How Much Should We Trust Science?

Barnardot

@JulesKorngold Well scientists have the best tool all right but how come they haven't been able to discover God with all there science so there no where near as good as sliced breed as they try to make out that they are. Thats because there not as intelligent as religious people are because when you think about it religious people know as much as scientists plus they know more because they know about God so therefore scientists are dummer and they dont know where to look for God because they dont know about God. For exsample if you ask a dog to go look for jane Dough it has no idea at all but when you get the dog to sniff the undies of Jane Dough then the dog knows all about her and the dog will find Jane Dough. So its just like scientists because if there so ignorant that they dont know any thing about God then there not going to find God.

Nomenclature

You have to gawk at the disingenuity. Jules praises science in one breath, then denies it the moment it discovers most Jews are the descendants of converts.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Only 40%

Four “founding mothers” who lived in Europe a thousand years ago were the ancestors of two fifths of all Ashkenazi (European origin) Jews. This is the conclusion of a team of researchers at the Technion&;Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, after they compared DNA sequences from nearly 2000 Jews with those of 11 500 non–Jewish people in 67 different populations around the world.

The remaining 60% were found to have much more heterogeneous genetic origins.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

Four “founding mothers” who lived in Europe a thousand years ago were the ancestors of two fifths of all Ashkenazi

Oh just stop talking you delusional fanatic. Nobody is interested in your ridiculous Adam and Eve stories.

Persian Jews converted Turks to Judaism to create the rump of what would become today’s Jewish population, DNA research has revealed.

https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/report-finds-ashkinazi-jews-descended-from-turks/

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Italy

Starting from the Roman-Jewish wars, particularly the Great War from 66 to 74 CE, a massive number of Jews were displaced from Ancient Israel to serve as slaves in Rome.

This displacement to the Italian Peninsula has led to the natural expansion of the members of the Jewish community. Some would have married Italians or some Italian citizens would have converted to Judaism. Nonetheless, a mixture of genetics and DNA emerged during this era. As time went by, small groups of Jews would have migrated further from where they were initially placed, leading to the modern Ashkenazi Jews that came to be.

MineSubCraftStarved

@Nomenclature

You have to gawk at the disingenuity. Jules praises science in one breath, then denies it the moment it discovers most Jews are the descendants of converts.
...
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/report-finds-ashkinazi-jews-descended-from-turks/

I already demonstrated how Des et al. which you continue to cite has many flaws and has already been refuted by many genetic studies prior to it's publication.
You didn't respond to my argument on a previous debate about this, and you continue to post the same flawed statement again in separate threads. That is disingenuous.
Hebrews today are NOT largely descendants of European or Persian converts, and genetics have supported such a claim over and over again. Dispelling your contrary belief.

Nomenclature

@MineSubCraftStarved

I already demonstrated how Des et al. which you continue to cite has many flaws

You demonstrated nothing of the sort you thoroughly unhinged lunatic. You continuously keep confusing different studies (i.e. the above cites Dr Elhaik's study, not Des et al) and the paper you linked to supposedly show these "flaws" was written by religious Jews who believe the diaspora was a real historical event. It was furthermore published in an open access journal where anybody can pay for publication. The complete lack of credibility of your sources is aptly illustrated in the fact that no legitimate news publisher is interested in them.

I couldn't care less about your fallacies, your false assertions or your fanaticism thank you very much.

Dee

@MineSubCraftStarved


Your source .......Jewish news UK......bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

You denied your own motherwas a Jew yet the state of Israel says she is , I actually think your insanity is escalating 

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Science does have a replication problem

An episode of "Adam Ruins Everything" pointed out that in many scientific disciplines most research findings can't be replicated.  That's a serious issue that suggests problems with either the underlying scientific approach, sampling size, or confirmation bias, etc.

