Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 12:32 PM
131 online now:
Diomedes, ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (5 members, 126 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,428 Year: 3,465/19,786 Month: 460/1,087 Week: 50/212 Day: 11/39 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Author Topic:   XXXX Science
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 61 of 96 (377549)
01-17-2007 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Hyroglyphx
01-17-2007 12:06 PM


Re: Reticence
nemesis-juggernaut writes:

I'm merely attempting to show that virtually all science will pander to preconceived notions...

What you're doing is taking the qualities of religion and asserting that science has the same qualities. It doesn't.

It is people who have preconceived notions, not science. Science is the reflection of the opinions of many people on the evidence, and in general the preconceived notions of individuals balance out. On the frontiers of science where the evidence is paltry and new, then preconceived notions can have a significant influence, but as evidence gathers the influence of preconceived notions diminishes and eventually disappears. In science there is the necessity to conform theory to evidence from the real world, and in science when preconceived notions meet reality, reality wins.

Preconceived notions that are constructed upon faith or expectations or popular thinking are dogma, and science is the enemy of dogma. The difference between science and religion is that in science when dogma is uncovered, it's embarrassing. In religion dogma is just an article of faith and is the way things are supposed to be. In religion when dogma meets reality, dogma wins.

In other words, one of the primary differences between science and religion is the opposite stance they take with regard to dogma. In religion dogma is good, in science dogma is bad.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-17-2007 12:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2167 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 62 of 96 (377550)
01-17-2007 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
01-17-2007 1:06 PM


Wittgenstein writes:

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

That really cuts down on what you can talk about on a site like this :p

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 01-17-2007 1:06 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1984 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 63 of 96 (377603)
01-17-2007 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Hyroglyphx
01-17-2007 12:01 PM


I never needed it to be explained to me before. The point is, what was "fact" yesterday may not be a "fact" today, which makes some people leery of regarding anything as a fact. It all boils down to belief when you you think about it. And just so you know, I'm not saying that science should dogmatically hold on to a previous view if it is demonstrably shown false. I'm merely pointing out that if something is considered true today, wait around and it might be completely false in a couple of days.

There is a considerable reply that I made to you in the GD thread about this very issue of changing facts.

Facts do not change. Theories change. There are things the may be called fact that later turn out to not be fact but a fact is either true or it was never a fact to begin with. That is by definition.

Maybe you could offer an example of these facts that you say change so much in science?

Do these facts change if it is an athiest versus a christian that observes them? Are there Athiest Facts and Christian Facts?


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-17-2007 12:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 3826 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 64 of 96 (377660)
01-17-2007 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Hyroglyphx
01-17-2007 12:01 PM


I never needed it to be explained to me before. The point is, what was "fact" yesterday may not be a "fact" today, which makes some people leery of regarding anything as a fact. It all boils down to belief when you you think about it.

Sorry, but this is a ridiculous argument that stems from a basic misunderstanding of science, that you obviously still need explained to you. This different between science and religion is that religion claims certitudes, whereas science claims tenuous facts. In religion, something is either true and it should be believed, or it isn't true and isn't believed. In science, data is analyzed to produce a fact with varying degrees of certainty, know as the error. For example, g=9.8m/s^2 +/- .1 m/s^2 means that we know the value of g is between 9.7 and 9.9, based on the accuracy of our measuring devices. Or we perform statistics on a graph and get a line with an r^2=.66, which means that the current fit can explain 66% of the data. This uncertainty allows for alternate explanations of the data to exist, which often do come about later, which is proabbly what you are referring to as fact changing. For example, part of the uncertainties in Newton's gravity calculations were later accounted for by Einstein's relativistic effects.

So facts may be altered in the way I have just described. This does not mean that all this "boils down to belief." Scientists don't "believe" that the current repetoire of fact is true. Rather, they understand the uncertainty inherent in scientific facts, and accept current fact with a certain amount of uncertainty which may later be explaned by new facts. There is no "belief" in scientific facts. Scientists don't believe that g=9.8 m/s^2. Rather, scientists know that g=9.8 m/s^2 to within 1 decimal place, (or rather 15 or so decimal places, or whatever it is they got it down to now.)

