Comparitive delusions

How very odd indeed. Have you never said that the quotes you gave were in support of your idea that scientists were giving conjectures or interpretive conclusions as hard facts?I had the distinct impression that you did. And yet the very quotes you gave are, in some cases, NOT doing what you say they are.

I still don't think you get my point. If I write or read a scientific paper on let's say the genetics of flies, the paper will not describe the structure of DNA, will not explain the theory behind the polymerase chain reaction, will not explain Mendelian inheritance etc. etc. The paper will describe a set of facts, usually experimental, that support a hypothesis. The explanations of the background science on which the study rests will be CITED in the text. This means, if you want to know what evidence the current study rests on (beyond anything novel presented) you have to go to the cited references and the citations within them. Sounds like a lot of work? It is...that is why it takes a lot of work to be a scientist or to be an informed layperson. Once you are familiar with a field you don't need to go to every citation since you will already know the background. But up to that point, just picking a paper and claiming they are making wild speculations when you yourself have no idea what evidence they have should disturb you more than how scientists present their research...again, it is like protesting a film or book you have never seen or read respectively.

I don't think you get MY point. All that is fine and dandy when you are talking about repeatable experiments and there ARE cited works. All the comparison of present-time studies are completely beside the point because they are repeatable. The ancient past isn't.What I'm talking about is mostly popularized accounts (but my examples show they are not ALL just popularized accounts) of whole imaginative constructions of what the planet was like millions of years ago, or what a particular creature was, all conjectures about an ancient time it is impossible to test, impossible to repeat -- and that's fine too, that people make conjectures, but what bugs me is that these conjectures are DESCRIBED AS IF THEY WERE FACT SET IN STONE. Even if there are citations of evidence the scenario was built on, such a scenario cannot be FACT but it is in fact treated as fact. See my examples in I think the 4th post of the thread about interpretation vs. fact.And again, I'm not suggesting a THING about motivations. Just pointing out the phenomenon. If everybody weren't so completely on the defensive about it, maybe you'd stop and wonder about it too.

I believe a couple others here had the good sense to recognize that my examples were examples of what I labeled them as examples of. The evidence is there clearly labeled. If somebody thinks they aren't what they claim to be there is no way to answer that. You either get it or you don't. You don't. Nothing more to say about it.

Hi Faith,
I do see your point actually. But I see you conflating evidence that is not presented but cited with speculation.What you object to is for example, if someone says T. rex skin was green and that it is a fact. That would be speculation. The Discovery Channel and BBC often have ancient animal specials where they do, in my opinion, mislead people into believing what they are presented are established fact rather than a scenario. On this we are in agreement. But you conflate ALL evidence presented with this type of speculation. Curiously, you are exceptionally uncritical about the wild speculation of a literal account of the bible but that is for another thread.Here is a different example which touches on your criticism of the study of the past. I have no records, evidence, or information about my great great great great grandfather on my maternal side. However, it is a fact that I had one, that he reproduced sexually, that he transmitted DNA to the next generation that eventually winded up with me sharing many versions of his genes by identity by descent. That is also not repeatable or observable. My own specific conception was not observed nor is it repeatable. Do you doubt that I had a such an ancestor and that I am genetically related to him? Do you doubt that I was the result of a conception event? I can infer both by examining my genes and those of my parents (I have actually done this for my own mitochondrial DNA), other humans etc. without directly observing either. I can establish both as fact from thousands of scientific experiments in thousands of different species that show that this type of inheritance is how it works. Forensic science, genetics, population genetics, the genetics of speciation, phylogeny, identity by descent all rest on the same process. One can go back in time with ancient DNA and see exactly the same processes operating in the past as the present. There are other independent lines of evidence such as the study of fossils that support the same conclusions without reference to DNA. Thus, one can make very concrete statements about past events using current experiments and observations without it being unsupported speculation. One can use that information to make future predictions which is in effect how anti-viral medicines against HIV for example are developed. Contrary to your opinion, it is highly effective science that is even used in application based research.I am not defensive but am trying to get you to see my point.

Yes, you accurately identified what was fact and what was interpretive in my post. We ALL see that, no need to keep harping on that fact.What you have NOT done is support the assertion that interpretive statements are by default wild speculation and completely unsupported conjecture. And that is what mammuthus is attempting to get you to understand.This is a messageboard and we are not writing research papers nor theses, so you will not see a citation for each and every scientific conclusion or statement made. Instead of accusing people of purposely obfuscating a thread with techinical jargon, why not simply ask for people to elaborate? Why is that so hard to do?

