nice early post.

Great job Crossfit Bucks on the qualifiers this past weekend!

what's with the early posts?
I kinda like it though....

Cool pic - The versatility, applicability and scalability of CrossFit proven yet again. Stay safe boys! Thanks for your service!

Much appreciated rest day as the SDHP got me an awful surprise ... hemorroids :(

Was able to do the WOD of shoulder press but couldn't squat in the warm up ...

Hope it's going to be ok soon !

also loving these early posts! So, the video talks about proper eating...my least favorite subject! Guess its time to start really working on it. I would have said a 6 to 9 too, but alas, it really ain't so...

Off for a terrible dip (or two or three) into some delicious, gooey, double fudge chocolate ice cream from Dreyers!

Okay, more discipline...tomorrow....?

Having worked on projects for DARPA on both the military and civilian side I would have to agree that it is indeed glorious to not be micro-managed. The current individual that oversees my work fosters new and creative approaches to engineering problems. He understands completely how we need to question the safe, accepted approach. This process is not without fault, however. On all projects I have worked one the one thing that bothers me about this process is how funding is worked on a "use it or lose it" basis. More than once my boss has approached me and said "We need to spend $X000000 dollars in the next 2 months". The reason is not because we need anything in particular, but because if we don't spend it we will receive considerably less funding the following year. I'm not claiming to have a great solution to this, but it seems to me like there must be a better way to fund these projects without "wasting" so many taxpayer dollars.

Thoughts???

diggin the early posts.

Thanks for the early posts, works great since Im a day ahead of you all.

Loving the early posts being in Japan and all. THANK GOD for a rest day! Or should i just THANK COACH!

Get the government out of Science, easy enough.

Brilliant article. I'd like to add to the "Unassailable Paradigms" the absurd notion that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor. The whole concept of evolution has been thoroughly discredited in recent years and government has responded by prohibiting the teaching of the new research in public schools.

Am i seeing a trend of 5:00 posts? I like it, i like it a laut!

Hey Jerry,

Go ahead and post some links or email me the data that shows evolution being thoroughly discredited. I must have missed it.

Lets not get into a debate about evolution vs intelligent design here. I see that spiraling out of control way way too fast. As a side note, to suggest that intelligent design is science is fallible in and of itself. Science depends on a process that has testable results and the theory of intelligent design does not even come close to having a testable hypothesis. Thats all I have to say about that.

to #11 - It's not quite that easy. Do you realize how many University's DEPEND on funding from the government. Without the government funded programs I guarantee you that the number of University's in the US would decrease by a large factor. The nation needs more education, not less.

Rory Mac, LOL, you pretty much have proven my point. Govt has suppressed the information because it is a "Unassailable Paradigm."

How can you look outside and say that everything you see just happened? Creation obviously points to an intelligent creator, because everything around us works perfectly in order for us to exist. How can something come from nothing and just form into pretty incredible specimens like us? How does the complex human body just create itself. Where did the stuff come from that created us? It all points to God. Thats all I got to say.

I was going to show you some online evidence of Creationism vs. Darwinism but there was a missing link.

Why are all the scholarly articles presented here so biased? Next think we know there will be an article calling for a shut down of our borders because, "them damn brown people will be bringin' that swine virus on my land, that I stole from them...o wait."

#12, do show us how such a thing has occured.

#17, if you took more care to read the literature, you will understand that the theory of evolution does not assert it is a random complex. Far from it, natural selection is a non-random process - Dawkins has an excellent explanation for this. I'd also put it to you that if millions of gradual changes over a huge amount of time causing the emergence of species is improbable, then for an omnimax deity to create all things in six days is even more improbable. To argue that because things appear complex to you the universe MUST be the creation of God leaves many things unconsidered, like my two examples above.

As an addition to my post above - the reason a deity is more improbable is because by definition, a deity must be more complex than the thing it creates.

Comment #20 - I'd also put it to you that if millions of gradual changes over a huge amount of time causing the emergence of species is improbable, then for an omnimax deity to create all things in six days is even more improbable.

Not true. It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of mankind. The evidence is quite overwhelming.

#22 Jerry,

Then please point us to some citations/paper/etc that support your statements

Don't state that evolution has been "thoroughly discredited in recent years" and not provide anything to back it up

Interuption here guys:
I really like the way fellow crossfitters personally answered my request for comment on the topic of rest yesterday. I also like how that even though I'm new, and not very good yet, I feel other people genuinely care about my improvement. Thanks guys and gals, this is a cool, supportive group.

Jerry and Spencer,
You're right. The fact that humans and monkeys have over 93% of their DNA in common was God's way of playing a big trick on us. I'm not athiest, I believe in God 100%, but come on man. THINK!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2009-04-26_117_the_fed_has_wounded_you.mp3

If any of you REALLY care about the science behind creationism (I suspect you don’t or you would already know this) there is plenty out there to be found. I’ve attended a science conference that had on site evidence that discredited many Darwinism ‘evidences’.

Some examples:
A 6 foot long mineral stalactite growing in the basement of a house built in the 1960’s- these are ‘supposed’ to take thousands of years to develop and have been used to date archeological findings- obviously inaccurately.

A fully fossilized human foot-in a cowboy boot! I don’t think they had Stetsons (or humans) 2 million years ago.

Human footprints along side dinosaur footprints- both fossilized in the same sedimentary layer.

There were 3 days of lectures and examples, I’m recalling from memory so forgive any inaccuracies but you get the idea. If your argument is that these examples are not ‘observable AND testable’ then I would counter that archeology must not be science? Is Darwinism observable and testable?

OK so I’m not going to get in to a debate about this. First, it’s off topic and I don’t want to hijack the rest day discussion. Second, I’m not confident in my knowledge to back up argument with facts (logic maybe, but I’m no reference book). Third, I know I won’t change anybody’s mind here so what is the point?

All I’m saying is this (and perhaps more to the point of the article): what we are led to believe is ‘science’, is very often just one politically motivated point of view (there is some truth to the cliché of ‘follow the money’).
True science is unbiased, therefore if you are quick to dismiss any thing because it doesn’t fit in your current belief system, then you have made your science your religion. I happen to believe as humans we are ALL guilty of this. It is the process in which we learn. We must always process new data in relation to what we already know as a reference point in order to understand it, therefore we ALL have biases toward that new data vs. what we have already learned. Only through the overcoming of these biases and humble evaluation of new information can we learn beyond our past influences.

#15 Runningstrong
yes intelligent design is unscientific. But only in that it cannot be tested or recreated. AND neither can evolution. dont just throw intelligent design out as non science. just because natural selection is true as well as adaptation does not equal large species jumping evolution. in fact, an unbiased look at science and the fossil record show more distinct species than linking species.
it comes down to, the beginning either started from lightning and proteins(that came from where??) or something/someone not in our dimensions.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2009-04-26_117_the_fed_has_wounded_you.mp3

This is 'bout to get interesting.
Thank you for so many early posts!

I've been a bad CFer. I have Monday's WOD tomorrow morn and Tuesday's WOD tomorrow afternoon. That'll teach me to slack. :)

"If any of you REALLY care about the science behind creationism (I suspect you don’t or you would already know this) there is plenty out there to be found."
Do I hear a No True Scotsman fallacy?

Sounds like you turned up to a conference by Answers in Genesis. Once again, please provide some references for the claims made in this conference. Some anecdote from memory about "a science conference" won't cut it.

"Second, I’m not confident in my knowledge to back up argument with facts (logic maybe, but I’m no reference book)."
Then don't bring an argument to the table that you don't know the facts about. This is asking to get flamed and just makes you look dishonest.

"Third, I know I won’t change anybody’s mind here so what is the point?"
This kind of indignant remark always puzzles me. You appear to be a conservative Christian, yet you don't think there's any point to getting people to align with your worldview? When I was a Christian it worried me on such a deep level that so many people were "lost" by having these "false" beliefs on evolution, that I was on the case all the time. Why aren't you?

"in fact, an unbiased look at science and the fossil record show more distinct species than linking species."

Are you talking about transitional forms? See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

Anyone who really believes in the fairy tale of Darwinism is just plain silly. If Darwin knew what we know now, he would have never proposed his theory. Those who have studied the science behind creation, know that Darwin's theory just does not hold water anymore. The rest just don't want to admit that there is a God, or that He created anything. Darwin's theory sounded good at the time, but then came knowledge.

The fact that there is no fossil record at all, is enough to falsify his theory. Never mind the fact that there are many animals, insects, and plants that just could not possibly exist if evolution were the path they had to take to get to where they now are.

I have studied the arguments on both sides, and I would have to place more blind faith in Darwin's faulty theory to believe it to be true, then to admit that everything we see has an intelligent designer.

#29 Patjshaz- As a frontal note, this will be my last post on the subject today. Now, your claim that fossil records show that there are more distinct species than linked species assumes that the entire fossil record has been found and documented. I don't think you will find a scientist who claims the entire fossil record has been documented. Now, the scientific method depends on the following criteria:
-Consistent
-Parsimonious
-Useful
-Empirically testable and falsifiable
-Based on multiple observations
-Correctable and dynamic
-Progressive
-Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

Which one(s) of these does evolution not meet?

Can I bring attention to comment #5?! haha sorry bro for your pain but that is kind of funny

It's amazing to see so many Crossfitters who see the toughest WOD as a challenge say "Oh nature is just too complicated to understand. I'm sure God made it out of pixiedust and starshine. There are some other intellectual cowards that support that idea." Grow a pair and come up with or support a legitimate theory or crawl back to your scientific middle ages.

Don't get me long, I love Crossfit and the community. I don't post on here because I don't like to get involved in any of these political debates (I tend to be more moderate to liberal). However, as a scientist, I am laughing at some of these comments.

It seems some people are way too in to "drinking the kool-aid."

To attempt to fully discredit evolution is ignorance.

Please, do some research on your own. Follow the evidence. Even the Roman Catholic church accepts evolution. Creationism is now considered more symbolic than anything else.

Sorry if I sparked any hatred, my goal was to spread love.

AP

Also, I apologize for any spelling errors. It's been a long day.

so i cut the tips of my fingers off making a salad last night with my wifes' shiny new mandelin and wanted to get some guidence on how to modify my training since i am leaving for SFAS on june 08. i still have my legs, should i just work my good arm on the
exercises, or make some device so i could still do pulling exercises. any advice would be great especialy if you know how to make skin grow really fast. and it will be fine my wife took away all sharp objects.

Great article. What is more alarming than scientific truth being decided by political expedience is that now politics is asserting that what YOU teach YOUR children in YOUR home should be at least somewhat regulated by the government.

As far as creation/evolution; scientific discovery is based on OBSERVATION, then hypothesis, testing, validation and/or modifying your original hypothesis. Note: creationism does not do this. Darwinism does not do this. Neither are scientific, they are views of HISTORY.

That said, I have never once seen (OBSERVED) order created from disorder without the intervention of an intelligent agent, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics (i.e entropy always increases) Thus, for me to accept an origins view that relies on a principle that no one has OBSERVED (first step in the scientific method) would be puzzling.

For everything we see in the biological and physical realm to have arrived by accident in such a short time (Yes, billions of years are VERY short for random chance to do what it is said to have done) such a mechanism by which this process occurred would have to still be in effect on such a large scale, at such a rapid rate that it would be readily OBSERVABLE on the order of DAYS; not "millions and millions" of years (a decidedly unscientific amount of time... not OBSERVABLE.)

On the other hand, every day I see (OBSERVE)intelligence produce complexity. Why is it then "unscientific" to assume that biological complexity was produced by intelligence? (Again, that is an unproveable matter of history)

Happy debating everyone

By the way, scientists will readily admit the flaws of science until it comes to their pet theory.

And now....Back to the original Rest Day Topic:

The article explains the inherent cronyism among the academic 'elite', who have created their own self-fulfilling survival mechanism...ie play the grant writing/funding game, and your study section peers will be more likely to support your funding, and eventually, the more you are funded at this level, the more likely you will be a future study-section member..and so on and so on...

With funding success (ie $$$) one of the prime motivators for maintaining academic solvency, pure scientific pursuit in the 'aha' tradition of Dionysian method is stifled.

