Response To Larsson, Who Commented At Coyne's Site

An Answer to Larsson, Who Commented At Coyne’s Site It's pretty safe to say that my comments will not be coming to the fore at Coyne's place, so I will reply to one of them here. Most of the others are just cheap insults by the Atheisti True Believers who know everything because everything is material and, well, Science. Here I reply to Larsson's attempt at refutation:

Torbjörn Larsson, OM Posted March 9, 2014 at 2:33 pm | Permalink …Safe to say, we didn’t come from “rock” and no one has claimed that. But serpentizined (oxygenated, hydrogenated and carbonated) rocks were likely vital parts of the process that formed the first organic filled compartments.

Really? “Serpentizined” rock? Your objective, empirical experimental, replicable evidence for that is exactly what? This is not a valid claim of objective knowledge, nor is it even close; it is pure speculation without any empirical support.

“I feel like my IQ is dropping” like a rock. :-/

Cheap standard internet juvenile insult. Insults are not arguments, they are merely Poisoning The Well Fallacies, and self-aggrandizement.

Stan: actual science and its lack of ability to generated objective knowledge of the darks: dark mass, dark energy, string theory, abiogenesis, origin of the phenotypes in the Cambrian, actual causality in climate theory, actual observation of subatomic particles in high energy physics, etc. Never mind that we have objective knowledge in all those areas:

And your claim for objective knowledge is covered by the following assertions as objective fact:

- dark matter is ~ 20 % of the universe matter- energy content, it doesn’t interact with matter, it is partly responsible for the relative heights between acoustic peaks 1, 2 and 3 in the CMB spectra, and it is particulate

Dark Matter refers to anomalies in the behavior of gravitational theory. There is no evidence that it is particulate. It is analogical only to matter, and it is said to comprise 26.8% of the universe, with standard matter being only 4.9%. Cosmic Microwave Background responds to Dark Matter because it responds to the gravitational effects of baryons reacting with photons and producing standing waves; hence, Dark Matter is still no more than an anomaly in gravitational theory as it applies to distant space. The term, “Dark Matter” applies to an analog devised specifically to cover for the anomalous gravitation theory with the analog of unseen matter; it is unknown whether such matter could or does exist. Dark Matter is not an objective knowledge claim. It cannot be resolved objectively with standard material science, not because it is "dark" to that science, but because it is merely an analog for theory failure.

- dark energy is ~ 80 % of the universe content, it is responsible for the current exponential increase in the expansion rate of the universe, it is partly responsible for the relative heights between acoustic peaks 1, 2 and 3 in the CMB spectra, and it is not particulate

Dark energy refers to anomalies in the apparent repellant energy existing at the edge of the universe, which causes the acceleration of distant bodies beyond expectations. Dark energy is said to be 68.3% of the universe. There is no evidence regarding whether it is particulate or not. Dark Energy, like Dark Matter, is merely an analog created to cover for anomalous behavior outside of the predictability of current theories. It is unknown whether Dark Energy actually exists or could exist. Dark Energy is not an objective knowledge claim, and it cannot be resolved objectively with standard material science, again, not because it is "dark" to that science, but because it is merely an analog for theory failure.

string/M theory is a mathematical theory

String/M theory is, indeed, a mathematical theory regarding material existence. It is a claim of theoretical physics regarding physical existence, not of mathematicians regarding an abstract, nonphysical concept; it refers to a physical existence.

String Theory cannot produce experiments to objectively view strings; it cannot produce objective knowledge for the verification of its claims. There is no objective knowledge that strings do exist or can exist. Despite being theoretical physics, strings cannot be a valid objective knowledge claim about the universe.

- abiogenesis seems to connect us with serpentinized geochemical systems of the Archean by shared traits

The claim of “shared traits” is not an objective measure of relatedness any more than any claim of correlation. Correlation is not causation; causation must be proven, not declared by speculation. This claim is subjective, inferential and nothing more. It cannot be proven that this claim is valid, and it cannot be an objective knowledge claim regarding any characteristic of the universe.

- Cambrian phenotypes all originated with the Hox box, AFAIK

This is not an objective, empirically, experimentally tenet of science, and it cannot be. Historical claims are all necessarily inferential and are at best based on inductive scientific findings and then coupled with speculation. This is not a valid objective knowledge claim.

- climate theory* is currently seeing a regime forced by anthropic greenhouse gas release

This is totally beside the point, which is that climate theory is the output from computer models which project future events which are not testable in the present, and therefore cannot be objective truth claims. Further, it is not known or knowable how complete the models are, nor is it known how accurate such a linear forecast will be. It is known from projections though, that the forecasts are linear projections, with each year's forecast based on the previous year's end point. There is nothing objective or testable in today’s environment about modeled climate theories, and they cannot be valid claims of objective knowledge.

- individual electrons* can be studied in ultra-cooled CMOS transistors, no need for high-E physics

Total deviation from the point, and a Red Herring: high energy physics claims knowledge of strong and weak forces as well as a lengthy series of particles other than the electron. So the claim above has no bearing on the actual topic, which is that all of the claims of High Energy Physics are built one on top of the other in a “house of cards” all of which is purely inferential in nature, and not directly observable. It has no hope or possibility of being non-inferential, since the existence and non-existence is inferred from energy levels, which could just as well be created by fragmentation into pieces of non-deterministic ontology. It cannot make any valid claims to objective knowledge.

*Stan is anti-science in so many ways. I assume he is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Stan actually is pro-objective, validatable, demonstrable science, of which modern biology is a stellar example, with no need for evolution for its progress. The sciences noted are at the other end of the spectrum of knowledge creation: non-objective and non-validatable experimentally for objective demonstration of actual knowledge, however contingent. Further, Hume has demonstrated that no scientific pursuit which is based in the presupposition of perpetual universal consistency can produce incorrigible knowledge; those who make such “truth” claims have no standing in logic for their support. Stan does not support blind ideological Scientism as is shown both in the comments and the posts at Coyne's site.

Or he has been taken in bye the creationists, whose fountains of anti-knowledge are seen to be so afflicted…

The reality is that none of the claims or insults coming from this group at Coyne’s site demonstrate any actual knowledge of either actual scienctific practices or actual limitations of science based in the theories and philosophy of science itself. Their arrogant assessment of the scientific knowledge of the Other is based on their own ignorance, so when it is arrogantly expressed it becomes quite apparently a swarming pool of self-indulgent and self-congratulatory ignorance which claims intellectual prowess that it doesn’t possess.