*nature *music *science

Yep. Nature and science FTW.

This week it has been:

• Wanted Adventure (for example https://youtu.be/wjQgjoZBjhI )
• Blancolirio (the name is spanish for white lily, Juan is a commercial pilot who has been covering the Oroville Dam debacle but it turns out his other videos are also really cool)
• Goodwood Road and Racing (Vroom!)
• Deep Look (and The Nature of Science) for nature videos from scientists.
• Arika Okrent (and also Langfocus) on linguistics
• Luna Lee (for example https://youtu.be/ANmvwQYRglw )

*music *nature *health *science

Videosift is clearly not the forum on which to teach economics (let alone philosophy or epistemology), but suffice it to say that logic applies to economics, just as it applies to geometry, and the other natural sciences.

Economics follows axiomatic-deduction. Human behavior is too complex to treat empirically (thereby precluding experiments that would be similar to, say, chemistry, which replicates the same results over and over again). With economics, such experiments are impossible because there are too many variables for which there are no controls, so therefore, a deductive approach is used, like with geometry which, if you recall, experiments aren't conducted in geometry, but logical deductions are made based on self-evident axioms.

This is in contrast to what, say, econometricians do. They try to make economics into an empirical science, like physics or chemistry and so they focus on the "science" and ignore the "social" in "social science."

Hermeneuticians/rhetorician on the other hand, ignore the "science" and focus on the "social."
Economics cannot be properly studied as a natural empirical science, but it also cannot be properly studied as rhetoric.

Deductive rationalism is the best fit for economic study.

I dunno if I agree with that last paragraph broski. Being a contrarian doesn't somehow make you right.

Not everybody can be a climate scientist. In a sense we do put our "faith" in specialists who have devoted a great deal of time to a specific area of study. I don't think this is a blind faith, the consensus opinion of scientists, has, on the whole proven to be pretty reliable. Of course they have been wrong in the past, but they are also the people who were right first. The nature of science is that when somebody with a good idea emerges, backed by evidence, that challenges the prevailing opinion, it is quickly adopted to be the consensus opinion. I read what I can about the subject, I understand somewhat less. I have my own opinions on the strength of the evidence but I am more swayed by expert opinions rather than my own judgements. Does this make me a sheep? Possibly, but then all human knowledge and understanding is distributed among the herd. We could not have the technology we have had we all made ourselves our own little intellectual islands.

On money, yes I agree, I don't doubt that there is a lot of capital in pushing the global warming "agenda". I do, however, somewhat doubt that it is more than the pressure pushing from the other side. Generally, it seems to me, the powers that be want to maintain the status quo, not submit to radical change and the unpredictable chaos it brings.

And when they haul you into court after your little murder spree you can always just tell them it wasn't really you but an evil doppelganger from an alternate universe. They will of course present "evidence" like clothing fibers, hair samples and fingerprints but they couldn't possibly admit those things when they are based on something as flimsy as empirical observations.

Empirical observation is very powerful, and obviously very useful, and I am not casting any doubt on that. Empirical evidence is good enough for most things, but usefulness does not justify it as a standard for truth. If you want to say we must have empirical evidence for everything except for the idea that we need empirical evidence for everything, then this is what is known as special pleading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

My biggest problem with inductive reasoning argument is that really it's just a simple fuck you response. The sun has risen on this planet again and again for the last 4 billion years or so but because inductive reasoning states that past performance is not a reliable predictor for the future. Holy shit! I'd better get my affairs in order because there's probably not going to be a tomorrow.

The problem of induction is simply pointing out the lack of rationale for why there should be a uniformity in nature (the constancy of natural law). Science has no answer for it; should the problem be ignored in order that the assumption may be justified? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.

By throwing in Inductive Reasoning, you are basically saying that nobody can ever really know anything, that religion and science are all the same, which I suspect is the true intent of the argument. I think some believe that if they can take science and reduce it to being just another "belief system" or "World View" then religion and science will be considered equally valid.

