Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 7:09 AM
25 online now:
Pressie (1 member, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   Harvard Researcher May Have Fabricated Data
Huntard
Member (Idle past 468 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 46 of 65 (577909)
08-31-2010 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by archaeologist
08-30-2010 5:19 PM


archaeologist writes:

yes someone did say it or it wouldn't have been quoted.


But you didn't quote it. Here's what you quoted:

archaeologist writes:

Taz writes:

it is impossible for any researcher to commit fraud without somebody blowing the whistle.


Nowhere in this sentence does it say it is impossible for any researcher to commit fraud, just that it is impossible without getting caught.

am going to have to change my quoting habits to make sure editing doesn't take place after i quote theperson.

The message you quoted from was not edited, you simply read the quote wrong.

actually you do and creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong' and 'if any man bring a different gospel than the one Jesus and the disiciples brought...'

the most uneducated christian can detect fraud


That's not a way to detect frauds, however, evidence could be fabricated that agrees with the bible, that would still be fraudulent evidence though. No, I'm not saying any evidence found that supports the bible is fraudulent, just that when it is fabricated it is fraudulent. Like the Paluxy river tracks.

oh pulleeaasssee. that is stretching credibility beyond its snapping point.

Not really no. Students are part of the scientific community. Always have been, always will. As long as you're doing science, you're part of the community.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by archaeologist, posted 08-30-2010 5:19 PM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by archaeologist, posted 08-31-2010 4:25 AM Huntard has responded

    
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 65 (577920)
08-31-2010 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Huntard
08-31-2010 1:48 AM


That's not a way to detect frauds

actually it is and we can do so without losing 8, 12, 40 years.

sorry but science has a long wasy to go before it catches up with christianity.

you all just do not want to admit that your precious scientific field is greatly flawed and cannot achieve what you all want. it is the blind leading the blind and your faith and hope in it is greatly misplaced.

why follow a field of study that is not for the truth and answers? God has the answers for everything and we do not need years to find them out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Huntard, posted 08-31-2010 1:48 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Huntard, posted 08-31-2010 4:39 AM archaeologist has responded
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 08-31-2010 5:15 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Taz, posted 08-31-2010 9:21 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Vacate, posted 09-01-2010 6:08 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 65 (577921)
08-31-2010 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Blue Jay
08-30-2010 6:17 PM


look you all are just making the same excuses you would not accept from a creationist or christian. stop embarrassing yourselves andjust admit the scientific field is not as great as you want it to be andnever will be because it is not immune to the sin and corruption that entered the world at adam's sin.

you have no defense for this has gone on for centuries and you never clean up the entire fieldor for that matter try to clean it up because your reputations, the money, the power is too great of a temptation that keeps you all from being honest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Blue Jay, posted 08-30-2010 6:17 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Huntard, posted 08-31-2010 4:45 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Nij, posted 08-31-2010 6:38 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Blue Jay, posted 08-31-2010 1:23 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 468 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 49 of 65 (577922)
08-31-2010 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by archaeologist
08-31-2010 4:25 AM


archaeologist writes:

actually it is and we can do so without losing 8, 12, 40 years.


Ok, I guess I have to be more clear.

Say, somebody claims to have found evidence for the Exodus, yet he has fabricated (this means he made it himself, and it is thus not evidence for anything) this evidence himself. Say, a tablet with hyroglyphs that mentions moses, now this does not contradict the bible. If that is all the tests it has to pass to be said to be genuine, will it be accepted as such, yet it is a fraud.

sorry but science has a long wasy to go before it catches up with christianity.

Not if that is the only criterium you guys use. You see, this guy's findings were in favour of evolution, they were agreeing with it, meaning that if we would use the same criteria as you, we would declare it true regardless of it being a fraud.

you all just do not want to admit that your precious scientific field is greatly flawed and cannot achieve what you all want. it is the blind leading the blind and your faith and hope in it is greatly misplaced.

Yes yes, we're evil and wretched. Once again I ask you to leave these comments out, they add nothing, what would add something is explaining why you think this is the case.

why follow a field of study that is not for the truth and answers?

I'm not.

God has the answers for everything and we do not need years to find them out.

