Science is close-minded

[CraigD]

Ok before this patting each other on the back goes too far i think it should be pointed out that there is no evidence for human parthenogenesis or natural parthenogenesis for any mammal. mammals do not work that way genetically, such an organism would not have a complete set of genes and would not survive. Not going to happen in nature no way no how, there is some evidence it might be done in a lab but even that is unlikely to result in a complete human fetus.

According to all I’ve inexpertly (I’ve at best a hobbyist’s comprehension of microbiology, genetics and embryology, my only professional experience being some minor support system computer programming for bioinformatics) read, most embryologists agree that parthenogenesis in humans could not produce a viable embryo. Nonetheless, there’s great interest in it, because it could be used to produce nonviable embryos which could provide therapeutic stem cells. Further, from analysis of there’s strong suspicion that disgraced biologist Woo Suk Hwang and his research team either accidentally or intentionally succeeded in inducing parthenogenesis in human ova during the 2004 research of which they fraudulently claimed to have cloned a human, essentially by injecting the ova with calcium and protein synthesis inhibitors similar to those released when sperm penetrate an ovum, a technique similar to a 1936 experiment by Gregory Goodwin Pincus in which parthenogenesis was induced in rabbit ova with rabbit sperm killed with UV light.

 

Although to the best of my knowledge, no mammal has naturally or artificially reproduced parthenogenically, in an experiment published in 4/2004, Tomohiro Kono and his team “tweaked” (technically, “imprinted”) genetic material from a female mouse in such a way that it was able to fertilize the ovum of another female mouse, producing the famous mouse pup “Kaguya”, who survived to adulthood and had pups of her own in the usual way.

 

Although not truly asexual parthenogenesis (not all parthenogenesis is asexual: some involves females impregnating other females), as best I can tell this technique could in principle have been used to fertilize a female mouse with her own imprinted genetic material, resulting in offspring in which not only were both parents female, but both the same individual.

 

Sources: 8/2007 Scientific American article “Korean Cloned Human Cells Were Product of "Virgin Birth”; 4/2004 National Geographic article “The End of Males? Mouse Made to Reproduce Without Sperm”.

 

I did hear that there was a research project in the UK (sometime between 1960 and 1980) where researchers tried to find daughters and mothers that were genetically identical. I could not find a reference to that work that last time I looked.

I too recall such a search, and likewise can’t find a reference to it. Its result, if I recall correctly, is that no such mothers and daughters were found. As knowledge of the technical requirements of human parthenogenesis increases, the expectation that any such ever will be found is, I think, decreasing.

 

Hopefully one of us or another hypographer will be able to hunt down this reference soon, or discover that it’s a myth.

 

PS: We’ve wandered far from this thread’s “is science close minded?” subject. If nobody objects, I’ll move the parthenogenesis-related posts to a new thread in the biology forum, with links between it and this one.

[Biochemist]

Hopefully one of us or another hypographer will be able to hunt down this reference soon, or discover that it’s a myth.

 

PS: We’ve wandered far from this thread’s “is science close minded?” subject. If nobody objects, I’ll move the parthenogenesis-related posts to a new thread in the biology forum, with links between it and this one.

Nicely summarized CD. Not sure if it is worth another thread since I think all of the posters here agree that human or mammalian parthenogenesis is either extremely rare or impossible.

 

Your call.

[Pyrotex]

...But (frankly) I don't know of an example where science contradicts scripture (although I am really only talking about the Bible). It just contradicts folks interpretation of the Bible...

Hi, Biochemist.

 

I just thought I would toss out a biblical contradiction just to see what you thought:

 

In the Bible, the firmament is a solid, dome-shaped structure in which the stars were placed. It separated the waters below from the waters above. Windows in the firmament were opened whenever it rained.

 

Verses in the KJV that refer to the firmament:

Gen.1:6-8, 1:14-15, 1:17, 1:20

Ps.19:1, 150:1

Ezek.1:22-26, 10:1

Dan.12:3

 

We know that the stars are NOT set in a solid structure, nor are there waters below and above any celestial structure. Care to comment?

 

Pyro

[Biochemist]

I just thought I would toss out a biblical contradiction just to see what you thought:

 

In the Bible, the firmament is a solid, dome-shaped structure in which the stars were placed. It separated the waters below from the waters above. Windows in the firmament were opened whenever it rained.

 

Verses in the KJV that refer to the firmament:

Gen.1:6-8, 1:14-15, 1:17, 1:20

Ps.19:1, 150:1

Ezek.1:22-26, 10:1

Dan.12:3

 

We know that the stars are NOT set in a solid structure, nor are there waters below and above any celestial structure. Care to comment>

Sure. As a general rule, I don't discuss much about scriptural interpretation of anything before Genesis 12, since the stuff is so very very very old.

