Evaluating a Scientific Claim

[Autolykos]

Gallo,

In the post and thread I invited you to view, I basically said the same thing you said above. Logical proof and empirical evidence are different things, so one cannot be used in place of the other. We are on the same page, trust me. :)

- Rob

[gallo]

Quote by: Autolykos Gallo, In the post and thread I invited you to view, I basically said the same thing you said above. Logical proof and empirical evidence are different things, so one cannot be used in place of the other. We are on the same page, trust me. :) - Rob

OK. But you also mentioned "empirical proof", a concept that is completely foreign to my understanding. Proof is a matter of booze, maths, and logic. A logical proof is a valid syllogism, even though it may not be true. But evidence (in science, all evidence is empirical) is never proof, and one never proves evidence.

[Autolykos]

Yes, that was inaccurate on my part, but I knew what I was doing. The idea was to try to illustrate the confusion people have between logical proof and empirical "proof" (i.e., evidence). I think the philosophy of science is lost on a lot of people, unfortunately.

- Rob

[gallo]

Quote by: rez Gallo, do you think Astrobiology is science?

Well, my dictionary of biology doesn't even define the term, nor does it define the synonym, exobiology. However, I have a dictionary of science that does.

exobiology The branch of biology that deals with the search for extraterrestrial life and the effects of extraterrestrial surroundings on living organisms. Also called astrobiology.

Ah! That muddied the field a bit, no? Given that, I think that astrobiology can be science, but I also think that great care must be given to how that science is conducted to prevent it from becoming pseudoscience.

Perhaps (and strangely) the Wikipedia is more informative. Wikipedia lists several research topics.

* What is life?
* How did life arise on Earth?
* What kind of environments can life tolerate?
* How can we determine if life exists on other planets? How often can we expect to find complex life?
* What will life consist of on other planets? Will it be DNA/Carbon based or based on something else?[1]
* What will it look like?

The first three are certainly science with nothing more than the standard dangers of falling into pseudoscience. After that, the topics become more and more speculative with less and less observational evidence.

[gallo]

To return to the question posed by the OP, "Evaluating a scientific claim," Karl Popper made some reached some conclusions about how to do that way back in 1920 He said the following:

• It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory--if we look for confirmations.

• Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory--an event which would have refuted the theory.

• Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

• A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

• Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

• Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory.

• Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers--for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.

Popper summarizes by saying that "...the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

Other philosophers of science (Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, and Paul Thagard for example) have disagreed with Popper's requirement of falsifiability as a criterion of science. But I find it interesting that, even though each of these offer a different set of necessary conditions for genuine science, all reject 'creation science' as science.

[nose]

Gallo, you say this:

But, of course, science is the investigation of natural phenomena. The correct application of the scientific method to natural phenomena is science.

but then agree that the "scientific method" is a "concept" and not a "rule" to follow. which is it? a leatherbound series of law or a vague idea, a rough set of guidelines?
I argue this: the "scienitific method" is a silly name for something that doesn't necessarily make something scientific, scientists cannot agree on exactly what it is and it doesn't even need be applied to science.

I agree, for those of you he seemed to have missed it, that scientists do "hypothesize", "predict", "test", "observe" all those fancy science-defining words. Yes i'm quite aware they do those things. They don't, however, do them in any strict order, nor do those words define what science is.

"Science is what scientists do."

This I agree with whole-heartedly, though I still avoid being named a Social Constructivist.

It seems that I have encountered someone who is even more ignorant of astronomy than I am. Are you claiming that astronomers do not investigate natural phenomena? Are you claiming that they do not make testable predictions based on hypotheses formed from observation? How interesting. Perhaps you are unaware that the supportive evidence for the big bang theory that convinced Einstein came from astronomy. Observation: distant objects are red shifted. Hypothesis: distant objects are red shifted because they are moving away from us at great speed. Prediction: the more distant an object, the more red shifted is the light. Experiment: Observe distant stellar objects for distance and red shift. Result: Most stellar objects are moving away from the earth, and the further they are from us, the faster they are moving away.

Forgive me, I thought most people would assume that as I had just mentioned an example of something that isn't regarded as science, and showed that under a methodological demarcation criterion it could be, that if i then said "astronomy however" would lead people to believe i was now talking about something that is regarded as science, but fails to be under the methodological criterion.