Occasionally when a new paradigm breaks the mold, then it is frequently brought to light by the defense community, mainstream media or pure renegade pursuit. For example, whether provable or not, the cloaking of "Cold Fusion" by academic elite has shielded this exploration until recently highlighted on "60 Minutes", now somewhat re-forcing a presumable dead exploration. This certainly works both ways as in "Global Warming", presented in the most "Scientific" manner Inconveniently by Gore for example.

What are we to do then in pursuit of scientific 'truth'? Thank goodness, and I mean this most sincerely, we have forums such as the Crossfit Rest Day discussion to procure the answer...

This is much more tiring than burpees..3-2-1-GO!

I liked this article, and I liked the idea of mandatory funding for unorthodox research.

Until I read some of these posts.

Oh my goodness ...

No rest day for me, going to make up SDHP/RD WOD in the morning and max SP in the evening.
Still need to make up Michael too i just realized...

Evolution is not very random at all. The eye, fingers, and teeth were not created or achieved randomly. The eye became so complex because it was increasingly important and beneficial to observe light, distance, and movement more accurately. The fingers and teeth are developed for obvious reasons. This applies to every evolutionary development that I, personally, can think of.
Mutation, however, may occur randomly, but mutation is not the sole engine of evolutionary theory.

Keep preaching proper nutrition, Skip!

It is the X-factor of what we do.

Enjoy the rest day CFNation. I'm a couple days behind, so I'll working out tomorrow.

Any CFers out there play paintball? If so is anyone attending Oklahoma D-Day? I'll be there, and I'd like to meet any fellow crossfitters that are attending. Email me!

Good night all!

think i have lost my CF mojo.......

Evolution or Creationism? One imples an infinite knowledge universe the other a finite one.

Which when used creates more knowledge of the natural world/universe? Which one leads to more questions and then more answers?

Is a person's faith really depended on which is right: creationism/intellgent design or evolution? Seriously?

That said, I have never once seen (OBSERVED) order created from disorder without the intervention of an intelligent agent, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics (i.e entropy always increases)

Comment #41 - Posted by: AaronV at April 28, 2009 8:09 PM

Aaron, I'm sorry, but I'm going to pick at the most readily noticeable weak point of what you just posted. I'm pressed for time.

Quibbles about the definition of the second law of thermodynamics aside, why would intervention of an intelligent agent change a fundamental law of physics? Simply because you are intelligent, does that mean you can create matter from nothing? Does that mean you can extinguish gravity?

I think you can believe in God and evolution. They actually are not at odds with each other IMHO. God created the components of life and the environment needed for evolution to take place. Huh? Maybe? I don't know.

I like to picture the almighty kicking back with a cold one on day seven to watch his creation grow and change.

Lord, if you don't drink beer I meant no disrespect. I love you :-)

#41 AaronV wrote:
"What is more alarming than scientific truth being decided by political expedience is that now politics is asserting that what YOU teach YOUR children in YOUR home should be at least somewhat regulated by the government."
Can you provide evidence of this, please?

#38 - another scientist that crossfits? wow, cool. what kind of science do you do? I'm in medical research about heart disease & fat.

any other scientist crossfitters out there?

Since I can't understand everything in the universe, I'll just attribute it to an all knowing God so I can absolve myself of personal responsibility. Sounds like a plan. Why bother questioning and testing using scientific methods when you can just have blind faith? It's so much easier on the mind.

Wanted to post my totals for shoulder press WOD
Since I set a new PR very happy with all the strength progress made.

135-145-155-155-160-160-165
my previous pr was 145 so I crushed that. Enjoy the rest day. And for the record I 100% believe in God as creator of all things. Evolution has more holes than one can mention. My faith will not be changed. Good night all

Regarding curbing government waste:

http://gaultfalcon.blogspot.com/

First article.

Just curious, and any answers are appreciated from those of you who do not believe in God. What is your explanation of how anything has come about? Something had to be around at the beginning to evolve into what we have now, so where did that "something" start? Interested to see how others explain that.

Alli - medical research into genetic diseases of metabolism. Yay, scientists.

For the record, I absolutely concede creationism is possible and can live alongside evolution rather easily. I'm not sure where I stand personally, but I do get incredibly frustrated when people open a jar of peanut butter and claim to have disproved evolution.

Lost Boy - check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life. (WFS)

Got nothin there Joe C- closest thing is Aliogenesis....which still implies that there were single cell organisms that had to come from something. Just curious as it is to how others explain it. Doesn't change my beliefs at all. Night all

Oh and Grambo- grow up.

Joe C.'s link added a period to the end - here's the correct address:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
From the article:
"There is no truly 'standard model' of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane [primordial soup - nk] hypothesis."
Personally, I'm waiting for our alien overlords to return and take us home to serve them forever in the stars while singing their praises. Doesn't that sound just great?

Neat read,

Against the grain lines up with crossfit well.

so I just read the article. and disagree with it completely.

as scientists, we all know stories of how previous dogma has been disproved. and I think it is safe to say that our ultimate goal as a scientist is to disprove current dogma or to discover something new.

here are some of the NIH criteria for grant reviewing:
1) significance, 2) innovation, 3) approach

there also are specific grant programs already in place for "risky" science ...

and finally, don't believe any of that bunk in the article that says cholesterol & sat fats don't cause heart disease. when considering the facts we know from all the cholesterol research, over 90% of the scientists in this field believe the lipid hypothesis is true. read "the cholesterol wars" by dan steinberg.

As an aside, Darwin was a devout Anglican all of his life. It is odd how "Darwinism" is equated with atheism. Deism and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Comment #52 - Alli

Engineering Physicist here.

Happy Rest Day and huge hugs to the FRAT!!Love you all
#5-lol! I read your post 2x to make sure i read it correctly! Who knew that could happen from sdhps? OUCH!
Ive been doing modified wods for a week now thanks to Herm and Coach Ick. My foot is much, much improved.Back to the docs tomorrow.Off crutches now and can get a tennis shoe on! I can see the stillettos from here!! YAY!!I miss my lovely shoes! So... back to the wod - tonight was:
row 500m (just arms)
100 sdhps (knee on box -just the bar)
100 push-ups
row 500m
18:18 :) feels great to get good and sweaty! :)

#52: I'm a scientist, work on malaria/mosquitoes.

I tend to keep out of political discussions here, not being American so I keep out of internal issues. On occassions, however, I think it is good for all of us here to hear opinion of the rest of the world :)))

So, on the subject of the darwinism: even Vatican accepted it, saying: God created the World, but perhaps in longer than seven days.

On the subject of government funding, in my country for last 10 days students protest for free education. Too many people want to go to the university, not enough (government or private) money. It will be interesting to see how it ends, since we had long tradition of free education till last 7 years.

On discussions in general: I notice so much hostility in some posts. Some people simply state their propaganda (because there are no arguments). If you want to keep your opinion without hearing anything else, do not: read, talk to people, go to forums.

Enjoy your rest day, and the rest of the week.

Comment #64 - Deism and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Deism is really 18th century atheism. Darwin remained an Anglican after his "discovery" because society mandated it. His beliefs are incompatible with the scriptures.

Missed the previous rotation because I was out of town in Nashville. I think there was a Crossfit facility on the second floor I was filming a figure skating competition at, Crossfit MT I think? To bad I didn't find out until the last day I was there.

I was all set to officially start CF today, after gaining about 15 pounds with traditional lifting in the past 4 months...it's time to step up with the big boys and get some REAL fitness...and I find a REST DAY?! Dangit.

Guess we'll get after it tomorrow. Can't wait to see what's in store, and how NOT in shape I really am...

33/M/6'/195
US Army Officer, Iraq

I don't know about the rest of you but I am still waiting for the all revealing references, Jerry ....

I do believe in evolution but stand to be enlightened - "I will not die for my believe ... I might be wrong", I can't remember who said that. Everybody interested can read the book "Fingerprints of the Gods" by Graham Hancock, a lot of interesting observations in that.

“I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.” - Bertrand Russell

We are motivated for some Fight Gone Bad tomorrow!

[quote #56]Just curious, and any answers are appreciated from those of you who do not believe in God. What is your explanation of how anything has come about? Something had to be around at the beginning to evolve into what we have now, so where did that "something" start? Interested to see how others explain that.[/quote #56]

I have no plausible explanation - I'm woefully ignorant much like every other human being, including those who do believe they have an explanation. /Did/ something have to be around? How do you know? The origins of the universe deal with a level we cannot [yet?] comprehend. Evolution doesn't explain the beginning - what can though? 'God' is not an explanation since it leads to the question 'what is God?', and any answer to that will infinitely recurse - but it does fit when we've seen for our planet.

For the sake of argument, even if one were to concede evolution, I don't see how you can jump from the universe appearing to be ordered to there being an omnipotent omniscient being that watches over our lives. Where do the details come from?

I, personally, like the following 'counter argument' against intelligent design [it's not really an argument, more of something to provoke your thoughts... what more could you want? :)]. If there were a designer (and who exactly would have designed this designer? Sorry had to throw it in), then as well as designing the human race, (s)he/it would have had to design all the species which are now extinct on this planet, as well as all the billions of planets in the universe - the majority of the ones observable to us appear not to support any life. Some design eh?

A question back to those who do believe in Creationism, or don't believe in evolution/attribute it to 'God'; what would make you believe? What would change your mind? As an example: suppose we found extra-terresterial life [bacteria on Mars or something along those lines] - how would you reconcile that with your belief system?

So I'm a newbie April 3, 2009 I weigh about 230 and couldn't do. Pullup a month ago now all your burpee doin bastards have me doin about 5 thanks for the best program and a new chapter to my life : )

On intelligent design...

If we were intelligently designed, how is it contingent that the designer was necessarily the Christian God?

Why not a different god, or a committee of gods, or an evil god, or an indifferent god who's forgotten about his creation?

@Tomato, congratulation! You have been successfully cfimped!

Please enjoy the article.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/denton-vs-squid.html

What happened to the days of comments being for time posting and back patting?

All this dissension is really taking the 'special' out of Crossfit.

#34, your use of hyperbole, unsubstantiated assertions and emotive language is like a carbon copy of all the rhetoric I heard from my creationist peers, or words I used myself at one point in time. I'll bet the "fairy tale of Darwinism" came from Answers in Genesis or the guys who sell The Evidence Bible. The fact you equivocate social Darwinism with the theory of evolution likewise screams of the fact you get your information from such sources.

At the end of the day, you stand in a tiny minority of Christians who continue to make lots of noise about "we ain't got no monkeys fer cuzins!" But put it into perspective, and now I appeal to your understanding of gifts of the Holy Spirit - do you honestly think that of all the Christians in the world across the whole spectrum of denominations, that everyone but "your gang" is insincere in their desire for truth? And with that in mind, is it not likely that God would have given these people a word of knowledge on the matter? If there is a personal God responding to the prayers of Christians, he is obviously not the one portrayed in the Bible otherwise he would have led his people to demand literal interpretations. The power of prayer is another issue for a more appropriate medium.

uhh ohh...my shoulders..

kinda scared of tomorrows wod :)

that video is so true (as i sit here eating a chunk of pepperoni and provolone) >.<

btw, blueprints please for the chinup bars in that pic?

The last statement was the best "It's going to bring business in the door a lot quicker"

Awesome video

As an ecologist, I`m not all that concerned with the skepticism for evolution or any other theory, but the the evidence and arguments presented against it here are, frankly, embarrassing.

Consider evolution (and all other theories) with healthy skepticism. But when it comes to dinosaur tracks next to human footprints and stalactites in basements as the basis for disproving evolution, you are being deceived by disingenuous people selling creationist propaganda. But at least the former claim recognizes one of the predictions of the theory of evolution: there is a logical progression of fossil bodies beginning with more primitive forms and becoming increasingly complex. The fossil record is by no means complete (best estimates say 3% of species are represented and this is most likely an underestimate). However, those that have been collected fit perfectly in this predicted chronology, indicating that there is indeed a progression. Some of the more complete sections of the fossil record show clear progression of traits over time (see burgess shale).

If there is any debate going on it is about the extent to which natural selection is a factor (i.e., what are the mechanisms). I think this is probably a more fruitful debate. Arguing whether evolution (not to be confused with the origin of life theory #75) occurs is akin to arguing whether the earth is not flat at this point in the science debate. More education on the subject from legitimate sources and some intellectual integrity would go a long way in this debate.

