Thursday, September 15, 2016

PBS: Where Science Goes to Die

Last night PBS aired a show called the Forces of Nature (I think it was). It went breathless about how everything that exists does so due to electromagnetic forces and gravity. I missed the first 15 minutes or so, but it appeared that they were pushing the "balance" of forces and the necessity of symmetry. Two things were obvious.

First, the concept of the hexagon was elevated to a mystical status of wondrous symmetry as snowflakes were animated and filmed. Hexagonal due to the shape of water molecules? Some sort of resolution due to minimizing energy requirements to provide the magical hexagonal shape? Why, hexagons are everywhere, like bee's honey combs and other stuff.

What they failed to mention is that hexagons are a mathematical necessity due to adjacent circles: simple high school geometry. Put a circle somewhere. Then make a circle, same size, which touches the first circle, next to the first circle. Repeat that going around the first circle, making circles which touch and don't overlap. That amounts to six circles surrounding the first circle. That is the mathematical necessity of the hexagon in nature, not all that other crap about forces and symmetry. Look at a stack of pipes endwise. A stack of firewood. Sure, they're held there by gravity, but they could also be banded that way. The hexagonal necessity is still mathematical, not force.

The second half was focused on the force of... evolution. Yep. Evolution is now a force according to the perpetual evolution TV programs, just like gravity and electromagnetic forces, only it is restricted to living things. And living things are representative of the magic of symmetry, too. Well, not all living things, of course, like prokaryotes. Or Plants. Or even all eukaryotes. But there are quite a lot that do have symmetry: bilaterialism. Meaning that there are complementary right and left halves, but not front and back halves. And not internal things either, like intestines, livers, hearts, entire legions of feedback control systems, delivery channels, glands etc. But some are, like lungs and kindeys and brain halves which don't function symmetrically, but are physically symmetrical.

Apparently bilateralism is initiated by HOX genes, or at least described there in code. If that is the case, then the chemical property of the gene is the special force within life which is causal for bilateralism. But just for certain eukaryotes, of course.

Projecting this knowledge onto the additional evolutionary claim that there is no essence to life, that life is merely deterministic chemical activity resolving to the laws of electromagnetism, then this proposition is testable. The genetic chemistry, when applied to correctly assembled, lifeless materials which also have no life essence, should do its job and create bilateralism there as well. Symmetrical rocks should ensue due to the application of this new force, and easily, since their complexity is far less then that of life, but their essences are equal. They are merely electrochemically influenced molecular structures... just like life.

That is absurd, of course. But the challenge of how bilateralism came to be a feature demands an answer to the following paradox: which came first, physical bilateralism, or code for bilateralism? It occurred rapidly in the Cambrian Explosion epoch, along with non-bilateral plants and non-bilateral eukaryotes as well.

It's very similar to the other paradoxes, such as the creation of sexual reproduction which requires very high dual, complementary complexity coming into existence simultaneously; and other conundrums such as the pupation of butterflies, for example, where one physical creature is transformed into a completely different form in the secrecy of its cocoon.

And the ultimate paradox: how did a living cell, filled with thousands of necessary processes come into existence, while containing the coded molecule which precisely defines that cell embedded in the cell and ready to divide for procreation. It's no wonder they deny any intellectual responsibility for answering that.

But back to PBS. The program was to be about the forces of nature, which one might delusionally think that would be the four forces of physics. But this is PBS. It's agenda is showing.

14 comments:

Steven Satak said...

PBS, like NPR, shows it has an ideological slant with everything it does. Everything. The SJWs came from somewhere. I posit forty years of Sesame Street. Can we test that in a lab someplace?

Robert Coble said...

Sesame Street is way above the thinking capability of PBS shills.

Phoenix said...

The second half was focused on the force of... evolution. Yep. Evolution is now a force according to the perpetual evolution TV programs, just like gravity and electromagnetic forces, only it is restricted to living things.