I'm not claiming that astronomy is not a science, astronomy is one of the greats.

However, I must argue further. I stated that "in general" astronomers cannot produce repeatable experiments. Take note of those two words "in general". Now unless i'm speaking some strange form of jargon, that means "there are some, maybe few, but significant, situations where astronomers cannot produce repeatable experiments". There is absolutely no way you can refute this by listing every example you know of when an astronomer has produced a repeatable experiment. Consider one of my favourite stories - from one of Laudan's papers

"Suppose that some city dweller said the the "essential conditions" for something to be a sheep were that it be a medium-sized mmmal and that it invariably butt into any human beings in its vicinity A country fellow might try to suggest that his city cousin evidently did not understand what a sheep was. He might show, for instance, that there are plenty of things we call sheep which never butt into anything, let alone human beings. He might go further to say that what the city fellow is calling a sheep is what all the rest of us agreed is a goat. Suppose, finally, that a second city fellow, no hearing his town friend abused by the bucolic bumpkin, entered the discussion saying "I once knew a sheep that butted into human beings without hesitation, and besides I once saw a goat which never bothered human beings. Accordingly, it is correct to say that the essential condition of being a seep are exactly what my friend said they were!""

Astronomers can do spectroscopy until their hearts are content, but I would be damned if an astronmer could show me the same gravitational lensing effect over and over again. I would be damned if they could repeat an observation of a supernova, and i would be further damned if they could make the planets line up for a repeatable experiment that proves the tidal forces from the alignment of the planets doesn't, in fact, tear the earth apart.

The point, i made in my original argument, is that astronomers, who ARE scientists, lots of the time cannot follow the most rudimentary of "scientific methods" such as repeatable experiments. If you are a methodologist, then you are saying astronomy is no science.

But mythology, faith, and "blue" daydreaming are certainly not science. Science has been described as methodological naturalism. It is an effort to explain by investigation and logic our observations of nature.

No, mythology, faith and "blue" daydreaming are certainly not science, agreed. And science can be described as an effort to explain by investigation and logic our observations of nature. This is not a definition of science - even astrology and numerology are attempts (albeit poor ones) of understanding natural phenomenon.

Quote by: gallo Quote by: nose Personally, I believe if an explanation leaves one asking further questions it is insufficient, so I quite disagree that an explanation should provide new sources for enquiry. No, I don't agree. I don't think that science ever provides final answers. Science is predictive, and thus always offers opportunities for further learning. But I doubt that we will ever possess all knowledge in all cases through all time.

Please dont confuse science and its theories with explanation. A theory is insufficient to provide an explanation - "Why do things falls?", "Gravity". It doesn't work, "Gravity" alone is not an explanation. A theory is always tentative, and leads us to further investigation. An explanation, if sufficient, leaves us satisfied we have the answer. That is why a good explanation does not lead to new discoveries, new discoveries come about when someone believes an explanation insufficient, and attempts to provide a better one.

[gallo]

Quote by: nose Gallo, you say this: But, of course, science is the investigation of natural phenomena. The correct application of the scientific method to natural phenomena is science. but then agree that the "scientific method" is a "concept" and not a "rule" to follow. which is it? a leatherbound series of law or a vague idea, a rough set of guidelines?[

I don't see that I claimed that it was either. In fact, I don't even understand how you can come up with that question after reading what I wrote. How do you actually come up with your fantasy dichotomy from what I said?

Quote by: nose I argue this: the "scienitific method" is a silly name for something that doesn't necessarily make something scientific,

That was not a claim that anyone has made. As pointed out, even "creation scientists" can do real science by using the scientific method. The problem is that they will end up by falsifying "creation science" when they do.

Quote by: nose I agree, for those of you he seemed to have missed it, that scientists do "hypothesize", "predict", "test", "observe" all those fancy science-defining words. Yes i'm quite aware they do those things. They don't, however, do them in any strict order, nor do those words define what science is.

Yet once more, that's not a claim that anyone has made. However, if a scientist observes, hypothesizes, predicts, and tests, no matter how fancy those words seem to you, he is using the scientific method.