 

It is also true that standard, conservative hermeneutic principles (interpretive rules) of the Bible allow for:

 

1) Poetry

2) Allegory

3) Hyperbole

4) Simile or metaphor

5) Parable

6) Normal usage, normal usage, normal usage

 

That is, there is no such thing as "literal" in Genesis 1, or the other scriptural references to it. "Inspired" makes some sense, but "literal" is not a word that ought to be used for Genesis 1 (or any of the poetic passages).

 

The last interpretive rule is the most important when we discuss items in the first quarter of Genesis. Do recall that, by tradition, the creation account in Genesis was delivered to Moses in a dream. This transaction itself is not mentioned in the Bible (unlike the Revelation to John) so even that we have to take with a grain of salt.

 

But it is fair to suggest that any revelation to Moses (if that is what happened) directly from the Creator was unlikely to be primarily oriented toward scientific clarity. Any more than when Solomon said rhetorically "Do not all rivers flow to the sea, yet the sea is not full?" Solomon was probably aware that the Jordan did not, since it was less than 30 miles away, and he was probably not really asking for a critique of the precipitation cycle.

 

Genesis would have been oriented (probably) toward establishing divine sponsorship of the universe, and establishing (sort of) the "capstone" nature of mankind at the end of the creation process. Not only do I not have any particular idea was Genesis meant by "firmament", there are a bucket of opinions on "day", "kind", "waters", etc.

 

Fortunately, the key points (my suggestion above for the apparent objective of the passage) still (surprisingly) comes through pretty cleanly.

 

I don't think it is reasonable to look for contradiction targets in poetry or dream-oriented revelations.

[freeztar]

I don't think it is reasonable to look for contradiction targets in poetry or dream-oriented revelations.

 

Many people would disagree with you here, but I agree. :)

Nonetheless, I'm less and less impressed with the progression of this thread...

[Pyrotex]

I basically agree with you, especially on the older text that was so highly poetic or borrowed from other sources. But "contradictions" in mundane text, either with science, or with other biblical text, or with known anthropological facts, aren't that difficult to find.

But I'll let it go. I'm too busy to get involved in this pursuit right now.

Cheers!

Pyro

[Moontanman]

Bio, how about these?

 

Criticism of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matt 16:27-28 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. Matthew 10:23 (see also Matt 24:29-35, Mark 13:30-31, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, John 21:22, Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62)

[Pyrotex]

Here again, I think this should be moved to another thread -- in Theology.

 

Now-----IS SCIENCE CLOSED-MINDED?

 

Science has been defined by Richard Feynman as the collective human wisdom of how not to fool ourselves. If this is the case, then is it "close-minded" to refuse to allow yourself to be "fooled"?

[Biochemist]

Here again, I think this should be moved to another thread -- in Theology.

Agreed.

 

Now-----IS SCIENCE CLOSED-MINDED?

 

Science has been defined by Richard Feynman as the collective human wisdom of how not to fool ourselves. If this is the case, then is it "close-minded" to refuse to allow yourself to be "fooled"?

I prefer to think of science as that body of information that can be characterized by the scientific method. This leaves out large bodies of information and experience (e.g., relationships, art, etc) but focuses on demonstrability.

 

This definition is a little open to attack, since some academic disciplines don't lend themselves to testability in the classic sense (e.g., paleontology), but I like it because it essentially outlines the degree to which a particular discipline is "science".

 

In this vein, science isn't either open or closed-minded. It just is. A more relevant question might be whether scientists themselves are closed minded. In that context, I would suggest that scientists are slightly less closed than the median individual, but everyone has biases. The very purpose of the scientific method is to minimize bias. That is, it essentially assumes that bias exists, and puts up numerical constraints (e.g., p values) to codify reproducibility of an event.

 

Most scientists (probably) are Republicans or Democrats (for example). They probably have intrinsic biases that lead them to their particular voting affiliation. The same sorts of biases (intrinsic to homo sapiens) that anyone has. In this sense, groups of scientists are less biased than individuals.

[InfiniteNow]

Has anyone been imposing/forcing anything here? I believe Inow is advocating a position of Conversational Intolerance. I have never seen Inow make a post about imposing on or forcing anyone to be atheist, although I have seen more than one regular poster here accuse him of doing so.

 

I would also like to point out(as S. Harris has) that we do not have to force anyone to not believe that Elvis marauds the aisles at Wal-Mart to keep people who believe this form occupying our board rooms, or the oval office. Anyone who professes a belief in Elvis is immediately marked as unqualified for such positions. No forcing/imposing of Elvis-atheism necessary.

I think everyone should be treated with courtesy, but the beliefs of others should only be respected when they make sense.

 

Thank you, that is incredibly accurate. Unfortunately, my conversational intolerance caused me to be uncourteous to members here, and that led to my suspension. I truly DON'T respect those beliefs which don't make sense, so it may be time for me to just give up my fight, or at the very least, stop waging it here at Hypo. This saddens me, but restraint is required of me.

