight. There is ample evidence for chemistry. In fact, self-replicating molecules similar to RNA have been replicated in the laboratory setting.

In sharp contrast, there is no data available concerning the abilities of any hypothetical supernatural deity.

Of those 2 possibilities, chemistry seems to be the more likely scenario barring the uncovering of empirical evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity and its alleged ability to create objects ex nihilo and imbue them with an equally hypothetical “magic spark” of life.

Ahh, but between these two ideas exist diametrically opposing views of what defines 'life', is life something that is corporeal or incorporeal?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2017, 11:28 AM
RE: Appeal to Authority vs. Peer Review.
At work.

Hello Huggy! Big Grin

(O_o)

Wait? What? 'Incorporeal life'?

Dafaq is that even grok?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: