Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

Pseudoscientists always make unsupported assertions.

You mean like Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins for example?

You mean like Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins for example?

I don't hang on their every word. So, such as?

I don't hang on their every word. So, such as?

One need not hang on their every word to have some familiarity with things they say, especially Dawkins. They do a pretty good job of giving their opinion loudly and clearly even when no one asks.

Was Cox not the one who somehow suggested that "ghosts" are made impossible by modern physics?

One need not hang on their every word to have some familiarity with things they say, especially Dawkins. They do a pretty good job of giving their opinion loudly and clearly even when no one asks.

Was Cox not the one who somehow suggested that "ghosts" are made impossible by modern physics?

Ah, I remember Cox and his ghost statement. The same applies to him when making a declaration. If Dawkins does the same then he's obliged to back up his declaration. The is a difference between pseudoscientists and scientists that open their pieholes before thinking. The pseudoscientist generally won't ever admitted to errors but will double down.

Was Cox not the one who somehow suggested that "ghosts" are made impossible by modern physics?

Cox's argument was that he'd looked for his missing keys underneath the streetlight and didn't find them. Therefore his keys didn't exist.

Ah, I remember Cox and his ghost statement. The same applies to him when making a declaration. If Dawkins does the same then he's obliged to back up his declaration. The is a difference between pseudoscientists and scientists that open their pieholes before thinking. The pseudoscientist generally won't ever admitted to errors but will double down.

I am absolutely certain that not one of Cox, Dawkins, or even Sean Carroll has ever backed off of a completely unsupported or uneducated statement, especially as it pertains to any of their favorite topics to discuss that are outside their area of expertise. Additionally, it is clear that they believe that they have thought about the topic all they need to before speaking or writing, whether it's about paranormal phenomena, consciousness, the universe, God, etc, even where it's clear that they really have not. Their arrogance paves the way for that.

What even is a pseudoscientist? We already noted that the label/term itself seems fairly useless. If it's going to be defined as broadly as someone who constantly makes unfounded or uninformed declarations or assertions, I would imagine that a very large number of 'regular' scientists would fall into that grouping, especially as they stray from their area of study. These labels seems ambiguous and useless.

 Steele appears to have started with, or jumped to, a conclusion without really thinking through other explanations. If that isn't pseudoscientific, it is certainly unscientific. 'Bacteria on the Space Station' is borderline hilarious.

I personally like the idea of panspermia. I don't really see that it has anything to say about evolution though.

I don't agree that Steele's interest is in any way - unscientific.  The scientific method requires a hypothesis.  The hypothesis in the paper is very old and not Steele's.  His support for it - is from his field of expertise and past success - which is the bio-information that retroviruses can transmit.  Steele's work - in my opinion - is as significant in upsetting neoDarwinian ideas as was Margulis's.  Evolution has been seen its largest changes in speciation from two organisms symbiotically coming together in a way that there bio-information is compatible.

  Steele and associates are the ones who won the fight of how retrovirous work in evolution.  Like Margulis, Steele's work has nothing but positive evidence for his theory since it was published.  The pathways for retroviral communication are now firmly established.  First, here is the actual wording of the paper - which is professional.

The general, and admittedly unusual, scientific writing style is to ensure clear plain-English communications across many scientific disciplines. However of iconic specific interest, we discuss the recent phylogenetic data which date the emergence of the complex retroviruses of vertebrate lines at or just before the Cambrian Explosion of ∼500 Ma (the widely agreed epochal event in the evolutionary history of multicellular life on Earth). These types of reverse transcribing and genome integrating viruses are speculated to be plausibly associated with major evolutionary genomic processes. We believe this coincidence with the Cambrian Explosion may not be fortuitous but consistent with a key prediction of H-W theory whereby major extinction-diversification evolutionary boundaries coincide with cometary-bolide bombardment events delivering hypothesized viruses, microorganism, and more complex eukaryotic systems to Earth during the past 4.5 Billion years of Earth history.

  (bolding mine)

Second, Steele's thesis about retroviral information is solid science and makes a logical connection with solving the open question regarding Gould's PE commentary.  That said - Steele and 30 other authors have no clear set of data points, only hypothetical connection.  Again - this IS science to present a consensus hypothetical answer to research.
 