The Reproducibility Project: Psychology attempted to replicate 100 studies from Psychology Journals.  Though most of these studies when first published had proclaimed significant findings,  only 36% of the replications yielded significant findings when reproduced.  Study replication rates were 23% for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48% for Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and 38% for Psychological Science. Studies in the field of cognitive psychology had a higher replication rate (50%) than studies in the field of social psychology (25%).

Center for Open Science did a massive replicative studies of 28 classic psychological studies.  Only 50 percent could be replicated with massive sampling sizes from 60 different labs.

49 medical studies were attempted to be replicated from 1990 to 2003.  Only 44% were replicated.  16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than did subsequent studies, and 24% remained largely unchallenged

In a 2012 paper, C. Glenn Begley, a biotech consultant working at Amgen and Lee Ellis, a medical researcher at the University of Texas, found that only 11% of 53 pre-clinical cancer studies had replications that could confirm conclusions from the original studies.  A study of empirical findings in the Strategic Management Journal found that about 30% of 27 retested articles showed statistically insignificant results for previously significant findings, whereas about 4% showed statistically significant results for previously insignificant findings.

A 2019 study in Scientific Data estimated with 95% confidence that of 1,989 articles on water resources and management published in 2017, study results might be reproduced for only 0.6% to 6.8% of the studies.

A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. But fewer than 20% had been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. 

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

Just out of interest, how many people have replicated the resurrection of Jesus? 

How many have replicated turning water into wine?

I'm sure you have these figures at hand, right buddy?

just_sayin

@Nomenclature
While there are many accounts of a person being declared dead and then coming back to life - all but Jesus died afterwards so far.  Since, there were witnesses of Jesus' resurrection, many of which went to their deaths refusing to deny what they had seen, it seems that evidence should be taken into account.  While someone may be willing to die for a lie they believe to be true, few would die for a lie they knew to be a lie.  History says that the Apostle John was boiled in oil and lived.  And he refused to recant.  Flavius Josephus mentions that Jesus' brother, James, was stoned to death because of his faith in Jesus as the Christ.  Someone might be willing to die for a brother, but they probably wouldn't go around saying that he was divine and they were his servant unless they really did believe in the resurrection. 

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

there are many accounts of a person being declared dead and then coming back to life

For three days? Name some.

Since, there were witnesses of Jesus' resurrection, many of which went to their deaths refusing to deny what they had seen, it seems that evidence should be taken into account.

Anecdotes are not the same thing as evidence. That isn't how it works pal. If I tell people my uncle was a vampire and never recant the story that doesn't make it evidence.

You are honestly such a raging hypocrite that it is extremely difficult to take you seriously. 

MayCaesar

If you "trust" science, then your approach contradicts the scientific method. Science is not about trusting some authority, but about examining the methods and the arguments and verifying their conclusions. The concepts they regularly refer to in the media space - "scientific consensus", "experts on subject X", "conclusive evidence", "settled science" and the like - are unscientific, and their heavy use demonstrates the size of the gap between what scientists do and what the public thinks they do.

No one can be informed enough on all subjects to have a solid and strong opinion on each of them. However, everyone can critically analyze the proposed claim and its general justification. I do not know anything about archaeology as a scientific field, but I can understand the reasoning behind an archaeologist's claim in favor of people in this region 10,000 years ago using obsidian axes as weapons, and I can see that the reasoning of this guy in favor of dinosaurs coexisting with humans 5,000 years ago is bunk.

The beauty of the world is, the more fallacies you commit, the easier it is to show that you are wrong. If I were intent on deceiving the world about certain findings in a field I am an expert on, I would likely be able to get away with a bit of fact-twisting - but the more of it I do, the less of an expert one needs to be to debunk my claims. If I try to claim that the Sun is a planet rather than a star, then, no matter the sophistication of my elaborate arguments, any decent high school student can propose a simple experiment showing that the Sun is, in fact, a star with the emission signature conforming with what defines a star. It will be much harder to debunk my claim if I were to suggest that the temperature of the surface of the Sun is twice what NASA claims it is, but a knowledgeable enough amateur astronomer can still obliterate my reasoning. Only at the cutting edge of science can someone get away with falsehoods like this - temporarily.