I've seen Atheists invoke Evolution as an explanation for the origins of everything on planet earth including their moral theories, as well Evolution being the cause and driving force for everything. In other words Evolution is the alpha and omega. Ironic, for a concept that is supposed to be random and accidental but gets elevated to design status.

Stan said...

As even Dawkins said, always remember: it looks exactly like design but it is not design. Why? because it cannot be design for two reasons: 1. science cannot analyze a designer; 2. there is.no.designer by a priori axiomization of that non-obvious, non-rational, first principle of science.

Further, the definition of "science" must be degraded from "testable hypotheses for falsifiability" to the new holy status of: "revelations of the priesthood".

Non-belief in the sacred revelations is the heresy of "anti-science", which some are demanding to be a punishable hate crime against the victim, non-falsifiable declarations of the Priesthood in labcoats.

XFactor said...

Nature “designs” everything. Who and what else? Evolution “selects” traits which survive. This is how it “designs”. It doesn’t have a purpose. Why are humans afraid of death and dying? Because people and their genes who wasn’t afraid of death and dying wouldn’t have been around for long. So the fear of death and our desire to stay alive has been programmed in us. No conscious being has programmed those emotions and desires however.


Evolution is not random. Natural processes results in complex or “designed” things – organism like ourselves for instance.
http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/servlet/DCARead?standardNo=0262201259&standardNoType=1&excerpt=true
“Selection, when it acts in a directional, cumulative manner over long periods of time, creates complex phenotypic designs out of the simple, random genetic variation generated by the three other evolutionary agents. Selection is not a random process; it is differential reproduction of individuals by consequence of their differences in phenotypic design for environmental challenges. An adaptation, then, is a phenotypic solution to a past environmental problem that persistently affected individuals for long periods of evolutionary time and thereby caused cumulative, directional selection. Evolution by selection is not a purposive process; however, it produces, by means of gradual and persistent effects, traits that serve certain functions—that is, adaptations.”

Stan said...

XFactor says,
"Nature “designs” everything. Who and what else?"

Is that your sole reasoning for the necessity and sufficiency of evolution? No thoughts at all about the physical limitations of the spontaneous generation of the original complexity, nor of the virtually negligible probability of spontaneously generating the necessary functions for not just the first cell but also the simultaneous creation of the rationally coded DNA which actually describes the cell, and is necessary for its replication? What about the necessity of parallel generation of the separate complexities of all phyla in the Cambrian Explosion?

Nature is not a force; it is a consequence of forces. Where did the forces come from? How are they controlled? How are they propagated from instant to instant? Why are they constant despite entropy? These are the questions which apply to evolution. Not who and what else.

Evolution can be proven false with no reference to who or what else. IF it is false, THEN it is false. No other argument needs to be in place to replace a false argument.

"Evolution “selects” traits which survive. This is how it “designs”. It doesn’t have a purpose."

Evolution is not a force which selects. The proposed “force” is the competition of mutated life for success in a randomly changed environment, or the competition of mutated life against non-mutated life for limited resources in an unchanged environment. The result of that competition is called "selection". Selection is definitely random (not controlled for the benefit of any organism). Further, all mutation is random. So there are two (2) random elements which nature does NOT control for the proposed process of macro-evolution (speciation).

The following is a typical evolutionary science fiction story which is presented as Truth, when it is totally non-falsifiable, non-verifiable, not testable, and is created as “evidence” of evolution any way:

"Why are humans afraid of death and dying? Because people and their genes who wasn’t afraid of death and dying wouldn’t have been around for long. So the fear of death and our desire to stay alive has been programmed in us. No conscious being has programmed those emotions and desires however.

No one has ever claimed that humans programmed humans. No one. Fighting against a non-existent foe (tilting at windmills). Further, making up stories is not science. Inductive observations followed by testable hypotheses and experimental validation or falsification is science. Making up stories is fiction writing, and nothing more.

”Evolution is not random. Natural processes results in complex or “designed” things – organism like ourselves for instance.”

