Expressing bad attitudes to science without realising it

[Roy]

@adamjedgar

The Piltdown Man Hoax

This fortuitous find – nine pieces of a large-brained human skull and an ape-like lower jaw with two teeth – was readily accepted by the British establishment due to their belief that a large brain was one of the first human features to evolve. 1912 - Piltdown Man ‘discovered’ in England. - The Australian Museum

This is what you originally wrote, with added emphasis:

@adamjedgar

Another evidence was the realisation that a number of fossils of early man were intentionally falsified and made to look ape like when in fact they did not look anything like what was claimed! One of these “cons” went on for a number of decades and is still on display despite the publicly recognised and proven gross error it contains!

You said there were a number of intentionally falsified fossils. You’ve only provided one.

You said it is still on display. It’s not on display. The original in London is locked away; the one in Australia is a copy.

You said it is on display “despite the publicly recognised and proven gross error” - but it’s not, because it’s on display as a hoax, not as a real fossil find, and the recognised error is acknowledged in the display.

If all you have is one example of which a copy is on display as a hoax, then you were lying.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@jammycakes

@RichardG

If I am n a scientific environment I will obey their “rules”. I am not, and neither are you.

Once again, yer heid’s full o’mince, laddie.

The whole world we live in is a scientific environment

No you are misunderstanding, I am tryig to decide if it is deliberate or not.

We are not talking about the existence or relevance of science, we were talking about the scientific method.

The scientific methodology works fine in the lab and in applied science but it des not migrate to the outside world.

You cannot live by sight and sound (possibly touch) alone. You cannot be everywhere and know everything. Anything outside your immediate vicinity is out of your mentodology.

An incident less than a mile away is beyond your senses. You might hear a loud bang but the cause of it is beyond your senses. You cannot live by senses alone. You have to rely on other people and/ or things and that enevitably means trusting thise sources.

The trouble is, that ToE is also in that catagory. It is not in a lab. It is not visible. You cannot use your methodology to “prove” it. All your data is corroborative at best.

ToE is a concept…It was conceieved with a (several) human mind(s). It stands or falls on corroboration alone. All your indignation and Scientific prestige goes out the window. And yet you seeem to think that you are still entitled to defend it as if it was a scientific fact. It is not and never willl be…

So stop lookiing down your nose at me and making false diagnosese about my mind!

It is not funny.

Richard

[St.Roymond]

@rsewell

Once some unknown is regarded as God’s direct intervention, you are done. What is there left to investigate?

How He did it. Of course without a recurrence that can only be hypothesis, e.g. Elijah’s sacrifice and altar was burned up by a focused gamma-ray burst, because there’s no way to reproduce it.

@rsewell

The practice of science of necessity requires the presumption of natural cause.

Also because all we have is natural means of measurement, which by definition can only measure natural things (or natural results).

@RichardG

You are separaring scince from philosophy and even seem to be claiming a higher ground as if philosophy (and theology) has/have no merit or value.

They don’t, in terms of science, any more than woodworking or skydiving have any value for baking.

@RichardG

Hence, why scientist are viewed as eletist…

People in every field of study are viewed as elitist! I’ve been called elitist for saying that no one should be a preacher without actually being able to read Koine Greek at the very least, and preferably Hebrew as well; a friend got called elitist for saying that only an electrical engineer should be allowed to design the electrical system for a new factory building.

@RichardG

if you can’t say anything good, don’t say anything

Often that’s wrong – there are areas of endeavor where not saying anything will get people killed.

@knor

The manuscript showed that in certain conditions, rape can increase fitness.

Reminds me of the guy who wrote a paper showing that people who view porn have some health benefits over those who don’t. To get published he had to narrow the study down to those who masturbate because so long as the word “pornography” was in the paper no one was going to publish it.

@Roy

@RichardG

For all you know I might be dyslexic.

It’s possible. That would be one possible unavoidable cause of persistent poor typing, and hence excusable. But it wouldn’t lead to consistent misspelling of a specific word.

Good point. I get dyslexic under stress, but that doesn’t mean I can’t proofread, or just type slower thinking about each letter (I got the privilege of not having to finish exams in a given time limit due to this).

