In a recent debate with ‘No-Virus’ front-man Mike Stone on his latest hit-piece—this time an all-out character assault directed toward Thomas Baldwin, aka ‘Sense Strand’, assistant professor of barley pathology at North Dakota State University (NDSU)—Stone attempts to argue that a ‘natural phenomenon’ is solely an event occurring in nature. Because viruses are not events, he claims they cannot be studied using the scientific method. And this applies to all other biological things, according to Stone.
A short explanation is needed on why this term is being employed by those like Stone in the first place.
Stone frequently presents a multi-step diagram purportedly illustrating the scientific method. Its initial step dictates the necessity to "Observe a natural phenomenon." According to Stone's interpretation, all phenomena are construed solely as events, devoid of any other ontological dimensions. He contends that a natural phenomenon must strictly be an event, precluding any notion of it being a tangible entity, object, or other thing. Consequently, Stone argues that since viruses do not align with his narrow definition of phenomena as only being “events”, then they cannot be observed by science. After all, according to Stone, the scientific method must start with an observation of a natural phenomenon. As such, he dismisses them to artificial origins, products of human intervention, or even part of fraud.
During our debate on the matter, Stone referenced several non-historical and non-academic online sources that employ the term "event" in their descriptions of "natural phenomenon." However, the majority of these descriptions also incorporate terms such as "processes," indicating things beyond mere events. The fallacy in Stone's assertions lies in their inherent inaccuracy; these basic definitions fail to accurately capture the essence of what a phenomenon truly entails. Consequently, his reliance on sources limited in their portrayal of phenomena reveals a deficiency in understanding the comprehensive nature of phenomena and of science itself. While it remains factual that natural phenomena can indeed encompass events such as lightning or windstorms, their scope transcends far more than mere events.
Consider, for instance, the case of a cell. Stone contends that a cell, not being an event, falls beyond the purview of scientific inquiry within his flawed definition of phenomena. However, in reality, a cell constitutes a quintessential natural phenomenon. Cells, functioning as processes in their own right, emerge from the processes of even simpler life forms preceding them, each process and outcome constituting distinct phenomena. Thus, any observable fact, occurrence, or facet of any living entity unequivocally qualifies as a natural phenomenon.
I write,
One can easily argue that viruses occur from the mechanisms of cells. That cells occur from the mechanisms of more simple life forms that precede them. That a rock is a thing or observable fact of the mechanisms of erosion or other natural phenomena that created them, and so on and so forth. The list is endless. You claim natural objects, entities, or things cannot be considered forms of natural phenomena, but they can be. In science, the resulting thing of an event, process, or mechanism can become a natural phenomenon in and of itself and the primary object of study.
If what you were saying was true, then only events and processes could be studied in science and not a thing in and of itself and its intrinsic properties. This is why you have to falsely claim that a virus is not a natural phenomenon or a natural thing. You are confining science down to very generalist terms in order to suit your claims.
Thomas Baldwin agrees.
“The protein in its natural state is the phenomenon. If you remove the processes, it wouldn’t exist.” - [grammar corrected]
Indeed, all living organisms are inherently characterized by processes integral to their existence. The cessation of these processes would invariably lead to the cessation of the entity itself. Consider the human body as a prime illustration—each constituent aspect of its functioning represents a natural living process. Animals, in their entirety, represent a manifestation of natural phenomena, encompassing not only their internal processes but also the effects they exert on their surrounding environment. This enumeration extends boundlessly, with each facet being amenable to rigorous scientific investigation.
Viruses, bacteria, and cells exemplify natural phenomena. One must acknowledge that natural phenomena extend beyond the confines of Earth; they permeate the entirety of the universe. Celestial bodies such as the moon, and planets such as Jupiter, as well as their planetary movements, each exemplify a natural phenomenon, each encapsulating various aspects within their respective realms. Gravity, despite its classification as a force rather than an event, is unequivocally regarded as a natural phenomenon. Similarly, magnetism is also a natural phenomenon.