Would you ask god how atomic fision works then? I can't seem to find it anywhere in the bible. There are science books full of how it works though.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by archaeologist, posted 08-31-2010 4:25 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by archaeologist, posted 08-31-2010 7:38 AM Huntard has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 468 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 50 of 65 (577923)
08-31-2010 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by archaeologist
08-31-2010 4:29 AM


archaeologist writes:

look you all are just making the same excuses you would not accept from a creationist or christian.


On the contrary, if a creationist would stand up and walk up to, say Kent Hovind, and say to him: "Look here, you're completely wrong, and this is why", and then everybody would join in and he would be expelled from creationism altogether, never to be taken serious ever again, I would be very pleased with how that was handled.

stop embarrassing yourselves andjust admit the scientific field is not as great as you want it to be andnever will be because it is not immune to the sin and corruption that entered the world at adam's sin.

Of course it's not perfect. What it does do very well however, is find out if stuff is true or not. That is why it's so great.

you have no defense for this has gone on for centuries and you never clean up the entire fieldor for that matter try to clean it up because your reputations, the money, the power is too great of a temptation that keeps you all from being honest.

Every fraud you know about, you know about because scientists exposed it. If we really didn't want to expose frauds, we wouldn't, and you wouldn't know about them.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by archaeologist, posted 08-31-2010 4:29 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 51 of 65 (577925)
08-31-2010 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by archaeologist
08-31-2010 4:25 AM


It's not a way to detect frauds

actually it is and we can do so without losing 8, 12, 40 years.

If only things were so simple. Does monkeys spotting grammar patterns contradict the Bible? If it doesn't - then your method is useless for this case (and indeed 99% of all other cases I'd wager).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by archaeologist, posted 08-31-2010 4:25 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 3063 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 52 of 65 (577938)
08-31-2010 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by archaeologist
08-31-2010 4:29 AM


You and these again
look you all are just making the same excuses you would not accept from a creationist or christian.

"look you are just making the same unsupported assertions and off-topic rants you would not accept from an evolutionist or atheist".

Ah, I could do that all day. But it's kind of immature and makes no reasonable support of a rebuttal, so, onwards:

stop embarrassing yourselves andjust admit the scientific field is not as great as you want it to be andnever will be because it is not immune to the sin and corruption that entered the world at adam's sin

Well, good thing that Adam is a fictional character and his sin is a fictional plot device. Since that sin isn't real, it won't hurt us in the slightest.

Oh, it's definitely not immune to corruption though. Nor will it ever be as good as we want it to be. And you know what? Nobody has EVER claimed that it was perfect or immune.

Guess what, though? Science has the perfect response to corruption: requiring that stuff be repeatable and falsifiable. But creationism isn't either, so you have no basis for detecting corruption whatsoever.

I won't bother criticising your hypocrisy nor your rambling. You'd just misinterpret half of it, not understand the rest, and continue to bandy about your nonsense claims of "bias" and truth".

you have no defense for this has gone on for centuries and you never clean up the entire fieldor for that matter try to clean it up

"You have no defense for this has gone on for centuries and you never clean up the entire religion or for that matter try to clean it up."

Couldn't help myself. Sorry everyone, it was just too easy not to have a shot at.

I'll back up my assertion when you back up yours. Got proof? Bring it. Don't? Fuck off.

because your reputations, the money, the power is too great of a temptation that keeps you all from being honest.

  • Fact: a scientist's reputation hinges on being as right as possible every time. If a scientist is demonstrated to be wrong even once, they are pretty much screwed.

  • Fact: there is no power in an individual scientist. A vast majority of people in the scientific community with expertise must agree that the work is valid and that the method is repeatable (both of these are checked often actually by repeating it).

  • Fact: You cannot hold the patent to a natural process. There is hence very little real money in it for a scientist; things like the Nobel Prizes or several various groups offer monetary reward for specific problems, and many companies can offer largeish paycheques to their better scientists, but a majority of scientists are paid no more than the average salary and their jobs are only as reliable as their results (which are checked to be valid as mentioned above).

  • Fact: honesty is the only way to ensure your results are based in reality and that they are testable. Because if you lie, and everybody else tries to replicate your method, and they get different numbers, then you will be found out for sure. As Marc Hauser is discovering now.

    So, there is very little real power or money in it for a scientist. As to being worried about your reputation, well sure, everyone wants to keep their job. But when that reputation relies inherently on being good at what you do, being good at what you do is the only way to ensure you will have a reputation.