Anytime that religion is used to debate science, you can be sure that the debate is not about science but rather culture. The same could be said for the opposite application of science to debate religion. Keeping them separate would be good for both.

Government funding of research has its problems, to be sure. Implementing the article's conclusion that there should be "mandatory funding of contrarian research", however, would likely be disastrous. There are WAY too many kooks out there with PhD's.

The ability to consider contrarian views is admirable. One must always make sure, though, that the contrarian nature of the argument isn't its primary appealing characteristic.

I want to tell everyone that I really appreciate the fact that there are people who are willing to be skeptical of the status quo, to look beyond the face value of the issue and ponder further. Thank you to all who post insights.

I also think I need get to a cert 1 and find out where skip chase is speaking next. That guy has a powerful motivation and presence about him. Great video clip!

ahhh, rest.

QUESTION:

I am 6 month crossfitter. Often when I do a new workout that I have never done before, I am so sore that I can't workout for 5 to 7 days. Are there any suggestions on how to heal the soreness faster?

For instance, when I did the squat snatch workout from a few days ago, I am incredibly sore in my lower back and hamstrings. In fact that is often where I get the most sore, lower back and hamstrings.

I am stretching and taking hot showers. I also work in an office and wear a suit everyday. And some people look at me, why is he hobbling around the office for a week every month.

Any suggestions? Thanks, Mike

Re #19 -- there are a whole lot of excellent reasons to have strict border control with Mexico that have nothing to do with race. Swine flu actually is most definitely one of them.

#81- Ohh don't worry it will be back tomorrow. I apologize for even posting once on this. Ever try to imagine Coach finding some article to post for rest days and just thinking to himself "Ohh damn, this is gonna start trouble, hahah." Good job Coach, you win again. Thanks for everything!

Hey Jerry, what else "in recent years" has the government decided to prohibit being taught in schools... hmmm maybe the crazy notion that the earth is indeed FLAT, or that Noah really did build a gaint wooden boat and gathered two of every animal on the planet, and putted around until our flat planet was not longer covered in water, at which point he and his family returned to the garden of Eden, where he lived until his untimely death, being beaten to death by some kind of "monkey-ape man", over an apple, at the age of 762 years old. Tragic I tell you.

The Rest Day article and discussion is running the risk of devolving (pun intended) into another useless, pointless, endless, and meaningless discussion of evolution v. creationism/intel. design, one that never ends with anyone changing their initial POV, or even giving any serious consideration to doing so. Why bother? Again?

The Article has a couple of interesting premises that deserve the consideration of the considerable collective intellect herein.

1) There is a fundamental flaw in the grant-writing/granting process in the U.S. at this time. Agree or disagree. Discuss.

2) Grant-writing/granting and scientific research in the U.S. has become politicized. Political prerogatives now outweigh scientific prerogatives in funding scientific research. Agree or disagree. Discuss.

3) There now exist certain "untouchable" scientific conclusions, dogma (see #2). Requests for funding for research that seeks to disprove these, or seeks to propose alternatives, are dismissed out of hand. Agree or disagree. Discuss.

IMO that is what constitutes "as Rx'd" today. As always, provide sources for your contentions. If you are an expert (and are therefore a source yourself) post your qualifications as such. Discuss the ideas and not the holder of the ideas.

Come on. We can do better than the drivel posted north of this post. Sheesh.

The posted video of a CrossFit instructor teaching fellow instructors about coaching clients in the science of nutrition dictated by a has-been best seller fad diet book is, no doubt, making the globogyms quake in their boots.

CFC

245,265,285,295,305,325x1

6 sets of 5 mu between sets

If anyone has every read Darwin's book, he expresses doubt in his own theory.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy". (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).

"Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic change, and this is the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory".

The second quote is extremely interesting to me. The fossil record should show literally thousands of intermediate or "transition" fossils showing gradual change over time. Yet it does not.

What burns my ass is how it is accepted as fact without being proven.

Being an evolutionist and a creationist are both equally based of faith.

Rested yesterday.

Bike 10 min warmup, DB, and then leg presses.
160 lbs, 10 reps, 5 ways
180 lbs, 10 reps, 5 ways, then straight until exhaustion 30 reps.

Ah rest day.
I think I need this after tossing in a 5k after the last 6 WOD's. The running is coming back though

What about the video? It makes sense to make people seriously consider their food intake, but if you're running an affiliate, do you want to risk losing new members because they can't commit to a new hardcore workout regimen AND diet? It's easy to say "If they don't want to change, I don't want them", but keeping them around pays the bills. Any thoughts?

There was a question yesterday about P90X vs. Crossfit, and I thought I would take the time to respond since I did P90X this past summer, and started Crossfitting in early November.

P90X is a 13-week program, divided into 3 phases. It runs 6 days on 1 day off. For most weeks, days 1, 3, and 5 are basically body-weight lifting days - pullups, pushups, squats, etc. focused on chest, back, and legs - plus some dumbbell work for shoulders and arms. Abwork is also done on days 1, 3, and 5. Day 2 is plyometrics (jump training), day 4 is yoga, and day 6 is kenpo (like an aerobic Billy Blanks session). Of these, I thought the plyometrics and yoga workouts were quite good, but the kenpo was weak.

Weeks 4, 8, and 13 are sort of like rest weeks - the intensity drops but you maintain some activity. These weeks, there is no real lifting - but instead you have 2 days of a "core synergistics", 2 days of yoga, 1 day of kenpo, 1 day of stretching, and a rest day.

Phase 1 (weeks 1-4) and Phase 2 (weeks 5-8) are set up to exploit muscle confusion, mixing up some of the exercises. Phase 3 (weeks 9-13) are basically a mix of Phase 1 and 2.

So how does P90X measure up? Let's compare.

Functional movements: P90X has some of this, mostly push-ups, pull-ups, and squats. However, many of the dumbbell lifts are not functional. Advantage Crossfit.

Cross-training: No running or rowing in P90X. Plyometrics in P90X had some interesting elements. Advantage Crossfit.

Power/Intensity: P90X does not focus as much on a timed aspect. Although one could certainly approach it this way, Crossfit forces you to focus on power (work/time) and intensity. Advantage Crossfit.

Routines: This was what I struggled with mostly in P90X - I knew what was coming up for weeks ahead, and there were certain workouts I started dreading, some just from boredom, some b/c I knew they would be difficult. P90X sought out the "muscle confusion" concept, but the programming was much too straightforward. I'm pretty sure if I did P90X again, I would not see much in the way of gains.

Gymnastics/Agility: No real gymnastics in P90X. Advantage Crossfit.

Olympic Lifts: None in P90X. Advantage Crossfit.

Flexibility: One thing I felt P90X did well was the yoga and stretching routines. I think this is perhaps missing from Crossfit. Advantage P90X.

Scalability: P90X was fairly scalable, since it was mostly body weight movements and dumbbells could be replaced with bands, etc. I call this one a push.

Time: This, in my opinion, is an important metric. P90X workouts are all 60 minutes, except for yoga, which is 90 minutes. This was great from a strict caloric burn aspect, but again, I think this increased the injury risk and mental fatigue. One of the big draws - for me - to Crossfit is the fact that I can get through many WODs in 20-30 minutes. Advantage Crossfit.

Results: I did have some gains in 3 months of P90X. My pullups went from 15 to 20, pushups from 50 to 64. The tests for leg strength and cardio output were harder to quantify in my opinion, but I do think I saw benefit. In Crossfit, I have seen at least as significant of gains.

In summary, I'll echo the comments made yesterday. I think P90X is not a bad program - but it will probably do more to make someone leaner and more cut, as opposed to stronger and fitter. I do not think it comes close to increasing broad fitness measures in the way that Crossfit does.

I am competing in the Regional Qualifier this weekend and I was trying to put together a small recovery movement workout for today and tomorrow and I would like your opinions on it.

30 seconds jump rope
10-1 pood kb swings
samson stretch
shoulder pass throughs with pvc
10-24" box jumps
10-45 lb OHS
10-back ex
10-GHD sit ups
10-20 lb wall ball shots
5-burpees
5-CTB pullups
5 HSPU
5-135 lb dead lift
5-95 lb squat cleans

is it too much? too little?
my last WOD was monday I had planned on doing this today and tomorrow? I would appreciate any help greatly

#96 Bingo,

I agree with you whole heartedly. Arguing science from faith is trouble, no matter whether you have faith in God or Darwin.

The article really touches on some of the underlying causes of the 'stasis of science' we're seeing today. The examples Dr. Miller gives are particularly important. Two in particular that I've dug around on are anthropogenic global warming and fat causing heart problems. Both of these issues are "solved" in the media, but only because any science that does not follow the proper script is seemingly suppressed.

M/31/6'3"/200

'300' - 21:14

Bingo: Back to the topic at hand

Clearly today's Rest Day topic brings to light the inherent cronyism associated with the grant/peer review process. The cycle is self-promulgating and at the root is the 'academic pursuit' ie funding dollars required for promotion and sustainability.

Those successful at playing this game, which was so nicely delineated in the article, tend to be relatively conservative and mainstream taking only baby steps towards groundbreaking innovation. These scientists though run the best chance of funding thus leading to promotion/sustainability, and eventually these same people become the new study-group peers...initiating a self-promulgating process.

This is not to say that the science is 'bad' or unimportant, but clearly the Dionysian method is discouraged. True breakthroughs are rare today and seem to be best brought to light via Defense Department success, mainstream media or sheer persistence. Take for example the heavily shunned "Cold Fusion" projects of the 70's which had all been laughed out of the scientific realm until recently picked-up and presented on 60 minutes...wonder what will happen to the funding now??

Cogent scientific discourse and open-minded pursuit is mandatory for scientific advancement of truly groundbreaking ideas, hopefully government funding recognizes this, but unlikely, esp when money is tight.

Until then we proudly keep the discussions going here on Crossfit Rest Day, and when the rest of the world wakes-up to the benefits of wellness, diet and sport they too will share in the change...3-2-1..GO!

Just did my first muscle-up today!

I can't believe I wasted a whole bunch of time reading the beginning of the above hogwash...hopefully Bingo has re-aligned us...

1.The main point of the article is definitely that "Freedom to dissent is an essential ingredient of societal health." and that is the fundamental flaw in our current system.

2.Its always enlightening to understand how some of the pro's play their game. As a graduate student in a not-so esoteric area (the social psychology of sport and physical activity), I had wondered how many researchers/professors are able to find funding, and the answer is following the money (i.e. OBESITY)

3.Another issue that someone else brought up was the relationship of research and education, both both of which get steered by the government that funds them. Although there is some discussion on which can/should change first, education or the funding of research. (see NYTimes article - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor.html?em)

to #15 - these University's depending on government funding is the reason that education is just as biased and controlled as independent scientific research. The unassailable paradigms is what we obedient sychophants are being taught in school - as truth. What if the things we are learning aren't even proven but are being taught as fact - such as the membrane theory of cellular physiology (see www.gilbertling.org, check out the main page related topics) . Education is just as screwed up as Governement funding in the US, and it's because of a combination of Big Money and Peer-review.

Happy Rest day to the FRAT!

My Dad made me an awesome plyo box, so I simply had to try it out this morning.

21-15-9 box jumps/pullups for time:

5:03

Check it out, he did an awesome job on the build, my Dad is the man:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/14560957@N03/sets/72157605362707987/

Never Quit!

Great video- I wish I could have been there for the whole talk! Any chance of getting it all on the Journal?

#92 wrote- "It is a testament to the nobility of the crossfit community that you all are even responding and engaging in debate with these mindless, unthinking nits blithering on about creationism. In my opinion, such small minded, intellectually retarded people should be working on developing their underdeveloped brains before preoccupying themselves with physical fitness of the rest of the body."

So is this a "noble" statement? Seems like lacking the self confidence or ability to mindfully discuss a disagreement, therefore respecting someone else's point of view, is more "intellectually retarded" then those you are trying to discredit.

#91 - MikeT

Lately I've been trying to stretch (a jumble of "drills and skills" and kstar recommended stretches) for 20 min after just about every mecton and do some general shoulder stretches at work 5 times a day. I started this not as as cure for extreme soreness but more as a way to get "better at everything". In general I'm in a constant state of soreness only the soreness moves about the body day in and day out.