Through logical deduction and an appeal to reason, it becomes clearly evident that Stone's claim that phenomena exclusively comprise events is untenable.
The Historical and Academic Definition of “Phenomenon.”
First, one must understand the etymology of the word “phenomenon” and its historical meaning. One must also understand that the phrase “natural phenomenon” does not exist as a definition in dictionaries. Instead, the words “phenomenon” or “phenomena” is used.
The word "phenomenon" originates from the ancient Greek word “phainomenon,” which is the neuter present participle of the verb “phaino,” meaning "to appear" or “to be visible”, or “to manifest.” Essentially, a phenomenon was and is considered anything that is observable, an event, situation, or occurrence that can be perceived through the senses or measured through instrumentation.
Over time, the word "phenomenon" has evolved to encompass a wide range of occurrences, not just limited to the natural world. In the context of modern science and philosophy, the term has come to encompass a wide range of observable occurrences or events, both natural and artificial, that can be studied or analyzed.
To understand the definition of “natural phenomenon,” one must first define the word “natural.”
Natural
Websters dictionary:
Natural:
"Of or relating to nature as an object of study and research."
Collins dictionary:
Natural:
"Natural things that exist or occur in nature and are not made or caused by people."
Phenomenon
Oxford dictionary:
Phenomena:
“A thing which appears, or which is perceived or observed; a particular (kind of) fact, occurrence, or change as perceived through the senses or known intellectually; especially a fact or occurrence, the cause or explanation of which is in question.”
Cambridge dictionary:
Phenomenon:
"Anything that is or can be experienced or felt, especially something that is noticed because it is unusual or new."Webster's New World Dictionary (from my personal library):
Phenomenon:
“A visible manifestation or appearance.; philos. in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, an object or occurrence presented to our observation.”Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary (from my personal library):
Phenomenon:
“Any fact, circumstance, or experience that is apparent to the senses and that can be scientifically described or appraised.”Merriam-Webster:
Phenomenon:
“An object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition.”The Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine:
Phenomenon:
“Anything capable of being perceived by human senses.”
To arrive at the meaning of "natural phenomenon," one must combine the two constituent words, "natural" and "phenomenon,” along with their respective meanings. Consequently, a natural phenomenon encompasses anything observable, any perceived fact, or any occurrence that unfolds within the natural world devoid of human intervention, and is subject to scientific scrutiny or appraisal.
Despite the coherence and consistency of these definitions, Stone dismissed their significance and persisted in unsuccessfully disputing their validity. He continued to claim I was wrong, resorting to further copying and pasting of quotes from various online sources that employ the term "event" in their description of a natural phenomenon. He persisted in his attempt to establish a narrow interpretation of natural phenomena as exclusively “events”.
What is a fact?
A fact is a statement that can be proven to be true or false based on objective evidence or empirical data. Facts are often considered to be reliable and verifiable information about the world around us. They are distinct from opinions, beliefs, or interpretations, as they are based on observable phenomena or established knowledge. Facts provide the foundation for understanding reality and forming rational judgments and decisions. A fact can pertain to anything about the natural world, including objects, entities, or things, among others.
What is a visible manifestation?
A visible manifestation refers to something that is observable or perceivable with the senses, particularly sight. It's a tangible or evident display or expression of something, often implying that it is outwardly apparent or readily noticeable. In a broader sense, a visible manifestation can refer to any physical or observable representation of a concept, idea, emotion, or phenomenon.
The term "visible" doesn't restrict it to only things that can be seen with the eyes; it implies any aspect of reality that can be perceived through the senses or observed in some tangible way. A visible manifestation could range from physical objects like plants and trees, to abstract concepts like emotions, as long as they are perceptible in some form.