Quote by: nose This I agree with whole-heartedly, though I still avoid being named a Social Constructivist.

But you have unsuccessfully avoided it.

Quote by: nose Forgive me, I thought most people would assume that as I had just mentioned an example of something that isn't regarded as science, and showed that under a methodological demarcation criterion it could be, that if i then said "astronomy however" would lead people to believe i was now talking about something that is regarded as science, but fails to be under the methodological criterion.

But it doesn't fail. As I mentioned, I seem to have found someone who knows less about astronomy than I do.

Quote by: nose I'm not claiming that astronomy is not a science, astronomy is one of the greats.

Funny. It seemed as if you had done exactly that.

Quote by: nose However, I must argue further. I stated that "in general" astronomers cannot produce repeatable experiments. Take note of those two words "in general".

In other words, you are now moving the goal posts. Astronomers can most certainly, and do most certainly, do repeatable experiments.

Quote by: nose Now unless i'm speaking some strange form of jargon, that means "there are some, maybe few, but significant, situations where astronomers cannot produce repeatable experiments".

There are situations in all sciences where the scientists can't produce repeatable experiments.

Quote by: nose There is absolutely no way you can refute this by listing every example you know of when an astronomer has produced a repeatable experiment.

You don't seem to have a grasp on how science works. Neither can you claim that astronomy is not science by listing cases where astronomers cannot produce repeatable experiments.

Quote by: nose Consider one of my favourite stories - from one of Laudan's papers [snip]irrelevant story[/snip]

I don't understand how you think that your quote was a discussion of the use of the scientific method.

Quote by: nose Astronomers can do spectroscopy until their hearts are content, but I would be damned if an astronmer could show me the same gravitational lensing effect over and over again.

I guess you have a different definition for the word "same" than I do, since gravitational lensing has been observed rather frequently. Moreover, the effect has been tested by other astronomers observing the same lensing by the same gravity well of the same distant object.

Quote by: nose I would be damned if they could repeat an observation of a supernova, and i would be further damned if they could make the planets line up for a repeatable experiment that proves the tidal forces from the alignment of the planets doesn't, in fact, tear the earth apart.

Science does not require that unique events are repeated. Please learn what science is and how it works.

Quote by: nose The point, i made in my original argument, is that astronomers, who ARE scientists, lots of the time cannot follow the most rudimentary of "scientific methods" such as repeatable experiments. If you are a methodologist, then you are saying astronomy is no science.

Science requires that observations are can be repeated, not events. When you make such claims, you reveal that you are not scientist.

Quote by: nose No, mythology, faith and "blue" daydreaming are certainly not science, agreed. And science can be described as an effort to explain by investigation and logic our observations of nature. This is not a definition of science

Actually, it is a definition of science. It just happens to be the one that scientist generally agree on. From my Dictionary of Science: science The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation.

I hadn't thought that the concept was all that complex.

Quote by: nose - even astrology and numerology are attempts (albeit poor ones) of understanding natural phenomenon [sic].

Actually, I never considered either as an attempt to explain or understand natural phenomena. Perhaps that's why I don't think of them as science.

Quote by: nose Please dont confuse science and its theories with explanation.

I have confused nothing. Scientific theories are explanations.

Quote by: nose A theory is insufficient to provide an explanation - "Why do things falls?", "Gravity". It doesn't work, "Gravity" alone is not an explanation.

Nor is what you have stated a theory.

Quote by: nose A theory is always tentative, and leads us to further investigation.

Certainly. As I have stated on several occasions.

Quote by: nose An explanation, if sufficient, leaves us satisfied we have the answer.

At least, to the best of our ability in light of current knowledge. The concept that science it tentative seems to be one of the most difficult for non scientists to grasp. Nevertheless, science never gives us a final answer.

Quote by: nose That is why a good explanation does not lead to new discoveries, new discoveries come about when someone believes an explanation insufficient, and attempts to provide a better one.

