Luc Turpin

Then this disqualifies me from participation in this forum.

Good point! Did not get what Dawkins din't get I think that I got close to the line with my statement about "you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong". I think that CharronY and Phi for All did not like that one. But, my weak excuse is that I was getting exasperated at the null effect that I was having on the conversation. The fault is mine. I listen to these fine people, because they know more than I, but the point is: how can I present a different perspective without toppling the apple cart? I thought that this was also part of science. I'd hate to be banned and hope that they will tolerate my excentric ways. Thanks for the guidance my friend.

1- Then this is not my defintion of pop-science. 2- Because the new one fit better with the evidence; it extends our knowledge. brain producing mind or brain as a transducer is very similar with only subtle data making the difference. Brain as a transducer is not being taken seriously because of bias and different worldview. Note: not saying that brain is a transducer, but the pathway to it being recognized is not the same as any other theory fiting the worldview

That is exactly what I was implying. It felt as if I was going nowhere with the discussion. No stawman argument nor temper tantum needed. Pop-science in not Michio Kaku, nor Star treck, but science studies that are made available for public viewing. That sounds reasonable. Hope that all new results are treated in the same way. This is not the interpretation of others. If I am reading the second sentence correctly, I am not implying anything; surely not that current subatomic models are getting it wrong. General - I do not even come close to Swansont, Phi for all or CharonY when it comes to the minutia of science. I am a generalist overlooking up high the entire field of science and just maybe-maybe seeing things from my vantage point that others might miss. No grand theory of everything, but tidbits that may make a difference. One can take some of it and consider it or just ignore it. But, I insist in repeating that bias is more of a problem than what is implied. Bias is pernicious; it works at the sub-conscious level.

I reiterate, you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong. There is no bias nor worldview involved in science. Continue on.

Then you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong. There is no bias in science.

Pop-science journalism is an extension of science and promulgating basically the conclusions of science. I persist in saying that there is a prevailing negative undertone in science. As if we are still hung up on what religion entailed for society as a whole in the past. As if the counter revolution never stopped. The mere mention of religion or god gets everyone riled up. Science as in evidence versus the scientific community as in scientists interpreting the meaning of the evidence Classical physics was replaced by quantum physics not because it was wrong, but because it was insufficient at describing the subatomic world. I am not the one saying that evolutionary biology needs to change, Denis Noble is. As for the mind-brain model, I am not saying that the current model is wrong, but incomplete. One should stop saying that I want to overthrow all of science. This is not the case. But I am also saying that a mental predisposition to a certain worldview is skewing up the way we interpret evidence. I would be very surprised that biologists were not influenced by Dawkins, but you have a better understanding of this than I. Also, non-biologists are taking these cues from biologists to reinforce their assumptions. Then non-biologists form their own assumptions, which influences biologists; unless you are trying to tell me that biologists are un influençable! We are all biased and these biasses permeate all of our being. It’s what we call an echo chamber. We are not impervious to this So if the conversation that we are having would not have occurred, would you be acknowledging that the larger context is missing or that you would be aware of the undertone that prevails? We are not as objective as we would like to think we are and the world surrounding us might not even be as objective as we think it is. The only thing that I am trying to say here is that we all forget out of habit that we carry a lot of baggage with us when we do and interpret science. Affirming that science is pure, is fooling ourselves.

In the scientific literature that I read, there is a strong nature undertone. So, not only in popular science. The Dawkins impact on mainstream biology could have been rather muted, but his impact on the science community as whole was significant.

I am not talking about inheritance for now. I am talking about the prevalent mindset that we have no control over our lives because of our genes. "Doom and gloom" scenarios are prevalent in science and being percolated down to the public all the time. It is easy to acknowledge the fatality of it all, but when it comes to having at least a bit of regognition of our control over our lifetime destiny, then the talk is less forthcoming. I stongly disagree that Dawkins did not have a significant impact on the scientific community as a whole. It reinforced already prevalent assumptions. Science is shifting rapidly; the scientific community appears to not always be following the current. Models need not be proven wrong to be replaced; better models need only to be found.

+1 for this!

That our worldview is not adapting to evidence. We acknowledge that there is change in knowledge, but remain mostly silent on what the implications are for how we live out our lives. Science has real world implications. Dawkins had a sizable impact on western society. And we now find out that science has possibly passed him by, but we still do not make the course correction in our headspaces. You should know me better by now; I have no such pretention. And if I was, you would be right in trivially denying me! No surprise here! I am a mediocre chess player.

Trivial? This is an entirely different worldview than what was being promulgated. Maybe most physiologists and system biologists have come to the realization that the genome holds limited capacity, but the worldview that they espouse and communicate has not "adapted" to this change in circumstance. The way in which you responded to my latest post is testament to this. The "major" part of your contention is being questioned by recent evidence. It see more an "interplay" in the litterature. Why bring this up when no one as I know it is doing so.

An interview with Denis Noble. “I think that things must come up to date in evolutionary biology” “Organisms can actually use the chance and using it all the time” “It (the immune system) goes to the nucleus and says please stop the error correction and allow the breaks to occur and then we will select out of those the very few that can grab hold of the virus. I am saying that this is general. It happens in bacteria when they resist antibiotics. It happens in cancers.” “They (cancer cells) hyper-mutate; they use chance to get novelty” “If you can bring this stochastic process under some kind of control, use and do the selection….” Talking about Dawkins “I don’t think the great majority of research biologists are any longer going down that path in the way in which he laid it out. I am sorry to say; I think the ground has shifted quite a long way” “I don’t think that people like Richard yet know that; that things have really moved on rapidly” “There is a shift here; its in principal of enormous proportion ….” It has big implications” Talking about gene sequencing; “from the point of view of what was promised twenty odd years ago in relation to cure for cancer, cures for diabetes…..there was to be cures coming out of the sky ……….what have we found, the association level is quite tiny” Talking about genes “there isn’t a program there” “ There is no such program in the genome” “When are we going to wakeup to the fact that it’s been twenty years now sequencing as many genomes as we can and the output as promised as simply not appeared” “Darwin would have never accepted that natural selection was the only mechanism” “With the same genes you can have a very different behavior” “Gene are influencing, not causal” “We are not determinate like computers” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCLRKP9NW8I

Thank you for this. It clarifies things greatly for me!

Not in it for the winning, but for understanding. As for learning, I have done a lot of this with our exchanges. Also, with what I have posted so far in Science Forums, i believe that there is ground for reasonable doubt on the current-conventional theory of mind. Sent my application to SpaceX; never got a response 😊