|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scientific Rules Of Evidence. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi all,
I need to draw on your collective knowledge, if I may. Can anyone reference, or point out where I can find the scientific rules of evidence, as opposed to the judicial set. I'm finding lots of reference to it, but no mention of where I may find the document. [Added by edit] IF such a thing doesn't exist, then what criteria are applied to evidence so that scientists know it is admissable? Many thanks, Mark [This message has been edited by mark24, 09-09-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ The truth is that there are no such rules. Every referee of a paper and every editor of a journal decides themselves what is admissable. One does not learn any such rules in BSc or PhD courses - at least at one of Australia's premier mainstream universities.
If I wanted to, as a stunt, I could write a genomics paper that suggests that the pattern of protein family distribution in genomes is reminiscent of creation kinds and the referres would have absolutely no scientific reason to force me to withdraw that line. Protein families appear in higher life forms without a hint of where they came from - they are very suggestive of creation. It would only be utter mainstream bias that could allow such an interpretaiton to be withheld from publication. Can you see that the scientific, mathematical and computational methods I would use would be no different to that of any other mainstream scientist. I would use sequence alignment tools and clustering and citations to show that protein families occur in conserved blocks and that new blocks of proteins appear from nowhere in higher taxa. It is simply the interpretaiton at the end that you don't like. You are on an utterly futile witchhunt. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-09-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ The truth is that there are no such rules. Every referee of a paper and every editor of a journal decides themselves what is admissable. One does not learn any such rules in BSc or PhD courses - at least at one of Australia's premier mainstream universities. http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Smilies/smile.gif>
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ The truth is that there are no such rules. Every referee of a paper and every editor of a journal decides themselves what is admissable. One does not learn any such rules in BSc or PhD courses - at least at one of Australia's premier mainstream universities. A pity Australia's premier mainstream universitites don't teach science properly anymore. Guess you have not bothered to look at the information for authors in most academic journals either. If I wanted to, as a stunt, I could write a genomics paper that suggests that the pattern of protein family distribution in genomes is reminiscent of creation kinds and the referres would have absolutely no scientific reason to force me to withdraw that line. As a stunt I could right a genomics paper on 18S rDNA sequence variation in Puff the Magic Dragon and his relatives and get it rejected as the stupidity it is as well. Have fun trying. Protein families appear in higher life forms without a hint of where they came from - they are very suggestive of creation. It would only be utter mainstream bias that could allow such an interpretaiton to be withheld from publication. It would be utter ignorance to think that the data is suggestive of creation. Define protein family...in another post you said that DNA is unimportant as well which is interesting for someone who keeps calling themselves a molecular bio scientist. Also define higher life form...bacteria are more numerous and have a more efficient genome than mammals...they are a higher life form.... Can you see that the scientific, mathematical and computational methods I would use would be no different to that of any other mainstream scientist. I would use sequence alignment tools and clustering and citations to show that protein families occur in conserved blocks and that new blocks of proteins appear from nowhere in higher taxa. It is simply the interpretaiton at the end that you don't like. If the blocks came from nowhere there would be nothing to align in the first place and how do you use clustering algorithms to demonstrate appearance out of nowhere? Nothing clustering with something? It is simply your utter lack of comprehension of molecular biology and basic science that you don't like. You are on an utterly futile witchhunt. You are a fundie zealot have a nice day
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ Tell me when you find hemoglobin in a prokaryotic genome.
Perhaps it might be lack of sequence hits that might indicate a new protein family? Evoltuion/creaiton aside, if you think there is no 'order' to life, that there are not higher life forms then you have probably watched too much Star Trek. I think you need to study comparative genomics and you'll discover that the simplest life forms are essentially just metabolic machines. Multicellular creatures have these core genomes + swags of receptors and signalling moelcules for cell-cell interactions. Higher life ends up with up to about 300 differnetiated cell types. Organisms with brains have brain proteins. Organisms with immune systems have immune system proteins. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-09-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: What witchhunt would that be? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ From a genomic point of view we know that genes appear in large blocks. Some life forms don't have many of these blocks. Others have lots of these blocks. We, and most vertebrates for example, have more blocks of genes than anything else. A core genome is sort of like the minimal genome for metabolic life. There are people working on how small this core genome could be - about 200 genes perhaps.
