|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scientific Fact versus Interpretation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
What I was trying to say needs no such investigations. It is quite clear on the face of it,
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.
The whole point is that what is conjecture is nevertheless frequently presented to nonscientists as if it were fact. This is actually more often encountered in presentations of the scenarios of supposed ancient life that develop from the ToE. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
It doesn't matter how it is stated by scientists. It is up to all of us to examine the reason why any statement is made. We should understand how a conclusion was arrived at and decide for ourselves how much speculation and how much fact is involved in it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It is NOT the obligation of the average layperson to check things out that scientists say. And I used to try to check out the evidence for evolution as a matter of fact. Before I was a Christian. It's nothing but propaganda. And I don't think the scientists are trying to deceive anyone either. That's just all they have, this big fat imaginative fantasy.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2006 11:47 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
It is NOT the obligation of the average layperson to check things out that scientists say.
Correct. However, it is the obligation of those who challenge the factuality of scientific statements, to check out the evidence and provide data to support their criticism. In this case, you are the critic, and it is your obligation to support your challenge. Instead, we see you saying (in Message 103):
You are right, I ignored the paper. It is completely irrelevant to what I had to say. What I said is sufficient on the face of it, and that's that. Take it or leave it.
Sorry, but I see your Message 103 as an admission that you are making an baseless attack on science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
And I used to try to check out the evidence for evolution as a matter of fact. Before I was a Christian. So, becoming a Christian suddenly means that any and all evidence is now irrelevant?!
It's nothing but propaganda. In what way? I've never heard of propaganda that was based entirely on evidence and repeatable experimentation that has passed through a peer review process. Honestly, testing and attempting to disprove theories and giving them standing only when they have failed to be disproven is a pretty damned poor method for propaganda. See, with propaganda, the point is to make a population believe what you are saying, in spite of the evidence. With science and, say, evolutionary theory, the message is the result of evidence and experimentation from the natural world.
And I don't think the scientists are trying to deceive anyone either. That's just all they have, this big fat imaginative fantasy. That's funny. I don't think you are trying to deceive anyone, either - I just think all you have is complete faith in a very old collection of poorly translated and retranslated stories, because you willfully ignore any evidence presented to you which contradicts your book. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4676 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
Faith writes:
I really don't know what to say and remain civil, but I will give it a try. At least I can get some consolation in your having made the decision on what you were going to call mainstream geologists. Since they aren't trying to deceive anyone then you must believe they are all imbeciles. Remember, you eliminated deluded as a choice in an earlier post. It's nothing but propaganda. And I don't think the scientists are trying to deceive anyone either. That's just all they have, this big fat imaginative fantasy. In order to fully probe the depths of their abject stupidity, could you explain basis upon which you call their conclusions an imaginative fantasy? I'm really not sure if you have been asked this question more than 6 or 7 times. Yes, this is sarcastic and I am not apologetic about it, mainly because there's no hope of you really trying to answer the question anyway. You probably think it is "obvious" that the conclusions are wild speculation. Sorry, it's not obvious to me. I was ambivalent about the whole young earth/old earth debate when I first came to EvC. It was the astounding illogic, stubborn refusal to research or learn anything, and frankly unChristian actions of posters like you that turned me away from the YEC point of view. I was actually hoping that someone could come up with good arguements to support YEC, since I couldn't. I'm done with that now but I will keep an open mind, just in case. I guess I didn't succeed in being civil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't care. I have exactly the same feeling. What's the use indeed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
From earlier post...
It is NOT the obligation of the average layperson to check things out that scientists say.
It is before quoting them factually, or more importantly criticizing their work in a way that purports to be a factual criticism, such as...
It's nothing but propaganda. And I don't think the scientists are trying to deceive anyone either. That's just all they have, this big fat imaginative fantasy. 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.
What's the use indeed.
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  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I gave so many examples specifically in order to demonstrate what I mean. If they are not clear there is nothing more to say. I do not understand the furor and it's too dispiriting to try to deal with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
So you can't or won't substantiate your assertion that 'That's just all they have, this big fat imaginative fantasy'? You have no interest in supporting your position, you're just going to tell us what it is and expect that to be enough?
