Flu Shots and Faith

[glenn1]

I guess you missed my post where I clearly stated the premise of the OP is unethical. My 'red herring' as you call it, because you completely missed the point, is to illustrate yet another gross hypocrisy of those with a conservative religious mindset who use faith-based reasoning.

Then I suppose I did. I read your statement that it's "isn't exactly ethical" as being a judgement that it's only partially unethical, not wholely so, vs. my unambiguous statement that it was wholy unethical (or alternatively while you think that it's unethical you still thought it to be a reasonably good idea absent that moral component).

This thread highlights the very real, very tangible absolute differences between those who argue with empiricism and those who argue with faith (or in Moonbeam's case, some bizarre pseudopsychology) - the two sides play by different rules, and posts like the OP's are the result.

Okay, let me ask you a pair of follow-up questions then. Do you believe in abiogenesis? And do you believe in quantum mechanics? (my reason for asking the question will come after your answer).

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Okay, let me ask you a pair of follow-up questions then. Do you believe in abiogenesis? And do you believe in quantum mechanics? (my reason for asking the question will come after your answer).

First, your semantics are wrong. Scientists don't 'believe' in theories, they either accept or reject theories as the most plausible (or parsimonious) explanations for observable phenomena. New data can change what scientists accept or reject literally overnight, though typically it takes a lot of convincing and arguing to outright reject a long-standing theory.

As for abiogenesis, the Urey-Miller experiments showed that under the right conditions, biomolecules can 'spontaneously' form from inorganic components. But we simply don't know whether or not those 'right conditions' were present at some point in the Earth's early history. There are a number of other theories that attempt to explain how life on the planet initially arose (for a good review in an accessible book, see Knoll's "Life on a Young Planet").

This is the realm of chemical, not biological evolution, and since I am a biologist and not a chemist, I can't speak with much certainty as to whether or not I accept any of the various abiogenesis theories. I'd go with what the more conservative experts say - we have some good ideas that are to an extent supported by some data. However, I'm certainly not going to start making special appeals to the supernatural simply because we aren't nearly certain about how life arose - yet.

This is another difference between scientific and faith-based reasoning: (most) scientists will readily admit what we do and do not know, and will endlessly qualify their arguments (like I just did with the Urey-Miller experiments).

As for quantum mechanics, my physics education stopped about 8 years ago with intro uni level e & m and Newtonian Mechanics. I suspect, however, quantum mechanics goes a long way towards explaining observed phenomena (if I remember right, quanta go a long way in explaining the nature of light), but I certainly am in no position to have an opinion worth much on this subject.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: glenn1
Okay, let me ask you a pair of follow-up questions then. Do you believe in abiogenesis? And do you believe in quantum mechanics? (my reason for asking the question will come after your answer).

As for abiogenesis, the Urey-Miller experiments showed that under the right conditions, biomolecules can 'spontaneously' form from inorganic components. But we simply don't know whether or not those 'right conditions' were present at some point in the Earth's early history. There are a number of other theories that attempt to explain how life on the planet initially arose (for a good review in an accessible book, see Knoll's "Life on a Young Planet").

Actually we do know that those conditions existed. The nitrogen compounds under a methane-heavy atmosphere, with some oxides and under high temperature, represent exactly the conditions that geologic record places on Earth at the dawn of life. The final component is an electric arc... which would be generated by lighting.

Abiogenesis, just like evolution, has a mountain of evidence supporting it... and not a single bit of evidence refuting it. Remember the definition of a theory - it must be substantiated by evidence, be usable to make predictions, and can be struct down with a single supported refuting hypothesis.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: glenn1
Okay, let me ask you a pair of follow-up questions then. Do you believe in abiogenesis? And do you believe in quantum mechanics? (my reason for asking the question will come after your answer).

As for abiogenesis, the Urey-Miller experiments showed that under the right conditions, biomolecules can 'spontaneously' form from inorganic components. But we simply don't know whether or not those 'right conditions' were present at some point in the Earth's early history. There are a number of other theories that attempt to explain how life on the planet initially arose (for a good review in an accessible book, see Knoll's "Life on a Young Planet").

Actually we do know that those conditions existed. The nitrogen compounds under a methane-heavy atmosphere, with some oxides and under high temperature, represent exactly the conditions that geologic record places on Earth at the dawn of life. The final component is an electric arc... which would be generated by lighting.

Abiogenesis, just like evolution, has a mountain of evidence supporting it... and not a single bit of evidence refuting it. Remember the definition of a theory - it must be substantiated by evidence, be usable to make predictions, and can be struct down with a single supported refuting hypothesis.

Dr. Behe disagrees.