An evolutionary process which produces new, functional complexity – if it could actually happen – is by definition random. Mutations are random; environments are random; neither are controlled for the benefit of evolution. None of the proposals of evolution are deterministic. You are not aware of the actual propositions made by evolution.

Stan said...

"http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/servlet/DCARead?standardNo=0262201259&standardNoType=1&excerpt=true
“Selection, when it acts in a directional, cumulative manner over long periods of time, creates complex phenotypic designs out of the simple, random genetic variation generated by the three other evolutionary agents. Selection is not a random process; it is differential reproduction of individuals by consequence of their differences in phenotypic design for environmental challenges. An adaptation, then, is a phenotypic solution to a past environmental problem that persistently affected individuals for long periods of evolutionary time and thereby caused cumulative, directional selection. Evolution by selection is not a purposive process; however, it produces, by means of gradual and persistent effects, traits that serve certain functions—that is, adaptations.”'


First off, that entire book is refuted as bad science. Here is an example of why:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3S88LKCEENEM1/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0262700832#R3S88LKCEENEM1

The claims are serial self-referencing (ungrounded) arguments which follow a chain of self reference back to a source which contradicts the claims in the book. Obviously MIT did not peer review this work.

Another example is that his entire definition of evolution is that of “micro-evolution” in the first place, and his assumptions take his arguments outside the boundaries of the genome (by not even being genomically valid) so it cannot be micro-evolution.

Further the claims don’t even qualify as macro-evolution because there is no physical causation provided which possibly would provide such changes; i.e. there is absolutely no reason to believe that such things as he claims are genetic. No reason whatsoever.

Here's the problem of understanding evolution at your level of comprehension: The use of the terms, “evolution” and “selection” and “environment”, as mystical forces which need no further elucidation is the precise trap door that falsifies evolutionary claims. Those terms are undefined, undefinable in real terms, untestable experimentally, and unfalsifiable. Therefore they are not science, they are purely fiction.

Your perception of evolution is primitive at best. You need to investigate the actual inner workings of the evolutionists working in the evolution-story industry before you pretend to educate others.

When you do so, look for any facts that are testable and have been replicated for non-falsification. If you find some, then kindly report that back here, because it would be the first ever.

XFactor said...

"Nature is not a force; it is a consequence of forces. Where did the forces come from? How are they controlled? How are they propagated from instant to instant? Why are they constant despite entropy? These are the questions which apply to evolution. Not who and what else."

Nature is “all that exists”. It’s not the consequence of anything.

"Evolution is not a force which selects. The proposed “force” is the competition of mutated life for success in a randomly changed environment, or the competition of mutated life against non-mutated life for limited resources in an unchanged environment. The result of that competition is called "selection". Selection is definitely random (not controlled for the benefit of any organism). Further, all mutation is random. So there are two (2) random elements which nature does NOT control for the proposed process of macro-evolution (speciation)."

Yes and nature “selecting” among those random variables is not random. Nature “selects” the “fittest” traits e.g a cheater who is faster will survive and reproduce more than a slower cheater therefore the genes for faster running will be “selected”. This is similar to how our thoughts “randomly pop up” this is random but the selection of which thoughts/ideas to put into action is determined by our will (which is not random since our will comes from our character and values).

XFactor said...

First off, that entire book is refuted as bad science. Here is an example of why:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3S88LKCEENEM1/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0262700832#R3S88LKCEENEM1

And how does this random person leaving a comment on Amazon know, are they an evolutionary psychologist? This person is ranting what about people who are raped who are not of reproductive value (child, the elderly, men etc) if he had read their work he would know they addressed this question.

They are simply explaining a behaviour- rape – from a evolutionary perspective. Since – mainstream- science accepts the evolution what they are saying seems logical. From the evolutionary perspective rape is is either a byproduct of other adaptions in male psychology or is a direct adaption. Evil men will use violence to get other things they want therefore they will also use violence to get sex as well. Not that this subject has much relevance to “free will” – apart from the fact that the vast majority of violent criminals and rapists are men should give you a clue that our behaviour has causes.