‘Anything that is’
In the context of the definition of "phenomenon," "anything that is" is used to encompass any and all observable manifestations or occurrences, physical or abstract, that can be studied, analyzed, or described. In the case of natural phenomenon, these are things that occur naturally in nature.
Stone states in his article:
Somehow, Thomas continued to struggle with what a natural phenomenon is, and how human manipulation is not involved in these phenomena. The very act of removing cells from a human or animal, growing them in artificial conditions, culturing an unobservable “virus” through the addition of many chemicals and foreign materials, and then manipulating the sample through various imaging preparation processes in order to create representations and 3-D models to “see” the artificial creation does not reflect anything seen in nature and does not equal an observed natural phenomenon. Thus, his study failed from the start.
Except, it is Stone himself who does not understand what a natural phenomenon is. Viruses are manifestations of cellular processes and occur regardless of the location of the cell itself. Cells and viruses are not created by man.
I state,
Humans can only create an environment conducive to the manifestation of viral proteins within cells, but they cannot produce the viral protein itself, as you claim. Whether a spike protein is produced in a person's body or in a laboratory setting, it is inconsequential. Proteins, including spike proteins, are produced by cells regardless of the environment.
Likewise, in the example Thomas uses of a forest planted by man, this too qualifies as a natural phenomenon. Why? Because when humans plant trees, they are indeed participating in the natural process of tree growth. Trees themselves are products of natural processes, and when humans plant seeds or saplings, they are essentially facilitating the continuation of this natural process. So, while humans are involved in the initial planting, the growth and development of the forest follow natural patterns and processes.
These processes and results are themselves natural, even though humans are involved in planting of the seeds. If not, then birth itself would not be considered a natural phenomenon because it has human involvement. So, these terms are being deceptively used by Stone and he is twisting them to suit his narrative, with his audience being none the wiser.
As well, human causes can lead to the manifestation of natural phenomena. Some examples include, earthquakes, deforestation, climate changes, and air pollution—all of these are natural phenomena that are caused by man.
Artificial phenomena are those that are deliberately created or significantly altered by human activity, such as statues or the construction of the pyramids. These are distinct from natural phenomena, which arise from the inherent processes and interactions within the natural world.
A few selected quotes of Stone’s various claims:
“A "spike protein" is not a natural phenomenon. It is created through manipulation by man. Apparently, you lack the same understanding as to what a natural phenomenon is as Thomas.”
“This is going in circles. Rocks and cells are not natural phenomena. They may be involved in natural phenomenon, but by themselves they are not natural phenomena.”
“Everything that exists in nature is natural. They are not all natural phenomenon. There is a difference. A natural phenomenon is an observed EVENT. This event leads to the creation of a hypothesis that attempts to explain the EVENT.”
“Magnetism is considered a force. It is not an entity or an object. It is an observable EVENT. How are you continuing to fail to grasp such a simple concept?”
“Incorrect. Natural phenomena are observable events, not things, objects, or entities. I have provided plenty of sources showing that you are wrong. I'm not going to keep going in circles with you when you have yet to provide a single source validating your claim.”
“No one can observe a "virus" jumping into humans and causing disease.”
“The scientific method is only interested in explaining a potential cause and effect relationship.”
“Trees are not a natural phenomenon. How are you this confused? 🤣”
“Bacteria are not a natural phenomenon. They are organisms. The processes that they are involved in, such as decomposition and fermentation, are natural phenomena as they are OBSERVABLE EVENTS.”
Rhetorical Question: How then does one study the intrinsic properties of an object or entity itself, such as its characteristics, patterns, or structures, if we cannot employ the scientific method to do so? According to Stone, we cannot, since none of these are events. What then is to be said about the morphology of leaves, the structure of shells, or the arrangement of petals in a flower?
Mike Stone has a way around this too:
“Those are characteristics. They are not the phenomenon. The phenomenon would be the natural processes such as the environmental influences and pressures that lead to the development of these characteristics.”
