Russia’s science and higher education ministry has dismissed the head of a prestigious genetics institute who sparked controversy by contending that humans once lived for centuries and that the shorter lives of modern humans are due to their ancestors’ sins, state news agency RIA-Novosti said Thursday.

Although the report did not give a reason for the firing of Alexander Kudryavtsev, the influential Russian Orthodox Church called it religious discrimination.

Kudryavtsev, who headed the Russian Academy of Science’s Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, made a presentation at a conference in 2023 in which he said people had lived for some 900 years prior to the era of the Biblical Flood and that “original, ancestral and personal sins” caused genetic diseases that shortened lifespans.

  • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yes. And it’s just as likely that super-god created God to do exactly that.

    But that’s not the point. The scientific mind requires evidence and repeatability. To believe in God without evidence or repeatability means they’ve compartmentalized that part of their thinking.

    • NOSin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      You’re claiming a fact out of one of your assumption.

      That thread is delightful in irony today, lots of self proclaimed unbiased and scientific, acting very biased and unscientific.

    • Haagel@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      9 months ago

      Can you prove that the scientific mind requires evidence and repeatability? That sounds like circular reasoning.

          • d00ery@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            We can think practically about knowledge too.

            I put my hand on a hot stove, it burns, I remove my hand and the burning stops. Isn’t that knowledge?

            • Haagel@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yes, of course, but it’s not the extent of knowledge.

              Nor is it universal knowledge. What burns your hand isn’t going to burn other materials, or even other organisms.

              There’s always a limit to what can be perceived with the organic senses. That’s the axiomatic flaw of empiricism.

              What do you think? What is knowledge?

              • d00ery@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                Are you suggesting there may be forces or powers we can’t yet measure?

                Because that’s pretty much what science has been about for all of human evolution. We’ve observed events, and then tried to work out why they happen, and yet in all that time we’ve been unable to prove, or disprove god.

                • Haagel@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  There are many forces and powers that cannot be measured. They’re often the most self-evidently desirable things in the world. Love, hate, determination, artistry, joy, generosity, compassion, character, wisdom, justice and beauty, etc. Hence the cute quote from sociologist William Bruce Cameron that “not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted”. Most psychological and sociological phenomena are immeasurable by the strict meaning of the word.

                  As for physics, we can’t measure the future, for example, though there are interesting equations which could possibly account for an near infinite variety of outcomes in a given system. And there are many theories that we can only measure under ideal, localized conditions. We can only hope that they are ubiquitous throughout the universe.

                  Then there are problems like the Duhem–Quine underdetermination thesis. This thesis says that the agreement of the empirical consequences of a theory with the available observations is not a sufficient reason for accepting the theory. In other words, logic and experience leave room for conceptually incompatible but empirically equivalent explanatory alternatives. This is especially endemic in biology.

                  And if you want to be more philosophical, it has been argued by guys like Hume and Locke that there is always a “veil of perception” between us and external objects: we do not have directly measurable access to the world, but instead have an access that is mediated by sensory appearances, the character of which might well depend on all kinds of factors (e.g., condition of sense organs, direct brain stimulation, etc.) besides those features of the external world that our perceptual judgments aim to capture. According to many philosophers, nothing is ever directly present to the mind in perception except perceptual appearances.

                  My point in all of this is that empiricism is axiomatically limited in it’s scope and potential. All of our chest-thumping and shouting, “Science! Science! Science!” is a bit naive when it ignores core issues of epistemology.

                  My personal belief is that knowledge is, in it’s first phase, abstract. Only then can it be quantifiable or measurable within a particular system.

                  The recent trend towards scientism shys away from abstraction, perhaps because they perceive it as a sort of dog-whistle for God.

                  • d00ery@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Perhaps there’s an argument against scientific hubris: if we look through history, and to this day, we can see those who champion rigid adherence to religion above all else as the cause of much suffering. On the other hand the latter half of the 10 Commandments provide a fairly sensible groundwork for law and order in society.

                    As for love, whilst we may not be able to measure it directly, we can certainly see evidence of it’s power; “I would do anything for love, I’d run right in to hell and back” Meatloaf. I’d also argue that the core human emotions can be explained by evolution, and compared with animal behaviour. In preparing for fight or flight fear can be measured in a raised heart rate, the release of chemicals, and electrical activity within the brain.

                    I think one of the cornerstones of science is that it is open to a theory being overturned as new evidence comes to light.

                    Duhem–Quine, or the "veil of perception”, well yes, we do have to make some assumptions somewhere, you assume that I know how to read and understand your words written in English, which I do and I’m sure a great many others do - perhaps we could use this as a baseline example of knowledge. We all know the word “stop” and it’s meaning in context though we might not all react to it in the same way.

                    Then again, it could all just be my imagination.