Phoenix said...

And how does this random person leaving a comment on Amazon know, are they an evolutionary psychologist?

Wow, evolutionary psychology. A combination of two non-empirical disciplines. I bet this is where Atheists derive their moral theory from.

Stan said...

XFactor:
”First off, that entire book is refuted as bad science. Here is an example of why:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3S88LKCEENEM1/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0262700832#R3S88LKCEENEM1

And how does this random person leaving a comment on Amazon know, are they an evolutionary psychologist? This person is ranting what about people who are raped who are not of reproductive value (child, the elderly, men etc) if he had read their work he would know they addressed this question.”


What a bizarre statement! No, that is not what the commenter said at all. He referred to the process of determination, a series of self-referencing which terminated in (grounded in) an article which came to the opposite conclusion that he presents. That process is self-refuting: irrational.

”They are simply explaining a behaviour- rape – from a evolutionary perspective. Since – mainstream- science accepts the evolution what they are saying seems logical.”

What it “seems” has no value as a statement of science. True science, REAL science, doesn’t “seem” a certain way – it produces testable hypotheses which are falsifiable and thus can be objectively determined to be contingently thought of in the way the hypothesis deduces. This leaves evolution out. It has no such testable hypotheses, and psychology has proven that its testable hypotheses are much more likely false than true when they are retested for validation/falsification.

So the combination of evolution and psychology is merely an adventure into untestable claims. An untestable claim is not “science”, it is fiction based loosely on imaginary scientific concepts.

”From the evolutionary perspective rape is is either a byproduct of other adaptions in male psychology or is a direct adaption.”

Or it is neither because it is a cultural standard, and neither of the above.

”Evil men will use violence to get other things they want therefore they will also use violence to get sex as well.”

As the evolutionary scientist, Richard Dawkins, has shown, under evolutionary principles there is no such thing as “evil”. There is no inherent morality anywhere to be found in the universe – none that is materially available for scientific scrutiny. The entire concept of evil, then, is a cultural fabrication which is relative to subjective interpretation on one hand, and totally rejected on the other hand. Violence, however, is a natural and normal evolutionary process which is known as the “Will To Power”, and for a time was also known as Social Darwinism, until Social Darwinism was culturally rejected after the Holocaust. Still, violence is the evolutionary Will To Power, and is a selection criterion.

So, being an expectation for evolutionary selection, plus a normal evolutionary outcome, then violence and rape are merely normal activities of the evolution of humans. Right? Or is evolution actually NOT a valid concept? Which is it?

Stan said...

” Not that this subject has much relevance to “free will” – apart from the fact that the vast majority of violent criminals and rapists are men should give you a clue that our behaviour has causes.”

No one has said that behaviors are without causes. Here’s what is most obvious: human behaviors are simplistic predetermined responses to the four forces of nature. They are predetermined by the initial conditions of electron positions in the neural pathways of the brain. The premises of both evolution and psychology don’t work unless every behavior has a completely predictable cause. That’s how REAL science works: cause and effect is necessary and sufficient to define all laws of physics and chemistry. Therefore physics and chemistry can be understood and controlled. This is not the case with human behaviors nor with evolution.

” "Nature is not a force; it is a consequence of forces. Where did the forces come from? How are they controlled? How are they propagated from instant to instant? Why are they constant despite entropy? These are the questions which apply to evolution. Not who and what else."

Nature is “all that exists”. It’s not the consequence of anything.


Interesting truth statement, especially considering that it contradicts what Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss (pre-eminent cosmological physists) have claimed. Along with other physicists they claim that something causal preceded the physical universe, a quantum field for example, or infinite universes. So you might discuss that with them.

"Evolution is not a force which selects. The proposed “force” is the competition of mutated life for success in a randomly changed environment, or the competition of mutated life against non-mutated life for limited resources in an unchanged environment. The result of that competition is called "selection". Selection is definitely random (not controlled for the benefit of any organism). Further, all mutation is random. So there are two (2) random elements which nature does NOT control for the proposed process of macro-evolution (speciation)."

