(2018-06-14, 12:41 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]No one calls string theory pseudoscience, yet calling it "unproven and speculative" is perhaps an understatement. Calling something pseudoscientific often seems to depend on what claim is being made rather than what kind of evidentiary support it actually enjoys.
Yes String Theory is not at this time recognized as a science it is considered a possibility and no one has claimed victory it is science. Same goes for Panspermia yet Steele does just that. Novella was calling Steele pseudoscientific. Recognize the difference?
P.S. String Theory will become science if and when it can be tested.
(2018-06-13, 07:22 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Steele and Novella cross swords: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...doscience/
An even exchange, to my thinking. I am skeptical about panspermia, but it is a very logical topic for research. Novella, bristles at being told that his blog response to the published paper is emotional. I think it is, and it feels entitled and self-righteous:
Quote: All three arguments are utter crap. The underlying claim of panspermia – that life has seeded the galaxy from one or a limited number of initial sources – is highly problematic but perhaps not 100% nonsense.
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...anspermia/
A possible vector of genetic input into earthly evolution is not a problem to unemotional science, except if you have a strong bias against it. Ted was right to respond formally, when someone calls your research "utter crap". Especially when you are a proven-performer.
The bigger picture is that Steven Novella is a dissenter and guardian of the neoDarwinian outlook, with credentials to support his opinion. However, he has not made a novel contribution to science. Nor is he an expert in biochemistry or in the lab.
Edward (Ted) Steele is in a different context. He has uncovered evidence, with Robin Lindley, that HAS added a significant and novel process vector to genetic processes. Disparaged, at the time by the biological community, fired from his job, Steele's thesis has proven true over time. So, as a veteran of the fight against NeoDarwinism, Steele has credibility from success and is writing within his own field of expertise.
So - one debater is a nay-sayer, and the others are performers with proven track-records. Please read about the impact of Steele and Lindley's results. I see this, like I see the fight against Lynn Margulis, who of course was right about her shattering findings regarding neoDarwinian dogma.
https://events.unimelb.edu.au/presenters...yn-lindley
Quote:Dr. Robyn A. Lindley is an Honorary Senior Fellow in the Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences at the University of Melbourne. She is also an inventor, and Chief Scientific Officer (CSO) and Director of GMDx Co Pty Ltd. Her first degrees are in physics and informatics. But Robyn has morphed into an internationally recognized immunogeneticist who has been publishing on the molecular mechanisms of evolution and somatic hypermutation (SHM) in the immune system for almost two decades. SMH is the cellular mechanism responsible for antibody diversity.
This journey began in 1996 when she joined with ANU Immunologists Edward J Steele and Robert V Blanden as co-authors of Lamarck’s Signature, a best-selling science book that laid out the scientific evidence for antibody diversity and the evolution of immune recognition via reverse transcription-coupled feedback loops. This was followed by a breakthrough paper in 2006 with ANU’s Edward J Steele and Georg F Weiller, that provided the first data-driven evidence for the reverse transcription-based mechanism in antibody producing cells. This was a crucial step for understanding the processes involved in the accumulation of unwanted genetic mutations in somatic cells that may ultimately give rise to cancer. In 2010, she published the highly regarded The Soma, that was a synthesis of evolutionary genetic mechanisms. In the same year, with Edward J Steele, it was shown that the diagnostic strand-biased mutation patterns are the same for mouse antibody genes, and for all human cancers analyzed (in part or in toto). The overwhelming conclusion was that all cancers displayed a similar form of dysregulated error prone somatic hypermutation that is normally tightly edited in normal hypermutating B cells in the immune system.
Steve001 Wrote:Yes String Theory is not at this time recognized as a science it is considered a possibility and no one has claimed victory it is science. Same goes for Panspermia yet Steele does just that. Novella was calling Steele pseudoscientific. Recognize the difference?
P.S. String Theory will become science if and when it can be tested.
I'm not defending panspermia in any way. However, I think that you're not recognizing the fact that string theory is studied worldwide by an enormous number of physicists. It is taken very seriously because
some physicists think it has some theoretical power (though many others disagree, based on my understanding). Though I don't buy it, panspermia certainly has theoretical power - it makes sense to some degree. And just like string theory, it's lacking in evidentiary support.
Nonetheless, it appears to me that string theory is far from being consistently called pseudoscience generally, though I think such a claim would be entirely just based on some of the other things people call pseudoscience that in some instances probably have much more actual evidence than does string theory. While some may not claim string theory as a "victory", a whole lot of scientists point to it and lean on it in a way that is totally unjustified by the evidence, or lack thereof, to date.
I do not think the difference that you're trying to establish exists, at least not in the black and white manner you're describing. I am not a proponent of panspermia and I don't think we really have any evidence of it. I just think it's interesting how the term "pseudoscience" is applied sometimes.
