If we see a book written in any scientific field, surely we are aware that an author wrote it?

Answer 1

Exactly. Relying on other men for all of your knowledge is dangerous, because if you do that then you have just made other mortals your God. You must be objective with all things you read and most importantly keep yourself open to thinking for yourself. As a believer in God I support advancements in science, technology, and mathematics, but yet understand the limitations of our own primitive human minds. So until you can prove to me that you know everything, then you do not know anything.

Answer 2

Certainly, unless it is an anthology assembled by an editor. We can also assume that this author has some experience on which to draw, editors to correct mistakes of content or style, and peers who might fundamentally disagree with it and publish books of their own that contradict his premises. And we can assume that he, or his graduate student thralls, actually wrote the book using terms and ideas that were developed and are commonly accepted in that field of study.

He may present a new interpretation of a natural phenomenon but he will not claim to have invented that phenomenon or disavow the influence of previous authors and researchers. And if there are fundamental questions about his conclusions, we can assume that he, or some representative, will be available to provide a journal article, press release or news conference to further explain his ideas.

Perhaps the analogy of a patent application (or maybe a novel) would better suit your developing argument.

Answer 3

The world is not a book, genius.


Patterns can arise out of simple rules. Books do not because meaning in books is arbitrary--words only have meanings because we assign those meanings.

The world came into being because of natural laws and some chance, though saying it's unlikely the world would come into being through chance is to commit the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy." (That's the one where the guy fires a gun at a barn, draws a target around the bullet hole, and calls himself a sharpshooter.) Yes, the world *could* have been vastly different, but this is the one we live in.

Answer 4

Nope, it's actually the result of an infinite number of monkeys typing away at typewriters. There is no "author", silly!

Answer 5

Yes, but even scientific books are subject to substantiation, authentication, and corraboration.

Answer 6

Sometimes it is plagiarized. Meaning taken from other sources who were the true authors.

Answer 7

Nonsensical.

Answer 8

Yes. Books are not made from self-replicating molecules...trees are and authors are.

Answer 9

And then there are people who claim to have revelations from God and change the Bible message. Go figure.

Answer 10

This looks suspiciously like a trick question.