    We could easily contrast this with creationism, where all of the major institutions are paid big bucks just for being creationists; whether or not they actually turn out new data or decent research is never an issue because there is no peer review system.

    We could easily contrast this with creationism, where one person can maintain a cult following with a few flicks of the wrist; simply write a book about how creationism is right, and thousands will flock to your camp in eager anticipation of how you will next invalidate the evil secular atheist natural science in favour of The One True Truth. No outside or independent controls are necessary at all, since anybody who advocates creationism is fine by creationists regardless of their methods.

    We could easily contrast this with creationism, where people who are demonstrated conclusively to be liars and frauds remain celebrated proponents; where books which have been acknowledged as flawed reprinted in the exact same edition; where the same claims known to be false are used repeatedly by the aforementioned liars, frauds and books. The only reputation they need is of being a staunch creationist; nobody actually cares if they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help them, God!*

    *see what I did there? Nice wee "Pune, or a play on words" as the indefatigable Death would say.

    Edited by Adminnemooseus, : More blank lines.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 48 by archaeologist, posted 08-31-2010 4:29 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

      
  • archaeologist
    Inactive Member


    Message 53 of 65 (577949)
    08-31-2010 7:38 AM
    Reply to: Message 49 by Huntard
    08-31-2010 4:39 AM


    Say, somebody claims to have found evidence for the Exodus, yet he has fabricated (this means he made it himself, and it is thus not evidence for anything) this evidence himself. Say, a tablet with hyroglyphs that mentions moses, now this does not contradict the bible. If that is all the tests it has to pass to be said to be genuine, will it be accepted as such, yet it is a fraud.

    i am ignoring the insult which hurts you more than it hurts me.

    what you are saying is impossible because God would know it was a fraud and we would rely on the Holy Spirit to show us the truth.

    we go through this all the time, if it isn't noah's ark, it is mt. sinai it is som eother hard to find place or artifact. you forget that we have both christian and secular experts examining every piece of evidence to make sure it is correct.

    now let' take mt. sinai. Both the caldwells and bob cornuke have taken pictures of the mountain they claim is sinai (i have the caldwell's book and cornuke's dvd), nearby is a split rock. they both claim it is the split rock of the exodus fame. PROBLEM is they can't prove it true. its a split rock but they cannot prove it split 3,500 yeaes ago or that the supposed water from this one came out at that time.

    in dealing with scriptural events and artifacts, there is no real test that will conclusively prove it to be what is claimed. sure one can put hieroglyphics on a tablet or monument but they can't fake the patina, they may not be able to write the ancient way thus the grammer would be off, et al. there are too many factors involved that would make it very difficult to pass off a forged item as real.

    look at the james ossuary, the trial about its legitimacy has been going on for 4 years regardless of the experts (mostly secular) claims that it is not a forgery. guess what, we will never be able to prove it to be the ossuary of the real james who was the brother of Jesus. I have BAS's Jerusalem forgery conference report about this very item in my book case.

    so your example fails because we are talking about the past and events that cannot be proven, and that is an orange compared to your apple of modern day scientists who can be shown to be wrong, or forged their studies simply because ceretain facts do not line up. you also have a confession soit makes your question a little moot.

    Not if that is the only criterium you guys use. You see, this guy's findings were in favour of evolution, they were agreeing with it, meaning that if we would use the same criteria as you, we would declare it true regardless of it being a fraud.

    when i wrote those words, i had in mind spoken declarations, or ideaologies etc., when it comes to physical evidence it is a different scenario though we would have clues like his tones, inflections, his mannerisms, his verbal story to indicate if he was lying or not.

    we also have a very small archaeological community who would question things very thoroughly so it would be very hard to pass off an item as true when it was FABRICATED.

    we believers have an advantage over you secularists, we have God on our side who doesn't want us falling victim to lies while you have te devil who wants you to be deceived and that makes a world of difference in dealing with these type of situations.

    what bolderdash was upset about was jar's and other's declaration that the so-called self correcting aspect of science was flawless and did its job. it wasn't and it failed for 8 years. Add toti the fact that this isn't the first case, but thousands upon thousands of similar cases have been committed thus you cannot promote someting as ideal when it is not.

