Scientific Fact versus Interpretation

This is not exactly a fair assessment, especially based on the information provided to you. While some of it is theoretical in nature, a model based on current knowledge, that is different than "sheer speculation".In particular you seem to have problems with geologists discussing environments of formation. Yet you have not provided any geologic discussion on how environments are determined. It is not like geologists scratch their chins and then come up with some ad hoc theory of what "might have been". Environments are usually determined based on items which are distinctive/identifiable as part of environments today.As an analogy fingerprints and dna have been found to be specific to individuals. Would a prosecution's case be "sheer speculation" to you if they have fingerprints and dna which match the defendent?If you have a question on specific environmental assignation, and methods geologists use to make such an assignation, maybe you should ask for more information on it.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Calm faith, calm... I was suggesting that there may be evidentiary support for much of what you questioned, only the citations given did not get into those details. The purpose of the cites did not seem to be how geologists concluded some material belonged to a certain paleoenvironment.Yes it is an honest question to ask how they came to such a conclusion. But its not fair to act as if there is no answer to that question, based on papers regarding the general nature of strata.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

If all geology had was what was written there, then that would clearly be conjecture. I'd agree with you completely.However, isn't it simply conjecture on your part that there is no science behind the assignations, that that is all geologists have... blank statements?Why don't you ask/investigate how specific assignments were made for different rock formations, instead of assuming all citations will include all details?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

1) You have NOT substantiated that assignments are mere conjecture. That would require discussing how geologists made the assignment. If it was based on nothing or very little evidence then it would be conjecture. I would agree with you. But you have not shown that.2) What you have shown is commentary which discusses a wholly separate subject than how geologists assign paleo-environments. I do not think it is fair to take comments out of context in order to treat something as unsupported conjecture.For example if the police announce that they have arrested a suspect for murder, and describe the crime as they believe it happened, it is not correct for me to say they only have conjecture because all the evidence (and how they handled it) was not in the description of their theory regarding the incident. Only by asking/investigating what evidence they have for that scenario do we then get the ability to argue conjecture. I agree that there is some dramatic license taken with imagery of the past, as well as descriptions of how things behaved in the past. That is not the same as discussing what event or environment produced a formation. The latter is normally based on signatures that are unique to an environment, and would require an explanation for its presence if it had NOT had contact with that environment.You are correct that scientists are likely to be brief and less explanatory to layman, but that sort of makes sense doesn't it? It is easier to discuss the theoretical scenario/model, than discuss all the evidence and how it was analyzed. How would a layman understand what that meant? Or how interested would they be?If they are interested there usually is data they can access. Is there a reason that this is unfair?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Do you really believe that geologists do not explain how they identify desert environmental deposits? That they do not have criteria and are trying to hide this fact?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Yes, if all scientists had were statements like the ones you showed, then it would be conjecture. However in other places where they discuss the topic of identifying depositional environment, they discuss how this is done.My point about this is simple and obvious. You are expecting something more from your cited quotes than is necessary for what they were, and then using that to argue what science has in toto.That is unless you are changing the stated goal of this topic from "interpretation" to "discussion for layman". Yes layman do not get full details, but the details are out there if layman look for them.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-16-2006 12:55 AM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

From an earlier reply... Why are they unable to be tested? I could have sworn that's what my professor was doing for his work in geology. Just because the methods are not completely spelled out in one citation does not mean there was no work (beyond fantasization) put into such an assignment.But part of me is still wondering how you classify one thing as conjecture and another as not. From your own post, an example of "fact"... All I see is telling. They do not explain how they determined any of what they say. I mean what is schist v quartz? How do they know? Because they look alike/different? I cannot tell from this how anything is determined, though there are citations where I assume I can find more information, and perhaps more citations there.So you accept the above as "fact", though there is NO explanation for methods, then have an issue with... Explain to me how this is any different than the first quote? In fact this almost seems to have a more clearcut assignation process. Both make statements assigning characteristics to deposits and give citations to work which made that assignation possible.Despite claiming it was all fantasy work, nowhere did I see you mention or quote from the articles cited in your quote. Do you know what work Babcock, Anderson and Silver, and Bowring and Karlstrom did? Have you looked at their papers?If not, isn't it purely conjecture on your part that this assignation is untestable and pure conjecture?I decided to help you out by looking for at least one of the articles (I chose Bowring and Karlstrom). My extremely brief search did not result in that article, but I did find one of Karlstrom's latest (2005), which is essentially the same subject.Please take a look at this article and explain what is wrong with the methodology they use. I'd be particularly interested in substantiations of your claim that they are not concerned with testing, and create fantasies which are not capable of being tested. Do you consider creationist work open to the same criticism as geologists? If not, why not? Could you show me pieces where they explain the methods behind their assignations of content and depositional environment which are testable?If so, how do you feel creo explanations compare to geo explanations? Does one group's theories carry greater weight based on greater corroboration from evidence (ie greater explanatory power)?This message has been edited by holmes, 03-16-2006 12:00 PMThis message has been edited by holmes, 03-16-2006 12:01 PM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