I am personally highly skeptical about panspermia having eukaryotic organisms survive from space,
but see viruses as likely to survive space travel and to be incorporated into terrestrial species and them gaining new biological information processing capabilities following the pattern found by Lynn Margulis.

I am absolutely certain that not one of Cox, Dawkins, or even Sean Carroll has ever backed off of a completely unsupported or uneducated statement, especially as it pertains to any of their favorite topics to discuss that are outside their area of expertise. Additionally, it is clear that they believe that they have thought about the topic all they need to before speaking or writing, whether it's about paranormal phenomena, consciousness, the universe, God, etc, even where it's clear that they really have not. Their arrogance paves the way for that.

What even is a pseudoscientist? We already noted that the label/term itself seems fairly useless. If it's going to be defined as broadly as someone who constantly makes unfounded or uninformed declarations or assertions, I would imagine that a very large number of 'regular' scientists would fall into that grouping, especially as they stray from their area of study. These labels seems ambiguous and useless.

Yes, making unevidentiary claims is pseudoscience; no matter how lauded they think themselves to be. When I think of pseudoscientists and pseudoscience  I have specific persons in mind, such as Brag Steiger, Immanuel Velikovsky, Erich Von Daniken... and the fellow in the link a few posts back.

What is pseudoscience. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

I am absolutely certain that not one of Cox, Dawkins, or even Sean Carroll has ever backed off of a completely unsupported or uneducated statement, especially as it pertains to any of their favorite topics to discuss that are outside their area of expertise. Additionally, it is clear that they believe that they have thought about the topic all they need to before speaking or writing, whether it's about paranormal phenomena, consciousness, the universe, God, etc, even where it's clear that they really have not. Their arrogance paves the way for that.

What even is a pseudoscientist? We already noted that the label/term itself seems fairly useless. If it's going to be defined as broadly as someone who constantly makes unfounded or uninformed declarations or assertions, I would imagine that a very large number of 'regular' scientists would fall into that grouping, especially as they stray from their area of study. These labels seems ambiguous and useless.

Again, I have to say that this pseudoscience issue is a sideshow. When it comes to Novella - or Cox and Dawkins - it comes down to ideology, not science. Steve001 isn't here because of his familiarity with science (and he certainly has not demonstrated such), he's here to promote his ideology so he will steadfastly defend that ideology and anyone who promotes it regardless of the facts or arguments to the contrary. That's not science, that's faith - no less than any other faith. Just because they have hijacked science in the cause of atheism/materialism doesn't give their faith any more credibility than any other faith.

Again, I have to say that this pseudoscience issue is a sideshow. When it comes to Novella - or Cox and Dawkins - it comes down to ideology, not science. Steve001 isn't here because of his familiarity with science (and he certainly has not demonstrated such), he's here to promote his ideology so he will steadfastly defend that ideology and anyone who promotes it regardless of the facts or arguments to the contrary. That's not science, that's faith - no less than any other faith. Just because they have hijacked science in the cause of atheism/materialism doesn't give their faith any more credibility than any other faith.

You won’t like it but Novella defends the use of the term here:

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.whennits php/in-defense-of-pseudoscience/

I guess we all recognise some pursuits as pseudoscientific. We just get upset it’s something we’re invested in:

Pseudoscience has a number of features that are very important to recognize and understand. Here is a quick list:

• Cherry picks favorable evidence, often by preferring low quality or circumstantial evidence over higher quality evidence
  
  
• Starts with a desired conclusion and then works backward to fill in apparent evidence
  
  
• Conclusions go way beyond the supporting evidence
  
  
• Fails to consider plausibility, or lacks a plausible mechanism
  
  
• Dismisses valid criticism as if it were personal or part of a conspiracy. This is part of a bigger problem of not engaging constructively with the relevant scientific community
  
  
• Violates Occam’s Razor by preferring more elaborate explanations or ones that involve major new assumptions over far simpler or more established answers
  
  
• Engages heavily in special pleading
  
  
• Tries to prove rather than falsify their own hypotheses
  
  
• Not self-correcting – does not drop arguments that are demonstrated to be wrong or invalid.