    Would you ask god how atomic fision works then?

    doesn't have to be in the Bible for God to show us how to get to the answer. since i am not an atomic physicist i wouldn't be asking and even in archaeology i would not ask to find the ark of the convenant for that may not be in His will for me to find BUT i would ask for the right spot to dig in to find truth, to give Him glory for what is found.

    yet it is not like He is handing out candy every time someone asks Himsomething. there are 3 answers He will give, possibly 4; yes, no, not at this time, or itis not for you to do.

    the rules are very different and there is a lot to take into consideration.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 49 by Huntard, posted 08-31-2010 4:39 AM Huntard has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 55 by Huntard, posted 08-31-2010 8:25 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

      
    archaeologist
    Inactive Member


    Message 54 of 65 (577953)
    08-31-2010 7:55 AM


    as an addendum: i would love it if someone would tell the hovinds they are out. not because he is totally wrong but that he is not totally on the up and up. i have commented on his website and since they are not the words the hovinds want to here they are edited out.

    i do not agree that he was convicted improperly and i have told them so. but he is of the independent baptists who have listened to some false teaching concerning jurisdiction. so telling them anything falls on deaf ears.

    Guess what, though? Science has the perfect response to corruption: requiring that stuff be repeatable and falsifiable. But creationism isn't either, so you have no basis for detecting corruption whatsoever.

    yet your own process cannot be repeated nor falsified because you cannot prove it actually exists. sure you can attribute results to it, but you cannot prove those results are repeating the actual original changes claimed by evolutionists.

    and since scientists are involved we know that they are not.

    Fact: a scientist's reputation hinges on being as right as possible every time. If a scientist is demonstrated to be wrong even once, they are pretty much screwed.

    really? didn't seem to hurt newton when einstein disagreed with him and vice versa.

    didn't seem to hurt hawking when we went off on the string theory tangent.

    i think you are misrepresenting things a lot here.

    Fact: there is no power in an individual scientist. A vast majority of people in the scientific community with expertise must agree that the work is valid and that the method is repeatable (both of these are checked often actually by repeating it).

    there is more than one definition of the word 'power' and more than one application. clarify do not assume.

    Fact: You cannot hold the patent to a natural process

    you do the same here. all you are doing is taking one limited definition or appication to make your point and it is dishonest.

    Fact: honesty is the only way to ensure your results are based in reality and that they are testable. Because if you lie, and everybody else tries to replicate your method, and they get different numbers, then you will be found out for sure

    yet what about those scientists who did not lie and others still got different results? Dr. D. Ratzsch's book talks about this exact thing {Battle of Beginnings:123}

    We could easily contrast this with creationism, where one person can maintain a cult following with a few flicks of the wrist;

    yet we know when and where they err. yes desperate people will flock to anything that tells them what they want to hear and for many they are hurt after finding out too late that they had been had.

    can't stop sin from happening

    We could easily contrast this with creationism, where people who are demonstrated conclusively to be liars and frauds remain celebrated proponents; where books which have been acknowledged as flawed reprinted in the exact same edition; where the same claims known to be false are used repeatedly by the aforementioned liars, frauds and books. The only reputation they need is of being a staunch creationist; nobody actually cares if they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help them, God!*

    please do not generalize. Provide the links to legitmate and credible websites that specifically document these things. i did for science's errors.

    you know this

    I'll back up my assertion when you back up yours. Got proof? Bring it. Don't? Fuck off.

    just destroys any credibility you thought you had. because if you look back a few posts you will see that i did document and supported my words but people like you refuse to acknowledge that as you want to keep on claiming creationists do not provide evidence for their claims, well you are the liar not me.

    you prove me correct when i say atheists and evolutionists, secularists are dishonest in their discussions an dit would be best if you did not respond to me anymore.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 60 by Nij, posted 09-01-2010 1:08 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

      
    Huntard
    Member (Idle past 468 days)
    Posts: 2870
    From: Limburg, The Netherlands
    Joined: 09-02-2008


    Message 55 of 65 (577961)
    08-31-2010 8:25 AM
    Reply to: Message 53 by archaeologist
    08-31-2010 7:38 AM


    archaeologist writes:

    i am ignoring the insult which hurts you more than it hurts me.


    Insult? Where did I insult you in that quoted text? (Yes, I am interested, my goal here is not to insult anyone, and if I did I am really sorry for that).

    what you are saying is impossible because God would know it was a fraud and we would rely on the Holy Spirit to show us the truth.