Then, by your concept, science never gives good explanations, since that's how science works. No scientific theory is ever considered the final answer, since there is always the possibility that new data will be found.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: rez Let's use your thread "Proof for Creationists" as an example. Is it not applicable? A theory is a broad hypothesis that has been extensively tested and supported over time and that explains a broad range of scientific facts with a high degree of reliability. Step 3: Make a testable prediction Step 4: Experiment or observe Step 5: Modify the hypothesis as necessary and repeat steps 3 and 4. It does not matter. The natural world is complex, and many times people who discredit scientific claims can not even recall the steps within the scientific method. They fail the very first chapter of science! I thought thats how the scientific method works? Scientists used Darwin's Theory, to develop the Theory of Evolution. You obviously know the answer to this. The difference between common experience and science is that science uses generalization to make a prediction that can be tested.

Okay, let's use the post I made that you selected as an example (which is the worse one I ever made - almost).

In that post I presented two more generalizations ( links ) that creationists could add to their other generalizations. The fosil footprints of humans and dinosaurs that are impressed on the same rock. And a link about some mayan pottery which contianed art that showed people and dinosaurs together. The creationist could use those sources along with other information they have to try to prove that Noah could have had a dinosaur on his boat. However that was not a "science" idea at all, it would have been another creationist idea instead. Para-science is not science. All they would need to do is to test the idea out on Christians and if they believe it then it would become their perception of a fact.
Anything called science that has a pre-estabished objective would leave out some evidence and use only the evidence that supports the objective and that is what Creationism does. Some evolutionists might be guilty of doing that also. If the shoe don't fit, you must aquit as a famous lawyer once said. So a smart scientist would not use a shoe that does not fit. But a critic might dig up the shoe and holler "wait just on moment". Thus, it become debatable.

However none of that has to do with what I said about the "natural world".

[rez]

Quote by: Technosoul Anything called science that has a pre-estabished objective would leave out some evidence and use only the evidence that supports the objective and that is what Creationism does. Some evolutionists might be guilty of doing that also.

Nice try, but you are missing a critical step in that line of thinking.

The pre-established objective is finding an explanation that provides results. If the explanation leads to a dead end, then a scientist will turn around and find another explanation to see if that works better.

Sorry, but there is no agenda AGAINST the idea of your god or anybody elses god.

The Theory of Evolution is only up for debate because its an explanation that deals with the creation of life. The Theory of Evolution is not up for debate because it does not provide results, or that it is bad science, but because it contradicts people's fearful superstitions.

You seem to be coming out of your shell a little bit and being a little bit more honest with yourself and others. You show your true colors by letting me and others see that you think science has an agenda against a certain practice, particularly against theists. The problem starts with the fact that theists think they are special, in which they do not have to abide by the rules. You see, creationism is an explanation just like evolution, but there is a difference. The creationist explanation leads to a dead end, it provides no new information that was not yet known, there is no supporting evidence, it does not line up with other explanations that work and there are so many other creationist explanations that it is impossible to distinguish between a better and a worse one.

Quite frankly, religion has failed at predicting anything not previously known.

On the other hand you have the Theory of Evolution that helps explain much of Biology. Although Darwin did not have the ability to peer into the nucleus of cells he was STILL able to predict that genes existed (although he did not refer to them as that). Darwinism lead the way as the best interpretation at the time and soon enough it turned into the Theory of Evolution when scientists discovered the underlying mechanisms behind the process of evolution. Evolution can be directly and indirectly observed, the explanation predicted everything that scientists have observed, it lead to the discovery of new phenomena, and it is consist with other preferred explanations.

If the shoe don't fit, you must aquit as a famous lawyer once said. So a smart scientist would not use a shoe that does not fit. But a critic might dig up the shoe and holler "wait just on moment". Thus, it become debatable.

This has already been established in the opening post aswell as what I said above. Science uses as much honesty as possible to explain how reality works.

Scientific explanations are always being critiqued by scientists and are always up for change. I don't know why you think your analogy works for you but whatever. Science realizes there are lots of shoes and wants to make sure to find the one that fits perfectly. A shoe that is uncomfortable is not the right shoe, therefore, the search to find that right shoe continues.

The funny thing about religion is that they think there is only ONE shoe. And although that is obviously not true, they stick to that one shoe based on one of the most idiotic ways of thinking ever created, and that is FAITH.

