I thought their offense was to make a public statement, relying on their professional stature, about public policy that would affect the life and death of millions and that was based on really bad scientific reasoning.
5 Likes
The answer to this i think is obvious…you cant separate science from belief…because all humans have beliefs and use them to help make sense of the world…of what they see, hear, touch, feel…there is no such thing as a scientist without beliefs.
That is a nobile idea, however the “statistical bell curve of life” paints a different picture. Your hope there is not how the world goes around…even though i dissagree with the Darwinian evolutionary model, there must be a bell curve with 1 percenters on each side of the median. That is why we have poverty. Whether we like it or not, its a mathematical reality that is impossible to change. (Obviously it doesnt mean that we should not strive to make a difference though…i give monthly to the Royal Australian Flying Doctors service).
I don’t totally disagree with you here, but recognize we are arguing about a counterfactual hypothetical. Your position would require the hypothetical that we would never have discovered CAT scans or contact thermometers by this point in our technological advances, if that money had been diverted to medical research instead of the space program.
That said, I completely agree and concede the point about the weather forecasting and communication being necessarily dependent On rocketry and space programs and satellites. That was an unfortunate overstatement on my part to say I would take 100% of the money away from such programs. Although I still do stand by the fact that our financial priorities, I find radically and inappropriately skewed.
2 Likes
I do not disagree certainly that there will be someone at the bottom 1%, and they will be significantly more poor then the rest of us. However, I certainly still contend that if our financial priorities as cultures and societies were different, they would be in a lot less abject poverty and suffering as they currently are.
Indeed. This is because worldview is irrelevant in the work of science. The only question of merit is whether they are following the methodology of science. If their science is under the control of and subject to their worldview then it is not science but pseudoscience.
2 Likes
that is a statement of ignorance…its impossible for men to not involve their worldview in any activity…including science. It is as ignorant as the claim education is not indoctrination.
Science in and of itself is mute…it requires men to actually do it and they all have biases.
The irony is, the claim on these forums that science is impartial is falsified by those same individuals stating that my theology is my own interpretation (because its different from their own)…so even those individuals do not subscribe in practice to the view of impartiality in science without world view also being front and center in their own minds!
1 Like
but isnt that a matter of perspective?
For example, only yesterday…
after receiving a plumbers bill of $15,000 (taking my total plumbing bill in the last 3 weeks to over $30k) im starting to sweat a little on how much the renovation/building works we are doing on my wife’s property are draining out of our bank accounts and racking up in loans…
i began to wonder, if Donald Trump were down to his last $100k, would he think he has gone broke?
I am not a wealthy person, so I have a very different take on that amount of money and how i would feel about it. When i was a child, my parents never had any spare money, so $100 (and often less than that) left in bank accounts was not uncommon.
The thing is for people in impoverished countries…i wonder how many of them have any concept of life as we know it?
One of the criticisms regarding the Australian Aboriginal “stolen generation” was the notion at the time that we could offer them a better way of life…our way of life!
But the plain fact is that in the rest of the world, Christians, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus have all worked together in science and their worldview didn’t come into it at all.
2 Likes
no it has nothing to do with that…it has everything to do with the second example i gave you…that education is indoctrination (some think that is not the case).
If you honestly believe that you can do any science impartially without bias, im sorry but I can assure you that such a notion is delusional and I say that because in completing an education degree where i studied philosophy in education, that is an academic fact.
Nope. For the vast majority wordview has nothing to do with science no more so than many professions from dentists, computer programmers, etc… But I will acknowledge there are fanatics who insist on making everything about their religion. So from their point of view I can see how the refusal of all the rest of us to participate in their fanaticism is considered by them to be a part of everything THEY think is important. But they are the ones the rest of us consider delusional.
2 Likes
MItchel…no matter what you think, i can tell you academically you are 100% wrong on this…it is a delusion to try to make claims that are simply not a reality.
Id suggest that to try to defend the indefensible, we would then be insulting human intelligence. This has nothing to do with YEC or otherwise…its the human condition and we just need to accept our fallibility there.
Good point.
I am passionate about this, too. There is no unlimited source of funds. Thanks.
if i were emporer of this world, this is the last thing i would do…its nothing more than adding paint over rust.
My goal if i were emperor (who the Romans were taught were gods), i would simply re establish an ecosystem and human condition that never intended for pain, suffering and death in the first place! (charity would not be then needed)
Might i add that ironically enough, these [mine] are the same goals of the Gospel (Christianity). Read Revelation 21
Scientists recognize that bias exists. That is the point. Experimentation, measurement, analysis, consistency with data, and primary and secondary peer review, are procedures and metrics designed to put such biases to the test. Over the long term, the track record of science is very strong in developing an understanding of nature in keeping with reality, and eliminating delusional beliefs.
2 Likes
Recognising bias exists is exactly my point. the rest of your argument is mute…whenever i do respond to this line of defense, I’m just going to keep posting the google AI response now because continuing to try to argue against it is just being stupid as there is no defense period. Either the human condition exists or it does not.
So the claim science is good is not considerate of the human condition. In that way its a question that has a serious problem there as its inescapable that fallible humanity does science. An object or process cant be good or bad in and of itself in any case…the object or process (in this case science) isnt capable of making choices…that is the human element.
I also think it absurd to claim that two scientists who have different results or even different conclusions from the same results…that one is a pseudoscientist and the other not and yet that is often the claim on these forums. I think those who cite pseudoscience need to remind themselves of the discovery by Mary Schweitzer…that soft tissue is found from time to time in dinosaur bones (the previous “theory/belief” was that this was not possible it must have been pseudoscience. The criticisms came from both sides…well what of that scientific theory now eh?)
