subjective science

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
If you do not believe all life sprang up from simple lifeforms then you reject the theory of evolution.

For the theory of evolution to work pre existing lifeforms are required no?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
For the theory of evolution to work pre existing lifeforms are required no?

Yes - the theory suggests, and the evidence confirms, that these early lifeforms were simple ones.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Yes - the theory suggests, and the evidence confirms, that these early lifeforms were simple ones.

What evidence? How simple?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What evidence? How simple?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#Earliest_evidence_for_life_on_Earth

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#Earliest_evidence_for_life_on_Earth

Ah so all you got is a bunch of assumptions, speculation and imaginative thinking. Figured as much.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Ah so all you got is a bunch of assumptions, speculation and imaginative thinking. Figured as much.

Did you read the article?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Did you read the article?

Yes did you?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Ah so all you got is a bunch of assumptions, speculation and imaginative thinking. Figured as much.

a bunch of assumptions, speculation and imaginative thinking

Add to this a supernatural controlling power, and the worship thereof, and you have a pretty good working definition of retail religions like Christianity.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yes did you?

The article says there is strong evidence of fossilized bacteria dating back to around 3 billion years ago, and possible evidence of life dating back earlier.

Would you like to me to suggest ways to remedy the inadequacies in your reading comprehension?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) ...[text shortened]... possible when there is one single truth of what is being said for all the people communicating.

No, your conclusion is false. Neither objective truth exists, nor our communication breaks down when we are aware of the concept of the accurate and verified collective subjectivity.

Here follows the text you copied and pasted, which I rephrased:

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept and a very useful tool for our convenience and our communication, related to whatever is considered by us accurate and verified herenow [reality and truth], which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being accurate and verified [true] even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings [meaning: We consider our collective subjectivity and our consensus accurate and verified, even if a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings reject the products of our consensus that is grounded on our collective subjectivity].
A proposition is generally considered accurate and verified [objectively true (to have objective truth)] when the evaluation and the analysis of its state and conditions [its truth conditions] are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.


It follows that objectivity is just a notion we use for our convenience. It's all about consensus over our collective subjectivity. Now let’s move it to the field of your disciple, dj2becker.

You, a physician, know that the “red” color as a human being conceives it, is non-existent for a dog. What happened to the “objectively true”, and thus universally true 24/7, red color of ours? What exactly is “red” color, why do we perceive it this way and why the dogs do not? Hearing this question, you would happily explain to your students that our eyes have three kinds of cones whilst dogs’ have two.
But, should we reject the notion “red” when we are talking with a color-blind human and accept by force that we actually see another color, say blue? No. For we checked previously our ability to see perfectly well, and in addition we trust our accurate and verified thesis (until this very moment; because in the future we may develop a different consensus) as regards this matter.
However, is this “red” color we observe “objectively real” out there and existent inherently, with inherent substance and in full separation of causes and conditions, in full separation of everything else, or is it merely a real product of the evaluation of our mind and thus a mind-depended construction? You would tell your students that since color, as a function of the human visual apparatus, is not an intrinsic property of the objects, all that takes place is just our impression that objects have color –but in fact they have not; they simply give off light that our mind evaluates (perceives) as color. Color is existent solely in the mind of the sentient being that observes it, and it is neither “absolutely true” nor “objectively true”, nor exists out there in separation of the mind of the beholder.
😵

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The article says there is strong evidence of fossilized bacteria dating back to around 3 billion years ago, and possible evidence of life dating back earlier.

Would you like to me to suggest ways to remedy the inadequacies in your reading comprehension?

Ah yes the article says strong evidence, that means no assumptions, speculation and imaginative thinking. 🙄

You clearly have no idea how many assumptions and how much speculation and imaginative thinking goes into analyzing fossils.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
No, your conclusion is false. Neither objective truth exists, nor our communication breaks down when we are aware of the concept of the accurate and verified collective subjectivity.

Here follows the text you copied and pasted, which I rephrased:

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept and a very useful tool for our convenience and our com ...[text shortened]... rue” nor “objectively true”, nor exists out there in separation of the mind of the beholder.
😵

If your statement that my conclusion is false is not objectively true why should I take it or anything you say seriously? 😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Ah yes the article says strong evidence, that means no assumptions, speculation and imaginative thinking. 🙄

You clearly have no idea how many assumptions and how much speculations and imaginative thinking goes into analyzing fossils.

Why are you pretending to be interested in the evidence when you have clearly already dismissed it before even reading about it?

Originally posted by @dj2becker to black beetle
If your statement that my conclusion is false is not objectively true why should I take it or anything you say seriously? 😵

You can just tell yourself that your opinion is "objectively true" and simply ignore black beetle, if you want to. No one is stopping you. And if you do, it doesn't really affect anyone anyway.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Why are you pretending to be interested in the evidence when you have clearly already dismissed it before even reading about it?

Why are you pretending that you don't know how many assumptions, speculation and imaginative thinking goes into analyzing fossils?