I was taught uniform geology theory and evolution in school. To my shame, I never questioned either until stumbling onto a discussion of why currently accepted geological theory cannot fit actual geology. Example: The Tapeats sandstone layer covers a major portion of North America, under several names. The same is true for the St Peter sandstone layer. For several decades I've had a hobby of locating facts that weigh against commonly accepted frameworks.The E wrote:snip
Thank you for providing a really good example of this by doing exactly that for the entirety of this thread. You are only looking at sources that agree with you and are not examining evidence that does not.
As has been pointed out, Austrian economics has failed to use later developments such as chaos theory, complexity theory, behavioral psychology, or causal inference. This failure seems to be common to all currently accepted economic theoriesTo see a current example of how this can mess things up, read "The Road to Ruin," by James Rickards, who contends that it is about seventy years since there was a basic improvement in economic theory. The currently accepted economic models make little or no use of complexity analysis, behavioral psychology, or causal inference, all of which have been developed since.
And yet, you were earlier telling us how great Austrian economics was.
We are overdue for reworking or replacing of known economic theories.There is some recent work that takes these into account, but it is not very well known yet
Snowflake warning: If you prefer "safe spaces" skip the rest of this.
Fun thing you may not be aware of: Anyone who uses "snowflake warning" is very likely to be a very special snowflake themselves.
This is why I concentrate on the implications of facts and experiments. My assumption is that something is wrong, the fun is in locating the evidence demarcating this
Given this background and many later events, it will take solid evidence to move me away from Biblical creation as my interpretive framework. Only the consideration that if such evidence exists it is my duty to follow it make it possible.
There is very solid evidence that biblical creation is completely wrong in every detail, and yet you are here having this debate because you choose to disregard the evidence because it disagrees with you.
So, from here on out: If you ever post again about how irrational other people are when they disregard things that they don't agree with, I'll be reminding you of this very post where you explicitly told us that that's what you're doing.
Go ahead. Name those details, please! Just use facts, not frameworks for this.
I disregarded evidence against the geological, cosmological, and evolutionary frameworks taught to me for decades. It is only by an accidental reading about the failures of uniformity in geological theory that I started looking at other possibilities.
You state that intelligent design theory, whether biblical or deist is wrong. You point to no explanation for interdependent complexity. It is a long time since reading Darwin's "Origin of Species," but FWIR he said that future discoveries would eliminate the weak points he mentioned of large gaps between fossil phyla and complicated organs. These problems still exist. Example: Vertebrate legs have fibula, but these have various sources in the embryo in different kinds of vertebrates. This is also true for many other organs. If common descent is true, the prediction would be common sources for any given organ. This is a failed prediction. Convergent evolution is used to cover this, but this emperor has no clothes in the form of evidence. It is only a bandage over this gaping wound.
The problem with any framework is the strong tendency to assume it must be correct and to produce ad hoc coverings for difficult facts. Look at how long Ptolemaic astronomy was accepted; or the time gaps between developments in various disciplines. Hippocrates, Galen, and Pasteur in medicine; or Thales, Gilbert, Franklin, Volta, Faraday, and Maxwell in electricity are two examples.
Worth reading:
"The Signal and the Noise." by Nate Silver.
Humans are very good at constructing patterns - which of us hasn't looked at clouds and seen castles or other figures? If we don't work at it, we make patterns from the noise, not the signal. Silver's discussion of success and failure of prediction methods makes a very good case for using probability instead of certainty to decide what is really knowledge. It is interesting to see why weather prediction has had major improvements (although doubling the accuracy of super computer prediction requires a sixteen fold increase in computing. Interestingly, human tweaking of computer results has given roughly 25% improvement over a large range of computer capabilities.) OTOH, we still don't have a usable prediction for earthquakes, although we have learned a few things.
Successful prediction is the major test of frameworks. We keep finding predictive failures. These should let us improve or replace the frameworks. Soft tissues in dinosaur fossils was an accidental discovery by an evolutionist. Given that experimental work provides a maximum lifetime between 450,000 and 700,000 years for collagen, the accepted age of such fossils needs reworking. The common pattern of aquatic fossils in close spacing with land fossils is not predicted by uniform geology, more reworking is needed. A universe that does not have equal amounts of matter and antimatter requires a second look at big bang theory, reworking is needed. The existence of mature looking galaxies as we look further into the past with better telescopes is not predicted by time and chance cosmologies.
We also find predictive successes. Large amounts of information which interweave to produce interdependent and complicated results is a prediction of ID theory. This is found in the details of fields as diverse as sub nuclear particles, embryology, and genomics.
The two types of reworking are: Trying to rescue the accepted framework; or seeking an alternate framework.
"The emperor has no clothes" said the naive young boy