The really funny thing is, MAry uses the defense that this find cannot support young earth creationism because the rock layers where they were found are 60 million years old. one of the dating methods for the age of the rock formation is the fossils contained within it.
So if supporting evidence (ie fossils within the rock layer) now does not support its age, then that is very obviously strong evidence against the age given to the rock layer…the fossil evidence clearly does not support that its 60 million years old!
Insofar as it is good to understand truth about nature, science is good.
As stated, the methods of experimentation, measurement, analysis, consistency with data, and primary and secondary peer review, does indeed distinguish science from pseudoscience. YEC is absurd pseudoscience, because it rejects reality as found in nature.
Quit desecrating Mary Schweitzer’s work, you have been corrected before on this.
Schweitzer’s work was promptly publicized throughout the scientific media space. Her initial papers passed peer review and appeared in esteemed journals. The response varied from enthusiasm to skepticism, given that biologists are critical thinkers who do not ground their research on some uniform statement of faith. Her reports were groundbreaking, and she herself has stated that critical appraisal was entirely appropriate given the extraordinary findings. It is exactly due to such secondary peer review that scientific results eventually become established and we can be confident in their validity. She is heavily cited. She made professor, which is tough to get in paleontology, and has actively supervised graduate students. She is a recognized scientist whose lab continues to produce a steady stream of carefully documented research.
1 Like
oh really…
Firstly…i posted directly from Google AI…so the claim was not my own.
Next time, id suggest you actually read the reference before insulting intelligence with ignorant responses.
Once you have actually read the evdience, then respond…it is kinda stupid to assign outsourced referenced evidence to me when its not mine…address the reference with some evidence (published supporting references that deny the claim would be the intelligent thing to do as your own words are not qualified without evidence)
There are a number of problems you face:
-
there is little connection between the literature on cellular and soft tissue preservation in bones of ages of these three orders of magnitude. That is, there is a body of literature on cells and soft tissues in bones that are hundreds of years old (e.g., medieval bones), a body literature on cells and soft tissues in bones that are thousands of years old (e.g., late Pleistocene and early Holocene bones), and a body of literature on cells and soft tissues in bones that are millions of years old (e.g., pre-Pleistocene fossil bones), with little connection between the three bodies of literature. Philip J. SenterArticle number: 25.3.a34
Soft tissues in fossil bone
Copyright Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, December 2022 -
Fenton reactions as a proposed defense - The truth of the matter is that “Fenton reactions” are THOUGHT to be capable of doing this…again, a theoretical claim where a proposed theory is used as evidential proof of conclusion/belief!
-
Answers in Genesis have criticised Schwietzers tests in that the amount of Iron in the tests she did to try to prove the cross-linking theory is many times higher than what actually exists in the animal in the first place…so Schweitzers teams theory there falls flat on its ass straight away…they added a percentage of iron many times greater than what occurs naturally in order to obtain that result supposedly proving cross linking as a possible reason for preservation. So of course the next thing to do would be to try to develop a theory as to how that much iron could exist in order to preserve the tissue (and back to point 2 above we go…“theory supporting/proving a theory”)
-
Mary states…
“It seems as though the preservation of vessels through deep time may not be that uncommon,” said Schweitzer, who’s now a professor of biology emeritus at NC State. “But the work still must be done on a case-by-case basis, because so far there isn’t any evidence that a particular preservation environment is best.”
Generally, I do not respond to lazy AI posts, but if you insist, from Google AI…
Yes, Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community. YEC claims the Earth and universe are only a few thousand years old, directly contradicting the overwhelming scientific evidence for a much older age. YEC often focuses on biblical literalism and selectively uses arguments to support this belief, rather than engaging in a rigorous scientific investigation.
Here’s why YEC is considered pseudoscientific:
- Lack of Empirical Evidence:
YEC relies on interpretations of the Bible and anecdotal evidence, rather than empirical data gathered through the scientific method.
- Falsification Difficulty:
YEC claims can be made unfalsifiable by attributing all evidence that contradicts their view to God’s creation.
- Conflict with Established Sciences:
YEC contradicts established scientific fields like geology, paleontology, and cosmology, which have decades of research and supporting evidence.
- Focus on Support for Preexisting Beliefs:
YEC proponents often prioritize confirming their beliefs rather than testing their ideas against scientific evidence.
- Lack of Testable Hypotheses:
YEC claims often lack testable hypotheses, and they do not use the scientific method to explore the natural world, making it difficult to verify or falsify their claims.
In essence, YEC presents claims as scientific, but without engaging in the rigor and methods of science. It is important to distinguish between religious beliefs and scientific inquiry.
1 Like
you have not addressed the reference…all you are doing there is providing a definition of what pseudoscience apparently is and who are attributed to doing it.
Come on Ron, please dont insult my intelligence…go back and actually address the reference appropriately…smoke screening is stupid and that is what you are doing there.
Whilst you are contemplating that, let me give you some more actual evidence …from Marys own mouth:
“So don’t rule out a fossil as appropriate for molecular analyses because of depositional environment or age. Those factors don’t seem to matter,” Schweitzer Scientific Reports on Feb. 4
oh by the way…supporting reference for Answers in Genesis criticism for elevated iron levels is found in Google AI
By the way, the elevated iron levels in the Ostrich samples they tested allowed the samples to survive for about 2 years…thats a long way short of 60 million years even at the said “artificially elevated iron levels”!
Back to the topic at hand…again, we have not got any evidence here that actually supports the notion that science has any capacity to be good or bad. Its the human condition that determines one or the other and this is what i have maintained as a result of the evidence i have researched some of which i have referenced here on this thread.