MineSubCraftStarved

@Nomenclature

I couldn't care less about your fallacies, your false assertions or your fanaticism thank you very much.

You continuously keep confusing different studies (i.e. the above cites Dr Elhaik's study, not Des et al)

Well you previously used both studies interchangabley. Regardless, I was reffering to Elhiak's study.

and the paper you linked to supposedly show these "flaws" was written by religious Jews

Unless you can actually demonstrate a conflict of interest, your case is mute. Prove that they are mostly religious Jews.

who believe the diaspora was a real historical event

Belief in a diaspora-related event is irrelevant to the actual genetic data taken in these studies. Regardless, they never refer to such an event, and only describe the modern Jewish population as a diaspora using it's definition. That being, a population separated by large distances.

It was furthermore published in an open access journal where anybody can pay for publication.

So was the study you keep mentioning:
© 2017 Das, Wexler, Pirooznia and Elhaik. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full

The complete lack of credibility of your sources is aptly illustrated in the fact that no legitimate news publisher is interested in them.

Untrue:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/community/articles/a-case-for-genetic-jewishness

MineSubCraftStarved

@Dee

Your source .......Jewish news UK......bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

That was Nomenclature's source, actually check what's your saying before posting next time...

Nomenclature

@MineSubCraftStarved

Well you previously used both studies interchangabley.

This is exactly why conversing with you is pointless. You're not truthful. When you make a mistake or get confused about something you simply lie.

Regardless, I was reffering to Elhiak's study.

Another lie. This time with some added spelling mistakes thrown in for good measure.

Unless you can actually demonstrate a conflict of interest

Are you on drugs? Your group of religious Jews assumes the diaspora to be a real historical event and bases all subsequent conclusions on this assumption.

Stop wasting my time you fanatic.

just_sayin

@Nomenclature
Antedotes?  James was Jesus' brother.  Ever heard of the gospel of James?  its in the Bible.  It is not antidotal,  its Jame's very comments.  1 and 2 Peter are Peter's own words as a witness.  Matthew, John, 1, 2 3 John are all books written by actual witnesses.  John Mark was most likely a witness also.  If not he and Luke interviewed actual witnesses.  Luke states that in the opening words of his gospel. Are you seriously arguing that "we can't accept the testimony of the disciples because they knew Jesus, witnessed the events, and were his friends"?  You would be laughed out of any court you tried such a tactic  So tell me, do you believe that the disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead?  If not, how do you explain their actions, post resurrection.  How do you explain their own writings?  Most of them were executed for their testimony that Jesus rose from the dead.  In some instances their children and wives were killed also.  It seems self-evident that they believed in the resurrection.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

Antedotes?  James was Jesus' brother.

Yes, anecdotes. If I tell you a story about my "brother" who got up up after three days stone dead on a slab, that's called an anecdote, not "evidence". 

Ever heard of the gospel of James?  its in the Bible.

Oh, it's in the Bible? Well, please forgive my scepticism. I mean, if it's in the Bible then it's obviously true, isn't it? No further questions required.

Give me an actual break. 

It is not antidotal,  its Jame's very comments

Mhm. Sure thing buddy. And Sauron forged nine rings of power. It can't be disputed because Elrond himself said so and Gandalf agreed with him.

Honestly, I just don't know what is wrong with you.

MineSubCraftStarved

@Nomenclature
You have responded to none of my arguments and simply continue to throw second-grade-level insults. You are unwilling or incapable of debate.
I'm done with you.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

If you "trust" science, then your approach contradicts the scientific method. Science is not about trusting some authority, but about examining the methods and the arguments and verifying their conclusions. The concepts they regularly refer to in the media space - "scientific consensus", "experts on subject X", "conclusive evidence", "settled science" and the like - are unscientific, and their heavy use demonstrates the size of the gap between what scientists do and what the public thinks they do.