 

[Moonbeam]

G: First, your semantics are wrong. Scientists don't 'believe' in theories, they either accept or reject theories as the most plausible (or parsimonious) explanations for observable phenomena. New data can change what scientists accept or reject literally overnight, though typically it takes a lot of convincing and arguing to outright reject a long-standing theory.

You don't specifically say it, but you do seem to imply that data determines plausibility. So it looks like you believe in that. Where did you get such faith? I have heard, for example, that just looking changes what there to see.

 

[glenn1]

First, your semantics are wrong. Scientists don't 'believe' in theories, they either accept or reject theories as the most plausible (or parsimonious) explanations for observable phenomena. New data can change what scientists accept or reject literally overnight, though typically it takes a lot of convincing and arguing to outright reject a long-standing theory.

As for abiogenesis, the Urey-Miller experiments showed that under the right conditions, biomolecules can 'spontaneously' form from inorganic components. But we simply don't know whether or not those 'right conditions' were present at some point in the Earth's early history. There are a number of other theories that attempt to explain how life on the planet initially arose (for a good review in an accessible book, see Knoll's "Life on a Young Planet").

This is the realm of chemical, not biological evolution, and since I am a biologist and not a chemist, I can't speak with much certainty as to whether or not I accept any of the various abiogenesis theories. I'd go with what the more conservative experts say - we have some good ideas that are to an extent supported by some data. However, I'm certainly not going to start making special appeals to the supernatural simply because we aren't nearly certain about how life arose - yet.

This is another difference between scientific and faith-based reasoning: (most) scientists will readily admit what we do and do not know, and will endlessly qualify their arguments (like I just did with the Urey-Miller experiments).

As for quantum mechanics, my physics education stopped about 8 years ago with intro uni level e & m and Newtonian Mechanics. I suspect, however, quantum mechanics goes a long way towards explaining observed phenomena (if I remember right, quanta go a long way in explaining the nature of light), but I certainly am in no position to have an opinion worth much on this subject.

Fair enough. I was using "believe" in the more colloquial fashion to mean "agree with."

Regardless though, the underlying point remains the same. Neither of those theories use the scientific method or empiricism which you champion. Abiogenesis because there was no observation (unless you go with "life exists" which is an ontological question, not an empirically observed event) and quantum mechanics basically rejects the foundational principles of empiricism, indeed turns them on their head. So I'm just wondering how you can accept those theories without much reservation, yet turn around and use the "empiricism" club to bash down those with a viewpoint different than yours when it comes to evolution - a scientific theory you agree with. After all, it seems you don't mind abandoning the empirical model when it suits your needs.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: glenn1

First, your semantics are wrong. Scientists don't 'believe' in theories, they either accept or reject theories as the most plausible (or parsimonious) explanations for observable phenomena. New data can change what scientists accept or reject literally overnight, though typically it takes a lot of convincing and arguing to outright reject a long-standing theory.

As for abiogenesis, the Urey-Miller experiments showed that under the right conditions, biomolecules can 'spontaneously' form from inorganic components. But we simply don't know whether or not those 'right conditions' were present at some point in the Earth's early history. There are a number of other theories that attempt to explain how life on the planet initially arose (for a good review in an accessible book, see Knoll's "Life on a Young Planet").

This is the realm of chemical, not biological evolution, and since I am a biologist and not a chemist, I can't speak with much certainty as to whether or not I accept any of the various abiogenesis theories. I'd go with what the more conservative experts say - we have some good ideas that are to an extent supported by some data. However, I'm certainly not going to start making special appeals to the supernatural simply because we aren't nearly certain about how life arose - yet.

This is another difference between scientific and faith-based reasoning: (most) scientists will readily admit what we do and do not know, and will endlessly qualify their arguments (like I just did with the Urey-Miller experiments).

As for quantum mechanics, my physics education stopped about 8 years ago with intro uni level e & m and Newtonian Mechanics. I suspect, however, quantum mechanics goes a long way towards explaining observed phenomena (if I remember right, quanta go a long way in explaining the nature of light), but I certainly am in no position to have an opinion worth much on this subject.

Fair enough. I was using "believe" in the more colloquial fashion to mean "agree with."

Regardless though, the underlying point remains the same. Neither of those theories use the scientific method or empiricism which you champion. Abiogenesis because there was no observation (unless you go with "life exists" which is an ontological question, not an empirically observed event) and quantum mechanics basically rejects the foundational principles of empiricism, indeed turns them on their head. So I'm just wondering how you can accept those theories without much reservation, yet turn around and use the "empiricism" club to bash down those with a viewpoint different than yours when it comes to evolution - a scientific theory you agree with. After all, it seems you don't mind abandoning the empirical model when it suits your needs.

He may abandon it at his leisure, but I want to know where his faith in it lies.