On the other hand, religious belief is inerrant, quite a stark contrast. I really find it hard to believe that this has never been explained to you before.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-17-2007 12:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Wepwawet
Member (Idle past 4181 days)
Posts: 85
From: Texas
Joined: 04-05-2006


Message 65 of 96 (377676)
01-17-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Hyroglyphx
01-17-2007 12:01 PM


Ask your science teacher for a refund...
Because that's what Wiki diverted me to. If there is no match, Wiki will let you know. However, if something closely matches another in your search request, it will automatically bring you to the closest match.

So you post a link called "Secular Science" to a Wiki topic on something entirely different. This is supposed to do what? Confuse us poor evolutionists even further? It was at the very least intellectually dishonest. As proof I give you this example:
Cult of Cannibal Demon Worshippers

I said it was "wordly," which is exactly what secular means.

You should really go back and look at your posts before you make incorrect references to them...your original definition was:

In fact, the word "secular" literally means study or belief of anything of only natural order.

To which I posted a lengthy definition from a standard source which did not contain anything remotely close to your original. My definition did contain the word worldly, so you seemingly read the definition...you could have just agreed with it instead of pretending you said it first.

Science is secular by definition.
Exactly my point. I didn't say it derisively, I'm stating something factual.

It is factual if you go by the standard definition of the word secular and not your definition of the word which incorporates concepts of faith. Secular topics are not concerned with religious and spiritual matters.

No, science is only equipped to study the physical world, which is fine. Science is ill-equipped to make any sort of determination on what is "spiritual" and what is not.

Okay so far...

The only thing science can do in defense for any spiritual beliefs is to note the appearance of design.

I'm sorry your answer is incorrect, but I'm sure we have some nice parting prizes for you. Really...I thought that belief in ID was supposed to be science...you know..secular (go back and read the definition). Even if science were able to note the appearance of design (which it does not) that would not constitute evidence in support of spiritual beliefs.

The point is that the OP asked if there was anything known as "atheist science." I responded that, yes, in a sense "secular science" is an inherently atheistic premise. In fact, it is its sole premise.

Again wrong. Science says nothing at all about spirituality or religion. It doesn't deny god exists (an atheist stance) it is simply not concerned with it. So far you haven't proven that anything called "Secular Science" exists in any fashion to differentiate it from anything else which may be called science. You're making all this up. Could you provide a link to a single journal or association of Secular Scientists who identify themselves as Secular Scientists or identify their own work as Secular Science? Secular Science is a term made up by religious crackpots who are afraid that someone else is going to show them something that their holy book can't account for.

What cytogenetics is called today, used to be referred to as eugenics, which is a very real study. What I mean to say is that the sociological view associated with eugenics precipitates from the study of cytogenetics.

Buh? Cytogenetics used to be referred to as eugenics? Your source for this is what? Cytogenetics is a very real science despite the fact that it has very real moral implications and the potential for abuse. The social philosophy of eugenics was well established long before cytogenetics was born. Cite some sources next time or don't bother hitting the reply button.

...Therefore, cytogenetics could be construed as the application of positive eugenics-- in fact, the whole point is to eliminate undesirable traits that lead to disease.

Because eugenics could be expressed in terms that sound like lofty and laudable goals does that mean that everything which seeks similar goals is evil? The point of cytogenetics is to understand how genetics operate at a cellular level and to provide cures and screening for genetic disease. Perhaps you might want to give a reference to the cytogenetics journal that espouses breeding programs, forced sterilizations, state ordered abortions and mandatory genetic screening as means to "improve" the human race.

The point is, what was "fact" yesterday may not be a "fact" today, which makes some people leery of regarding anything as a fact.It all boils down to belief when you you think about it.

Not really...look at it this way, you have to accept the fact that everything you know may be wrong. Everything with no exceptions. So you have the choice of going with what appears to work realizing you can change any time your understanding changes, or you can reject the universe around you until you achieve perfect understanding.

Science doesn't give us fact, it gives us things that work. If the things don't work we reject them. We know that praying doesn't help sick people get better, but we do know that providing modern medical care does help them get better. It's not perfect...many have died from medical misunderstanding...but many many more have had their lives improved and extended. By science...it ain't perfect...but it's getting better.

Do you have anything to offer instead of science that can show comparable results?

And you have been told that this is why the word fact is frowned upon when discussing scientific findings. That some scientists and many non-scientists use the word does not make a scientific finding any more fact or truth...but that doesn't tell the whole story.