 

 

Pharyngula: Open season on fresh meat

I want my commenters to be uncivil. There is no virtue in politeness when confronted with ignorance, dishonesty, and delusion. I want them to charge in to the heart of the issue and shred the frauds, without hesitation and without faltering over manners. These demands for a false front of civility are one of the strategies used by charlatans who want to mask their lack of substance — oh, yes, it would be so goddamned rude to point out that a huckster is lying to you. I am quite happy that we have a culture of being rude to frauds here.

 

 

 

This was a quote which really resonated with me, but its tone does not have any place in this community.

[modest]

And this old world is a new world,

And a bold world, For me

 

Barack referenced atheists in his inauguration today. His message of inclusion rather than hate, tolerance rather than hostility, is so much nicer than the open hostility toward anyone who is different or thinks different thoughts. What a long way we've come despite the active forces of division. What a long way we've come.

 

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.

 

Transcript: Barack Obama's Inaugural Address : NPR

 

~modest

[REASON]

This was a quote which really resonated with me, but its tone does not have any place in this community.

 

Welcome back, INow. It's a pleasure to see your avatar showing up in threads again. :)

 

Maybe Pharyngula is a good place for you to release your venom and get it out of your system so you can use a slightly modified tactic here.

 

It is your wisdom, reasoning, and your ability to back up your assertions I'm drawn to, not your ability to squash your opponent in ridicule.

 

See ya 'round.

 

:(

[Pyrotex]

INow, I just recently signed on at Pharyngulu. Maybe we'll see each other in both sites!!

Welcome back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Thunderbird]

Welcome back INow.

[Kriminal99]

Science as a community or science as an idea?

 

Science as a community has lots of ignorant low iq people in it with all kinds of ulterior motives that they themselves may not even recognize.

 

Science as an idea cannot be close minded but also does not support many of the things that science as a community claims.

 

You claim the community abhors such things. I find this statement amusing. How much of the scientific community do you have personal experience with? Since a "community" does not have a separate consciousness what precise statement are you making about the people involved in science? They ALL abhor it? Most do? Some do?

 

Do they all completely understand it? Do they all care, or are some of them involved in science for other reasons like validating a product or a philosophical argument? Do they abhor it when they are older and established and care more about continuing their lifestyle than about the ideals that got them to where they are now?

 

Do they abhor it when their beliefs are defeated by an idea championed by a person they do not understand and respect?

 

The only way the scientific method works is by conflict of interests. Conflicting biases drive people to point out errors in reason in each others arguments. It ceases functioning whenever one person gains some kind of leverage over his opponent that has nothing to do with truth. Leverage like already having been published etc.

 

Only the most advanced thinkers are capable of internalizing this conflict such that they do not need as much external criticism. The vast majority of people are NOT at this level, and even if they were removing the external conflict (ie giving everyone the benefit of the doubt) invalidates any such internal conflict and causes it to decay.

[freeztar]

Science as a community or science as an idea?

 

Have you read the entire thread or are you only addressing the first post?

 

Science as a community has lots of ignorant low iq people in it with all kinds of ulterior motives that they themselves may not even recognize.

Lots?

I would think that you'll find that people are people, regardless of what they do. Some are smart, some not so much...

 

You claim the community abhors such things. I find this statement amusing. How much of the scientific community do you have personal experience with? Since a "community" does not have a separate consciousness what precise statement are you making about the people involved in science? They ALL abhor it? Most do? Some do?

Lots do. ;)

 

The only way the scientific method works is by conflict of interests.

 

Hmmm...scientific method: idea, hypothesis, experiment, data, conclusion

Nope, I don't recall conflict of interests being part of it. People have conflicts for various personal reasons. These should be set aside in a scientific environment. There is no conflict of interest in pure science. Either the data supports the hypothesis or it doesn't.

 

Conflicting biases drive people to point out errors in reason in each others arguments. It ceases functioning whenever one person gains some kind of leverage over his opponent that has nothing to do with truth. Leverage like already having been published etc.

 

Indeed, but what you write describes social aspects of scientists. You should really read the whole thread.

 

Only the most advanced thinkers are capable of internalizing this conflict such that they do not need as much external criticism.

 

Would you consider Einstein an advanced thinker? How do you think he faired regarding internal vs. external conflict?

[lemit]

I've only sampled the thread, but I find Kriminal99's post astounding and Freeztar's response reassuring.

 

I'm not a scientist. I'm a writer, editor, and teacher who spent 25 years working in higher education libraries, so I've spent a lot of time around scientists, many of whom I've disagreed with. Somehow, I've managed to respect their discipline all the time regardless of their personalities.

 

I think the discipline of science can often result in a certain tunnel vision. I know a relative of mine who has a PhD and has made a good career in animal science is in a lot of ways barely literate. Still, I respect the quality of this relative's mind.

 

Also, as an editor, I'm generally appalled by the quality of self-editing in Hypography. I know illiteracy shouldn't disqualify people from contributing and learning, but from whom are they learning?

 

Sorry if I've offended people.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. In the third reread of this I discovered several typos. I hope I got all of them.