This post made me want to share a few terms that my friends and I use in relation to crossfit:

"crossfit walk" that is the hobbling that we do in the office as well usually accompanied by joking "I though crossfit was supposed to make us more prepared for life ;)"

"crossfit hangover" is that WOD that affects us all day long and feels like a hangover. Usually if we do a WOD like Fran, lay on the ground in some sweat for a little while, then have a headache all day.

Bingo-- thanks for getting us back on track.

I don't have the science background to hold forth on this subject, but one thing I did find interesting was that the author didn't mention Kary Mullis (or did I miss it?). I thought he was the poster child for the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" movement. I think he's also been an outspoken skeptic of AGW as well.

Dan

48/male/6'/199/week 25 CF/week 5 Recon Ron

I was a day behind so caught up today.
...Started week 5 Recon Ron (26 chins per day)
...1 x 10 reg dip

Shoulder press (up 20 lbs. since 12-1-08!)
135x1 155x1(PR)145x1 145x1 145x1 145x1 145x1

200 lbs. would be flippin' sweet someday.

I like this guy's thinking. The fear, of course, in funding research that does not conform to existing paradigms is that it will not bear fruit. If you bet on a known horse, then you know you will get SOMETHING.

Now, Conservatives--i.e. true Liberals--believe that taxpayer's should fund as little as possible that increases the power of the State. We expect government bureaucrats to manage our money carefully. In my view, one consequence of this is that they do in fact try to do this. They want to be sure the money they spend is spent usefully. So, it is in part hypocritical to simultaneously demand prudence, and castigate not funding controversial, possibly useless research.

At the same time, the point of democracy is debate, and self correction. In this case, we can say to these bureaucrats, on the not entirely unjustified assumption that they are sincere and trying to do the right thing, to fund a percentage of "contrarian" projects. Paradigm breaking projects.

We could evolve to where we ask not "what do you expect to find?"--industry can handle that. Rather, the question is "what COULD you find, if you are right?" That would lead to the sorts of interesting researach apparently going on at DARPA.

I am a moderate. I don't oppose State funded research, to some extent (and $30 billion is chump change in the era of "The Stimulus", although significanly more than Obama's farcical $100 million). I know that the atom bomb saved a lot of lives, and that we have the most advanced military on the planet, due to State funding.

I will add that I found his Nietzchean analogy (Apollonian/Dionysian) interesting, and perhaps not wholly apposite. The opposition, it seems to me, is not between the rational and the ecstatic, but between the "known" and the unknown. His intuition is right, I think, though, that in order for new forms--new paradigms--to form, you must first relax, if not destroy, the old form.

On that note, I will add that the opposition of Creationism/Evolution is a false dichotomy. If God exists, he expresses Himself in the world. He leaves visible marks, and for that reason, as St. Thomas Acquinas argued, and the Pope recently reaffirmed, the study of science is entirely compatible with faith in God.

Now, I know full well that since the time of Darwin "Darwinism" has been used as a club by means of which to beat Christians and other persons of faith. Some of the most enthusiastic opponents of "Darwinism" are today Muslims.

However, we need to more carefully define "Evolution" as--within Darwin's own proposed model--morphogenesis through random change coupled with random benefit. We have to then take that definition, and ask what the empirical evidence for it is.

n one commonly cited example, you have to not just be able to reverse engineer an eye through small genetic alterations. You have, also, to be able to show how EVERY link in that chain necessarily led to increased probability of survival. Since many parts of the eye depend for their utility on other parts which must exist in tandem with them, it is impossible for sincere biologists to construct a linear narrative which is plausible, and for that reason critiques of the Darwinian account are, in my view, quite devastating to the theory.

In my own view--and this brings us back to the topic--I would like to see what we might term "paradigmatic" research into two areas. First, I would like to see the conception of morphogenetic fields revisited. We know--for example from the study of salamanders--that electric fields exist which appear to regulate visible biological processes like the growth of arms and legs. This conception was commonplace until roughly the 1930's.

The discovery of DNA, of course, changed all this, but in my own view DNA is necessary to the understanding of ontogenesis, but not sufficient, even as random change coupled with random benefit is necessary, but also not sufficient. The two are linked, of course, in my view.

Secondly, I would like to see experiments done to see how fast evolution can be created. In my own view, it can be provoked much more quickly than any current mechanistic paradigms will allows. That would constitute a prima facie falsification of the prevailing Darwinian evolutionary models, without thereby calling into question the broader evidence of "gradual change over time", which few people question.

Joss,

I feel compelled to comment on your invocation of "free education". It was free TO YOU, but other people in your country were paying for it. Nothing is free. Governments dont' create wealth, they merely take it and move it around. There is no free health care. There is no free housing. There are no free lunches. This is a myth which provides ideological "funding" for much of what soft leftists believe.

#93 Sabs, there are a lot of reasons for immigration control (not only regarding the Mexican border). I am not sure whether the amount of resources (personal, money, etc) justify it though. Maybe just taking all that money and giving it to Mexico to increase the living conditions inside the country would stop people from wanting to leave it ... The same idea could work in respect to weapons and military. Not saying that this is the answer, but the current "solution" isn't really working either.

I just bothers me to see the amount of effort goes into destruction as oppose to real evolution.

Omigoodness! I am soooo sore today! Woke up in the night and could hardly even get out of bed. Almost threw up this am because so sore. Chest, back, arms, hammies- smokin’! What’s funny is that last two wods I worked out hard, but not 100%. Form was great, but overall was giving it about 85-90% taking it “easy”. LOL, that does not feel the case today! In a crazy sick way- I love being sore like this ;)

Have a great day everyone! Rest up!
Erin

On yesterday's WOD, how much rest did you take between reps on average? Just curious to see how I compare.
Thanks

On yesterday's shoulder killer WOD, how much rest did you take between reps on average? Just curious to see how I compare.
Thanks

Physicist, Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winner stated in his introduction of "The God Particle"

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

if i subscribe to the journal i get all the full videos and stuff too right???

I read all the posts so far and have seen a bunch of big words and name calling. Most impressive so far is how Barry Cooper could write those 3 long posts with numerous words I can't even read, much less spell, in 2 minutes!

On grants- pros are we make breakthroughs that save lives through research. Cons- its turned into bureaucratic rewarding of the good "writers" as opposed to the rewarding of good science. But what is an alternative way of funding this research and science? Like what was said above by Barry I believe, there are no free lunches.

On evolution- Faith isn't based on facts. No one started or is doing Crossfit because they have faith in Crossfit. They believe in it however because of the results that are proven (over a relatively short time). Evolution and Global warming happen over millions of years, so how are we, as 100 year + or - renters of our lives, going to determine what is real or provable? I believe what I believe about God and evolution based on FAITH, and no study or "smart" scientist will dissuade me either way.

People have devoted their whole lives to proving or disproving Creationism and Evolution, and there is still debate about which side is right. How am I going to prove/disprove it on one rest day message board?

Call me small-minded, naive, stupid, or ignorant, but tomorrow, if we find life on Mars, I still believe in Jesus. If we find Noah's arc or the actual cross Jesus was crucified on, great, I still believe in Jesus. Faith is faith.

#87
"Anytime that religion is used to debate science, you can be sure that the debate is not about science but rather culture. The same could be said for the opposite application of science to debate religion. Keeping them separate would be good for both."

Thank you for saying that. Personally, I'm a Christian, however I don't think that religion is the answer to everything.

The Bible isn't much help when trying to engineer a bridge or do open heart surgery. In the same way, when a tragedy occurs people don't seek consolation by reading scientific papers.

I find it pretty frustrating when I walk into the science section at a book store and half of the books are about morality derived from science. Science is very good at defining exactly what it is that you're doing, but it can't tell you whether what you're doing is right or wrong.

I'm assuming that when most people say "evolution", they're referring to the theory that humans and other primates have a common ancestor - and going back further that all life has a common ancestor.

If you assume the philosophical position of atheism:

Assuming the Big Bang "started" the universe, life didn't exist from the beginning. So you have to address the almost unimaginably small probability that all these atoms and molecules aligned just right under the correct conditions to produce something that could reproduce.

Before evolution can even be considered relevant, life has to exist in the first place.

If you assume the philosophical position of atheism, ie there is no God or gods:

In order for life to exist to evolve in the first place, all the correct particles have to be in the same place at the same time under the perfect conditions in an unimaginably large universe. In addition to this, the Second Law of Thermodynamics must be broken - a more ordered system is the result of a less ordered system. At any other time, any scientist or anybody with common sense would call you crazy to suggest that this law could be broken (there's a reason it's a scientific law). After life actually exists, then it must happen to have been "born" in the perfect environment for it to survive long enough to reproduce.

So at the minimum, at least three "impossible" things must occur for life to even exist in the absence of a deity. That's not even including the chances of the universe even existing. Actually, explaining where everything comes from (ie, what's outside the universe?) is a good example of infinite regression. Similar to the "who was the first mover?" argument.

It actually makes more sense to combine theism with evolution than atheism with evolution. To my knowledge, evolution doesn't address the origin of life. It simply assumes there was an organism and then life continually adapts.

Even if evolution isn't a combination of random, chaotic events, the existence of life in the absence of theism is required to be the result of chance. To be otherwise, you're implying there was an intelligent influence. Science must justify the breaking of it's laws in order to honorably state that the exist of life is the result of pure chance.

Science, in it's current state, isn't in a position to make that justification. However, things may change.

My point here is that creationism doesn't seem so crazy if you follow my train of thought above. I hope I explained things clearly.

Creationism certainly isn't a scientific theory, but more a philosophical position. Also, creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

IMHO,

JEP

My fave WOD vids are the ones wear CF women are doing box jumps or skipping rope booyah!

Lew Rockwell (the guy who runs the site that the article is hosted on) is the Chairman of the Ludvig Von Mises institute. Mises was an economist and is the giant of the Austrian School. And to descend into a painful, flaming discussion of Evolution vs. Creationism misses a hugely important point lurking behind the article.

There are limits to what we can know. There are limits to what we can engineer. And our attempts to engineer and centrally control always have unforeseen consequences.

For example, how does our evolving and out of control system of torts (lawsuits) make it harder to be fit? Gym's can't carry insurance for Olympic Lift. Insurers won't cover crossfit gyms. A tiny change in the legal system has widespread repercussions.

Or take food. Current nutrition "science" (the stuff that informs the FDA and the labels on our food) doesn't question the idea that one calorie is as good as another. That you can break whole foods down into their parts and reconstitute them into something that is as good or better. That we can depart drastically from a traditional diet without having drastic consequences.

It is another bit of unquestioned orthodoxy, not mentioned in that article.

What economists like Mises and his Nobel prize winning student Hayek argue is that we understand a great deal less about the institutions and techniques that have been handed down to us then we like to think. And that our attempts to engineer a better method (and especially to command and control it) are often foolish. Because, as with diet, we probably don't fully understand what we are giving up.

As a recent convert, one of the most fascinating things about CrossFit is how very old school it is. Do we really understand all the hormonal changes that take place in the body as a result of doing wholebody lifts? Do we need to?

I don't think so. And that precise understanding is useless to me. What is useful is taking what works for the purpose you have. And defining your goals in a way that you can measure them.

So the larger point of Miller's article is, when you start messing about with a complex system -- adding incentives, taking away others -- you get unintended consequences. Doesn't seem too dire if you take a departure from a traditional exercise method like the deadlift and wind up with a less desirable method for building whole body strength.

But what that article is talking about is a systematic skewing all of human knowledge and inquiry. Which is pretty scary.

And to me, that's a way more important point than whether my ancestor was a monkey, or my creator was divine. (Hell, I got an uncle who is hairy enough to be an ape.) So I didn't want to see that point overlooked.

LT hit the nail on the head

If creation science or intelligent design were added to the field of science, it would constitute the first and only scientific model with a supernatural. Science is about models of the real world with predictive power. Those models are built first on facts, which in science are observations reduced to measurements compared with standards. At this juncture, science cannot and may not rely on a supernatural force or being. By definition, the supernatural is not measurable.

If God, or whatever god-like being the IDers would substitute, were measurable, He, or It, would no longer be supernatural. Science is to fact as religion is to faith. The two fields have no overlap, though I remind you that science and scripture are indeed in conflict.

Intelligent design and creation science, regardless of any merit, are just excludable as science.