Perhaps, since you want this thread to be a special case in ignoring rule #4 of the forum guidelines, we should just close the topic? AbE: After considering AdminJar's post below, I'm going to add a request. Unless you want to begin substantiating your position or advancing the debate in some way, I'm asking you to opt out of responding further to the thread. That way it can remain open for anyone else supportive of your position to step in later on. This message has been edited by AdminModulous, Sun, 19-March-2006 05:55 PM New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
I would leave the topic open. Faith does seem to be either unwilling or unable to support her assertions but there is also no rule that says she needs to participate. However, the subject matter is important and the duscussion may well be of interest to others, lurkers and members alike, who will read the thread and perhaps learn from what is presented.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-19-2006 11:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I gave so many examples specifically in order to demonstrate what I mean.
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
On the thread about the Grand Canyon there appeared to be enough information for me to try to point out what bugs me the most about how scientists present their views, confusing their facts with their interpretations of the facts. I'd like to give an example of a legitimate, scientific, legally-accepted example of an interpretation of fact being accepted as a fact itself: DNA "fingerprinting." Almost everyone has seen a "DNA fingerprint" on TV, like on CSI or Law and Order: Almost nobody knows what they're actually looking at. I'll try and summarize the process. 1) A sample of DNA, such as that found at a crime scene, is "amplified" by a process called "PCR"; this chemical process uses enzymes and selective "primers" to replicate specific sequences of DNA millions of times. This results in millions of copies of a specific gene which makes it a lot easier to perform tests on it. The DNA is stained with a visible dye (which is often UV-florescent to improve the photographic results.) 2) Enzymes called "restriction enzymes" cut up these copies of DNA by recognizing specific sequences of base pairs (called "restriction sites"). When they see that sequence, they cut the DNA at that position. The DNA in our genes contains long sequences of repeating base pairs accumulated from mutation called "introns." They're irrelevant to the production of proteins but they are inherited by offspring. These nonsense sequences differ in length between individuals, but are almost identical in length between persons who have inherited the same copy of the gene (in other words, are related.) 3) The approximate length of these sequences is determined by a chromatographic process called "gel electrophoresis." DNA molecules have a slight negative electical charge, so when placed in a conductive solution between a positive and negative terminal, they move towards the positive electrode. A gel made out of a sticky sugar called "agarose" is created, basically just like jello. Like a fisher's net, small segments of DNA slip through but longer segments get tangled up. As a result the smaller segments move through the gel quickly, while long segments take longer. This spreads them out from top to bottom in order of length. In the image above, the longer sequences are at the top and the smaller are at the botom. Each band represents a concentration of stained DNA. 4) We photograph (because the DNA and gel are perishable) and interpret the results. When we compare the pictures of two samples, we can determine if they represent the results of this process performed on two copies of the same gene (actually, several genes at once are usually used). If they match up we know one of two things: A) The samples share the same gene because they're samples from the same person (this would be how we might prosecute a rape from semen left at the scene and a blood sample from a suspect), or B) The samples share the same gene because they're samples from two people who are related. Basic genetics can tell us, based on how many genes they share, the specific nature of the relation (father and child, brother and sister, maternal or paternal uncle, etc.) Remember this is all based on the interpretation of the black bands in the photograph above, but that interpretation is accepted fact in every civil and courtroom in the country. Accepting interpretation as fact is not unreasonable, when that interpretation is the only reasonable one from the facts at hand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Crash, there are a million ways to TEST those results and that is why they are accepted in courtrooms. They've BEEN tested. There have to have been countless comparisons of DNA samples belonging to living people to show its correspondence to relatedness.
In the case of the ToE and OE there is no opportunity to test an interpretation because it's all about one-time events in the distant past. It may seem very reasonable from the evidence, from a certain appearance of a rock, say, to guess that it went through the stresses of mountain building or started life on a sea shore millions of years ago, but since ALL you have is your guess about this one time ancient event, it should never be called fact. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2006 05:01 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Oh, so you DO accept that genes are the basis for all heredity?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024