>> Is "debunk" synonymous with "scientifically disproven"?

> No. To be disproven a theory needs to be coherent and falsifiable.

Ok, so we now know that Dawkins did not scientifically disprove it, which means it remains within the realm of plausibility.

> Dawkins debunked the idea that the Earth could be considered a living organism the way a nematode or human are. He showed quite clearly that by many criteria this simply isn't true.

Isn't true scientifically/literally, or isn't true colloquially/perceptually? Or something else?

>> Are you perhaps accidentally conflating a theory with a scientific theory?

> I discussed this in another forum. I see the scientific method as something that can encompass all disciplines. For me science consists of a series of methods: experiments, peer review, analysis, math,... Not every discipline uses every method but one can study any topic that seeks objective truth scientifically.

You didn't answer the question.

> What's more I maintain that science is the only method that has shown it can lead to objective truth.

We are all welcome to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

Do you have any substantial evidence that this is actually true?

> Having said that, not everything is science

Just everything (literally) that leads to objective truth though, right?

> But when people use the word theory for me the only thing that can justify using that word is science.

Can you explain your reasoning, including citations of prominent people?

> But when you call it a theory you are saying it can make predictions and explain things in a way that is also falsifiable.

Are you perhaps accidentally conflating a theory with a scientific theory?

> So yes for me theory and scientific theory are the same thing but I don't consider it conflating.

What is the precise meaning of "to me" in this context?

> I think that some academics (e.g., Postmodernism is notorious for this) like to call things theories when if you examine them closely they are just polysyllabic jargon for fairly straight forward ideas (e.g., that we live in a sexist, racist society, that colonialism was unjust, etc.).

The two words I bolded - do you mean these literally, or is there an implicit "to me" in play?

This is an amazingly good answer, thank you!

>Who would exact punishment?

Vigilante "justice" of some kind.

> How would America etc even put Putin in jail?

Putin?

>I agree that awareness is good and that is what Geneva convention did. It wrote down what everyone already believed.

I'm thinking more about events in the last few decades. How many innocent dead people are there in the middle East as a consequence of US foreign policy?

>Enforcement seems impossible.

Dare to dream baby!

If we leave it at only discussing and studying, it seems unlikely that there would be any noteworthy change. However, if we were to go further and prosecute (for example: death sentence for people who are found guilty of adequately illegal crimes), it could plausibly change behavior.

Also, bringing awareness of these crimes to a broader spectrum of the public could increase the chances of similar extra-judicial punishment being carried out.

The US Military is well aware of how persuasive fear can be, I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if the management of that organization was on the receiving end of the transaction for a change. Perhaps they might find the experience as persuasive as their innocent victims do.

Have you any theories on how something substantial could be done towards improving this hilarious yet unfortunate state of affairs?

I would be interested in seeing this thread if you can find it.

> None of this is my idea it is all in an essay Richard Dawkins wrote a long time ago debunking the Gaia hypothesis.

Is "debunk" synonymous with "scientifically disproven"?

> I agree with the sentiment but I disagree with calling something that is a literary device a theory. If it's a theory it makes falsifiable predictions better than other theories of standard biology and I couldn't find any such predictions.

Are you perhaps accidentally conflating a theory with a scientific theory?

> This stuff is just as poetic as the pseudoscience in this article and it actually is real not some poetic musings.

Is this to say that the content of the article is necessarily incorrect (according to sound epistemology), in part or in whole?

> Again, I find real science more beautiful and poetic than pseudoscience.

Personally, I find internet armchair science and philosophy to be the most beautiful of all.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but this seems like little more than a personal theory.

> Consequently we get far far fewer of the fringe extremists in our politics than we see in the international news.

This is what I am curious about: how is it that mandatory voting causes people to be less extreme, improve the political discourse, etc? Perhaps (or perhaps not) there happens to be a correlation, but what is the/any causality based on?

> Consider a staunch religious believer - scorn, ridicule, dismissal actually strengthens the person's conviction. The believer will usually feign esoteric understanding, a higher purpose, & even display sorrow for the unbeliever.

Now consider how similarly this behavior manifests in those who hold different ideological beliefs, such as Scientific Materialists - then consider that these people typically have much better education, and yet so often fall victim to the same cognitive errors.

If you ask me, this is something that science could extract a lot of valuable knowledge from....but alas, the human mind appears to dynamically downgrade curiosity when it dares to examine itself.

> The whole situation resembles a Christian contending that unless one has read the whole bible, nay further, has memorized chapter & verse of the bible, then one cannot make a valid argument against Christianity.

Once again, a similarity exists: if one observes internet arguments about "science", it is quite common for pro-science people to assert that those who dare criticize science necessarily do not understand what they are talking about.

Human beings are fascinating creatures.

But whether it is a fact that he cannot do it anymore is another matter! :)

The design of democracy itself is a hidden item in the third rail of politics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail_(politics)

Notice how it doesn't even make the list on Wikipedia.