When Barry at #117 said

>>In one commonly cited example, you have to not just be able to reverse engineer an eye through small genetic alterations. You have, also, to be able to show how EVERY link in that chain necessarily led to increased probability of survival. Since many parts of the eye depend for their utility on other parts which must exist in tandem with them, it is impossible for sincere biologists to construct a linear narrative which is plausible, and for that reason critiques of the Darwinian account are, in my view, quite devastating to the theory.

he placed a burden on scientific models to be complete and consistent. Then for lack of completeness, he deemed evolution to be invalid. Science places no such burden on its models, though of course one’s faith might. Usually, models are slow to develop (starting as mere conjectures, and then expanded to cover all facts and predict, now as hypothesis), to have their predictions validated (now theories), and eventually, if ever, to be completed (as laws). The actual order is unimportant, but science wouldn’t exist if its models had to be complete and consistent out of the gate. Even inconsistency does not bar a model from being science. Quantum mechanics is not consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Standard Cosmological Model has singularities, dark matter, and dark energy, even though such things have never been and may never be measured.

Barry, would you pretend to apply your strict standards to scripture? Does your philosophy itself demand such symmetry, completeness, and consistency?

Barry’s observation about every link having to lead to increased probability of survival is false. Every transitional variety or species must be viable. That is, it must be able to increase its population without limit, given sufficient external support. Many such intermediate forms could be quite fragile. When niches are lightly loaded, as they are following mass extinctions, we have what some have called a crucible for experimentation. Many weak, experimental, bizarre, and fragile creatures can emerge briefly. And they are not likely to be found in the fossil record because we would need a coincidental cataclysmic, fossilizing event.

The probability of survival doesn’t enter into the model until the niche supporting competing varieties fills. Now the prerequisites of math enter. The type which is the most prolific, net (meaning not simply birth rate), will occupy the niche and all the others will become extinct there. Evolution should be viewed not as survival of the fittest, an error even Darwin accepted, but as survival of the most prolific.

24/m/177

Did yesterdays wod:
tied SP PR @ 175 lbs. Almost had 180 lbs!

Well im off to the O.P.P Academy then to the Ontario Police college.

So I will keep up with my WODS and try to post as often as I can.

God create the universe and create the ways to LIFE happends...life evolved because the evolution is part of life adaptation important to life survive...creation->evolution...the human been start as we are now?!!! If you think God acts that simple you are WRONG!!!

Evolution was is and will be always present as God

et tu, Jeff?

Well done s'more :-)

At the risk of some repetition with earlier rest days, something needs to be said again to accompany Dr. Miller’s observations:

>>Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed [meaning jiggered, not repaired], often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

Wikipedia, citing from http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.html.

The dogma which must be respected to obtain a government grant are similar, if not identical, to those which must be obeyed to be published in most peer-reviewed journals. Furthermore, failure to respect these dogmas can result in your institution being isolated, and your own career and reputation being sabotaged.

The problem here is not merely efficiency in grant processing nor in journal article processing. The problem is the spoiling of science in favor of politics.

Grant awards and journal publication should be based on published, objective standards based on obedience to the scientific method, and other non-substantive standards like format, legibility, grammar, and syntax.

A truly reputable journal, one committed to science, would seek out and feature nonconformist papers.

A paper or a research invalidating an accepted standard can easily be more valuable than one supporting it.

I have to respond to Jeff, of course, but would like to insert a parenthetic comment first. It has been argued on this site, most articulately by Darije, using the ideas of Edward de Bono, that open debate all too often leads from a condition of shared exploration, to wall building, and defensiveness. We are told that avoiding contentious topics helps to maintain the peace, and that knowledge grows best absent the agonistic--frequently zero sum--game of debating.

There is some merit to this view. At the same time, it occurs to me that debating ALSO fosters the thick skins necessary to expose your ideas to criticism, and to hear with openness alternative viewpoints, in the process of articulating and defending your own. It builds the sort of toughness upon which a deliberately diverse society must be based.

True liberalism is a means by which to reconcile all manner of ideational and cultural differences. This necessarily involves the capacity to interact with other viewpoints, and at times to feel pressed by them.

Debate is not just a means for exploration, then: it is a foundational ritual for genuine democratic diversity. And it is precisely their rejection in principle and practice of debate that causes me to say of leftists that their intent is not tolerance, but elimination of dissent.

I respect Jeff, and have reason to believe he respects me. We tend to agree on many things, but not all things. I take it as a compliment, then, when he goes after me, for the simple reason that he doesn't condescend to think of me as some whiny, overly sensitive creampuff for whom he needs to pull punches. In point of fact, like (I think) him I love controversy, and am always disappointed when I'm unable to find people to debate with me.

Be that as it may, I have to disagree with his analysis. Darwin's conception of "fitness" (I think that is the word he uses) is a solution to the problem of biological negentropy. His contribution is an answer to the Argument from Design, which stated that our world could not have come about by chance.

Darwin, in positing a mechanism by which complexity would be retained, showed that all life COULD in fact come about by chance. Not one chance, but countless discrete chances happening at the interface of genetic mutation, and environmental change. You have, if you will, two wheels spinning, which at times hit a jackpot of a major, functional advance in biological morphology.

But the whole process is gradualistic. It depends on countless discrete mutations being preserved through increasing the fitness of that organism. Since it is gradualistic, there should not just be occasional "missing links", but that is about all we should find.

Now,I don't question that the primary issue is not animals vying with one another for survival. I don't doubt niches existed within which many "experiments" coexisted at the same time, and that natural cataclysms or overcrowding might have led to the extinction of many of them, making the whole thing the sort of contest envisioned in what I think was Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest".

At the same time, though, in my understanding of the issue, gradualism is inescapable. Richard Dawkins, for example, offers the example of a combination lock being solved one digit at a time.

The precise problem posed by "irreducible complexity" is that if part A only has value in tandem with part B, and vice versa, how did they come together? Absent "fitness", you are reduced to chance, and that leads back to the problem Darwin was trying to solve, the response to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

These are objections which in effect are intended to "falsify" orthodox Darwinism. It is precisely the flaw of the system that few means exist today, to tell us what happened millions of years ago.

However, there are ways around this. I proposed above two paths of analysis and experimentation that I feel are directly relevant, i.e. investigation of biological fields, and a concerted effort to calculate the probability in real time of Darwin's theory, and test it with bacteria or something like them, say flies. Both of these things can be done in labs, and involve, potentially, very real forces which can be measured.

Science and Faith are indeed two different things. But the thing about Science is it serves as a means of generating consensus about the nature of reality. In my own view, there are many more potetentially visible, but currently hidden, secrets yet to be discovered that will lead us to ALL see the interconnectedness of things, and I believe we should work harder to find those secrets and reveal them.

I am sort of new to crossfit but am hooked. There is not an affiliate here so my question is, is it worth it to buy my own crossfit starter kit from Rogue? I have a nice space on my back patio that would be perfect for it...but I am hesitant to buy...advice.

Toby wellcome bro...and yes!!! Buy some plates, barbell, rings put a high bar some dumbells if you want to just buy a few things if you want to go crazy buy kettelbells invite some friends to train go for it dude!!!

#136 Toby

Yes, it is worth it and i give you my full recommendation. During the Oly Cert at Rogue I did exactly what you are thinking of and it is top notch stuff and a more than worthwhile investment (lifetime).
The only thing that sucks for me is I don't have a place picked out to put it lol. Since you have the patio, you're golden!

Last week I started the program with the 100 100 100 100's. I am not in good enough shape to do the program complete but I really pushed myself. I could only get around 16 real pullups in multiple different sets and got to 75 jump pullups. Today I decided to do some more pullups and could not even get one. Tired Muscles?

Thank G0D Bingo, Barry, and Jeff showed up.

You other people were bringing nothing to the party.

And runningman most of your stuff is pretty good but any post that says we aren't going to debate X subject, but first I'll have my say. And then we will be done. Very weak.

Playoff Beard

My dad can build a better plyo box than your dad!

Just kidding brother. That is a really sweet looking plyobox.

But my dad can build a better box. :-)

#116 Barry Cooper, " You have, also, to be able to show how EVERY link in that chain necessarily led to increased probability of survival."

This is incorrect. You only have to be able to show that every link in the chain didn't decrease probability of survival.

Further mutations that seem trivial or unimportant in the current environment may become non-trivial when the environment changes. At some point several of these trivial changes can combine to make something that has a higher probability of survival, of course for every success there are many more combinations that lead to failure.

JEP:".. the Second Law of Thermodynamics must be broken - a more ordered system is the result of a less ordered system. "

You are incorrect. Overall entropy increases with a closed system. This doesn’t negate that “pockets of order” form within such a system. By your description of thermodynamics crystals couldn’t form, gold wouldn’t accumulate under rocks; both are natural process not needing intelligence behind it.

Example: An animal takes in food it undergoes a change, a part of it becomes more ordered (creates/repairs cells) and the rest gets even more disordered so excreted. A “closed system” that includes the food, the animal, and the offal has overall increasing entropy (overall more disordered) but a part of the system; the food that became animal became more ordered.

Further in an open system entropy can decrease, i.e. become more ordered. It depends how you draw your boundary layer but the result works out to be the same.

Evolution does not violate any thermodynamic laws.

Jakers

Wait until you see what he's building next...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM&feature=related

Are you all arguing/debating in your spare time? :)

PlayoffBeard- When my pops was in his prime he could have built a sweet plyo box like that! Lucky you. Did you share a beer? :) And I like the visual of god kicking one back, ankles crossed, tipping back in his chair.

Should there be more rest days incorporated into the Crossfit regime? It seems that the current level-of-effort is consistent with someone who's in training, but isn't optimal long-term. I thought about it when I was doing yesterday's shoulder press WOD for strength and thinking how much better I would be if only my triceps weren't still sore from the 200+ dips I had to do for a previous WOD last week. Thoughts? Maybe it's my age catching up to me.

Pony- Usually Jakers is the one that makes me laugh. Today you win those honors. haha.

Pony... way to keep the Python references coming!

Barry #137,

Philosophically, you and I exist in parallel universes, I’m sure. Sometimes neither understands the other, and I have no problem with that. It is structural. I, too, am confident that lack of a common base confers no disrespect. Instead, we are looking for that worm hole.

Darwin’s model would not be negentropy, nor a solution to a problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The biosphere is not a closed system; even the whole of Earth is not. So the Second Law and the law of entropy are not applicable. The Sun supplies energy, and bad things take it away, and we cycle endlessly in disequilibrium.

Darwin has contributed a model for evolution, one upon which science continues to build and refine. His personal beliefs, however, like everyone’s, are subjective and no part of science. Personally, I don’t care whether mutations are random events, or the process by which God caused the species to change. That the species did and do change is rather firmly established. If that change contains a pattern by which the next changes could be predicted, it is God’s little secret. Science cannot rely on God for it, however. If you don’t like evolution theory, feel free to postulate any replacement model you wish for the science. However, you may not rely on a supernatural. So – whacha got?

I disagree that evolution is gradualistic. Punctuated equilibrium, attributed I believe to Eldredge and Gould in 1972, is a far better model. This is the evolution of the theory of evolution. I’ll go E&G one better – there’s a reason for punctuated equilibrium that arises from the very meaning of a niche, a meaning taken for granted in biology. In the niche model, following emptying of the niches and removal of the cause, e.g., an ice age, the experimental species develop at a biologically prodigious rate. Those experimental species are rarely found in fossils because the fossilizing events are few and localized while the species are short-lived because the niches re-fill.

The experimental species need not be very fit at all. They only need to evolve into a hardy species. Some experimental species might have eye type A, and others B, C, or D, and some AB, or AD, and BCD, and soon all combinations are present. And when the lid goes on the pressure cooker, that is, when the niche is back to capacity, type ABC emerges as the winner because the sisters who need glasses don’t get as many dates and go extinct.

The natural cataclysms didn’t create extinction. Some did, but mostly they served just to create evidence in fossils through mud, floods, and volcano eruptions that cast specimens into rock or petrify them. These are local events.

Speciation occurs rapidly when the niches are not full, and natural selection occurs slowly when they are full.

You say,

>>It is precisely the flaw of the system that few means exist today, to tell us what happened millions of years ago.