    So, basically, you would "feel" if it is true. Is that a correct way of putting it?

    we go through this all the time, if it isn't noah's ark, it is mt. sinai it is som eother hard to find place or artifact. you forget that we have both christian and secular experts examining every piece of evidence to make sure it is correct.

    Yes, but according to you, those secular ones are not to be trusted, right? And all the "true Christians" have is their "feeling", right? What if some "feel" that it is genuine? How do you determine that it is or isn't? For Instance, a member here on this forum (Buzsaw) feels that there is evidence for the exodus in the Arabian Gulf, there are however Christians that say that his evidence is no such thing (and I'm not talking about Christians you don't accept as such). How do we determine which one of those has the right "feeling"?

    now let' take mt. sinai. Both the caldwells and bob cornuke have taken pictures of the mountain they claim is sinai (i have the caldwell's book and cornuke's dvd), nearby is a split rock. they both claim it is the split rock of the exodus fame. PROBLEM is they can't prove it true. its a split rock but they cannot prove it split 3,500 yeaes ago or that the supposed water from this one came out at that time.

    Yes, this is the stuff I was talking about. I'm guessing they "feel" that they have the right answer. Now, how do we determine if that "feeling" is correct or not?

    in dealing with scriptural events and artifacts, there is no real test that will conclusively prove it to be what is claimed. sure one can put hieroglyphics on a tablet or monument but they can't fake the patina, they may not be able to write the ancient way thus the grammer would be off, et al. there are too many factors involved that would make it very difficult to pass off a forged item as real.

    But that is using secular science to determine that it isn't real. All you said you had was the bible. There are no Hyroglyphics in the bible, nor any egyptian grammar. How do you determine these things with just the bible?

    look at the james ossuary, the trial about its legitimacy has been going on for 4 years regardless of the experts (mostly secular) claims that it is not a forgery. guess what, we will never be able to prove it to be the ossuary of the real james who was the brother of Jesus. I have BAS's Jerusalem forgery conference report about this very item in my book case.

    Yes, but you said that all that was necdcessary is the bible, this is all secular science.

    so your example fails because we are talking about the past and events that cannot be proven, and that is an orange compared to your apple of modern day scientists who can be shown to be wrong, or forged their studies simply because ceretain facts do not line up. you also have a confession soit makes your question a little moot.

    That wasn't my point. My point was to get you to realize that using just the bible is not a good way to go around determining the truth in matters such as this. Or at least get a more clear answer about how one goes about using the bible to determine truth in such matters.

    we also have a very small archaeological community who would question things very thoroughly so it would be very hard to pass off an item as true when it was FABRICATED.

    Yes, but they are using secular science, not the bible, to determine those things.

    we believers have an advantage over you secularists, we have God on our side who doesn't want us falling victim to lies while you have te devil who wants you to be deceived and that makes a world of difference in dealing with these type of situations.

    Yes, I deserve to die, but the problem (in my eyes anyway), is that you don;t have a way to determine if this is actually the case. You see, I could claim you have the devil on your side as well (no, I'm not saying you do), and that in fact, you are the one that is wrong. How do we determine which one of us is right? I know you don't feel this way, I understand all that. I would like to now how in a hypothetical case, you would determine which of two persons is right, when both of them calim the other is doing satans work.

    what bolderdash was upset about was jar's and other's declaration that the so-called self correcting aspect of science was flawless and did its job.

    I don;t know if it's flawless, but it certainly did it's job, the second it was found out this guy was a fraud, they reported it to the outside world, and even to the authorities. I don;t see what the problem here is?

    it wasn't and it failed for 8 years.Add toti the fact that this isn't the first case, but thousands upon thousands of similar cases have been committed thus you cannot promote someting as ideal when it is not.

    I doubt that there are that many cases. But even if there were, the fact you know about them is due to the fact that it does work, for they were found out.

    doesn't have to be in the Bible for God to show us how to get to the answer.

    No, but in this case, secular science was used to come to the answer. Either you trust secular science or you don't.

    since i am not an atomic physicist i wouldn't be asking and even in archaeology i would not ask to find the ark of the convenant for that may not be in His will for me to find BUT i would ask for the right spot to dig in to find truth, to give Him glory for what is found.

    Ok. Do you think people in nuclear physics "asked" god to show them how it worked, or did they do lots of esperiments and calculations to come to this conclusion?

    yet it is not like He is handing out candy every time someone asks Himsomething. there are 3 answers He will give, possibly 4; yes, no, not at this time, or itis not for you to do.