(2018-06-14, 02:42 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not defending panspermia in any way. However, I think that you're not recognizing the fact that string theory is studied worldwide by an enormous number of physicists. It is taken very seriously because some physicists think it has some theoretical power (though many others disagree, based on my understanding). Though I don't buy it, panspermia certainly has theoretical power - it makes sense to some degree. And just like string theory, it's lacking in evidentiary support.
Nonetheless, it appears to me that string theory is far from being consistently called pseudoscience generally, though I think such a claim would be entirely just based on some of the other things people call pseudoscience that in some instances probably have much more actual evidence than does string theory. While some may not claim string theory as a "victory", a whole lot of scientists point to it and lean on it in a way that is totally unjustified by the evidence, or lack thereof, to date.
I do not think the difference that you're trying to establish exists, at least not in the black and white manner you're describing. I am not a proponent of panspermia and I don't think we really have any evidence of it. I just think it's interesting how the term "pseudoscience" is applied sometimes.
Pretty much every "science" was at one time laughed at as pseudoscience, making the term a hollow and meaningless insult these days. It's like the term "conspiracy theorist" which got popularized to discredit people asking too many questions of the Warren commission despite conspiracy being an actual crime you can be convicted of and despite the fact that detectives are, by definition, conspiracy theorists. What becomes a pseudoscience, just like a "conspiracy theory", is more dependent on the beliefs and/or interests of the accuser than the actual validity of the data or methodology. Which is probably why these days the terms no longer have any dissuading power thanks to their overuse and memery in shutting down mere discussion.
(2018-06-14, 02:42 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not defending panspermia in any way. However, I think that you're not recognizing the fact that string theory is studied worldwide by an enormous number of physicists. It is taken very seriously because some physicists think it has some theoretical power (though many others disagree, based on my understanding). Though I don't buy it, panspermia certainly has theoretical power - it makes sense to some degree. And just like string theory, it's lacking in evidentiary support.
Nonetheless, it appears to me that string theory is far from being consistently called pseudoscience generally, though I think such a claim would be entirely just based on some of the other things people call pseudoscience that in some instances probably have much more actual evidence than does string theory. While some may not claim string theory as a "victory", a whole lot of scientists point to it and lean on it in a way that is totally unjustified by the evidence, or lack thereof, to date.
I do not think the difference that you're trying to establish exists, at least not in the black and white manner you're describing. I am not a proponent of panspermia and I don't think we really have any evidence of it. I just think it's interesting how the term "pseudoscience" is applied sometimes.
I have no qualms about what you've written. Novell's position is Steele is stating unsupported evidentiary claims. That is pseudoscientific. For example. Here's a thread titled: General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis by Jeffery Wolynski.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...p?t=286808
It's an example of a person that won't hear no for an answer just like Steele.
(2018-06-14, 03:31 PM)Mediochre Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty much every "science" was at one time laughed at as pseudoscience, making the term a hollow and meaningless insult these days. It's like the term "conspiracy theorist" which got popularized to discredit people asking too many questions of the Warren commission despite conspiracy being an actual crime you can be convicted of and despite the fact that detectives are, by definition, conspiracy theorists. What becomes a pseudoscience, just like a "conspiracy theory", is more dependent on the beliefs and/or interests of the accuser than the actual validity of the data or methodology. Which is probably why these days the terms no longer have any dissuading power thanks to their overuse and memery in shutting down mere discussion.
Yeah, I agree with pretty much all of this entirely. That was basically my point, that calling something pseudoscience these days appears a large amount of the time to mean something like "you're arguing for something I don't believe it, so it's pseudoscience", rather than that the idea is both theoretically and evidentially vacuous. It's just a worthless term most of the time.
(2018-06-14, 01:57 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]An even exchange, to my thinking. I am skeptical about panspermia, but it is a very logical topic for research. Novella, bristles at being told that his blog response to the published paper is emotional. I think it is, and it feels entitled and self-righteous:
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde...anspermia/
A possible vector of genetic input into earthly evolution is not a problem to unemotional science, except if you have a strong bias against it. Ted was right to respond formally, when someone calls your research "utter crap". Especially when you are a proven-performer.
The bigger picture is that Steven Novella is a dissenter and guardian of the neoDarwinian outlook, with credentials to support his opinion. However, he has not made a novel contribution to science. Nor is he an expert in biochemistry or in the lab.
Edward (Ted) Steele is in a different context. He has uncovered evidence, with Robin Lindley, that HAS added a significant and novel process vector to genetic processes. Disparaged, at the time by the biological community, fired from his job, Steele's thesis has proven true over time. So, as a veteran of the fight against NeoDarwinism, Steele has credibility from success and is writing within his own field of expertise.