@RichardG

it is just the notion that there is no argument to those conclusions.from a diffeerent philosophical perspective, because no other perspective is “allowed”

Because no other perspective actually works.

@T_aquaticus

That’s like saying the rules of baseball are too limiting because they don’t allow you to play tennis.

LOL

Once in pre-grad-school some of us decided to play baseball using tennis balls and rackets. Of course it didn’t count for team records!

@T_aquaticus

“can’t be immediately explained by natural causes” isn’t going to be sufficient in a scientific setting

That always reminds me of how scientists for a long time were absolutely certain that rocks could not fall from the sky; most of them objected that God put rocks down here and didn’t toss them about the sky. Then when it became certain that rocks did sometimes fall from the sky, the conclusion wasn’t “Oh, God does throw rocks” but more like, “Okay, how did God make it so rocks fall from the sky”.

@T_aquaticus

It isn’t enough to gripe that people are discounting the supernatural out of hand.

Like the fortune teller at the Seattle Sea Fair who said the spirits wouldn’t come if someone was trying to measure them.

@T_aquaticus

Something made up on the spot is not given the same consideration as a conclusion based on mountains of empirical evidence. I think this is a good policy.

Agreed.

[St.Roymond]

@jammycakes

Gravity, quantum mechanics and metabolism work in exactly the same way in the lab as they do in church.

Or at the carnival at the state fair!

@adamjedgar

The immaculate conception?

Why would you want a scientific explanation for a doctrine based more on Aristotelian doctrine than on scripture (and which is bad Christology)?

@adamjedgar

ascending into the sky in direct violation of gravity

Who says gravity was violated? This is like those idiot news writers who write that someone “overcame the law of gravity” when all they did was apply science. They may have overcome gravity, but not the law.

@adamjedgar

dead people will rise from the grave and meet the saved in the clouds and head off into outer space

Where is that in the text?

@RichardG

The scientific methodology works fine in the lab and in applied science but it des not migrate to the outside world.

Nonsense. It applies in conservation work, in dairy, in construction, in logging, in baking, in walking my dog . . . . You have to have a very skewed idea of the real world to think that scientific methodology doesn’t apply all over the place!

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

Hence, why scientist are viewed as eletist…

People in every field of study are viewed as elitist! I’ve been called elitist for saying that no one should be a preacher without actually being able to read Koine Greek at the very least, and preferably Hebrew as well; a friend got called elitist for saying that only an electrical engineer should be allowed to design the electrical system for a new factory building.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

it is just the notion that there is no argument to those conclusions.from a diffeerent philosophical perspective, because no other perspective is “allowed”

Because no other perspective actually works.

O wow.

I doubt that you have even tried.

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

he scientific methodology works fine in the lab and in applied science but it des not migrate to the outside world.

Nonsense. It applies in conservation work, in dairy, in construction, in logging, in baking, in walking my dog

I don’t think you read my own illustration

@RichardG

You cannot live by sight and sound (possibly touch) alone. You cannot be everywhere and know everything. Anything outside your immediate vicinity is out of your mentodology.

An incident less than a mile away is beyond your senses. You might hear a loud bang but the cause of it is beyond your senses. You cannot live by senses alone. You have to rely on other people and/ or things and that enevitably means trusting those sources

IOW we choose the circumstances that suit our perspective.

As mine exists your assertions fail.

@St.Roymond

I’ve been called elitist for saying that no one should be a preacher without actually being able to read Koine Greek at the very least, and preferably Hebrew as well;

And I would agree with them (as I hvave neither)

Preaching is not (just) about biblical knowledge or learning. Some of the best preachers I have heard have had no higher education at all. Conversely the bias towards collegic qualifications has produced some very poor preachers (clergy). Admittedly preaching is not the only element of clergy.

As soon as you start dictating you are eletist. Your criteria is based on your values. It would be arrognat to claim that your values are mandatory…or the only valid ones.

@St.Roymond

@RichardG

if you can’t say anything good, don’t say anything

Often that’s wrong

Again, yo are choosing your circumstance. In this environment the maxim (shoold) stand(s).