You mean you can apply pieces of fiction to your own sheer speculations?
Heheheh.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Actually, I am curious, though I know you are a geologist, what is your area of study? Since you said the paper helped, are you working on "big picture" research regarding history of formations/landscape, or "smaller picture" ways of identifying/classifying depositional environments of structures?This message has been edited by holmes, 03-17-2006 11:58 AM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

My post #82 dealt only with your specific examples from the OP. To summarize, it is not clear what is interpretation v factual statements according to you. Examples of both kinds contained the same thing, scientists describing what they believe to be true about something based on examination/testing, with no direct explanation of what tests they did and so how they made such assignments. I gave direct quotes from your OP in my earlier post but will leave them out here for brevity.In all cases they gave citations to literature one could go to in order to see what they did and so how they made their classifications. While you asserted that one group of statements were wholly conjecture, you never addressed the studies cited to show in fact that it was wholly conjecture on their part. That means it is conjecture on your part, that that is what they engage in.I went to look up the studies cited in your example, but being a bit lazy settled for a similar paper by the same author. It is the same general topic and would have the same methodology, and is very recent, showing how the author has moved on from previous research (this study actually cites the study I was originally looking for). Here is a link to that paper. Please examine it and show examples of how they engage in sheer speculation, and do not allow for testing of their hypothesis... indeed that they do not engage in testing themselves.It is only by addressing the actual research underlying claims made by science can one make statements as damning as the ones you have made.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Read these words carefully. You said they were engaged in sheer speculation. And later suggested that these were fantastic scenarios without ability to be tested. That is not clear on the face of what you gave at all. That would require looking at the material that what you quoted actually CITED for you to go to to see if you had questions.You cannot quote them, including a citation of where to go if you have questions on how they made determinations, and then act as if they made an error by not explaining how they made determinations. Obviously THAT ARTICLE was not meant to explain the detail you are desiring. The one they cite is. That is why I gave you essentially the same citation (same author and subject).So either take back your comments that it is sheer speculation and fantasy scenarios unable to be tested, or go to the material and show that it is so. First of all the assignments of depositional environment are just as factual as those regarding the content of strata. That is what I was trying to show with my post.Second, I argued that it makes sense to have less detailed (synopsized) versions of data for layman. Does this not make sense? Why not? To you it may sound more forceful of a conclusion, but that does not make it any less factual than statements regarding strata content.Third, I absolutely do agree that some artistic license is put into imagery and writings about ancient life for layman. I still have flawed concepts based on old images of brontosaurs, as well as other dinosaurs given the ol' hollywood touch in Jurassic Park. And yes some scientists in that field do make comments beyond what they are capable of making given the level of evidence they are working with. I agreed with some of Wells' commentary regarding this particular subject (some of it was pretty funny too). But that does not blacken all paleontological research, and it has NOTHING to do with geology.It seems to me that your criticism is better directed at laymen than at scientists. They should read general descriptions with the knowledge that some evidence may not be complete (more data may change a current model) and that graphic commentary is more representational than photo quality.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

From earlier post... It is before quoting them factually, or more importantly criticizing their work in a way that purports to be a factual criticism, such as... That message is clear. NOTHING but PROPAGANDA. ALL THEY HAVE... BIG FAT IMAGINATIVE FANTASY. Those are criticisms using factual statements, based on what?That is what I have been trying to get you to deal with. Here is a link to a paper on the topic you used in the OP by one of the cited authors. It is only by dealing with what is in that article that you can show there is nothing but propaganda and imaginative fantasy. Please examine it and show examples of how they engage in sheer speculation, and do not allow for testing of their hypothesis... indeed that they do not engage in testing themselves. Well if its as blatant as you say, why not prove your point by dealing with the article presented? It would seem to be useful for others to see if there is anything behind your conjectures besides base propaganda.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Faith, I am dealing directly with your example. Your example was a quote. Part of that quote included a citation for those wanting to know how the assignment of environment was made. YOU are claiming that the assignment was made using pure speculation, so I went to the citation which your quote gave to find out if it was pure speculation or not.Now it is true that I ended up finding (and am using) a different paper than that cited in your quote, and if that is a problem then I will keep trying to find the specific article mentioned. However I do not see what the difference is if it is by the same author, researching the same region, for the same assignment purposes, using the same techniques, and uses the paper cited in your quote as part of the base for this article.This should show whether you are right that the authors used pure speculation to reach their assignments of environmental deposition/formation.It is not enough for you to say look at this quote, see what they did, and then refuse to look at what that quote says, including data or articles it specifically points you to go to for clarification on the very points you are criticizing.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Is that your guess as to how geologic assignment is done, or do you know how it is done?And your "guess" statement reintroduces the scenario edge gave you earlier regarding finding ash and determining it to be volcanic, or my scenario regarding the police with dna and fingerprint evidence linking a person to a crime no one actually saw him do. Is it just guessing?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Here is a link to a paper which should answer your question to some degree, if directed at the people in your OP. Is there a reason you cannot deal with it, and resort to incredulity as your only defense?

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)