Yes and nature “selecting” among those random variables is not random. Nature “selects” the “fittest” traits e.g a cheater who is faster will survive and reproduce more than a slower cheater therefore the genes for faster running will be “selected”.


That’s truly an odd denial. Selecting between X and Y from an environment which randomly “better fits” one or the other, is a random process. It cannot be predetermined because the environment changes constantly and in a fashion which is not predicted by the evolutionary process itself. Nor is the state of the environment predetermined by the evolutionary process, but is in fact random. In no manner can it be anything other than a random process; otherwise it is NOT random, i.e., it is predestined and predetermined to favor one. It’s either random or it’s deterministically teleological.

”This is similar to how our thoughts “randomly pop up”.

Mine are determined by forcing deductive logic upon Inductive observation. Perhaps your thoughts are random.

”this is random but the selection of which thoughts/ideas to put into action is determined by our will (which is not random since our will comes from our character and values).”

And that is a “truth statement” made with unjustified confidence and absolutely no empirical grounding. Empiricism is entirely jettisoned in the story fabrication mode which is the entirety of both evolution and psychology. It cannot be falsified nor can it be verified; therefore it is fiction. That is basic logic as it underlies the justifiable sciences which are, in fact, empirical.

XFactor said...

"No one has said that behaviors are without causes. Here’s what is most obvious: human behaviors are simplistic predetermined responses to the four forces of nature. They are predetermined by the initial conditions of electron positions in the neural pathways of the brain. The premises of both evolution and psychology don’t work unless every behavior has a completely predictable cause. That’s how REAL science works: cause and effect is necessary and sufficient to define all laws of physics and chemistry. Therefore physics and chemistry can be understood and controlled. This is not the case with human behaviors nor with evolution."

Well in that case the “contra causal” free will is already severely constrained by for example psychological adaptions that have occurred in the male brain.

"That’s truly an odd denial. Selecting between X and Y from an environment which randomly “better fits” one or the other, is a random process. It cannot be predetermined because the environment changes constantly and in a fashion which is not predicted by the evolutionary process itself. Nor is the state of the environment predetermined by the evolutionary process, but is in fact random. In no manner can it be anything other than a random process; otherwise it is NOT random, i.e., it is predestined and predetermined to favor one. It’s either random or it’s deterministically teleological."

Yes the environment changes but that doesn’t the selection is random. If a species is in a cold climate then the ones with thick fur are more likely to survive and if the species moves to hot climate or if the climate changes then the ones without much fur will survive better. The environment “selects” which organism and traits survive and which don’t it doesn’t matter that the environment can change.

"Mine are determined by forcing deductive logic upon Inductive observation. Perhaps your thoughts are random."

Randomness is needed for alternative possibilities from which to select from. Randomness is also responsible for original and creative thoughts which can lead to new technologies and inventions and so on. In your attempt to sound clever you forgot that randomness is in fact NEEDED for the “free will”.

Stan said...

"The environment “selects” which organism and traits survive and which don’t it doesn’t matter that the environment can change."

IF [environment selects] AND [environment is random], THEN [Selection is random]; QED.

"Randomness is needed for alternative possibilities from which to select from. Randomness is also responsible for original and creative thoughts which can lead to new technologies and inventions and so on. In your attempt to sound clever you forgot that randomness is in fact NEEDED for the “free will”."

That is logically absurd. Invention and Patents are generated by asking "how could X be achieved", followed by a process of aggregation of experience toward the creation of X. There is nothing random about it. The process is specifically intellect-directed toward a goal. Some inventions, not many, are found as artifacts of other directed pursuits, such as the telephonic transmission of voice being discovered while pursuing battery research. That modulation is epiphenomenal, not random.

If you believe your claim, then provide evidence which supports it. Otherwise, it is counterintuitive and is rejectable based on both that and lack of objective evidence.