Notice (ha!) how rarely it gets mentioned in social media conversations.

>Of course I live somewhere where voting actually is a legal obligation and I’ve seen how much that’s improved our political discourse and participation compared to places with optional voting.

Could you possibly expand on this a bit?

>Laws are moral consensus, officially.

If one assumes that (our archaic implementation of) democracy is actually democratic.

Consider the magnitude of psychological distress in the developed world on the topic of deaths due to malnutrition in third world countries, and then also compare that to the psychological distress of domestic deaths due to covid.

Is this driven by logic, or something else?

Predicting the future is easy. Predicting it accurately is not so easy.

> If we ignore the loaded colloquial use of the word...

Be careful perceiving subjective terms ("loaded") as objective (unless I'm misinterpreting your meaning....in which case, never mind / pardon me).

> Stuff that is not deterministic would not be strictly classified as "chaos" in my opinion...

Should not may be more appropriate, considering that we are dealing with human beings here. But again, we're still dealing with the "by definition" phenomenon, or "the word has the appearance of being the thing", particularly at runtime.

> Chaos is the name of an observed phenomena.

Which is fundamentally, an appearance/perspective, as opposed to the phenomena itself.

> Chaos Theory is the name of the branch of science that studies that phenomena.

Aspires to study it, technically.

> Bro what are you smoking...

In this case: ontology and epistemology.

> ...we've studied plenty of chaotic phenomena the whole idea of chaos is that you can have deterministic functions that produce pseudorandom output.

I don't disagree with this, my general beef is that I get the feeling that there is a tendency for people to lean towards the conclusion that random output is necessarily derived from deterministic phenomena, and that this bias is falsely (but not with intent - see: lying vs speaking untruthfully) framed as being ~scientific/logical.

> All of the entire corpus of scientific literature is based on the fact that we haven't found an exception to this rule yet.

This is an ontological & epistemic manner, and is also inherently subjective (but may have the appearance of being objective. See: "we are dealing with human beings here".

> How can you imply there is not significant consensus on this issue?

I don't believe I have done this, have I? If you can quote my text I'd appreciate it, because that would be an error on my part I'd think. I suspect it's simply a standard misunderstanding.

>> I find it odd how seemingly close minded and insular science has become in the 21st century, which is rather contrary to the self-serving self-description of the domain and the actors within it.

> I find it wack how smarmy people can be when they don't understand the basics of what they are talking about.

I think this is a classic subjective vs objective misunderstanding, probably some cultural "colloquial communication" norms are in play as well.

Let's investigate:

>> ....when they don't understand the basics of what they are talking about.

What is it that you believe that I do not understand the basics of?

This is disappointing.

>That your claim is implicit..

You claimed to be interpreting it literally.

Gotcha!! 😁

I must say: for some reason I particularly enjoying arguing with you, although I'm not sure why.

>but what else could be the purpose of your statements (etc) other than to present your thinking?

This is actually an excellent question. For the answer, you can simply read my mind.

>>>> Can you show a pseudo-code representation of the logic you would use in isSystemRigged() to generate False for the proposition?

>>> You are suggesting that whether something is true or false is the same as whether it can be shown to be true or false with pseudo-code. This is a false premise.

>> Incorrect - you are perceiving/interpreting that I am doing that. Please interpret my text literally, with a calm mind.

> You are mistaken in believing (I cannot even abide by describing it as percieving/interpreting, it is more akin to wishing or hoping) that I have ever done anything other than interpret your text in any other way [than literally].

Ok then: please point out the portion of my text where I explicitly make the claim you say I have.

Thank you, that's exactly what I was wondering.

> evolution is "only a theory".

I disagree. Evolution is a theory that is also backed by substantial physical evidence, as well as a fairly comprehensive and sound narrative with substantial explanatory power that has sustained substantial challenges from many ideological camps for decades.

> the point is there is no known exception, and all we can do is look for exceptions.

Thus, a theory, one without substantive accompanying evidence comparable to that which exists for other theories that have been elevated to a higher epistemic level based on broad scientific (and other) consensus.

> if you give one I'm sure people would be interested to hear about it.

I am not making a contradictory claim, I am asking a question.

I find it odd how seemingly close minded and insular science has become in the 21st century, which is rather contrary to the self-serving self-description of the domain and the actors within it. Luckily, we only have mirrors in the physical realm. But then you never know what science, or something else, will come up with next.

> Chaos is a deterministic process which is "simply" dependent on changes to initial conditions.

Is this not technically only a theory? It is important that chaos can emerge from deterministic systems, but whether all instances of chaos emerge only from deterministic systems is another matter (although, perhaps it is a "by definition" issue, as opposed to a "what is reality actually composed of" issue, or reference vs referent).

At least, there seem to be some competing theories: Non-deterministic chaos.

> You are suggesting that whether something is true or false is the same as whether it can be shown to be true or false with pseudo-code.

Incorrect - you are perceiving/interpreting that I am doing that. Please interpret my text literally, with a calm mind.

