xxxx
Um método para debater teorias com cientistas.
Os acadêmicos tem teorias muito influentes, como a de que a vida veio da não-vida, que o Universo começou com um Big Bang apenas fisico e não biologico, que a evolução começou na Terra e tem apenas 3 variáveis, etc. Eu tenho outra viso do mundo cujas teorias são diferentes nos tres tópicos: a vida é mero produto da evolução dos sistemas naturais que vieram da era cosmologica, que o Universo é apenas uma placenta e começou por um ato de fecundação biológico, que a evolução é universal e tem sete variáveis, etc.
Como eu poderia desafia-los obrigando-os a um debate?
Bem, eles vão exigir que eu apresente modelos teóricos perfeitamente testáveis. Ou mais, que eu apresente como provas os modelos já testados. Mas eles tambem não podem testar e nem tem testados estas três teorias. Então quando pedem isso, eu poderia rebater pedindo-lhes o mesmo. Mas isso interromperia o debate. Então existe outro método:
Já que nenhum dos dois podem testar suas teorias, só nos resta debater a logica de cada teoria. De onde eles tiraram a logica em que um minusculo átomo ao explodir contenha toda a massa e energia do Universo? Onde eles viram algo semelhante? Onde eles viram uma sopa de ingredientes inorgânicos produzirem algo vivo? Porque existem tantas falhas ainda na teoria da evolução? Não seria porque apenas 3 variaveis não podem mover a evolução? Porque dividem a Historia da Evolução Universal em dois blocos separados entre si sem nenhum elo evolutivo entre os dois, os blocos da Evolução Cosmologica e da Evolução Biologica? Quem os autorizou a isso, se a natureza universal é uma só? Porque dividem os sistemas naturais em vivos e não-vivos?
Atraindo-os para este terreno eu posso ter vantagens porque todos os passos da minha teoria são embasados em fatos conhecidos e provados aqui e agora. E as teorias deles são baseadas em exercícios matemáticos não em fatos reais.
Então, vem a calhar este artigo, onde posso extrair argumentos para esse debate e tentar conhecer melhor a psique deles, como ela funciona. Assim como o autor do artigo esta buscando como funciona a psique dos que acreditam na Terra plana.
Flat Earthers, and the Rise of Science Denial in America
trechos importantes no artigo:
If we can understand science denial in its most elemental form, might we not be able to make progress against all of it at once? For those of us who care about science, it is important to fight back against science denial in whatever form it arises.
But we must do it in the right way.
As I argue in The Scientific Attitude, we need to stop merely pointing to the successes of science and reclaim the notion of uncertainty as a strength rather than a weakness of scientific reasoning. No matter how good the evidence, science cannot “prove” that climate change is real. Or that vaccines are safe. Or even that the Earth is round. That is just not how inductive reasoning works.
What scientists can do, however, is say much more than they do about the importance of likelihood and probability, to puncture the myth that until we have proof, any theory is just as good as any other. Scientific beliefs are not based on certainty but on “warrant”—on justification given the evidence. To say that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has hit the “five-sigma” level, which means that there is only a one in a million chance of a false positive, is something less than certainty. But who could deny that this is enough for rational belief? When certainty is the standard, science deniers may feel justified in holding out for proof. So let’s explain to them that this is not how science works. That certainty is an irrational standard for empirical belief.
When a scientist looks for evidence, and it shows that his or her theory is wrong, this cannot just be ignored. If the problem gets bad enough, the theory must be changed or perhaps even abandoned, else one is no longer really a scientist. Yet I do not believe that this is a matter of method or logic (as Karl Popper and other philosophers have long argued,) but of values. One of the reasons that science works as well as it does is that—as opposed to ideology—it does NOT pretend that it has all the answers. It is open to new ideas, but also insists that these must be rigorously tested. In science there is a community standard to enforce this, based on data sharing, peer review, and replication. The scientific attitude exists not just in the hearts of individual scientists, but as a group ethos that guides empirical inquiry in a rational way. But how many of the lay public know this?
I therefore think that the best way to defend science is to go out and have more conversations with science deniers. I am not talking here about those desultory TV debates of yore, where they used to put James Hansen (a NASA scientist and leading voice on climate change) on a split screen with some conspiracy theorist, and then give them equal time. There are obviously legitimate concerns about giving a platform for falsehood. I’m talking about getting more scientists in front of the media, to talk not just about their findings, but about the rigorous process by which scientific results are produced. And yes, I think it is reasonable to expect more interactions between scientists and science deniers, as is now happening with the measles outbreak in Washington state, where public health officials are holding workshops to talk with anti-vaxxers.