I think you're mistaking my position because I am not trying to equalize science and religion; I don't see any conflict between the two. In my worldview, everything that science does is completely justified. I can explain why there is uniformity in nature, and why empirical observation works and can be trusted. My worldview explains why we can know something to be true, and where our rationality comes from. The naturalistic/atheistic worldview can explain approximately none of these things. My argument, essentially, exposes the gaping holes of that position and the leaps of logic over those holes that must be made to justify it.

Empirical reasoning exists because we need some kind of shared standard for reality. Without that the court would have to acknowledge that your interpretation of reality (and that of your doppelganger) is as real and as valid as any scientifically produced evidence and you'd probably get away with murder.

So now, anytime you feel like you're losing an argument that involves scientific evidence you can just say "Inductive Reasoning" and you automatically win the argument.

Most of what I am called to do as a Christian is predicated in some way upon empirical observation. I am not challenging its usefulness at all; what I am really pointing out in this reply is that the problem of induction is only a problem for the atheist/agnostic and not the Christian.

What you seem to be saying here is that we must have a standard even if we can't explain it. If that is so, or even if it isn't, then I am here to tell you that we already have a standard given to us by the God who created you and me. He told us directly what this standard was when He sent His Son Jesus Christ into the world to die for our sins. The standard is Jesus Christ Himself, who said He is the way the truth and the life, and that no one comes to the Father but by Him. What He told us is that we must repent of our sins and believe on Him for forgiveness of our sins and that when we do we will be forgiven and receive eternal life.

*geek *nature *history *science

I'm a whiny bitch about details - especially where voice-over is concerned (e.g. I hate dubs) - but the info in the vid was good stuff. Science and space exploration FTW!

>> ^Barseps:

>> ^hpqp:
When the nature and science in documentaries are already mindblowingly awesome, is the overthetop, action-film trailer voice-over really necessary? ( misses Sagan dearly )

Great doc btw.

Thanks for the vote bud :-D

>> ^hpqp:

When the nature and science in documentaries are already mindblowingly awesome, is the overthetop, action-film trailer voice-over really necessary? ( misses Sagan dearly )

Great doc btw.


Thanks for the vote bud :-D

When the nature and science in *documentaries are already mindblowingly awesome, is the overthetop, action-film trailer voice-over really necessary? (*misses Sagan dearly*)


Great doc btw.

Your refutations were (in order)

"This guy believes in evolution"

"We can never prove anything about the fossil record"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is crazy"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is a probable creationist"

Yeah, amazing refutations..which you got from a website, while calling me out on doing the same thing. Evolutionists, biologists, palentologists etc DO dispute the theory of evolution..you were right though..the ones I provided were kind of weak. You'll have an infinitely harder time refuting these:

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate.

After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

Loren C. Eiseley,
Ph.D. Anthropology. "The Immense Journey". Random House, NY, p. 199

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain:

I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other.

Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Professor Jerome Lejeune,
Internationally recognised geneticist at a lecture given in Paris

"Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth."

Michael Denton,
Molecular Biologist. "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Adler and Adler, p. 358

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

L.Harrison Matthews,
British biologist

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."


L. Harrison Matthews,
Introduction to 'Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life', p. xxii (1977 edition).


"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete, because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."

Dr Albert Fleischmann. Recorded in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:120

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."


William B. Provine,
Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, 'Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life', Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.


"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers ? [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."


Hubert Yockey,
"Information Theory and Molecular Biology", Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257


"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others."


Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Principal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT, "Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994, p195)


"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome ?nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."

Walter James ReMine,
The Biotic Message : Evolution versus Message Theory


"Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ... The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."


Wolfgang Smith,
Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2


"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.
How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon.......In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."


Sir Fred Hoyle,
British physicist and astronomer, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, pp. 20-21, 23.


"...(I)t should be apparent that the errors, overstatements and omissions that we have noted in these biology texts, all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. More importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not trivial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acquisition of critical thinking skills. If we fail to teach students to examine data critically, looking for points both favoring and opposing hypotheses, we are selling our youth short and mortgaging the future of scientific inquiry itself."


Mills, Lancaster, Bradley,
'Origin of Life Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique', The American Biology Teacher, Volume 55, No. 2, February, 1993, p. 83


"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."