This certainly isn’t peculiar to biology. It is no reason to abandon science and to replace it with theology. When Napoleon asked LaPlace why he hadn’t mentioned God in his paper, he said, “Sire, I did not need that hypothesis.” When Napoleon told this story to Lagrange, Lagrange said, “That is a fine hypothesis. It explains so many things.” Explanation is subjective; it goes with religion. Science is entirely objective – it neither describes nor explains, and it is not in itself a matter of belief. Still, science is remarkably successful and growing, and no end is in sight.

Nor is science at all about “generating consensus”. It is all about creating models of the real world with predictive power. It matters not how many people might believe a particular model as an explanation or description. Religions and atheism gather strength to the believers from the consensus. This is why we find evangelicals on both sides, e.g., Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson on the one hand, and Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins on the other, individuals who by recruiting appear not quite comfortable in their own skins.

m/35/212/5'11

65 bar dips for warmup

WOD
Three rounds, 21-15- and 9 reps, for time of:
95 pound Squat snatch
Chest to bar Pull-ups

*Used 75# for SS

Pony seriusly you are way too AMAZING big BIG huge hugs my dear sister you are an angel i mean it...my wife sends you a thousand hugs too reemember!!! You have a family here in Ecuador because we love you like like a sister...BIG hugs sister thanks so much

There is obviously an inherent questioning of our essential purpose in life, whether there is a supernatural power, etc. Many of these topics will perhaps never be proven, although there is at the very least an attempt to progress in the realm of science. Yes, there are missing links and questionable points, but evolutionary science is working to better understand the world, as opposed to the Creationist ideal that we should simply accept that "God made it" and cease all efforts of further research.

Greg/M2
"Anyone who really believes in the fairy tale of Darwinism is just plain silly. If Darwin knew what we know now, he would have never proposed his theory. Those who have studied the science behind creation, know that Darwin's theory just does not hold water anymore. The rest just don't want to admit that there is a God, or that He created anything. Darwin's theory sounded good at the time, but then came knowledge."

What is this nonsensical argument? What does Darwin know now that would have discouraged him from providing his theory? Are you saying that he should not have published his observations because they did not conform to his inital understanding of how the world works? That seems to me quite a cowardly way of looking at things. And what do you mean by saying that "those who have studied..." now know that Darwin's theory is false? Who do you mean by "those"? And you somehow equate all the "rest of them" to simply being stubborn? First off, this comment indicates you have never read Darwin’s work, because much of the furor has been over extensions of his theory, not his theory itself. I hate to break it to your ignorant self, but there are many reasons to consider the evolutionary concept, for instance the common characteristics that link such diverse appendages as the human hand, bat wings, whale flippers, horse legs and squirrel limbs. Or perhaps drug resistant bacteria. Or the dystelology of the appendix. I could go on for hours, but perhaps you will get some semblance of understanding that there are numerous ways that evolution makes sense. The signs (I will not say proof, as there are still many questions) are out there, but you may have to read…or think…or go out and discover something, rather than parrot some pamphlet.

“Never mind the fact that there are many animals, insects, and plants that just could not possibly exist if evolution were the path they had to take to get to where they now are.”

Please provide any sort of substantiation or explanation to support this comment.

“I have studied the arguments on both sides, and I would have to place more blind faith in Darwin's faulty theory to believe it to be true, then to admit that everything we see has an intelligent designer.”

Obviously, your “study” of both sides consists of reading about the concept of evolution from a Bob Jones University pamphlet, because your decidedly ignorant understanding of very simple concepts of evolution are quite evident. I am not asking anyone to “believe” evolution. There are admittedly many questions out there, and I commend such posters as AaronV, LT, and JEP, who provide justifiable reason for their doubt in evolution. Your post exemplifies ignorance.

s'more- finally! your post office stinks LOL I am glad to make you smile.
Play those cds right now, tell me what you think, I know you love music too- they kick a$$ (ooooh Gordon, I made cds with music that has curse words and is potentially demeaning to women.. That's my bad jersey girl comin' out!) Isn't that mug funny? I was drinking out of it one morning, and thought, "this says 's'more' ! I have to send it to him ":)

thenine- one of the youngest in my enormous family, I was responsible for comic relief. I see life through a Python filter. It's a beautiful thing.

#145

My apologies, I should have defined what my system was...

In this case, I'm defining the system as the collection of everything, whatever that may be, needed for life to form. In other words, I'm putting all the ingredients in a bowl and the bowl is the "boundary" of the system.

Even with external factors (the chaotic ones, not the intelligent ones) impacting the system, the probability is next to impossible that the ingredients would be put into position to form something "living".

You'll never see a tornado throwing bricks on top of each other to form a house.

In your example, you already have a living organism - which I would define as already having some kind of intelligence, ie it knows how to eat, digest, and convert proteins into something useful per the instructions stored in its DNA.

The essence of my argument is that individual atoms and molecules are slaves to the laws that govern them. These laws as we know them today do not allow for atoms and molecules to combine by happenstance into what we recognize as "life" without outside influence.

If the animal in your example were to die, it would become simply a sum of its parts - a pile of mass composed of various elements. That pile of mass would then continue to flow towards equilibrium. Equilibrium would then be reached if the system wasn't affected by an external stimulus.

I never said evolution violated thermodynamic laws, only that molecules and atoms coming together and creating something more complex than themselves would.

I think a lot of you are missing the point here by running away with this Creationism/ID vs Darwinism stuff. The point is that in the scientific research community, grants are a way of life. Many of us strive for truth, and oftentimes look to new ways to arrive at that truth. The venerable Scientific Method has long been a tool of scientists to systematically debunk established facts or "dogma." The problem, as the author points out, is that a politically and selfishly motivated "establishment" of reviewers is there to deny our quests for proving or dis-proving such dogma as the lipid hypothesis. The issue is not with the scientific method; it never has been. The problem is a (originally well-intentioned) roadblock the government has put in the way of employing that method to achieve truths.

Frankly, I am surprised this discussion devolved into a debate on Creationism. I'd love to employ the scientific method to an investigation of Creationism...the problem is (as Jeff points out) that it is based on the Supernatural, and therefore cannot be falsified. You see, the basis of a THEORY is that after rigorous and thorough testing, it can proven false. That is called falsifiability. It is the "theory of evolution" becuase we are still attempting to falsify it. Creationism is not a theory, therefore it is not a fact or reality. As Jeff points out, it exists in the realm of the Supernatural and is based on faith. These concepts do not exist in tangible, testable forms; therefore, this is not science. Its apples and oranges. One can believe in creationism/ID and that is perfectly acceptable, just as is a faithful decision to be a Buddhist or Christian. But please, do not confuse evolution--a falsifiable theory undergoing rigorous testing--with a faith based belief that need not be tested, for it is inherently unfalsifiable.

I took a rest day on Monday b/c of scheduling. Did that WOD today.

Snatch-squat as rx'd
pull-ups on gravitron

24:03

This WOD literally tore the callouses off of my hands, the last round was painful. I love crossfit.

26/M/6'1.5"/259(and falling)

I think it would be in interesting to say that if the Government Grant system as mentioned in the article had as much control over health and fitness development as it seems to have over research, Crossfit probably would not exist since it goes against so much of the "common knowledge" of the fitness and globo-gym orthodoxy...

#157

I knew I was a bit off topic when I posted. The article mentioned the theory of evolution, and people immediately brought up creationism and began bashing it. I merely wanted to point they are not mutually exclusive.

Creationism isn't a scientific theory, but that doesn't mean that it can't be a fact or any less real than the law of gravity.

You can't prove that you don't exist, or scientifically prove that you do exist, because you can't remove yourself from the system that you are a part of. By your reasoning, you don't even consider yourself real.

Science is based on empirical observation and is therefore limited by what we can actually observe. Take a look into epistemology.

Before empirical observation can even be qualified, you have to make a broad array of philosophical assumptions.

Science isn't the only way to prove something, logic has its place as well. Try proving 2+2 = 4. It's not easy. You used the word "tangible" in the post above. By incorporating that word into your arguments, you have limited what can be "real" to what you can sense. We know that humans can not sense a huge majority of the universe - ie the incredibly small portion of the Electromagnetic spectrum that we can actually see with our eyes.

Religion can not be proven, except to yourself. Because it's a personal experience on many levels, it would be almost useless for me to try to explain my faith to you. I believe the philosophical term is "ineffable." My faith can not be sufficiently communicated for you to know what I'm talking about. You have to experience it yourself.

25/m/175

couldn't resist doing a wod today. my girlfriend is graduating from college on saturday and i figure i wont be able to get one in that day so i hit one today. did some strength work and the a qualifier wod.

bench press 1-1-1-1-1
225-245-260-270-280, 225x9

AMRepsAP in 10 mins of:
Muscle ups
Power Clean 185#

i did 18 mu's and 47 cleans for a total of 65 reps. i really focused on getting the turnout at the bottom of the muscle up and full hip ext at the top of the clean. awesome wod.

Went to the beach with the family....took some dumbells, 20lb medicine ball, and a 150lb tire.

Did the Swim/Pushup/Kb WOD in 3 to 5 ft seas.....It was great!!! Time 8:15

Then did a 3 rd
10 tireflips
10 24" boxjump on the tire
10 Medball clean to thruster volleyball set
Time 4:07

I let the ball hit the sand then pick up for clean. Have to make it 5 rds next time!

Only a couple of crossfitters around here, so I was getting some wild looks at the beach.

Great Day!!!! Thanks Crossfit!

I wasn't using an animal other than a demonstartion of boundry layers used in thermodynamics.

JEP #159, "I never said evolution violated thermodynamic laws, only that molecules and atoms coming together and creating something more complex than themselves would."

And I provided a few actual real world examples of this very thing occuring, "By your description of thermodynamics crystals couldn’t form, gold wouldn’t accumulate under rocks; both are natural process not needing intelligence behind it." There are plenty of examples of just like the ones I described earlier (no DNA needed). Sugar dissovled in water even being stirred will to form crystals.. your proverbial "brick house".

So you are left with 2 possible answers, JEP, either you are wrong in your understanding of thermo or the real demonstratable world is wrong.

I'd be happy to walk you through a few (creationist/evolution neutral) examples to help your overall understanding if you like. If so shoot me an email.

3 x cfwu, knees to elbows instead of pullups. ran 1.3 miles in 10 ( 2 walking, 8 at 8mph)

M/39/6'3"/256#

Cardio: 1:12 walk with 20# weighted vest on while push mowing the back yard; triple cut due to all of the rain.

WOD
21-18-15-12-9 reps of:
50# Thrusters
Back Extensions
50# Sumo Deadlift High Pull
Push Ups
Sit-ups ABMAT style
Total time: 16:36

#119 Barry,

I just saw your comment so fast one: I know someone pays for *free* education, health insurance and so on. However, my parents were paying the taxes for decades, now I pay taxes for already 25 years and I shall, till I die. So I think it is quite fair to get something in return.

went in with the gf to coach her through her wod.

CARLYE 21/f/128

5 rds for time:
SDHPs 35#kb, 21 reps
jumping ring dips, 21 reps

13:34

Jos,

Fair enough. For my part, I would like a return on the Social Security taxes I have paid. I don't expect it, however.

Jeff,

I think it would be fruitful to figure out how to test Darwinian or Gouldian ideas on how new biological forms come into being, and how they change in response to theirr environments. Discussions about antiquity seem to me less useful than discussions about how to put to the test these same ideas in laboratories.

More later. This computer is really annoying me. For now, if you have any ideas in that regard, I would love to hear them.

Penty,

No need to do this in a private email. I have no qualms about being wrong.

I had some time to do a bit of googling after work, and it seems you are correct about my thermodynamics argument. The sugar and water example was a good one. It's been too long since my last chemistry class.

I over stepped my bounds trying to use thermo to prove my point.

I'm not conceding that my point was incorrect, but only that my argument from thermo was, at best, badly thought out.

Happy crossfitting,
JEP

4/24/09
WOD
100ft. (WL)
21 jp
21su
100ft. (WL)
18jp
18su
100ft. wl
15jp
15su
100ft. wl
12jp
12su
100ft.wl
9jp
9su
100ft.wl
6jp
6su
time: 9:29

JEP,

The email suggestion was really to facilitate better communication on what could end up being rather lengthy. I am glad I was able to come up with an example that helped, on the fly it’s sometimes hard to come up with one that fits the discussion, in this case not biological, not created by an intelligence (like an automobile), and be easily observed.