When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-17-2007 12:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Quetzal, posted 01-23-2007 11:49 AM Wepwawet has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 96 (378222)
01-19-2007 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by platypus
01-17-2007 1:55 AM


Re: Naturalism
platypus writes:

At this point, I'd actually like a clarification of your opinion. Are you implying that if any portion of the Biblical account is true, then all of the Bible is true?

My point was to be that the more you have in the record shown to be reliable the more credibility the account receives, the falsifiable lending support to the unfalsifiable effecting a measure of support to the whole.

platypus writes:

It may be quite easy for one to find evidence that the Jew were sent into Diaspora however many thousand years ago through a scientific investigation. But this does nothing to show that Jesus performed miracles, or that God created the world in 7 days. Each and every fact in the Bible must be separately confirmed by independant scientific studies in order to be determined true.

But taking Jesus as an example, if it can be shown that some spectacular falsifyable prophecy of his was fulfilled in our time, credibility to the unfalsifyable other miracles receives a measure of support.

platypus writes:

This is true for any historical reference. If you are performing "creation science," or here defined as determining the accuracy of Biblical accounts, two things must be true in order for this to be considered science. One, you must be willing to accept evidence which argues against Biblical accounts, and two, you must treat the Bible as you would any other historical reference- that is, treat it with a grain of salt. Are you willing to accept these two things?

By the same token, fulfilled prophecy defies conventional science. Again, for example likely scientific stats would show that it is matmatically impossible for a tribe of people to disperse to all regions of the globe and to return to their homeland intact and identifiable as the same tribe of people who dispersed nearly two milleniums later, the OT prophets first making the prophecies and Jesus repeating it a few years before the dispersion some 1900+ years ago.

platypus writes:

If there is a historical manuscript which contradicts the account of the Bible, it must be given just as much weight as the Bible, and the only arbitrator in this conflicting circumstance is discovered archeological evidence, or something like that depending on the nature of the conflict.

Agreed, depending on the credibility the account has shown to have and other factors such as time written et al.

platypus writes:

The point of all this is that if someone performs "ID science," as you call it, the term ID science is misleading. Someone can perform a scientific investigation about the Bible, sure. But there is nothing that should distinguish this from regular old science. ID science is only science in so far as it confirms facts about the world, if those facts also tend to be Biblical accounts, that is secondary and inconsequential to the fact that this is science. On the other hand, if someone is trying to claim that the Bible as a whole is true, then they are most likely not doing true science. This is because proving the Bible to be true requires independantly proving every fact in the Bible to be true, which is more work than anyone can reasonably be expected to pursue in their lifetime.

Well stated. Nobody is arguing that the Biblical account can be proven. My original response was regarding why creationists tend to hold to unfalsifiable ideology. Imo, the same would hold true to evolutionism and the alleged BB. Proving it would imo, require an immensely greater stache of transitional fossils than observed and all numerous allegations of these theories. Thus scientists also hold no claim to proof of their theories.

platypus writes:

He has said that no IDer that he knows of is doing science, which simply means that no IDer he knows of is using the correct scientific means, not that no IDer can ever do science, or even ever do science that supports ID.

Must all science, by definition, always be evaluated as correctly performed or arrive at correct conclusions to come under the definition of doing science?

Good questions you've raised in an amiable manner, Platypus and a pleasure dialoging with you. :cool:


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by platypus, posted 01-17-2007 1:55 AM platypus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by AZPaul3, posted 01-20-2007 10:48 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 68 by jar, posted 01-20-2007 11:52 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 69 by platypus, posted 01-20-2007 5:41 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 01-20-2007 6:28 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3789
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 67 of 96 (378331)
01-20-2007 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Buzsaw
01-19-2007 9:58 PM


Re: Naturalism
Must all science, by definition, always be evaluated as correctly performed or arrive at correct conclusions to come under the definition of doing science?

If by “correct” you mean “accurate” then yes. These are requirements of science.

The hypothesis must be logically grounded in observation.
The experimental design or data to be collected must relate to the hypothesis.
The experiment or data collected must be accurate and reproducible.
The analysis of the data must be accurate with no errors of logic.
The conclusions reached must be accurately based on the data with no errors of logic.
All the above must be open and shown in detail to all who want to duplicate the results.

Absent any of these there is no science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2007 9:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 68 of 96 (378346)
01-20-2007 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Buzsaw
01-19-2007 9:58 PM


On Phrophecies, credibility and tentativity.
But taking Jesus as an example, if it can be shown that some spectacular falsifyable prophecy of his was fulfilled in our time, credibility to the unfalsifyable other miracles receives a measure of support.