Of course that would depend on how you view the discussions on this forum. I use the word dicussion with caution. There is often little actual dialogue, it is more like a shouting match. or a battle of dogmas.

Richard

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

@adamjedgar

Like you know who Smithsonian are right? Smithsonian (magazine) - Wikipedia

Smithsonian magazine is journalism. Often more academic than the average newspaper, but journalism. Although it has certain ties to the museum network, it does NOT represent the actual work of researchers at the museum in most of its claims.

They are not alone in supposedly scientific [non-YEC] journalistic sources for claiming that Schweitzer’s work was a huge surprise. But the reality is that equally “soft” material had long been known from much older fossils. Indeed, tough organic fossils are far older than the first shells or bones.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@RichardG

No you are misunderstanding, I am tryig to decide if it is deliberate or not.

We are not talking about the existence or relevance of science, we were talking about the scientific method.

We were talking about bad attitudes towards science—or at least, attitudes that are perceived as bad by scientifically literate individuals—that are often heard in Christian contexts. The attitudes concerned most certainly may (and often do) refer to the existence or the relevance of science as well as to the scientific method.

I should know that because it was me who started this thread in the first place.

@RichardG

The scientific methodology works fine in the lab and in applied science but it des not migrate to the outside world.

Seriously?

Are you saying that Maxwell’s equations do not apply outside the lab? That Newton’s laws of motion do not apply outside the lab? That Carnot cycles do not apply outside the lab? That quantum mechanics does not apply outside the lab? That general relativity does not apply outside the lab?

Sure, you may not be doing scientific experiments outside the lab. But the results of the experiments that are done in the lab still apply outside of it.

@RichardG

You cannot live by sight and sound (possibly touch) alone. You cannot be everywhere and know everything. Anything outside your immediate vicinity is out of your mentodology.

I’m not claiming that you can. Nor is anybody else for that matter.

Science doesn’t know everything and can’t investigate everything. Nobody is claiming otherwise. But that doesn’t mean that the things that it does know and that it can investigate could be wrong, or worthless, or “just an interpretation.”

@RichardG

So stop lookiing down your nose at me and making false diagnosese about my mind!

I’m sorry, but if you don’t want to be told that you have mince in your head, don’t say mince-headed things.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@jammycakes

@RichardG

The scientific methodology works fine in the lab and in applied science but it des not migrate to the outside world.

Seriously?

Are you saying that Maxwell’s equations do not apply outside the lab?

No I am not. You do understand English?

I said methodology, not principle or law.

So I will take it slowly

The scientific method is?
(IOW how do you define the scientific method)

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

The scientific method is?

Here ya go:

1. Define a Question to Investigate

As scientists conduct their research, they make observations and collect data. The observations and data often lead them to ask why something is the way it is. Scientists pursue answers to these questions in order to continue with their research. Once scientists have a good question to investigate, they begin to think of ways to answer it.

2. Make Predictions

Based on their research and observations, scientists will often come up with a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a possible answer to a question. It is based on: their own observations, existing theories, and information they gather from other sources. Scientists use their hypothesis to make a prediction, a testable statement that describes what they think the outcome of an investigation will be.

3. Gather Data

Evidence is needed to test the prediction. There are several strategies for collecting evidence, or data. Scientists can gather their data by observing the natural world, performing an experiment in a laboratory, or by running a model. Scientists decide what strategy to use, often combining strategies. Then they plan a procedure and gather their data. They make sure the procedure can be repeated, so that other scientists can evaluate their findings.

4. Analyze the Data

Scientists organize their data in tables, graphs, or diagrams. If possible, they include relevant data from other sources. They look for patterns that show connections between important variables in the hypothesis they are testing.

5. Draw Conclusions

Based on whether or not their prediction came true, scientists can then decide whether the evidence clearly supports or does not support the hypothesis. If the results are not clear, they must rethink their procedure. If the results are clear, scientists write up their findings and results to share with others. The conclusions they draw usually lead to new questions to pursue.
https://www.amnh.org/explore/videos/the-scientific-process

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

Make Predictions

Based on their research and observations, scientists will often come up with a hypothesis

The hypothesis is still based on research and observation. it does not come before you even start.

