Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 8:39 PM
25 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,193 Year: 5,230/19,786 Month: 1,352/873 Week: 248/460 Day: 64/29 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56789
10
Author Topic:   Scientific Fact versus Interpretation
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3929 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 136 of 144 (296770)
03-20-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
03-20-2006 8:29 AM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
You can't require me to read an entire article, holmes.

I read your entire post, including the quotes you gave. What is the problem with me asking you to read an article you pretty much directly damned in your post?

If you hadn't read it, or such papers then how can you criticize? I guess I'm not suggesting that you have to read it. But if you haven't and you won't, then I am suggesting you have to take back your assertions regarding what is contained therein.

I'm not going to read a whole article on geological technicalities.

You asked HOW, those "technicalities" are the answer to YOUR question. I am sorry the answer is not easy, but you asked the question. And even saying that it was a rhetorical question doesn't help your case. In fact, it makes it worse.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 03-20-2006 8:29 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3929 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 137 of 144 (296771)
03-20-2006 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by NosyNed
03-20-2006 10:00 AM


Re: Another hit against Faith thesis too
Oh dear, an entire article.

What's that saying? You can lead a horse to an article, but you can't make her read it? Or was that a jackass? I forget.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by NosyNed, posted 03-20-2006 10:00 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by NosyNed, posted 03-20-2006 10:34 AM Silent H has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 138 of 144 (296776)
03-20-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Silent H
03-20-2006 10:27 AM


Same "kind" so makes no difference.
Or was that a jackass? I forget.

See the post title (hint, hint at using appropriate post titles !!! )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Silent H, posted 03-20-2006 10:27 AM Silent H has not yet responded

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 2546 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 139 of 144 (296780)
03-20-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
03-20-2006 8:47 AM


quote:
I see my question was not thorough enough. That much I could already guess myself, no, not the details but the basic idea.

Hmm, why ask the question if you know the answer? Anyway...

quote:
What I'm really objecting to is the idea of a whole scenario of a sea that once existed for millions of years. That a rock can be shown to have been once in a marine environment I really don't dispute. It's the whole OE scenario I have a problem with. Sorry about my lack of clarity.

Well, whatever. You can have a problem with it if you want - just as long as you realise that, so far, it's the only explanation we've got that hasn't been falsified.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 03-20-2006 8:47 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 214 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 140 of 144 (296787)
03-20-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by crashfrog
03-19-2006 9:47 PM


DNA evidence
Test how? I mean, these techniques are literally the sole evidence that is putting people in jail.

Perhaps this has happened in the past, but I'd be surprised. I suppose you are technically correct — people have been arrested on this kind of evidence, but I don't know anyone convicted soley on this kind of evidence. As the case of the invalid who was arrested for committing a burglary 200kms from his home confirms.

It doesn't really detract from your central point, but I thought it important to clear it up – and it's an interesting story too :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2006 9:47 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by crashfrog, posted 03-20-2006 1:20 PM Modulous has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 141 of 144 (296788)
03-20-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
03-20-2006 8:29 AM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
quote:
You can't require me to read an entire article, holmes.

LOL!!

Oh, poor little dear, being expected to read an entire article!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 03-20-2006 8:29 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 144 (296802)
03-20-2006 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Modulous
03-20-2006 11:11 AM


Re: DNA evidence
As the case of the invalid who was arrested for committing a burglary 200kms from his home confirms.

An interesting case, but he was later exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence so I'm not sure what your one example proves. But you're right - it's rare. Usually there's other physical evidence, eyewitnesses, complaining victims, etc. It's far more often the case that convictions are overturned based on nothing but DNA.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 11:11 AM Modulous has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3709
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 7.8


Message 143 of 144 (297218)
03-22-2006 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Modulous
03-15-2006 10:51 AM


Following up on message 5
By the way, I gave Modulous a POTM for message 5.

Moose, in the above cited POTM, writes:

This topic has accumulated about 50 messages in it's first 10 hours of existance, and certainly seems to have turned into quite a mess. Such was the state when I first saw that the topic even existed.

Modulous, in message 5, writes:

When most people say 'fact' they mean that there is enough corroborating evidence for it to be unreasonable to not accept it. It is always healthy to be tentative in conclusions, but it is unnecessary to continuously reaffirm the tentatitivity of knowledge.

Roxrkool, in message 72 of the "Comparitive delusions" topic, writes:

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.

Source of above quote

I think that all so called facts are the results of interpretations. A number of very fundimental observations are made, and these are interpretated into becoming a fundimental fact. Two or more of these fundimental facts can then be further interpreted into becoming larger facts, etc. etc. Tiny details can thus add up to become major facts.

The above said, I also think that there can also be facts by definition. Example: A mineral (in the geologic sense) is a mass having a certain crystal structure and chemical composition or specific range of compostion. The previous sentence is a fact, because it is an accepted definition of what a mineral is.

Now, The question of a specific crystal being a specific mineral is a matter of interpretation. Does the crystal meet the specifications that define that mineral.

Now, no fact outside of "fact by definition" can be known to be 100% certainly true. But such is the ways of nature - There's always going to be at least a little "grey area".

Certainly, there is the possibility that a "fact" can be later found to be untrue. But, the stronger the data and the interpretations behind the fact, the less likely that is to happen.

Well, I've possibly just written something I shouldn't have, but there it is.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2006 10:51 AM Modulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Silent H, posted 03-22-2006 6:57 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3929 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 144 of 144 (297229)
03-22-2006 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Minnemooseus
03-22-2006 5:34 AM


Re: Following up on message 5
Now, The question of a specific crystal being a specific mineral is a matter of interpretation. Does the crystal meet the specifications that define that mineral.

This is a point I tried to raise with Faith back in post #82 and a couple of follow up posts.

In her OP she suggested one set of observations were wholly factual and the other interpretive, but essentially they were ALL interpretive. The methods of making the assignments (interpretations) were the same in both cases: refs to articles. Only Faith seemed to accept those cites as involving scientific reasoning, and the other set of cites as nothing but sheer speculation.

This is why I have been trying to get her to read an article essentially identical to the second set of cites. Was science methodology used or not in the interpretation of dep environment.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-22-2006 5:34 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
56789
10
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019