Yet so far you have never been able to cite such an example of a fulfilled prophecy. In addition, even if you did provide such an example it does NOT add credibility to an unfalsifiable miracle. That assertion is simply wrong.

If you wish to rephrase that to say that "IN your mind it adds credibility" then I dounbt anyone would disagree.

By the same token, fulfilled prophecy defies conventional science. Again, for example likely scientific stats would show that it is matmatically impossible for a tribe of people to disperse to all regions of the globe and to return to their homeland intact and identifiable as the same tribe of people who dispersed nearly two milleniums later, the OT prophets first making the prophecies and Jesus repeating it a few years before the dispersion some 1900+ years ago.

Again, simply a nonsense statement. First, unless you actually show how any such calculations are done you are just making stuff up. Second, using the term "Tribe" has no meaning. Not ONE of the Tribes of Israel has been reconstituted and there was never any evidence of a Tribe called Israel.

Buz you gotta stop just making stuff up.

Must all science, by definition, always be evaluated as correctly performed or arrive at correct conclusions to come under the definition of doing science?

Yup. Within the limits of current knowledge and evidence at the time, it must. It must also always be held as tentative.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2007 9:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 3826 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 69 of 96 (378433)
01-20-2007 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Buzsaw
01-19-2007 9:58 PM


Re: Naturalism
My point was to be that the more you have in the record shown to be reliable the more credibility the account receives, the falsifiable lending support to the unfalsifiable effecting a measure of support to the whole.

Are you treating the Bible as one book, or several different works? Does historical evidence supporting events in the Book of Job affirm the reliability of the Book of Mark?

But taking Jesus as an example, if it can be shown that some spectacular falsifyable prophecy of his was fulfilled in our time, credibility to the unfalsifyable other miracles receives a measure of support.

It depends. From a scientific standpoint, reaffirming that a "miracle" could happen in our time also means scientists will work out the mechanism by which such a miracle happen, and be able to reproduce the miracle at their convienance. For science to reaffirm a miracle, it must not be a one-time only event. Also, once science determines the mechanisms that produces one miracle, it will not reaffirm the possibility of other miracles which could not have occurred by that mecahnism. For example, say we understand how infinite bread and loaves could be produced by a generation or cloning of matter. This would not lend any credibility to Jesus defying gravity by walking on water.

By the same token, fulfilled prophecy defies conventional science. Again, for example likely scientific stats would show that it is matmatically impossible for a tribe of people to disperse to all regions of the globe and to return to their homeland intact and identifiable as the same tribe of people who dispersed nearly two milleniums later, the OT prophets first making the prophecies and Jesus repeating it a few years before the dispersion some 1900+ years ago.

On the other hand, we can look at the DNA of the tribes of Israel, and determined whether they have been an isolated population or not through statistical comparison to close neighbors and regions they might have dispersed to during the Diaspora. Also, the statistical test you describe is unrealistic because humans have the ability to make decisions and decide where to move and to communicate with other humans, whereas the stastical test you are thinking of probably assumes random motion.

Well stated. Nobody is arguing that the Biblical account can be proven. My original response was regarding why creationists tend to hold to unfalsifiable ideology. Imo, the same would hold true to evolutionism and the alleged BB. Proving it would imo, require an immensely greater stache of transitional fossils than observed and all numerous allegations of these theories. Thus scientists also hold no claim to proof of their theories.

I'm not familiar with the lingo, what is Imo and BB? I think your argument is that biologists cannot proof every portion of the evolutionary tree, so their acceptance of evolution is similar to a belief in the Bible. Here's the difference. Evolutionists have proposed several mechanisms which could give rise to the diversity of life on this planet, ie. natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc. These mechanisms have all been shown to act in the world today. There is no reason to think they were not acting in the world in the past. There is no evolutionary gap which cannot be accounted by the mechanisms evolutionists proposed. (I'm sure you disagree with that last statement, but that is the topic for another thread. I'm simply stating the form of the argument.) You can object to this theory by arguing that the mechanisms are wrong or incomplete, the mechanisms do not produce the assumed affects, or that there are points in the evoluionary tree which cannot be accounted for by the known mechanisms. Evolution is not a collection of facts, like the Bible, but a cohesive theory with underlying mechanisms.