Methinks you are being deliberately deceptive.

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

The hypothesis is still based on research and observation. it does not come before you even start.

The predictions made by a hypothesis are independent of observations. Yes, sometimes this can be a post-diction, but in its purest form a hypothesis makes predictions of observations that have not been made yet. For example, Einstein’s theory of relativity predicted that starlight should bend around the Sun. This was confirmed in a subsequent experiment where starlight was observed to bend around the Sun during a solar eclipse.

Using this example, your argument seems to be that making this prediction made starlight bend around the Sun, or fooled scientists into thinking starlight bends around the Sun. This makes no sense. These are empirical measurements that can be done by anyone. Subsequently, we have plenty of evidence for light being bent by mass, such as this galaxy that has been distorted into a long streak:

Again, this is a prediction made by the theory of relativity, and it is observed. This is how science works. Yet another prediction is gravitational waves which have subsequently been observed at the LIGO detectors. Yet another is time dilation in a gravitational field which was subsequently observed in the Hafele-Keating experiment:

Hafele–Keating experiment

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

The predictions made by a hypothesis are independent of observations

You know you are very furstating t talk to. You do not seem to understand a compund statement (or quetion) the ramification of concepts. You just bat out your examples and copy and paste instaed of putting things in your own words.

And you cannot see the difference between observation producing a hypothesis and inventing a concept to be proven.

Your example? it was based on an established theory (relativity). Applying to to light is just an extension. it was not as if someone said out of the blue
“I wonder if light curves?”

Common Ancestry came first, before DNA mapping. Before DNA comparisons, before the algorithm was conceived. It was all trying to prove it. It was focussed and biased. Why can’t you see this?

You were looking for it! And you found it!

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

Your example? it was based on an estabished theory (relativity). Applying ti to light is just and extension. it was not as if someone said out of the blue
“I wonder if light curves?”

Common Ancestry came first, before DNA mapping. Before DNA comparisons, before the algorithm was conceived. It was all trying to prove it. It was focussed and biased. Why can’t you see this?

So was it biased when they predicted light bending around the Sun or other massive objects?

Was it biased when they predicted gravitational waves?

Was it biased when they predicted time dilation in Earth’s gravitational well?

If not, how is it biased to extend the theory of common ancestry to predict the pattern of substitution mutations between species?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

So was it biased when they predicted light bending around the Sun or other massive objects?

Like i said, you just do not understand a compound argument!¬ Your questions are irrelevant. You do not understand what i am driving at you are just trotting out your understanding of the examples.

@T_aquaticus

how is it biased to extend the theory of common ancestry to predict the pattern of substitution mutations between species?

I have shown that to you, but you are failing to see it.

You are not “extending” the theory of common ancestry, you are trying to prove it…

Evolution (ToE)was not originally based on DNA. It did not come from studying DNA It was based upon physical similarities and progressive differences. It was based upon comparing beak sizes of finches (et al) DNA mapping is a whole new realm that you have literally hijacked into bolstering up ToE.

DNA testing and family similarities is fine. It is just straight heredity within Mendel guidelines. Common Ancestry goes way beyond that and is trying to establish connections that are beyond straight heredity. The variables caused by deviation cannot be defined because the vraiations themselves cannot be defined. You have no idea what causes the variation (deviations) all you can identify is how Natural Selection uses those variations… The moment you insert a deviation you have to define at what point that variation arrived. .But no, you just follow back the bits that match.
DNA matching does not seem to account for

Parallel evolution whereby traits occur that are similar, if not identical but derive from different species.

Devolution or redundancy, whereby traits die out again or are regressing like vestigial wings (Are they vestigial or evolutionary under developed, or developing)

IOW just because a dinosaur sprouted feathers dos not necessarily mean it is an ancestor of birds.

Richard

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

I have shown that to you, but you are failing to see it.

You are not “extending” the theory of common ancestry, you are trying to prove it…

How is it any different than the other examples I have given in the form of light bending around the Sun, gravitational waves, and time dilation?