And yet, natural phenomena encompass all observable aspects of the natural world, including the physical characteristics, behaviors, and processes exhibited by living organisms and inanimate objects. The morphology of leaves, for example, is shaped by various biological and environmental factors, such as genetics, growth patterns, and adaptation to ecological conditions. These characteristics are observable facts of nature and are subject to scientific investigation and analysis.
Back to reality:
Indeed, the definition put forth by Stone stands as his own definition without citation, as "natural phenomenon" lacks a universally recognized academic definition, as previously outlined. His purported sources originate from various non-academic sources on the internet, lacking scholarly credibility. Moreover, the majority of these sources delineate a natural phenomenon as an observable event or process. By this account, it becomes apparent that all natural entities are encompassed within this definition, as they are either engaged in a process or represent a process in themselves. For instance, viruses, cells, and bacteria each epitomize ongoing processes. As Thomas rightly noted, the removal of these processes would render the entity non-existent.
Contrary to Stone's false claim, magnetism, as a fundamental force of nature, does not qualify as an event. Consider Earth's magnetic field, for instance—it represents a continuous state rather than a discrete event. Nonetheless, the effects engendered by such forces may give rise to observable events. However, these events are not necessarily visible but may be sensed or felt. Events within the realm of nature are characterized by their observability and finite duration, such as thunderstorms, volcanic eruptions, or meteor showers, among others. Similarly, gravity, while not itself an event, falls under the purview of natural phenomena.
Illustratively, let us contemplate a rock as a manifestation of natural phenomena. The formation of a rock, catalyzed by geological pressures and erosion mechanisms, exemplifies the culmination of natural processes. Although a rock itself does not constitute an event, it undeniably represents a natural phenomenon in and of itself. As an observable entity within nature, with its own intrinsic properties, a rock lends itself to scientific scrutiny and assessment.
I state,
“In hindsight, what you are attempting to do is to claim that the scientific method is strictly required to begin with the observation of a natural phenomenon, which you claim is merely an event that occurs without human involvement. However, you have now claimed that bacteria, viruses, and living organisms are not natural phenomena.
How then can one employ the scientific method to study these entities directly, if they are not forms of natural phenomena, which you claim is the first criteria of the scientific method? You are literally claiming that bacteria and other organisms cannot be studied using the scientific method because you claim they are not natural phenomena.
As I previously stated, there is a reason why the phrase "natural phenomenon" is not more commonly found in the scientific literature when referring to viruses or other biological entities. Scientific literature uses more precise technical language. The phrase "natural phenomenon" is broad and could apply to many things in nature. Scientists almost always use more specific descriptors like "ubiquitous", "integral components of ecosystems", etc. when referring to viruses.
Stating that viruses are ubiquitous inhabitants of the biosphere implicitly captures the notion that they are "natural phenomena", so the phrase itself would be redundant.”
“Natural phenomena are comprised of everything that occurs or exists in nature [not deliberately created by man]. Natural phenomena are not limited to events alone, as you keep claiming. They encompass all aspects of the natural world, including objects, entities, patterns, structures, processes, and events. Natural phenomena encompass a far broader range of aspects of the natural world beyond just events.”
Stone goes on,
“…"viruses" are not a natural phenomenon. As you continue to be confused as to what a natural phenomenon is, here you go: [Provides limited non-academic definitions from non-academic sources, where the sources pertain to the impact of natural phenomena on earth’s climate.]
“Natural phenomena refers to physical events that are not artificial or man-made.”
“Natural phenomena are events that occur and are observed in nature, but with little to no explanation for why they occur.”
In the end, I turned to ChatGPT to further check my assertions, making sure to present non-leading, neutral questions, in order to get the most accurate results.
You can read that here:
https://chatgpt.com/share/23ec7737-62a1-458e-b0ff-989e47521f8a
I cross-checked these answers on multiple different AI models, including Google’s Gemini, to Claude, ChatGPT 3.5, and ChatGPT 4, with all consistently providing the same answers. And these answers reflect the academic definitions precisely, so we can state with a high degree of certainty that these answers reflect the truth.