> This is a false premise.

Then you should abandon it. > > > > The only way your ".01% rigged" system would be "a rigged system" isn't that .01% of the system were a necessary and uncollectable operation component of 100% of the output of the system.

You do not actually possess knowledge of all ways in which a system could be rigged. You are speculating, necessarily.

> Systems are not black boxes.

They are to some degree, in that you do not possess omniscient knowledge of what is going on everywhere, you only possess belief that you possess this knowledge.

> A system doesn't have to be 100% reliable or uncorrupted to be reliable and uncorrupted.

Agree, but a system does have to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted to be 100% reliable and uncorrupted (which is what is being discussed here). Please do not move the goalposts.

> This isn't a matter simple enough for the literally braindead logic of pseudo-code....

The "braindeadedness" of the logic of pseudo-code is a function of the pseudo-code itself, and for us to get some insight into that under these circumstances, it would require that you post a representation of it. I can imagine that this is something you would rather not reveal, so if you do not want to reveal it, I understand.

> It requires reasoning, intelligence, and the ability to grasp the meaning (not merely a single definition) of words.

Agree!! So then, please: provide us insight into the inner workings of your mind, if you have the nerve.

>> Do you realize I covered this already, > > > > You did? Where?

Here: > > > These chunks are far more dependent on personal corruption than systemic 'rigging'. > > A reasonable speculation by common standards, although it is framed as (and perhaps even perceived as) a false dichotomy, so perhaps not likely to be necessarily correct. > > > A 'rigged' system implies that the system is specifically set up in a way to produce erroneous results. > > Very true! We could choose a different word if you'd like, but I will apply the same strict epistemology to that. > > > A small team or department producing erroneous results for personal profit motives, is quite a bit different then systemic rigging - primarily because the system would want it try remove the offending people, because the system itself does not approve of 'rigging'. > > Do you have knowledge of what is actually going on, or are you speculating? "does not 'approve of'" is a conveniently slippery/subjective way to consider it. > > > And we don't have to imagine a system either... > > It is not technically necessary, but to get to the level of detail you are making assertions about, imagination is necessary. > > > ...there are lots of drug regulatory agencies, from the FDA to Heath Canada, to the EMA that we can examine to assess this rigging claim. > > And the quality of such examinations is equal to the quality of the examinations, which is unknown to you and me (which is where imagination makes its appearance).

You are asserting that you posses comprehensive, fine-grained knowledge of what happens across the entire spectrum of scientific activities. I am talking about the entirety of the practice of science, you are talking about abstract definitions and intentions.

Actual science deals with accuracy and precision, and I am regularly told that scientists are the experts at this sort of thinking. I would like to see a demonstration of that expertise.

>> in a way that does not require me to have in-depth knowledge of how regulatory agencies are set up

> Why do you think this?

Logic, epistemology, abstraction, decomposition, knowledge of psychology & consciousness, etc.

> If your assumptions about how the regulation is enforced is wrong....

What assumption are you referring to here? Are you sure you aren't referring to your assumption about my (supposed) assumption?

Let's test the quality of your observational abilities: quote the text containing the assumption you are referring to.

> ...why do you think you'll be able to accurately assess how they perform, and whether that performance is 'rigged' or not?

I have made no claim that I am able to accurately assess how they perform - you on the other hand, have, but you seem oddly treluctant to explain how it is you know (as opposed to believe) that your assessments are accurate, in fact.

>>>>...but you're reducing the 'rigging' down to smaller active chunks that are not necessarily representative of the system.

>>> Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this?

>> Can you tell me why I am doing this?

> As far as I can tell...

Uh oh! Do you see your error?

> ...to explain how if, for example, in an agency with 10 departments, 1 of those departments is 'rigged' the agency is therefore 10% rigged.

Note that I also said: "Imagine a system composed of X departments or modules - simply divide the number of rigged ones by the total and you have your ratio - of course, to do this correctly one would need a flawless algorithm for objectively identifying rigged-ness, but most people would balk at that so they use heuristics or subjective algorithms that are claimed/implied to be objective."

> And so when asked the question "is the agency rigged" and looking for a binary yes/no answer.

If you are thinking in binary, that is part of your problem. I am certainly not looking for a binary answer - in fact, a non-binary answer is what I am curious whether you can generate!

> The answer is 'Yes - the agency is 'rigged'' - becuase 10% is greater than 0%.

See " Note that I also said..." above.

> As I explained before, I think 'rigged' is used poorly here....

I noted some issues with the classificaion....in fact, that is a fundamental component of my point!

>>>... becuase it implies a structure that pre-determines results, instead of results being corrupted after the fact.

That is only one possibility, there are many others. Malice is not even necessary.

> The entire set up of a regulatory agency is to specifically avoid pre-determining results.

Agreed, and the degree to which they are successful at it is equal to the degree that they are successful - you are expressing your opinion on the matter, I am interested in whether you can realize and acknowledge that this is what is happening here.