@RichardG

Evolution (ToE)was not originally based on DNA. It did not come from studying DNA It was based upon physical similarities and progressive differences.

ToE was based on common ancestry and vertical inheritance, and once we understood how DNA related to inheritance then we could extend the theory to DNA sequences.

@RichardG

DNA testing and family similarities is fine. It is just straight heredity within Mendel guidelines. Common Ancestry goes way beyond that and is trying to establish connections that are beyond straight heredity.

Umm, no they aren’t. Common ancestry is the same for two humans as it is between a human and a chimp. Same thing.

@RichardG

The variables caused by deviation cannot be defined because the vraiations themselves cannot be defined. You have no idea what causes the variation (deviations) all you can identify is how Natural Selection uses those variations… The moment you insert a deviation you have to define at what point that variation arrived. .But no, you just follow back the bits that match.

We do know what causes variations. I have already given you this information.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409/

We also know what patterns these mechanisms produce, so we can predict what patterns we should see when comparing genomes if the differences between the genomes was caused by these mechanisms. This includes the differences, not just the similarities. I have shown you this multiple times now. Here, again, is the article using differences to test common ancestry:

https://biologos.org/series/how-should-we-interpret-biblical-genealogies/articles/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations?campaign=539861

@RichardG

Parallel evolution whereby traits occur that are similar, if not identical but derive from different species.

Devolution or redundancy, whereby traits die out again or are regressing like vestigial wings (Are they vestigial or evolutionary under developed, or developing)

With parallel evolution (i.e. homoplasy) we would expect a different DNA sequence undergirding the similar adaptations, and that is exactly what we observe.

Vestigial features were covered by Darwin himself, and as predicted they fall into the predicted nested hierarchy. For example, we find vestigial terrestrial mammalian features in cetaceans, such as a vestigial pelvis, but no such vestigial structure in something like whale sharks.

@RichardG

IOW just because a dinosaur sprouted feathers dos not necessarily mean it is an ancestor of birds.

So you would also say “just because starlight bends around the sun does not necessarily mean relativity is correct”. It is your way of saying that you won’t be budged by any evidence.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

So you would also say “just because starlight bends around the sun does not necessarily mean relativity is correct”.

Every time you prove that you are misunderstanding me. The examples you give do not address, or equate to, what I say.

I may as well give up (again)

Keep trotting out your dogmas. it is what you do best.

Richard

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@rsewell

Science exists to counter biases.

Oh bullshit it does. Thats completely false…science has no ability to reason. You make out science is an intelligent entitity…its is not. I suprised at how elevated a tool of trade becomes in your world…its your God id suggest. The reality is, Science relys entirely on the intelligent minds of indivuduals using it…as soon as an intelligence is require to make use of something, to manipulate that tool, it is open to bias disagreeing with the blatantly obvious is a delusion.
You make these claims of yours simply because you are not willing to agree that YEC scientists are scientists.

My “biases” comment stands! The fact you say what you do proves my point. Your own biases betray your claim there.

To some extent i think we may dissagree on whether the result of using the tool of science is our reality or a merely library of knowledge. I lean towards the latter. Because i lean towards the latter, and I am Christian, and Christianity belief is in the notion that sin corrupted all creation, the library of knowledge has chosen a pathway that is not harmonious with Gods wishes.
Contrary to some inferences on these forums (such as Vinnie’s belief id suggest), we are not on an evolutionary “works based” journey to enlightenment!

God has verh specifically determined that those who are not for Him are against Him. Its binary (as explained to the church of Laodocia in Revelation). The apostle James made it quite clear that our efforts are nothing but filfthy rags…we cannot improve ourselves in order to achieve salvation…all we can do it try our best to keep the law by ensuring we have belief/faith. I think the keeping of the law becomes the fruits of our faith.

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

Every time you prove that you are misunderstanding me. The examples you give do not address, or equate to, what I say.

How so?

@RichardG

Keep trotting out your dogmas. it is what you do best.

What dogmas?

[T_aquaticus]

@adamjedgar

Oh bullshit it does. Thats completely false…science has no ability to reason.

Really?

When you go to the doctor do you expect medical treatment based on science?