[Technosoul]

Rez - You misstook my message - I did not mean to suggest that science has any agenda to prove that the Bible is wrong or that gods do not exist, that is for the atheists to try. Only the religious people are motivated with an objective to create doubt evolution.

I doubt very much if Darwin was motivated by such a agenda ether. But we cannot prove what motivated him. I would assume he might of been aware that Bible people would be unhappy with his ideas.

I am somewhat sure that different aspects of evolution are debated about within the science community and without religion or supersitition being factored in as a reason for the debate. Otherwise the often mentioned 'famous' peer reviews would not exist.

According to Gallo in one of his lastest posts - "science has no proof".
Now I know that a scientist could invent something, a gadget, that works, but they did not invent nature nor did the make if work. IF we humans did that then all the animals would be domestic pets. Science did not invent evolution and then test it out to see if it works. They discovered something and what Darwin discovered was a new idea, a idea that somehow formulated as he noticed what was happening in nature and that things seemed related due to simularities. He was sort of thinking outside of the box for his day and age. He came up with an alternative idea form the norms of mainstream thinking.

I would never advocate any ban on the theory of evolution being taught in public schools, nor would I support the teachings of Creationism in public schools. I said so in a topic about that a while back. Other then for a marrage or whatnot I have not attended any church or other such group for ages. In fact, I stopped going to church in highschool because they gave a anti-evolution sermon, at the same time as I was taking a summer class in evolution at the L.A. Musem of Natual History. And I had my own fosil collection in my bedroom. I got mad and walked right out. So if anything I would have a motive to attack religion, not science.
But I grew up and am no longer motivated by foolishness.

Been there - done that.

However I wonder if science should stop being shoeless, you leave the door wide open when you (they) promote the philosophy that science has no proof for their ideas, or that they are still seeking the answers for the big questions. That will only give them reason to say "It's just a theory". You need to stress more that you are not just having faith in a random collection of evidence that must be put together - as time goes on. You must instill more confidence in the ideas. Meanwhile the chruch people say "we are not shoeless, all God's children have shoes". To survive science needs to redeate the same kind of confidence - or loose points in the polls of public opinon.

But my points are not totally about religion vs science. My concern is about something else. My beef is that some scientists view nature like objects, like dice being tossed on the ground - and not as a logical system that contains consciousness as part interlocking factors that should be investigated. I think they fear that step because someone might call it disigner creationism by a creator god. We must overcome that blockage and move past it so that fear of religion does not become a scientific superstition.

Can you comprehend that reasoning?





I am not coming out of my shell, I was hatched a long time ago.
You had a pre-established opinon that I favor Creationism because of another post I did for the fun of it. So you objective is to prove me wrong because I might be a creationist. Fear not. I don't care how I got here personally. Although I think I have a secret objective to promote alternative thinking (outside of the box) so that we can enjoy fresh ideas instead of just munching on stale ideas. (if you must know that - I wish not of appear dishonest in that reguard).

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul According to Gallo in one of his lastest [???] posts - "science has no proof".

Not sure why you threw this in since it doesn't follow from anything before, and isn't followed up for a couple of paragraphs. Another example of your disjointed thinking?

Quote by: Technosoul ...you leave the door wide open when you (they) promote the philosophy that science has no proof for their ideas, or that they are still seeking the answers for the big questions.

Again you demonstrate that you don't understand. First of all, scientists don't give a rat's tootie about what "they" think. To claim "proof" would be silly in the extreme. What would a scientist then do when a theory that was claimed to have been proven wash shown to be wrong. The scientific illiterates already think that the fact that scientific theories are changed to accommodate new data. But of course, creationists and scientific illiterates think that science searches for unchanging truth.

Quote by: Technosoul That will only give them reason to say "It's just a theory".

But you do that any way. It shows ignorance in the extreme to make such claims. Anyone who has bothered to educate himself about the matter knows that a scientific theory is more secure than any faith based mythology.

Quote by: Technosoul You need to stress more that you are not just having faith in a random collection of evidence that must be put together - as time goes on.

Why? Scientists know that. Anytime anyone who understands science takes the time to talk with scientific illiterates, they usually try to explain how science works. And yet, you still carry on like you do.

Quote by: Technosoul You must instill more confidence in the ideas.