Wolfgang Smith,
Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics Teilardism and the New Religion. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.


"... as Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have become ever more adept at finding possible selective advantages for any trait one cares to mention, explanation in terms of the all-powerful force of natural selection has come more and more to resemble explanation in terms of the conscious design of the omnipotent Creator."


Mae-Wan Ho & Peter T. Saunders,
Biologist at The Open University, UK and Mathematician at University of London respectively


"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong'. A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"


Tom S. Kemp,
'A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67


"We have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."


Niles Eldredge,
Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p144)


... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."


David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25


"Thus all Darwin's premises are defective: there is no unlimited population growth in natural populations, no competition between individuals, and no new species producible by selecting for varietal differences. And if Darwin's premises are faulty, then his conclusion does not follow. This, of itself, does not mean that natural selection is false. It simply means that we cannot use Darwin's argument brilliant though it was, to establish natural selection as a means of explaining the origin of species."


Robert Augros & George Stanciu,
"The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.160).







>> ^MaxWilder:
What the hell are you talking about? I refuted every one of your quotes point by point! I provided links to further information. The whole point was that your "evidence" of paleontologists speaking out against evolution was utter bullshit!
The only one where I discredited the source was from some no-name Swedish biologist that nobody takes seriously. Every other source was either out of context (meaning you are not understanding the words properly), or out of date (meaning that science has progressed a little since the '70s).
You have got your head so far up your ass that you are not even coherent now.
But you know what might change my mind? If you cut&paste some more out of context, out of date quotes. You got hendreds of 'em! </sarcasm>
>> ^shinyblurry:
So basically, you cannot provide a refutation to the information itself but instead try to discredit the source.

I guess I was not entirely clear. A scientific "Law" and "Theory" is different, from how a legal "Law" or "Theory" is understood. And both these terms (from a scientific and legal perspective) are differently understood when compared to the layman's term of "Law" and "Theory". A layman's defination of "Law" is a rule that gives structure and a penalty (like the blue laws, or the 10 commendments). A layman's defination of "Theory" is much like a guess, and usually thought of as based on no real facts. Now, in this case, there's a religious "Law" and "Theory", and its defination is different from the scientific, legal and layman's terms.

If your going to define God (which is often thought of in religious terms) in a scientific manner, then you open the door, to letting someone define The Theory of Evolution, in religious terms. So, let religious people have God, and allow them to define the subject in their way. That would be taking the high road of the arguement.

Shatterdose,

If your going to bash me on the use of the word "Anyway" or "Anyway's" in a quote. Make sure the actual word is *IN* the quote. Otherwise, it allows me to fairly bash you back for being an idiot.

"Having belief in something does not prove nor disprove any facts"

Oh, that's a SCIENTIFIC fact that your talking about? You are mixing up what is understood as scientific and what is religious. A religious FACT, is the Holy Bible comes directly from God. A scientific fact would not past a correct level, since to say "The Holy Bible came from God." One must first prove the existance of God. Last I check, the nature of Science does not allow the ability to understand God.

"I accept that the Theory of Evolution is correct given all available knowledge and evidence to support such a claim."

This STILL states your thoughts on the subject as a belief, not one based on scientific understanding. You 'accept' means you take 'on faith', that what ever follows is correct, without checking if it *IS* correct.

Just remeber.....Obey Gravity, its the Law!

*nochannel *asia *cooking *nature *british *science

I'm currently reading "Freedom Evolves" by Daniel C. Dennett, which is quite interesting but a bit of a challenging read.

The book that I'll never forget, that changed my view of nature and science forever would have to be The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. I recommend it to absolutely everyone. Up until I read that book, I thought I had this evolution business pretty much right, but TSG explained it for real, and the stunning simplicity and elegance of the concept struck me for the first time in full force.

Prior to reading it, I read a quote by the late, great Douglas Adams saying something very similar to what I just said, and I thought "Huh? didn't Douglas Adams know ANYTHING about evolution before reading Dawkins?" and I thought that reading that book would not reveal anything new to me, but boy was I wrong. Turns out nearly everything I thought I knew about evolution was either wrong, inaccurate or inadequate.