    Which are the same answers my carton of milk gives when I pray to it. No, I don;t mean this as an insult. I would love to go step by step with you on these issues, to see if we can come to some understanding (it doesn't have to be acceptance).

    the rules are very different and there is a lot to take into consideration.

    I'm sure there is.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 53 by archaeologist, posted 08-31-2010 7:38 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

        
    Taz
    Member (Idle past 1465 days)
    Posts: 5069
    From: Zerus
    Joined: 07-18-2006


    Message 56 of 65 (577975)
    08-31-2010 9:21 AM
    Reply to: Message 47 by archaeologist
    08-31-2010 4:25 AM


    I don't mean to say this right after he's suspended, but I really need to bring this to people's attention.

    In message 23, archaeologist said...

    quote:
    no it is not impossible for any researcher to commit fraud.

    Huntard in response said

    quote:
    Nobody ever said it was.

    Archaeologist replied in message 36

    quote:
    yes someone did say it or it wouldn't have been quoted. i am going to have to change my quoting habits to make sure editing doesn't take place after i quote theperson.

    He was referring to my message 17, which I said

    quote:
    This is a classic example of science's self-correcting nature. It is impossible for any researcher to commit fraud without somebody blowing the whistle.

    I never edited that message. So, archaeologist is saying outright that I tried to lie, which I did not.

    This is dishonesty on archaeologist's part.

    Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by archaeologist, posted 08-31-2010 4:25 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 57 by Admin, posted 08-31-2010 9:47 AM Taz has not yet responded

      
    Admin
    Director
    Posts: 12602
    From: EvC Forum
    Joined: 06-14-2002
    Member Rating: 3.8


    Message 57 of 65 (577982)
    08-31-2010 9:47 AM
    Reply to: Message 56 by Taz
    08-31-2010 9:21 AM


    One person's Forum Guidelines violation is no excuse for another's. Please edit your post to be in compliance with the Forum Guidelines. Maybe Archaeologist is just an impetuous kid, or maybe he's just an extremely fervent adult, or maybe he's something else, but please let moderation handle it. I appreciate the patience and tolerance other members have extended Archaeologist as he feels his way around his new surroundings.

    Rest assured that the period of relatively free rein enjoyed by new members has come to an end for Archaeologist. This is Archaeologist's 2nd suspension in just the past few days, and hopefully it is apparent that moderation is gradually increasing the pressure on Archaeologist to better conform his behavior to the Forum Guidelines.


    --Percy
    EvC Forum Director

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 56 by Taz, posted 08-31-2010 9:21 AM Taz has not yet responded

        
    Blue Jay
    Member (Idle past 871 days)
    Posts: 2843
    From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
    Joined: 02-04-2008


    Message 58 of 65 (578006)
    08-31-2010 1:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 48 by archaeologist
    08-31-2010 4:29 AM


    Hi, Archaeologist.

    archaeologist writes:

    look you all are just making the same excuses you would not accept from a creationist or christian.

    I wasnít making any excuses for anybody: I was giving explanations. You asked for explanations.

    And, just because a certain behavior is understandable or explainable does not mean that it is acceptable or excusable.

    I donít condone the lack of ethics shown by scientists who falsify data. And, I donít pretend that such scientists donít exist.

    The thing is that weíre not talking about what individual scientists or even individual generations of scientists do. Weíre talking about the entire enterprise, the entire process of science, spanning many generations and hundreds of years. Science has accomplished a very large amount in a very short time, despite all the charlatans and hoaxsters and liars and morons that plague our community as much as any other community.

    Science bumbles along like a toddler, because it is always trying to do things that it has never done before. It doesnít surprise anybody that there are setbacks and stumbles and snags, and that there are controversies and problems and frustrations.

    But, the general principle is that conflict breeds strength. Weak arguments, poor logic and downright lies do not stand up well to empirical evidence and public experimentation, so science is able to eventually select for the best argumentation and experimentation, just like natural selection results in the fittest phenotypes surviving, and just like a free-market economy results in the best, most efficient businesses surviving.

    It surprises me that you turn on the scientific process this way, because it seems like, in any other instance, you would wholeheartedly support the methodologies that you disdain when scientists do it.