Here's why the Bible is different. There is no unifying set of mechanisms which can reaffirm the Bible as true. In fact, there are many parts of the Bible (like the miracles) go directly against confirmed and accepted scientific principle (like Cons. of mass). To prove these parts to be true involves falsifying or creating an exception to a scientific theory, which in principle is always possibile, but highly unlikely given the support that these scientific principles have.

Believing that the Bible is true involves believing that one day accepted scientific theories (mostly in physics) will be falsified, or that how we understand our world is wrong. "Believing" in evolution involves believing that the proposed mechanisms have produced the diversity of life on earth. I think it is silly to call the latter a belief since the diversity of life on earth can follow logically from the proposed mechanisms.

Must all science, by definition, always be evaluated as correctly performed or arrive at correct conclusions to come under the definition of doing science?

Science must always be correctly performed and must arrive at conclusions which logically follow from the correctly performed method. I think Paul's description is accurate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2007 9:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 70 of 96 (378445)
01-20-2007 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Buzsaw
01-19-2007 9:58 PM


Re: Naturalism
Hi Buzsaw,

You seem to have drawn a number of responses, so I'll be brief.

Must all science, by definition, always be evaluated as correctly performed or arrive at correct conclusions to come under the definition of doing science?

I think I have a much different answer on this than everyone else. No, science doesn't have to be correctly performed or arrive at correct conclusions to be science. That's why there's tentativity, because people, both in performing experiments and in interpreting results, are imperfect. Human weaknesses in this regard are addressed through replication and consensus gathering.

One can apply scientific principles to the Bible, but why would they want to? What is the value of a tentative finding to the believers in the infallible and timeless word of God?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2007 9:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 71 of 96 (378578)
01-21-2007 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Percy
01-15-2007 11:07 AM


Re: Naturalism
Great post, Percy, however I think your inclusion of "peer reviewed" in the definition of Science is flawed. Peer review is not a fundamental part of science but rather a method of ensuring that work performed is really valid science. Research does not become science when it undergoes peer review, and those who worked before the widespread introduction of peer review were not failing to perform scientific work because of this absence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 01-15-2007 11:07 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 01-21-2007 9:44 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 73 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 11:05 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18307
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 72 of 96 (378588)
01-21-2007 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Jack
01-21-2007 8:48 AM


Re: Naturalism
I agree, and when I wrote it I had problems with "peer-reviewed", too, because I didn't want the post to get too long, and I didn't have the time to develop what I really meant by it.

The problem I faced when composing that post was how to get across the point that science is a consensus activity, and peer-review was what did it for me, but I didn't devote any time to expanding what I really meant by it. I meant not only the actual process of peer-review as a formal part of the editorial process of scientific conferences and journals, but also the peer-review that happens when colleagues read and discuss the articles after they've been published and/or presented. It is this less formalized but oh-so-much-more-important part of the peer-review process by which consensus's are formed and by which we add to body of accepted scientific knowledge so that future scientific endeavors have an even higher and broader platform on which to build.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Jack, posted 01-21-2007 8:48 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by cavediver, posted 01-22-2007 12:50 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3573 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 73 of 96 (378900)
01-22-2007 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Jack
01-21-2007 8:48 AM


Re: Peer review
Mr Jack wrote:

...Peer review is not a fundamental part of science but rather a method of ensuring that work performed is really valid science. Research does not become science when it undergoes peer review, and those who worked before the widespread introduction of peer review were not failing to perform scientific work because of this absence.


Oh, contrare! Peer review IS a fundamental part of science. Every scientific researcher knows that in spades. I would hate to see the "science" that comes out of no peer reviews. Creationism, cold fusion, and curing cancer with vitamin C are good examples of where peer reviews were fundamentally necessary.

—Hoot Mon

Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Jack, posted 01-21-2007 8:48 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 01-22-2007 11:27 AM Fosdick has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 242 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 74 of 96 (378907)
01-22-2007 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 11:05 AM


Re: Peer review
quote:
I would hate to see the "science" that comes out of no peer reviews.

You mean non-peer reviewed "science" like Origin of Species or Newton's Laws?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 11:05 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 12:35 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 76 by cavediver, posted 01-22-2007 12:45 PM nator has not yet responded

    
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3573 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 75 of 96 (378920)
01-22-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by nator
01-22-2007 11:27 AM


Re: Peer review
nator wrote:

You mean non-peer reviewed "science" like Origin of Species or Newton's Laws?


Talk about beating a dead horse...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 01-22-2007 11:27 AM nator has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
67Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019