Biased Interpretation?

It might (only might) minimize personal bias. It does not eliminate it. However, that isn't a real problem. I have certainly seen scientists arguing for their pet idea with a great deal of bias.What the method does do is eliminate the systematic, community wide bias. You can argue strongly for your personal view but others will not listen unless you have evidence, unless you show a logical connection from evidence to conclusion, and unless you can suggest ways to test your ideas.Based on this, more perfect and less perfect depending on the individual, common idea of the "rules of the game" a consensus arises which, while always possible to argue with, does gradually become more and more solidly sorted out. We have asked for this other mechanism a number of times. No one suggests even the most sketal of ideas for one.As for your issues with rock dateing:It might get us a bit off topic here, you are right.
They are both based on a lack of understanding of the methods used and are not problems or an explanation for the results obtained. If you are curious about that you could take it to dates and dating.They are not an example of a different interpretation. They are an example of not knowing enough about the facts of the matter. There can not be a valid "different interpretation" until all the facts are known, included and considered.

Hi LQ,You started with: I commented: Do you think anyone other than a creationist would suggest a different mechanism? No one has described one. What biases? What biases have been identified? That is one of the problems we haven't had them pointed out. It is true that an individual may be unable to see their own biases (like a fish may not notice the water) but that might be able to be overcome if they are pointed out.However, as noted above: scientists in general are not biased against the exitance of God (thanks Trixie for reminding us to point that out) and consider all the facts available which forces creationists to make up stories to arrive at a different conclusion.Separately from a different mechanism creationists could use the process of science to show a bias. They can take the evidence, review it offer unbiased (or differently biased) analysis and interpretations. If this analysis arrives at a different conclusion it might uncover a hidden bias by the current scientific community.

I would be interested in any results. I think we have put (or Trixie for one has) the "no god" one to bed. Does everyone agree? Shall I hold my breath?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-09-2005 14:53 AM

Boy am I sorry I used presuppositions. That wasn't really the topic. Sorry about that.We have, I thought determeined that theism (of one sort or another) isn't the issue since many scientists are theists and Christians.The real question was:What are the biases that the vast majority of scientists have that are producing wrong conclusions in the interpretation of all the facts at hand and only the facts at hand?What alternative conclusions can be drawn with different bias (or none) that also use all and only the facts?

Science doesn't aim so "high" as to find "truth". It attempts to find a best possible explanation for the facts that are at hand at the time.It is for sure that individuals go through this process with personal biases. The process itself and the community of those practicing it may have global bias (or whatever you wish to call them).It has been claimed, many times, that these biases produce erroneous results.The questions are: what are the biases? in what way do they lead to erroneous results? is there another process entirely that could be gone through for finding the best that we can find about the natural world?It seems the best way to demonstrate this is to itemize the biases and show how they affect the interpretation of all the facts and only the facts at hand. To show the logic leading to a different conclusion about the natural world that some creationists claim are wrong.Why hasn't this been forthcoming after all this time?I do happen to think that we "know" (as best as we can) what the best explanation is now. I also think that there is only one working and workable method for finding things out about the natural world.When someone offers up an alternative it will be interesting to have a look at it.It isn't, I don't think, that we are blinded to the alternative; it is that one is simply not offered for examination.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-09-2005 20:24 AM

yes.I am wondering if you are a YEC creationist or a theistic evolutionist now. Could you clarify?The ID folks (as far as I have read) accept an old earth and that evolution can account for a large fraction of the change and diversity of life on earth. They all (I think all) think that there is no way that life could not arise from non-life without a designer of somesort intervening which is not about evolutionary theory anyway. They then think that there are specific details of evolution which can not arise by the currently understood mechansims. Which leaves a lot for evolution. Do these views coincide with yours.If so then we should take it all to an ID thread as that is a rather special subset arguement and not what we usually call creationist.Meanwhile I suspect (but haven't read yet) that the ID folk have problems doing real science and working from evidence but as I said let's leave that to an ID thread.There too we have asked for the evidence. There seems to be one "IC" thing after another even though IC has been shown to be not a useful concept here and when one example after another is shown not to be useful.

I'm afraid I didn't word the question very well. The main point was what your beliefs were relative to those you were pointing to as experts of some sort.Based on SFS's post it seems that you are making use of sources that do not agree with your beliefs. Perhaps you could clearify that in an ID thread somewhere. Not here!I would say that so far you have contributed nothing to the primary topic of this thread. That is: Take all the facts (or some reasonable subset) and offer a different interpretation to show where the bias of the vast majority of scientists (Christian and otherwise) is hidden. You have not contributed yet because you don't know what the facts are. You have to start there.In addition, you seem to think that anything which you believe is damaging to evolution as a solution leads to a specfific other interpretation. Unfortunately the best you can do down that path is leave no explanation. You would then, if you could get there, have to show why another explanation fits all the facts and how it fits them better than evolutionary theory. You haven't started yet.