So - one debater is a nay-sayer, and the others are performers with proven track-records. Please read about the impact of Steele and Lindley's results. I see this, like I see the fight against Lynn Margulis, who of course was right about her shattering findings regarding neoDarwinian dogma. https://events.unimelb.edu.au/presenters...yn-lindley
Novella’s specific complaint about pseudoscientific tactics was the shifting of the burden of proof. Given that Novella has pointed out the weaknesses in Steele’s evidence, were do you think the burden of proof lies?
As a baseline, I think the burden of proof with string theory lies with the string theorists.
(2018-06-14, 07:27 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Novella’s specific complaint about pseudoscientific tactics was the shifting of the burden of proof. Given that Novella has pointed out the weaknesses in Steele’s evidence, were do you think the burden of proof lies?
As a baseline, I think the burden of proof with string theory lies with the string theorists.
The complaint against using pejoratives like pseudoscience is not to do with the specifics of this argument. IMO, both panspermia and neo-darwinsm are weak yet both have published and credentialed scientists supporting them. Are they all pseudo-scientists?
Novella, like Coyne and Krauss, is an ideologue. His use of the term pseudoscience, therefore, is like Trump using the term "fake news" - it is derogatory and intended to insult. And, again like Trump, if it is repeated often enough, the faithful will believe and defend it.
(2018-06-14, 08:10 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]The complaint against using pejoratives like pseudoscience is not to do with the specifics of this argument. IMO, both panspermia and neo-darwinsm are weak yet both have published and credentialed scientists supporting them. Are they all pseudo-scientists?
Novella, like Coyne and Krauss, is an ideologue. His use of the term pseudoscience, therefore, is like Trump using the term "fake news" - it is derogatory and intended to insult. And, again like Trump, if it is repeated often enough, the faithful will believe and defend it.
Pseudoscientists always make unsupported assertions.
What word could be substituted? Wouldn't that word become the new pejorative? Dante used vacuous a few post ago. I'm sure somebody would be perjoratively offended.
(2018-06-14, 07:27 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Novella’s specific complaint about pseudoscientific tactics was the shifting of the burden of proof. Given that Novella has pointed out the weaknesses in Steele’s evidence, were do you think the burden of proof lies?
As a baseline, I think the burden of proof with string theory lies with the string theorists.
Working backwards, I think string theory tells us something important about the nature of reality and how energy is associated with materials. String theory is not physics, per se, it is a math analysis of natural patterns of activity.
I am very, very skeptical that it tells us about underlying properties of matter. I am not qualified to parse the math, so my opinion is nothing more than my opinion.
I am not much for burden of proof, since the scientific method is not about absolutes, as much as probability density of natural patterns we can observe. Science is about the processes models and Steele et all, have won the day with data that unambiguously confirms, how environment can encode genetic change in somatic cells. Darwin's original theory included Lamarckian processes and Steele has proved Darwin and Romanes - right - and A. Weismann wrong.
Panspermia is not Steele's theory and it is an open hypothesis in science generally. Having an active area of research is good for science. It is an open area that Steele has weighed in on, based on data from his research.
Quote: NASA’s Curiosity rover has found new evidence preserved in rocks on Mars that suggests the planet could have supported ancient life, as well as new evidence in the Martian atmosphere that relates to the search for current life on the Red Planet. While not necessarily evidence of life itself, these findings are a good sign for future missions exploring the planet’s surface and subsurface.
The new findings – “tough” organic molecules in three-billion-year-old sedimentary rocks near the surface, as well as seasonal variations in the levels of methane in the atmosphere – appear in the June 8 edition of the journal Science.
Organic molecules contain carbon and hydrogen, and also may include oxygen, nitrogen and other elements. While commonly associated with life, organic molecules also can be created by non-biological processes and are not necessarily indicators of life.
“With these new findings, Mars is telling us to stay the course and keep searching for evidence of life,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters, in Washington. “I’m confident that our ongoing and planned missions will unlock even more breathtaking discoveries on the Red Planet.” - NASA press release just last week.
I do not understand any of the comments that imply there is no evidence. That the evidence is inconclusive is not a bad thing, it is an honest thing. Each piece of evidence is just one data point. Lots and lots of data points need to be recorded.
Do you think we are "alone" in the universe? A one-time wonder? Or is life, as a natural expression of information processing; mean that life is in many places and many times in the universe. Once the myth of magic matter * is abandoned, the idea that life is unlikely (except here on our special earth) disappears.
* by "magic matter" I mean the metaphysical belief that materials "have" special information properties and are not merely underlying communication channels thru which information flows, according to the processes defined in information science. An example is blood - being the term that epitomizes this idea through all science thinking until very recently. Steele et all, have helped unhinge the neoDarwinian myth and magic matter ,by showing how information is triggered in the germ line.