Taking a look at the OP – rather than this being reserved for another thread I think that's largely the point of this thread

I haven't accused anybody of anything.You agree about what was fact and what was interpretive. That's enough. Speaking about what is interpretive AS IF IT WERE FACT is what I was complaining about, and that you do and all scientists do.The interpretations are about the ancient past which there is no way to corroborate, so they CANNOT BE FACT. That's all I'm saying. All you can do is multiply possibilities. You can't test your hypotheses about a scenario about the distant past.People keep giving examples of present-day studies for comparison, which obviously can't be compared to hypotheses about the distant past because they can be replicated and tested.I've said this over and over too, and there's nothing more to say.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-21-2006 01:41 PM

That we all have ancestors way back is known. Of course there are thousands of repeatable experiments you can do for that sort of thing. Again you are comparing a known with an unknown.You cannot know AS A FACT though that is how it is talked about, that there was a sea in a certain location such and such millions of years ago, or that anything in the fossil record is genetically related to anything else in the fossil record or that a rock was formed in a mountain building event MYA. Etc. NOT AS A FACT. But it is spoken of as a fact.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-21-2006 01:47 PM

Help me out here.What people are objecting to is your characterisation of scientiifc conclusions you object to as "pure conjecture", when you do not know, and do not care to take the time to discover whether it is true or not.You seem determined to avoid discussing this - the major point of contention - instead talking about the question of whether the results should be considered interpretation or not which appears to be a non-issue. Why is this ? Do you feel that all interpetation is "pure conjecture" ?e

Faith, What repeatable experiments do this?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Oh my lord, Faith! You accused me and every other scientist of making stuff up.The reason scientists sound as if certain interpretations are fact is because they have accepted those intepretations as valid or 'factual' based on the weight of the evidence, but those interpretations are entirely contingent on the available and future evidence. That means while we are convinced they are good interpretations today, they are still tentative as far as tomorrow is concerned.If my interpretations sounded like I was repeating fact, then that's because I consider them to be very well-supported by the literature I've read (in many other papers and research projects!) and the evidence I've seen. It can too be tested, Faith. You just refuse to accept that fact because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. You CHOOSE to ignore what you have been shown numerous times on this forum. Why not?Why can't deposition of limestone today be compared against limestone 10,000 years ago? They have the same chemistry, same mineralogy, and support basically the same organisms.Why can't evaporite deposits be tested against evaporite deposits in the rock record? They are composed of the same minerals, exhibit the same textures and structures.Why can't soil profiles today be compared with ancient soil profiles when they exhibit almost the exact same horizons, vegetative component, etc.?There is absolutely no reason these things cannot be COMPARED.

I have to second mark24's question...what repeatable experiments demonstrate that we have ancestors? How do I know that I am the product of an egg fertilized by sperm...never saw that and I cannot go back and demonstrate it for me specifically.
I have as much information (or lack thereof) of my great great great great grandfather as I do of the intermediate relatives of the mammoths that I sequenced DNA from and modern elephants...yet I know for a fact that mammoths are extinct elephantids and I know I had a great great great great grandfather...Actually, have more info on the mammoths than my own relatives since I have the bones, the locality they were found in and their radiocarbon ages...according to you, my having ancestors is all wild speculation based on propaganda..or it should be if you want to be consistent

My guess is that unless you can trace your ancestors back in an unbroken line to before the stinkin' 'Flood,' Faith won't have a problem with your example.

But that is not my point. She is saying forensics, genetics, or merely the principle of genetic relationships to ancestors you have no records of are fine because it is reproducible science. But she then says anything in the past is speculation. This is completely inconsistent the study of heredity always has a component in the past. I have absolutely no information about even my recent ancestors back a few generations. No records, no bones, no eye witness accounts, no experimental evidence. If she is consistent, she should claim that it is wild speculation on my part that I ever had any ancestors other than the ones I personally know..and even that is tenuous because I did not actually measure each conception event up to and including my own to determine if I am actually related to my known relatives.She is cherry picking evidence to fit her worldview and rejecting evidence of equal or better merit on completely inconsistent (and false) grounds.