@MayCaesar, give up the act already, please. It's getting boring. It's blatantly obvious that you are new to a lot of the science things you say!

Dee

@MineSubCraftStarved

That was Nomenclature's source, actually check what's your saying before posting next time...

Yes booze was on board and I got my wires crossed but then again I cannot be wrong according to you as 1+1= 2 maybe 3 , that's what you've claimed in the past , right?

Either way you're still claiming your mother is not Jewish yet the state of Israel disagrees with you , so please tell me when did the state of Israel elect an American imbecile like you to decide who is and is not a Jew?

MineSubCraftStarved

@Dee

Either way you're still claiming your mother is not Jewish yet the state of Israel disagrees with you

She may be Jewish by religion, but she is not Hebrew by descent or ethnicity.

Nomenclature

@MineSubCraftStarved

She may be Jewish by religion

That's the only way you can be Jewish, clown.

she is not Hebrew by descent or ethnicity.

Oh, is she ethnically Sumerian perhaps? Or ethnically Aztec?

You make me laugh. What a truly delusional person you are.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Determining Jewishness

Determining whether a person is Jewish can be a complex and multifaceted process, as there are several different factors that can contribute to someone’s Jewish identity.

Traditionally, Jewish identity has been passed down through matrilineal descent, meaning that a person is considered Jewish if their mother is Jewish. However, there are also other ways that a person can be considered Jewish, including through conversion to Judaism or affiliation with a Jewish community or organization.

In addition to these legal and religious definitions of Jewish identity, there is also a cultural and ethnic component to being Jewish, which can include sharing a common history, language, and cultural traditions. Ultimately, the determination of whether someone is Jewish may depend on a combination of these factors, and can vary depending on the context and the individual or community making the determination.

Nomenclature

Even the Israeli state disagrees with your nonsensical radicalism.

Between 1948 and 1970, Israel had operated with no legal definition of who is a Jew, despite that question’s significance for issues of immigration and citizenship. After 1970, Israel restrictively defined Jews according to religious criteria.

So that's science, history and the Israeli state.

Dee

@MineSubCraftStarved

She may be Jewish by religion, but she is not Hebrew by descent or ethnicity.

You said she wasn't a Jew yet she is as a Jew which  is one who practices the Jewish religion , you and your " buddies" being American retards should take your case against the Israeli government and force them to accept they're in error as a bunch of confused Yanks decide who is a jew and not them apparently. 

JulesKorngold

Israel's Law of Return stipulates that a Jew is someone with a Jewish mother or someone who has converted to Judaism and is not a member of another religion.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

Jewish religious law says that the child of a Jew is also a Jew. You cannot claim Jewishness is more than a religion, and then attempt to support that claim with Jewish religious law. 

I've pointed out your circular reasoning dozens of times, so you have no excuse to be making the same mistake. The only two plausible explanations for your continuous use of this same fallacy are dishonesty and/or fanaticism.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Again

Israel's Law of Return stipulates that a Jew is someone with a Jewish mother or someone who has converted to Judaism and is not a member of another religion.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

Jewish religious law says that the child of a Jewish mother is also a Jew.

Does that more accurate phrasing make it easier for you to understand why you can't use Jewish religious law as a reason why Jewishness is more than a religion?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Once Again

"Nomenclature" ignores the subjects of debates to spread his senseless propaganda.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

You are a creature to be pitied. Not intelligent enough to win a debate, you inevitably make everything personal.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: More

Personal insults from the motley-minded "Nomenclature".

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

Nomenclature this, Nomenclature that. Give it a rest you hateful little clown.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: "Nomenclature" Begs For A Truce

Nomenclature said:

@JulesKorngold

Nomenclature this, Nomenclature that. Give it a rest you hateful little clown.

Sorry, you fawning, beef-witted dunghill.  No truce.  I will keep exposing "Nomenclature" for the greasy, dull-brained geck he is.