I also asked Burki on Twitter, one of Thomas Baldwin’s associates, to test this. His result was identical to mine.
https://twitter.com/JeffGre09781453/status/1788309327603761328
Conclusion
In his steadfast denial of the existence of viruses, Mike Stone employs every conceivable tactic to uphold his narrative, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It becomes evident that for Stone, his narrative transcends mere assertion; it becomes a dogged offensive against any facts that challenge it.
With absolute certainty, we can affirm that a natural phenomenon extends far beyond mere events. It encompasses everything observable in the natural realm—be it objects, entities, occurrences, or processes—unfolding without human intervention. This includes both commonplace and extraordinary phenomena, spanning from living organisms to inanimate forces. All these aspects of reality are subject to scientific investigation, awaiting discovery and exploration, and are all indeed, a natural phenomenon.
Other historical considerations:
‘The Phenomenon of Man’ by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, 1955, states:
Introduction by Sir Julian Huxley:
“The Phenomenon of Man is certainly the most important of Péré Teilhard's published works. Of the rest, some, including the essays in La Vision du Passé, reveal earlier developments or later elaborations of his general thought; while others, like L'Apparition de l'Homme, are rather more technical.
Péré Teilhard starts from the position that mankind in its totality is a phenomenon to be described and analysed like any other phenomenon: it and all its manifestations, including human history and human values, arc proper objects for scientific study.
His second and perhaps most fundamental point is the absolute necessity of adopting an evolutionary point of view. Though for certain limited purposes it may be useful to think of phenomena as isolated statically in time, they are in point of fact never static : they are always processes or parts of processes.”“With this approach he is rightly and indeed inevitably driven to the conclusion that, since evolutionary phenomena (of course including the phenomenon known as man) are processes, they can never be evaluated or even adequately described solely or mainly in terms of their origins.” - p. 12
“Despite what experience has taught us in every other field, we have let ourselves become too much accustomed to thinking of the cell as an object without antecedents. Let us see what happens if we regard it and treat it (as we certainly should) as something at one and the same time both the outcome of long preparation and yet profoundly original, that is to say, as a thing that is born.” - p. 80
“Without exaggeration it may be said that just as man, seen in terms of paleontology, merges anatomically with the mass of mammals that preceded him, so, probing backwards, we see the cell merging qualitatively and quantitatively with the world of chemical structures. Followed in a backward direction, it visibly converges towards the molecule.” - p. 82
“Those who adopt the spiritual explanation are right when they defend so vehemently a certain transcendence of man over the rest of nature. But neither are the materialists wrong when they maintain that man is just one further term in a series of animal forms. Here, as in so many cases, the two antithetical kinds of evidences are resolved in a movement-provided that in this movement we emphasize the highly natural phenomenon of the ' change of state '. From the cell to the thinking animal, as from the atom to the cell, a single process (a psychical kindling or concentration) goes on without interruption and always in the same direction.” - p. 169
“The discovery of viruses and other similar elements not only adds another and important term to our series of states and forms of matter; it obliges us to interpolate a hitherto forgotten era (an era of sub-life) in the series of ages that measure the past of our planet.” - p. 85
Jeff Green
You can read the entirety of the debate here.
If you find my work useful, please consider donating or becoming a paid subscriber.
In reality, there are no "events" but a continuous and intricate tapestry of causality. Any slice of it could be considered an "event," such as the birth of a human, or the death, or entire life. The production of a virus is surely an event, no?
Perhaps no one has observed a virus produced by one body's cell naturally entering and infecting another body's cell, and I think that is the common ground that is most interesting and important.
Anyway, it seems a very silly hill to die on. Thank you for your patience and tenacity to expose the ridiculous nature of this deconstructionist perspective.