Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC?

Science never gets at absolute truth; but it does have much higher standards for experiments than this. In a real experiment, you would use a control group, which was standing for ten days in the shade.Sure, scientists or anyone else can get things wrong. But the basics of experimental method and other means of drawing inferences from empirical data are quite rigourous, in an effort to avoid errors as far as possible.Of more concern are folks who refuse to admit any possibility of error; or who cite some reference or source as infallible. Such folks have a very poor track record by comparison with those who acknowledge their limits and then try as hard as possible to do the best as they can with integrity.Cheers -- Sylas

I agree that scientists do make mistakes; but I think they are less likely to make drastic errors by comparison with people who are less careful with testing their hypotheses.There are plenty of examples of cases where people had a hypothesis and designed a set of experiments to show it; but were then forced by the result to admit that the experiments refuted their original idea.Science is not only done by experiment; but the same principle of high standards applies. The standards of argument and evidence generally expected in scientific literature are much higher than the standards applied here, for anyone.Cheers -- SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 12-17-2004 04:04 PM

Not flawless; but considerably more careful than your caricature; which I believe you have recognized. So why object when people present a more accurate description of how experiments are done? Sarcasm does not become you.Creationists are always welcome to join the scientific debate. The point is that they do not, with some isolated exceptions. This is determined on a case by case basis; looking at experiments and arguments individually, in the same way that scientists criticize one another's work. Problem with creationist work is that it collapses under such examination almost immediately.This is really hard to handle. To engage this more substantively, you could try either presenting an argument of your own for some hypothesis and letting others comment; or else conversely by identifying a some conclusion held by folks here and try to learn about the basis or arguments for that conclusion; and then give a criticism.For example, you insisted above that "goo to you" evolution is without evidence. Do you actually know what arguments are evidence are cited and used, and could you give a criticism?The evidence for evolution from early fish to primitive reptiles, and mammals and ultimately humans is very strong indeed. The evidence for evolution from singled celled organisms to the early fish is strong. The evidence for development of singled celled organisms from non-living matter is almost entirely indirect; with little to go on for discriminating between hypotheses.The question is; do you even know what evidence is cited into order to judge how good or bad it might be?Cheers -- Sylas