Once you get into comparative genomics the Star Trek-like idea that maybe bacteria are as complex as us is seen for what it is - an utterly ludicrous myth. We have just about everything that bacteria have and many times over this - not just copied but dozens of times more brand new systems. We are more complex than bacteria. Drop the PCness, the bacteria really can't hear you - trust me. Genomics has completelyt blown away the 1980s idea of 'we can't really say what is complex and what isn't'. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ I'll define genomic complexity with complete confidence:
Genomic complexity is proportional to the number of distinct protein families. I suspect this definition will turn out to be roughly equivalent to the number of cell types. If you don't like that that is fine with me. Most genomic evoltuionists would agree with me that this is a useful definition. I don't have a problem that it puts us at near equal complexity with mice and apes. It just doesn't bother me. My definition of complexity has no creationist agenda.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: glad to hear it...but a "progression" of complexity does not logically follow what is seen in nature. And you assume many systems are "simple" when they clearly are not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AtheistArchon Inactive Member |
- Why don't I pitch in here... so far nobody has really answered his question.
- Science, in regards to scientific theory, uses empirical evidence; nothing else will do. Science absolutely requires evidence which can be tested many times by many people. Personal testimony does not suffice, because people can be biased, lying, or just plain mistaken. - Judicial evidence can be empirical, certainly, but we (as in the court system) also rely upon personal testimony. I'm not a large fan of this system, myself, but it is probably the best thing available at the time. - As for a link with 'official' rules of evidence for the courts... I am at a loss, I'm afraid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
acmhttu001_2006 Inactive Member |
First of all,
Good question. Second of all,They are right, there is no document which states what is to be accepted as evidence and what is to be rejected. To help answer this question a little more in depth, I would like to propose the following. I believe that science exhitbits nine characterisitcs. And no this is not entirely my own list, I have colloborated with a great professor [my opnion] in my own list of characterisitcs and have modified mine when it needed to be modified. I will only list the relative ones that will relate to this question. 1. SCIENCE IS BASED ON EVIDENCE - well duh, but what kind? Physical, Observable and Empirical. Evidence does not always have to come from controlled experiments. Obviously the Thoery of Relativity did not come from experimentation when it was first formulated. 2. IT IS TESTABLE - Based on the evidence we can formulate a hypothesis, but is must be testable. You can state how you would theoretically test it, again the thoery of relativity, which was not proven until a few years ago. 4. IT IS PUBLIC - All observations and results of testing is made public to the rest of the scientific communinity for verification and acceptance. It is not kept private - for that would not be science in its strictest sense. 5. IT IS SELF-CORRECTING - which merely states that science does make mistakes - take a look at the early models of cell membranes or the atom. Why is it self-correcting? Becuase it is made public, therefore others can test the findings and if they duplicate it - fine, if not, then it needs to either be revised or rejected. 6. IT IS NON-AUTHORITARIAN - There is no one expert who is the President of science who dictates how things have to be done or what evidence is accepted or rejected. That is why there is no document or source that lays down the law. Science is all about learning the world around us, how would we learn about it in a fair and unbiased way if there was a standard in how we could do it - ex. someone dictating evidence acceptance criteria. Now granted we have standard procedures for certain things, ex. physical constants, laws, things of that nature. 7. IT IS CONSENSUAL - Example - We accept that the model that best works for us in regards to the cell membrane is the fluid-mosiac model. Why? Becuase it is accepted by most of the scientific community of biology. There is a consensus that this model is correct as of today - not to say it may change with new evidence someday. 8. IT IS TENTATIVE - Science changes as new things are discovered. Again one of the models of the cell membrane was the sandwich model. Did not work, when the electron microscope came on the scene around the 1950s. The model was changed based upon the new evidence. All nine do relate to this question. Based on the above characterisitcs of science [or I should say good science], evidence to be accepted must meet all these requirements. It does need to be based off something we can see or gather data in whether it is application in nature or theoretical in nature. It needs to be public so it can see if it can gain acceptance by the consensus of the scientific community. If it can, then this would be good evidence to accept. If it cannot fit the criterium then you would really need to think hard about accepting it. If it does not fit this criterium, it does not belong to the Magesterium of Science, it would belong to another Magesteria.Hope this helped.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
James J Inactive Member |
Although my field of expertise differs with the majority here, the principals of discovery should remain the same.
If you have a theory, and it is correct, you should be able to turn the results on and off with a specific set of circumstances applied. If you can't accomplish that- it's just a theory, nothing more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Pardon? What does that mean James?
"just a theory" -- like the two theories of gravity, like the atomic theory, like the germ theory? Maybe you need to figure out what a theory is and/or put forward your definition. Turn results on and off? Like shut gravity off?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024