NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2016,13:30) | | Quote (NoName @ April 23 2016,11:49) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2016,12:32) | Considering how "they don't know their fundamentals or are overhyping their research" you are contradicting yourself by turning around to give them praise for their "good scientific procedures such as documenting evidence and testing falsifiable hypotheses."
| Quote (N.Wells @ April 23 2016,11:15) | My assessment about the Templeton grant is that those folk are arguing against a strawman-version of evolutionary biology (implying that they don't know their fundamentals or are overhyping their research and are therefore NOT exemplars of excellence), and that they are at risk of wanting to prove some strongly desired conclusions.....
Those objections aside, the rest of the grantees' scientific programs appear to be involve good scientific procedures such as documenting evidence and testing falsifiable hypotheses. |
|
You really can't read for comprehension, can you?
Try better. Your problem is in scoping the first bolded parenthetical remark.
See if you can figure out what's being talked about before you try maintaining an ongoing misunderstanding as definitive, especially when you are corrected by the author of the remarks in question on that very misunderstanding.
You are as anti-semantic as I've ever seen. |
If the researchers truly had a full understanding of the theory they are attempting to rewrite then there would be no conflict at all with the mainstream scientific community.
In my case I develop cognitive models for origin of life/intelligence research and whatever Larry Moran and other qualified experts in modern evolutionary theory decide is all fine by me. I have no need to overthrow any existing scientific theory, but the philosophical crutch that's often used to bash my work is more like a weapon that has to be taken away before any more damage to science is inflicted by it. |
If the researchers already had a full understanding of the theory, then their work would be done.
Perhaps because you are so very very far outside it, the 'mainstream scientific community' looks like a Borg collective. It isn't. There are controversies, alternative viewpoints, conflicting attempts to understand problems, conflicting view of what the problems even are, conflicting attempts to propose solutions, propose tests for those solutions, execute the tests, evaluate the results, both iteratively and recursively, forever. At each stage, we come closer to 'the truth', closer to an understanding of reality. Each genuine step forward builds on and incorporates, encompasses, previously gained valid truths.
There is always conflict within the scientific community.
That is one of its strengths.
We stand on the shoulders of giants.
You and your ilk at the DI want to stand on the necks of giants. You lack the stature to reach that high. You're barely ankle-biters.
In your case, you haven't got a 'cognitive model' for your work has nothing whatsoever to do with cognition.
Now that 'intelligence' isn't working as a mask for your fantasies, you're switching to 'cognition'?
It won't go any better for you.
Your nonsense lacks evidentiary support.
It lacks any evidence of even the faintest understanding of cognition, modeling, research, evidence, logic, coherence, testability, or any other aspect of science.
You contradict standard definitions without ever proposing your own ['learn' is the canonical example, as we've gone over repeatedly].
You are not qualified to judge who is, and who is not, a 'qualified expert' in any scientific field. It is remotely possible that you are qualified to judge who is a 'qualified expert' in various aspects of the care and maintenance of print equipment. But that seems to be the extent of your qualifications.
You have no 'scientific theory' to be overthrown, for there is no there, there. No 'theory'. Nothing to overthrow.
We've shown that it is a sick sad joke. Further evidence of that fact is the stark lack of acceptance your effluent has seen over the last, well, nearly a decade.
Your work is not a weapon, it is a grand futility.
The only way science could damage it is if it made actual scientific claims that science disproves.
By and large, it doesn't even make scientific claims. Where it does, or implies them, it is demonstrably wrong.
Take the absurd notion of creatures building a complete map of the territory they occupy and use it to determine where and how to move. That's been obsolete for more than a century. Minds don't work like that.
Evolution can help explain why. You can't.
So how about you try answering some of the questions posed?
How about you try mustering up a defense against some of the charges that have fatally demolished your said little fantasy of an 'explanation' of intelligence.
It can't be an explanation of intelligence as such if it fails to explain a host of 'features of the universe' widely taken to be acts of intelligence. We've presented a number of those, but examples can be proliferated endlessly.
Your "theory" is both original and true. Sadly, it is rarely true. Where it is original it is not true. Where it is true, it is not only not original, it is banal, trivial, unenlightening and useless.
Further, as noted above, it is relentlessly reductive in strictly materialist terms. Deal with it.
You don't have an 'alternative to methodological naturalism', you don't even have a naturalism properly grounded in reality.
|