    -----

    archaeologist writes:

    you have no defense for this has gone on for centuries and you never clean up the entire fieldor for that matter try to clean it up because your reputations, the money, the power is too great of a temptation that keeps you all from being honest.

    I should also like to point out that the money in science isn't usually all that great, and that we generally know this when we sign up, and that most of us don't really delude ourselves into thinking we're going to ever be particularly powerful. It's more common that curiosity and fascination for intellectual puzzles is the reason for a scientist to be a scientist.

    Your comment here only applies well to a small segment of the scientific community, and I can't think of why it should be held against the rest of us.

    Edited by Bluejay, : Verbs are occasionally important in sentences.


    -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

    Darwin loves you.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 48 by archaeologist, posted 08-31-2010 4:29 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 59 by Omnivorous, posted 08-31-2010 3:48 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply
     Message 62 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-01-2010 11:23 PM Blue Jay has responded

      
    Omnivorous
    Member (Idle past 1141 days)
    Posts: 3808
    From: Adirondackia
    Joined: 07-21-2005


    Message 59 of 65 (578047)
    08-31-2010 3:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 58 by Blue Jay
    08-31-2010 1:23 PM


    Breakin' the law, breakin' the law*
    bluejay writes:

    It surprises me that you turn on the scientific process this way, because it seems like, in any other instance, you would wholeheartedly support the methodologies that you disdain when scientists do it.

    I had been thinking about a courtroom analogy when I read your remark.

    If archaeologist, an innocent man, were facing trial in a court of law, he would demand the most exacting standards of evidence and inference.

    A prosecutor who sneered at the lack of condemnatory evidence (or the exculpatory evidence) because "we all know" archaeologist is guilty would embody archy's attitude toward science.

    The ACLU defense attorney who saves his innocent butt by exposing the prosecutor's fraud would be his new best friend, not a co-conspirator with the prosecutor because she is also an officer of the court.

    *Thanks to Judas Priest and that shakin' the shoulders thang...


    Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
    -Gogol Bordello
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 58 by Blue Jay, posted 08-31-2010 1:23 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

        
    Nij
    Member (Idle past 3063 days)
    Posts: 239
    From: New Zealand
    Joined: 08-20-2010


    Message 60 of 65 (578173)
    09-01-2010 1:08 AM
    Reply to: Message 54 by archaeologist
    08-31-2010 7:55 AM


    Your entire post seems to be just rabbitholes, semantics (much of which is pointless, by the way) and more direct accusations of dishonesty. I will not address these, but I will address the portions which relate to furthering a debate, i.e. asking for and giving evidence.

    Incidentally, my request for evidence was in response to one specific claim. Here it is again:

    archaeologist writes:

    you have no defense for this has gone on for centuries and you never clean up the entire field or for that matter try to clean it up

    You have not supported either of the claims in the boldened sections (the rest is immaterial to the claims). So, support the statement or withdraw it. Should you be able to support it, I will gladly provide my evidence in favour of the noncommitance of your religion to clean itself up, and the historical nature of such nonaction.

    We could easily contrast this with creationism, where people who are demonstrated conclusively to be liars and frauds remain celebrated proponents; where books which have been acknowledged as flawed reprinted in the exact same edition; where the same claims known to be false are used repeatedly by the aforementioned liars, frauds and books. The only reputation they need is of being a staunch creationist; nobody actually cares if they are telling the truth ...

    please do not generalize. Provide the links to legitmate and credible websites that specifically document these things. i did for science's errors.

    It is not a generalisation to say that creationists known to have produced erroneous or false material still do so with support of creationism, if they do so and have that support. Further, if someone has been made aware of the falsity or error in a claim, and continues to believe it, they are not relying on truth, but on what the claim is.

    Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box contained claims that the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade system (amongst other things) could not have evolved naturally or were "irreducibly complex". Both have been invalidated in many places:
    here and here are two providing reasoning against the cascade claim; here is one about the flagellum. All provide further links to similar reasoning and/or source material.
    Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory In Crisis contained claims that evolution was unsupported by evidence (evidence provided by almost every credible science website) and that it was losing support in the scientific community (also an outright lie).

    Their claims were invalidated, and the books continue to be printed and sold with the same claims made. Both Behe and Denton remain (or remained) major proponents of creationism, to the point Behe was invited to testify in the US court system.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 54 by archaeologist, posted 08-31-2010 7:55 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

      
    Prev123
    4
    5Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019