I wasn’t out to win you over, just explain how thermo was being misused and/or misunderstood.

Enough Talk! Let's WOD.

m/37/6'4"/220

24 hours as rx'd

Bingo # 133 asked,

<<et tu, Jeff?

Yeah, guilty in a way. Actually, I imagined a connection between creationism v. Darwin and Dr. Miller’s piece in the minds of the creationists. The IDers apparently have come to believe that their creation science is blocked by the dogma of evolution. So in response to their silent assumption on this thread, with its equally silent deity (the “Intelligent Designer”) everywhere, and with my silent interpretation on that point, I simply leapt ahead to say that intelligent design is barred from science (not dogmatically) because science models may not have a supernatural element. The conflict does not belong on Miller’s list.

So for their benefit, I’ll say again science models must be based on the measurable and be validated (a theory) or validatable (a hypothesis) by the measurable. And when the supernatural becomes measurable, it is no longer supernatural.

"And when the supernatural becomes measurable, it is no longer supernatural."

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. Politically, I think the Federal Govt. should have nothing to say about what goes on in our schools, but quite clearly local school boards should. That is their point.

With respect to "evolution"--here understood simply as observable and measurable change over time--it seems quite clear to me that we have mapped out genetic change over time; that humans and all other forms of life share many traits in common, such as DNA; and that we can't ever know, for sure, how life came about.

For my part, I am content to accept a Cartesian duality of mind and body, and to view the body as a sort of machine upon which is grafted, temporarily, a soul. I will call this an act of faith, although I do believe empirical evidence exists supporting me in that conclusion, examining which would take us MUCH too far afield.

Where I have an issue, and this brings us back to the topic at hand, which might be summarized as the overly intimate relationship of State funding and conformist science, is the overarching paradigm informing contemporary biological research. Nothing that is observable is "supernatural" by definition, but a persistent student of issues in the life sciences in particular will, I think, readily detect a sort of de facto "smell" test, in which any ideas--like biological field theories--which don't arise from a strongly materialistic bias, tend to be ignored.

In this article, he cited a number of fields of inquiry that were being effectively blocked by not being funded. I have debated most of them.

The critique of the cell membrane pump, though, was new to me, so I did a bit of research. I don't have time for a thorough understanding, but the net appears to be that what appears to be the best means by which to understand cell operations is that the water in cells exists in highly ordered arrays--in effect, a lattice structure--and that that order is a formal description of the condition of "life", in the view (as I understand it) of Gilbert Ling.

Here is a link: http://www.gilbertling.org/lp6c.htm

Now, this notion of "special" water, it seems to me, would be a good example of the sort of thing that doesn't pass the "smell" test. His ideas are not supernatural. Tests can be done. His ideas can be exposed to experimental falsification. So there is nothing supernatural, or "metaphysical" about them.

Moreover, they appear to be potentially useful. The MRI is based on them.

So why ignore them? In my view, for the same reason ID critiques of the orthodox "creation" story are ignored. Patently, they offer no verifiable/falsifiable thesis OTHER THAN--and here is the key point--to point to gaps and seeming contradictions in the theory as it now stands.

Gaps are where you get to do real, Big Idea science. It is light shifting around the Sun. It is Mars going inexplicably backwards.

Thus, I think we need to listen to ALL who want to contribute. There is a fundamental isomorphism between the concentration of political power, economic power, and ideational power. Our system needs to be reformed to be more diverse in a meaningful way, and part of that, in my view, is to fund even researach that appears to be leading in directions that could overturn strongly held existing assumptions about the nature of Life.

Brendan #155,

Thanks for the plugs, but I didn’t say that the supernatural cannot be falsified. I say that it cannot be reduced to fact in a scientific manner: observed, measured, and compared to a standard.

Also, I don’t agree that anyone in science is trying to falsify evolution.

Several terms used popularly and in academic circles as a part of the scientific method don’t belong. These include discovery, peer review, and falsification.

Discovery is sometimes used to imply that science is about the discovery of the laws of nature. This leads to the false notion that scientific experiments must be repeated to develop confidence in the discovery. This notion also removes from science literacy the appreciation that science is about creativity – science is manmade. None of the things on which science is based is found in nature: coordinate systems, mathematics, units, parameters, dimensions, sets, ratios, scales, uncertainty, time pieces, and not even logic. We can allow discovery in science by clearly limiting it to facts: observations with measurements compared to standards.

Peer review serves academia in two ways: it provides quality control, and it protects rice bowls. Peer review can be found in non-science fields, from astrology to parapsychology. On the other hand, it does not exist in private industry nor in classified R&D, where trade secrecy and need-to-know prevail yet science there outpaces academia about three-fold. Quality control features often stated as part of the scientific method include carefulness, confidence, credentials, repetition, weight of the evidence. None of these is determinative of whether something is science. None of them can be part of the scientific method.

That is true, too, of falsification. I have yet to see a scientific model with a built-in falsifiability clause. Yet, that is what Karl Popper insisted must be the case in 1934. Popper reasoned that science could not establish a proposition by induction, but could only establish it by a clause implied by the theory which if false could be demonstrated false. Carl Hempel characterized this induction problem as the paradox of trying to prove “All ravens are black”. We need go no further, because scientific models don’t establish such relationships, known as universal generalizations. No scientist worth a bean would attempt to prove such an unqualified proposition. All ravens in his aviary might be black, but never all ravens in the universe.

Besides, all ravens ARE black. That is true by definition. Popper said that science doesn’t rely on definitions, which is quite bizarre. Every word in a scientific proposition must be known unambiguously.

One might stretch the word falsification to mean validation. But I chose not to because of the baggage of the errors behind the concept.

Science is contained in models, and a model almost always asserts a cause and effect. The cause is the experimental set-up, and the effect is the result – the prediction. If that prediction is not trivial, meaning it is different than chance, and is validated by experiment, the model is a theory. Bear in mind that if the result has a statistical nature, discrete like a coin toss or continuously variable like the weather, the prediction must include the statistics. Otherwise, what counts as science is what is truly modeled and accurately validated. Careless experiments and nonsensical models are human errors and are not safeguarded by the scientific method.

Barry #173,

Are you saying that empirical evidence of the soul exists?

Barry #174,

I would encourage teaching ID in public schools, preferably in a course in comparative religions, but never in the science curriculum, where it contradicts the tenets of science and the development of science literacy.

P.S.

I heard on the radio today about a public school that won’t fly the American flag because forced patriotism is Nazism. It seems little improvements in public school curricula amount to picking the fly specs out of the pepper.

135-145-155(f)-145-145-145-145

Jeff,

I had often wondered why you attacked Popper so much. It is quite possible that I have misunderstood Popper's actual position, but in my own usage, the idea is really quite common-sensical.

In my view, whenever you do ANY experiment, you are utilizing the principled of falsifiability. Perhaps not in Popper's precise sense, but in the obvious sense that if you predict that x will happen, and something other than x happens, then you were wrong, to a greater or lesser extent.

To use an obvious example, if you were to predict that within ten years from 1987 the Earth was going to get catastrophically warmer, and it didn't, then your prediction--and BY DEFINITION your model--was wrong. The model, in this case, is the hypothesis (we can agree that even conjecture is too strong a word, practically speaking, but let's roll with this, as if they were actually serious), and the hypothesis is falsified, in my terms, when it fails to predict an observable outcome.

Ernst Mach, Karl Popper, Carl Hempel (who I have been exposed to a little through the lectures of Daniel Robinson), and Thomas Kuhn seem to be the people who matter in the realm of the philosophy of science. Perhaps Alfred Korszybski too. I have read summaries of all of their work, but of the original texts, regrettably, none of them. Too many books, too little time. I have Science and Sanity on my bookshelf, but keep getting distracted. I'm reading Ruskin's Unto the Last right now, which appears to be the textbook for modern, non-overtly Communistic, Leftists.

With respect to ID, it is an explanatory scheme which you quite rightly call out as lacking in ANY potential for empirical verification. How would we find a Designer who has no visible attributes? Thus, the explanation--God did it--is very certainly a species of religion. I personally would not object to religion being included on a voluntary basis in classrooms, but of course would agree that compulsory religious instruction--certainly practice--is genuinely unConstitutional.

However, I would tease out from that specific elements which I think DO belong in a dispassionate, thorough account of contemporary biological science. Darwin, in his theory, offers specific predictions, most notably gradualism. This gradualism is an indispensable part of his theory. It is the mechanism by which, across tremendous, almost inconceivable stretches of time, life in effect assembled itself.

Gould's ideas on Punctuated Equilibrium and niches, in my understanding, serve mainly to offer plausible explanations for the paucity of the fossil evidence which Darwin in his own time felt seriously problematic, and which subsequent paleontological discoveries have done almost nothing to rectify.

It is not necessary to point to Michael Behe's conclusion--Intelligent Design--to agree that his concept of Irreducible Complexity warrants attention. This concept, to me, rather than asking for a suspension of properly scientific skepticism with respect to the "supernatural", asks for an actually empirical, scientific investigation. It is not enough to call it disguised theology and ignore it. Nor is it appropriate to ask that theology be included in science.

The middle way--the path that appears to me most congruent with intellectual honesty and a desire to increase human knowledge--is to treat these questions seriously. As I proposed above, we need to do experiments replicating natural selection. We know what rates of mutation are, and we can expose flies or bacteria to various environmental challenges, and see if they react in a manner consistent with random mutation coupled with random benefit, or if they react more systematically.

In one experiment, a researcher stuck a very small needle into a cell's nucleus, and triggered a spontaneous mutation. It isn't supposed to work like that.

Or what about the relationship of electric fields and healing? How extensively have we studied the human electric field to determine if it is coherent? When fetuses form, does a measurable electric field form prior to actual cellular occupation of that zone? In salamanders, that is measurably the case. Why not in human babies? The genes for arms and legs are identical. How, then, do they tell the difference? How do individual cells "know" what to become, whether it be heart, lung, blood, or brain cells? Obviously, DNA is the current best explanation, but I think common sense can ask the question how such a small number of genes can be so "smart", since the explanation is that all life consists in self assembling machines, and the code is within the machines themselves.

Speaking for myself, it appears some analog of "software" might well be in play, even though such ideas would greatly complicate what are--on a macroscale--very simple theories.

One can ask these questions, I think, since ALL questions to which we don't know the answer are valid in honest science. Moreover, as I have often argued, attempting to answer them from within alternative paradigms is BY FAR the quickest approach to large increases in our knowledge.

To take one concrete example, the work of Robert Becker showed, I think, quite clearly that electric currents precede tissue replacement. He took this idea, and added electric current to patients, and achieved remarkably fast healing. But his funding was cut, and he himself was in effect booted from the medical community. Why? In my view, because his ideas "smelled" in the sense I use it above, of the metaphysical.

His research was empirical, but the implications were clearly non-mechanistic, and thus smacked of the supernatural. This was unacceptable.

Ultimately, we need more agnosticism in science. We need a placeholder for things that look metaphysical, but which can still be tested.

With respect to the soul, yes I do believe empirical evidence exists. Before I discuss that, though, please do a thought experiment with me.

Imagine that you imagine that such a thing as survival after "death" is possible. Imagine, moreover, that since this is potentially an aspect of our universe, that on some level, to some extent it can be investigated.

Then ask yourself: how would you do this? What method would you use, to investigate the existence in some other dimension of the souls of people who once lived here?

It's a daunting logistical challenge. For this reason, this sort of thing has simply been placed in the category "beyond the reach of science", and neglected, by most researchers.

Moreover, one must have--to even contemplate such research--a "place-holder" for the mere possibility that such research COULD bear fruit. One must have some sort of model for how what is seemingly solid, and seemingly well explained by modern science, could possess form outside of the visible. One must, at a minimum, postulate some form of matter that is too fine to be seen by ANY contemporary means, or postulate something else which serves the same purpose.

One must then, having surmounted these challenges, be willing to accept public humiliation, ridicule, and social isolation.

In my view, the reason Americans don't study the man I believe our greatest philosopher--William James--is quite simply that he committed this heresy.