In scientific reasoning there’s always a chance that your theory is wrong. What separates science deniers from actual scientists is how rigorously they pursue that possibility.
xxxxx
Ensaio para meu post
Sir McIntyre,
I will say that the Science’s representatives, those writing about Sciencies are the first prejudice to Science and who feeds the Science deniers. Theoretical scientists are producing bad, not rational, theories, and the writers try to sell these theories as final proved facts. Theoretical scientists usually loose the rational thinking, but normal people does not, they see the absurdity in such theories, and this is the first cause that normal people disbelief Science.
I agree with you the absurdity of Flat Earthers, climate and vaccine denials, but these are not the meaning scientific theories that affects people against Science. It is the most existential that affects deep beliefs, like the origins of life and this world, evolution by chance, etc. I am a theoretical naturalist philosopher doing my private investigation in Amazon jungle and nature here is suggesting a totally different world view, and that all these academic official theories are very wrong.
If you are serious in this issue and want to advocate in behalf of these current scientific theories ( I am not talking about scientific and empirical proved facts, it is about theories), I’m challenging you to a debate. We will begin fighting with evidences. I will show thousands of real facts as evidences to my theories, and lots of previsions already confirmed by the last scientific data, as you will do it. But it will not solve the debate. Then, you will ask me rigorous tests about each theory, I don’t have it, but I will ask you to and I know you don’t have it. We don’t have it because we do not have the appropriate technology yet. So, the unique thing we can do is to debate the logical reasoning implied in each theory. And I think I will earn here because each steps of my theories are supported by known and proved facts existing here and now, while most of the steps of these academic theories does not have such support. This debate is useful because it will show to me and you the faults in our rational reasoning that are presents in those scientific deniers, and finally we will understand it.
What do you have to say?
Author of “The Universal Formula of Natural Systems and Life Cycles Theory” says:
Hi, everybody! I am not satisfied with humans, their behaviors, social systems, religions, scientific method, etc. Living at Amazon jungle like a single primata I got a new world view totally different than all you know, and I would appreciate if somebody here that advocates and believes in the world view suggested by yours scientific theories want testing them facing a kind of alien.
First of all, I am saying that yours interpretations of this world are away off the beam (again, like when people believed in the Sun orbiting Earth, all species created by magics, etc.). The main cause of yours mistakes is the missing knowledge about “natural systems”. You don’t know neither 5% about what a natural system is. Since human bodies are individual natural systems composed by natural systems like cells and atoms, living inside systems like stellar and galaxies, all these systems are produced and aligned by a unique universal evolutionary lineage and all them are interacting, and you don’t know nothing about systems, all yours theoretical models about them are wrong, not complete, then yours wrong interpretations and world view. Some of this mistakes:
1) There are no origins of life in this Universe. Origins is a bad word, the cause of mystical creationism and mystical materialism. There is a long natural chain of causes and effects coming since the beginnings. And origins of something would mean coming from outside, which does not exist. There is no separation between Cosmological Evolution and Biological Evolution, then, must be an evolutionary link in between, I found it, but humans never search for it. Of course, the link is merely a different shape of the universal system evolving since the beginnings under a unique set of variable mechanisms, which are seven, but Darwinism knows only three of them (VSI – Variation, Selection, Inheritance). Life is another wrong bad word responsible by the disconnection between humans and their creative Nature. There is no division of systems into “living” and “non-living”: I am discovering that all biological properties already were existing at atoms, galaxies, in potential state or expressed, so, if you say that a human body system is alive, you must say that an atom and a galaxy are alive too.
2) Universal evolution, a unique process transforming an initial system into new more complexes shapes, obeying the same rules of life’s cycles, must have a universal genetics with an universal DNA. So, DNA was not created here, it is an evolving product of a universal Matrix/DNA that had the shapes of mechanistic astronomy, atomistic electromagnetism and even, quantum field substance. I found that the real force moving in that quantum field is waves of light and the inner anatomy of a natural light wave is equal the DNA formula.
3) DNA is not a “genetic code”. It is merely a pile of millions of diversified copies of a unique natural system, its fundamental building block, or unit of information. Since that I have decifreid this formula, which is the same formula for atoms and galaxies, and which is published at my website, my interpretations of the whole world, its meaning and the meaning of human existence are totally different than yours.
I went to live at Amazon jungle as a naturalist philosopher because I was not supporting human civilization and because I was suspecting that at the untouched virgin Nature still there are the witness of the beginnings of this biosphere and they must have the answers to my existential questions. The answers I got are suggesting that you are doing almost everything wrong and Nature usually discards such species. A big cause is that you don’t want to give the necessary evolutionary jump in the scientific method, from reductionism into systemic approach. This world is ruled by a universal systemic formula, which produces systems as living fractals. There are this fractal microscopic shape below you at quantum, atomic level, and its astronomic macroscopic shape above you. You are one of this ling fractal at the middle. If you does not learn what the hell is this fractal, sorry, my fiend, you are going nowhere, like dinosaurs and all others. I suggest that you comes to testing yours world view now. For me will be good because, as a skeptical, I need testing my world view also facing yours criticism. Thanks,… Louis…