By what means? By lying about what science is and how it works so that it becomes simple enough for you to understand. Science doesn't prove things. It explains them with theories that have been tested.

Quote by: Technosoul Meanwhile the chruch [???] people say "we are not shoeless, all God's children have shoes". To survive science needs to redeate [???] the same kind of confidence - or loose points in the polls of public opinon [???].

To survive? In other words, science needs to lie about what the purpose, forget about science, and support the christian Taliban? We need to force everyone into a lockstep dogma about naturalism. While there is a spirit of anti-science in this country that tries to suppress anything that conflicts with a narrow view of christianity, I think that science will survive. Maybe when we reach the christian goal of a third world nation the christian Taliban will be thrown out.

Quote by: Technosoul But my points are not totally about religion vs science. My concern is about something else. My beef is that some scientists view nature like objects, like dice being tossed on the ground - and not as a logical system that contains consciousness as part interlocking factors that should be investigated. I think they fear that step because someone might call it disigner [???] creationism by a creator god. We must overcome that blockage and move past it so that fear of religion does not become a scientific superstition.

Actually, scientists don't care much about what religion claims. Only when religion pretends to be science in an effort to impose religion on everyone through the schools. Other than that, your last paragraph was mostly gibberish.

Quote by: Technosoul Can you comprehend that reasoning?

I didn't actually see any reasoning.

Quote by: Technosoul I am not coming out of my shell, I was hatched a long time ago.

And you seem as anti-science as ever.

Quote by: Technosoul You had a pre-established opinon [???] that I favor Creationism because of another post I did for the fun of it.

I think that you favor creationism because of your unwillingness to learn about science in favor of the creationist ideas you post.

Quote by: Technosoul So you objective is to prove me wrong because I might be a creationist.

Not mine. I merely point out when you are wrong and why you are wrong. That your ideas are typical of creationists has nothing to do with it.

Quote by: Technosoul Fear not. I don't care how I got here personally.

That could be your problem. Perhaps you should care. Perhaps you should look into learning before you speak.

Quote by: Technosoul Although I think I have a secret objective to promote alternative thinking (outside of the box) so that we can enjoy fresh ideas instead of just munching on stale ideas.

Your ideas aren't fresh and are irrelevant. Your fantasies are worse that mythology. Mostly, they make no sense. Daydreaming about scientific things is not scientifically valid when you are a scientific illiterate.

Quote by: Technosoul (if you must know that - I wish not of appear dishonest in that reguard [???]).

Try harder. You often do appear dishonest.

[rez]

Quote by: Technosoul Although I think I have a secret objective to promote alternative thinking (outside of the box) so that we can enjoy fresh ideas instead of just munching on stale ideas. (if you must know that - I wish not of appear dishonest in that reguard).

Stale ideas? Are you kidding me? Scientists are the ones coming up with the ideas. If you want to think outside the box, then study science not mythology.


God creating the universe is not thinking outside the box. This video is more like thinking outside the box.. Arthur C Clarke's Fractals, The Colour Of Infinity

[Technosoul]

Quote by: rez Stale ideas? Are you kidding me? Scientists are the ones coming up with the ideas. If you want to think outside the box, then study science not mythology. God creating the universe is not thinking outside the box. This video is more like thinking outside the box.. Arthur C Clarke's Fractals, The Colour Of Infinity

I do not think that God creating the universe is thinking outside the box, in fact most religions don't advocate thinking. I do not think that science only repeats the same ideas. Although Darwin is getting old hat.

Study is not thinking. But could be a spring board for starting a process of thinking about something. Science and mythology are both interesting topics to read about if you like to read stuff.

Arthur C Clarke writes a lot of modern day mythology in his science fiction books. But he can also take part in scientific projects. He is of the opinon that Bible believers are being primitive but he has adopted some the the beliefs in buddist philosophy. I was just reading one of his interviews the other day where he posed this question;

"If religion is the random effect of human reproduction then would non-reproductive aliens have a God?" Talk about "outside the box" you picked a good one. Something to think about - perhaps Gallo knows the answer. I would add, if aliens do not reproduce like humans do they have any genetics that we can examine?

Later I will check out the link you mentioned.