Most people don't know that Sir Oliver Lodge actually created a "wireless telegraph" before Marconi did. Lodge was an enthusiastic investigator of what we can agree is misnamed the "paranormal". Logically, if it exists, then it is "normal". The para refers merely to our presuppositions of what is "normal". It does not refer to any desire on the part of "reality"--that which is potentially observable-- to hide from us.

Now, as to a theory of immortality, William James offers a very good account here: http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/articles/james/immortality.htm

As to evidence, well logically if people continue, then they leave traces. One common, supposed form, is that of mediums. Obviously, a great many--likely most--mediums are fraudulent. We can agree on that.

But if you were to test them, scientifically, how would you do it? Gary Schwarz tried to do this in a set of experiments he described in his book "The After Life Experiments". Basically, he got a bunch of mediums, brought them together with people who had recently lost loved ones, and watched what happened.

In order to control for "cold reading", he only allowed yes/no questions, and did not allow the mediums to see the people. He then created a means by which to separate trivial, obvious, common answers, from very specific ones, like the names of loved ones, dogs, manner of death, etc.

He then scored the responses, and the odds against chance were substantial. James Randi was invited to try his hand, but he declined. He knew what everyone else knew, which was that cold reading is virtually impossible if you can't get a modicum of information. The names of the people who would be coming, by the way, were concealed from the mediums.

Now, this is just a puff of a whiff of research. It is absolutely not anything that I would expect would alter anyone's mind in any direction. However, as a qualitative shift in the direction of the POSSIBILITY of this sort of research, it is substantial.

If you begin to seriously research ALL the available evidence, it becomes possible for serious, rational people to entertain the possibility of survival. You have a proposed hypothesis. You have some supporting evidence. Therefore, a calculated leap of faith is justifiable.

Here is one link: http://www.amazon.com/Afterlife-investigation-evidence-after-death/dp/0245542450/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241192231&sr=1-2

This book here is about a very amazing man, Daniel Hume. He was a medium at the height of spiritualism, who in plain daylight, in front of many witnesses, in places he had never been before, repeatedly made large table rise, and other feats that could not be explained then or now. He was examined by a man who, until he came out in favor of him, HAD BEEN one of the foremost scientists of his age, Sir William Crookes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Crookes). Again, association with this sort of thing will destroy the reputation of even the most prominent scientists. As far as that goes, some of you will think less of me for posting this. C'est la view. The term "psychic" was invented for him: http://www.amazon.com/First-Psychic-Peculiar-Notorious-Victorian/dp/0349118256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241192315&sr=1-1

Interesting post Barry Cooper, very interesting. I believe it probably happened, but would question where the power Daniel Hume tapped into came from. Was it from God, or Satan.

There was another man in history that performed a similar feat. Unlike Daniel Hume raising a large table in front of many witnesses, Jesus of Nazareth raised His own body up from the grave, and appeared to many witnesses. So prominent in history was this feat that it caused a great many people to believe He was in fact who He said He was, The Son Of God.

It is interesting to note that all His closest followers denied Him after He was dead. None of them came forward for fear of death. But when He rose from the dead, and appeared alive and well to them, then everyone of them professed that He was alive, even to their own death. All of the apostles, save John, were martyred, and some say even John was eventually martyred proclaiming life after death through faith in Christ.

This is far different then those who are willing to blow themselves up for a cause they believe in, because the apostles were not willing to die until they had seen the risen Lord. As far as people thinking less of you because you have the courage to say what you believe, probably so; but then again most people who would do so may not be worth knowing in the first place. :)

Barry #177,

Normally I wouldn’t even mention Popper. He was an economist/philosopher, but not a scientist, and had nothing positive to contribute to science. Yet repeatedly someone introduces falsifiability, a construct due exclusively to Popper, as a tenet of the scientific method. This is not the end of Popper’s fallacies, however. I commend to your reading “Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists” by D. C. Stove. It is available online.

I hate to see Ernst Mach in the same list as Karl Popper. Ernst Mach was a major contributor in science. Mach also proposed a philosophy of science that held that scientific models were rooted in experiment and what could be sensed. That is a model for science that fits even his own philosophy. Popper can claim no such realism to his philosophy.

Barry #179,

ID not only cannot be verified empirically, it yields no facts on which to base a model. The domain of models is a set of facts, and the range of models are predictions to be validated by fresh facts. ID can be the source of neither.

What Darwin wrote in the Origin of the Species is the basis for the theory of evolution, but it is not right to characterize his works or his beliefs as defining any modern version. Some use the word Darwinism, which by its construction is a belief system, and thus outside science. Darwin accepted the characterization of his work as survival of the fittest, at best a tautology. A scientific model can express the notion of better or of fittest only if it first lays down an objective criterion, such as least square error, or ultimate survivor in a niche.

Gradualism is doubly a subjective concept: it is an ism, and it contains the vague concept of speed. Speciation occurs slowly or gradually in the sense that it might require hundreds of generations to converge to a hardy, prolific species. That is very slow compared to the human life span. In evolutionary terms, speciation is rapid when the niches are below capacity (lid off), and comes to a halt when the niches are full (lid on). So gradualism gets a qualified OK, but within the context of the pattern known as punctuated equilibrium.

The term Irreducible Complexity is loaded with subjectivity, placing it well beyond science. The Irreducibly Complex is both irreducible and complex only in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. The IC believer admits he is unable to reduce the complexity, probably due to his own limitations, and can find no reduction in his experience with science, possibly due to his lack of due diligence. That is bad enough, but then he proclaims that what he finds irreducibly complex in his brain is in perpetuity irreducibly complex to mankind’s knowledge. So, he implies, we might as well stop inventing new models, eh? The IC believer needs immediate gratification. He has no patience, and wherever things remain to be modeled he finds proof of God, suggesting he is in need of such proof.

If Behe wants to believe that the human eye appeared suddenly and miraculously, so be it. But he should admit that it is an article of faith, and be comfortable with that.

You say we need more agnosticism in science. Science uses the word skepticism, and in that you are quite right. The junk that passes in the media (Big Bang, dark energy) and from the UN (AGW) as science is impoverished for want of skepticism. I like the notion of agnosticism as a subjective quality for those who have the patience to realize the answers are yet to come.

I’m a big fan of thought experiments, but what you ask with respect to the soul is to imagine a novel matter or energy. This seems quite equivalent to the dark matter and dark energy of the standard cosmological model. Could it be that the realm of dark matter/energy is where all the souls go? I am skeptical of the SCM as a minimum for any reliance it places on dark things. On the other hand, if the SCM predicts the two dark things, then it is acceptable as a hypothesis. However, whether the dark pair is a crucible for souls or the glue that holds galaxies together, they are by definition undetectable, unobservable, and unmeasurable. Saying we can measure the effects of these objects in either domain solves nothing.

This gets us into Ernst Mach’s philosophy. We cannot model what we cannot detect by either our senses or our instruments, and in that context man is quite limited. If we wanted to investigate the realm of the soul we would have to employ senses and instruments previously unmeasurable or unknown.

You said,

>>Obviously, a great many – likely most – mediums are fraudulent. We can agree on that.

Yes, but my mental model of mediums is much more stark. Every one is a fraud or delusional, or both. You might talk me into enlarging that set beyond mediums. You recommended William James, with whom I had no familiarity. I found this in Wikipedia:

>> In 1909 William James published Expériences d'un Psychiste, a book which relates many experiments that he had with the medium Leonora Piper. His first commentary about Piper, however, was published in Science:

>>>>In the trances of this medium, I cannot resist the conviction that knowledge appears which she has never gained by the ordinary waking use of her eyes and ears and wits.

This gives me a calibration on William James at age 67. Gullibility is excusable in the child, but in an adult is an indelible stain on the intellect. For the same reason I always have trouble with the opinions of Christopher Hitchens and David Horowitz, examples of entertaining, even important, conservatives who only as adults converted from the radical left. Is this delayed maturation, or an intellectual defect? Their bios should contain an apologetic explanation.

Jeff,

As I said above, it is precisely your reaction--expanded across generations of academics, scientists, and intellectuals--which in my view has led to the effective marginalization of the one man in the twentieth century created a useful philosophy, that of Pragmatism. Stated simply, he stated that what works, is for all intents and purposes, true.

By extension, there is nothing which works which is not in some respect true, and nothing which does not work which is in some respect not false.

Since "working" always happens in the realm of the observable, virtually all the metaphysical problems which beset both philosophical materialists and idealists are relegated to the back burner, in favor of simple observation.

With respect to mediums, it is not a question of what is possible in an a priori sense. It is a question of what is observed by intelligent, critical intellects, and then reported. The man who invented the vacuum tube believed in mediums. The man who invented radio believe in mediums. Spencer--who coined the term "survival of the fittest", and who was Darwin's intellectual equal--believed in mediums. Likewise, William James, who has been all but erased from the history books, despite his manifest and prodigious genius.

There is nothing which is impossible in this world. There is, as we can agree, the observable and the invisible. Whatever is observable, is empirical, and within the domain of the scientific. Thus, when Sir Oliver Lodge (again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Lodge) comments: "I didn't say that it was possible, I just said that it happened" of EMPIRICAL observations, he is in fact being the empiricist, and anyone who would dispute on an a priori the POSSIBILITY of his experience is not acting in a manner consistent with the pragmatic, empirical basis of sincere science.

In my life and temperament, I am always tempted to assault sacred cows. I love audacity. I look at "science" as it exists today, and wonder why--if the question of our survival after death is so manifestly important in how we live our lives--why people deny, in principle, and without any serious regard of the issue, the DEFINITIONAL exclusion of such questions from scientific analysis.

Would this not be useful information? I have read some 10 books on the subject, and it does not appear to me to be in the least beyond the realm of research. If you can, for example, obtain non-trivial, specific information, such as telephone numbers, or specific locations of specific items--which has been done many times--then does this not create the very real possibility that the explanation given by those able to provide such information--contact with extracorporeal intelligences--at least merits consideration?

I have done this debate many times. It is regrettable to me that such an important issue immediately and completely provokes contempt and disregard from precisely the mind best equipped to do such research.

Lodge, James, Crookes--Sir Arthur Conan Doyle--get thrown under the bus.

Personally, I consider myself a sincere agnostic. I read everything. I'll read books on evolutionary theory. I'll read Behe. I read James, I read Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. The views which I retain are not those of unreasoning ignorance, nor, in my view, those of wishful thinking which I cannot back forcefully from an empirical and rational perspective. Rather, my views are distilled from what I sincerely believe to be a dispassionate, and thorough examination of WHAT WE CAN DETERMINE empirically.

But for debates on this topic to have even the potential of being useful, there must be thoroughgoing, complete agnosticism, and no rejection of ANY data, prior to actual review of said data.

Frankly, I get attacked every time I bring this up. Hume, himself, after doing what he did many hundreds of times, in front of thousands of witnesses--many of them, by the way, determined and conscientious skeptics--was still called a fraud. He appears to me to have been the greatest exemplar of what is possible in the modern public record, and even he was mocked and marginalized, although not before being feted by all the nobles of Europe.

Why, then, would anyone lesser want to come forward? The question, ultimately, is not one of becoming soft headed, and accepting on faith claims which appear on their face to be farcical. The question is: "when will people who rely on the scientific method in their pursuit of Truth actually use it to examine in a public way this whole realm of phenomena?"

It's a valid question. And it's all any sincere person could ask.

Should read: why people INSIST, in principle, and without any serious regard of the issue, on the DEFINITIONAL exclusion of such questions from scientific analysis.

I will add that in my own view, thorough, useful moral systems can in fact be built on the basis of materialistic, atheistic ontology. But, particularly since Science is the Truth system--not, by definition, faith--why not allow it to wander where it may go? There are no lines. There are no realms of research of the visible which are beyond science. It is perfectly free.

Given this, I would like to see more use of this freedom. One broken paradigm is worth a mountain of repetitive iterations of the same story.

Barry #183 et seq.,

Who could respect a human who denies the existence of morality, faith, love and beauty? Or who would deny that these fit in a schema of knowledge?

And conversely, who can respect he who accepts as more than entertainment magic, fortune telling, and communing with the dead? Are these the ones who lie under the bus? Science didn’t pub them there, though science literacy should have. Let them rest in peace.

But why do you ask science to address these subjective discernments? They share the attributes of being unmeasurable and irreducible to a mathematical precision. They are simply outside the realm of science.