Um método para a Matrix/DNA desafiar materialistas para debates: as diferentes logicas construindo as diferentes teorias.


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.


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?


Tags: , , ,