Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

generalgrog wrote:
@ dogma...I don't think you realize it, but you just proved my point. Thanks.

Your point was that science is something other than what you said science is? That you don't understand science? That saying something is biased, and therefore bad, is a poor argument because any position based upon an attempt to describe reality will be biased towards truth?

Sorry, I didn't realize you were being satirical.

Regardless, I think its incredibly illustrative that you are using discredited studies to discredit scientific method. There will always be studies that produce incorrect conclusions, that's what happens when you attempt to describe reality, you will often be wrong. The point of the scientific method is to establish a system of observation whereby even negative results are used to bring us all closer to the truth; including the truth of what constitutes sound methodology.

GG,

Do you have a problem with any of the following statements?

- All matter is composed of atoms, which are themselves made up of sub-atomic particles.

- Genetic material is made up of nucleic acid in almost all known life.

- The sun radiates a continuous stream of particles, which spread outward at the speed of 1.5 million kph.

- There are approximately 22,000 species of ant.

- Matter exhibits both wave and particle properties.

generalgrog wrote:
Not saying Darwin believed it or not, but the FACT remains that it was held to be true and thought of as science during the late 19th and early 20th century, by many prominent people. I was surprised to see Teddy Roosevelt was one of them. G.K. Chesterson an English Christian spoke and wrote against it, and I am willing to bet there were quite a few Howard Treesongs he had to deal with... blowing the trumpet of the latest "scientific research" about eugenics.

GG

And they were proven wrong, so I'm not really sure what your point is.

Are you arguing that we should not try to achieve a greater understanding of reality?

I mean, modern science hasn't been around for very long, but the scientific method as a general concept has been around since Aristotle; meaning that it predates Christianity. This isn't about some war on religion or faith, its literally an argument about what constitutes rational observation and analysis. And, at least from my perspective, you appear to be contending that we shouldn't engage the world from a rational perspective.

Manchu wrote:That depends on what you mean by "as a whole." I don't think the specific steps (amoeba to fish to salamander, etc) from those old film strips is really the content of evolutionary theory. When I think of evolutionary biology, I think of the idea of common genetic descent--which has been "proven" by analysis of genes.

Manchu..what is the basis for this "proof"? Do you have some sources?

Also in what context are you referring to in common genetic descent? Are you referring to the commonality within kinds such as wolves/dogs and or tigers/lions/panthers. Or are you referring to end of spectrum speciation such as lizards and monkeys.

I heard Sir David Attenborough make the claim that bilateral symmetry in trilobytes "proves" evolution because almost all life has bilateral symmetry. I mean that is his example of actual proof? I actually laughed out loud at the absurdity, when I heard him say that. I mean there was no thought given to the "possibility" that it pleased the Creator to base his creations with bilateral symmetry.

I would be interested to see what assumptions are involved with the common genetic descent theory. I did a quick google but couldn't find much.

GG

edit..fixed Richard to David attenborough

generalgrog wrote:
Actually no.... not close at all.

GG

You may not mean to sound that way, but that is how you are coming across. So yes....yes you are.

generalgrog wrote:I heard Sir Richard Attenborough make the claim

I don't know man, after that Jurassic Park fiasco I'm not sure I'd use him as a source for anything.

generalgrog wrote:I heard Sir Richard Attenborough make the claim that bilateral symmetry in trilobytes "proves" evolution because almost all life has bilateral symmetry. I mean that is his example of actual proof? I actually laughed out loud at the absurdity, when I heard him say that. I mean there was no thought given to the "possibility" that it pleased the Creator to base his creations with bilateral symmetry.

I see no contradiction between these possibilities. Regarding common descent, wikipedia has a nice starting place for the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Ahtman wrote:You may not mean to sound that way, but that is how you are coming across. So yes....yes you are.

"I perceive you as X, therefore you are X"?

@ dogma...I think you are missing my point. Let me give an illustration.

I'm a scientist I do some research on something. For arguments sake lets say my research is on how the sun gave birth to the planet earth. I do a bunch of research and I come to conclusions that indeed say that the sun gave birth to the earth.

Now this is what often happens.

CNN news report...RECENT SCIENTIFIC STUDY...SUN GAVE BIRTH TO EARTH..Then a detailed journalist interviews said scientist who gives a very scientific sounding explanation as to why the sun gave birth to the earth. It takes 10 or 20 years to find out that this guy was all wet to begin with, but in the mean time people have started believing the nonsense about the sun giving birth to the earth.

The same kind of thing happened with the gay gene. The early scientific reports were wrong but people like howard treesong actually believe it to be true. Eugenics was also wrong but fooled a lot of people into believing it.

Yes.... science can correct itself... but in the mean time the damage has been done.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

generalgrog wrote:I heard Sir Richard Attenborough make the claim

I don't know man, after that Jurassic Park fiasco I'm not sure I'd use him as a source for anything.

Crap your right Meant David...oh those attenborough boys!


fixing...
GG

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:You may not mean to sound that way, but that is how you are coming across. So yes....yes you are.

"I perceive you as X, therefore you are X"?

No, but as far as language is concerned if you can't make a point clearly and people don't understand your point, it isn't necessarily the listener/readers fault. It's like the old Dave Chapel joke where he is dressed like a cop and someone runs up and says "help, we need a policeman" and he says "Oh, just because I'm dressed like a cop you automatically assume I'm a cop". Act and/or say things that make you appear as if you don't trust science and people will think you don't trust science. GG is coming across as someone who distrusts science, period, not that he is a skeptic.

Manchu wrote:Regarding common descent, wikipedia has a nice starting place for the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Yeah allready went there..wikipedia isn't exactly the place I like to rely on. Guess I'll need to check out amazon or something.

GG

generalgrog wrote:Yes.... science can correct itself... but in the mean time the damage has been done.

I'm not sure that the scientific method is the problem in either your hypothetical or in the example of the "gay gene." The breakdown in both cases seems extra-scientific. In fact, it seems like you're talking about the so-called liberal news media more than anything else.

Again, do any of those statements I posted earlier trouble you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:GG is coming across as someone who distrusts science, period, not that he is a skeptic.

I suspect its actually about cultural and political associations with science.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:

Manchu wrote:Regarding common descent, wikipedia has a nice starting place for the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Yeah allready went there..wikipedia isn't exactly the place I like to rely on. Guess I'll need to check out amazon or something.

GG

Yeah, I would use that page a bibliography.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thought, GG, that I've had about Christians finding evolutionary theory difficult to accept revolves around the limitations of the human imagination trying to pin the existence of the Creator into a temporal rather than eternal mode. It is difficult to imagine, but is there any reason that God could not have ordained in His creation the "becoming-ness" of life, among other aspects of creation, that human minds have described with evolutionary theory? I think this is very possible.

generalgrog wrote:
CNN news report...RECENT SCIENTIFIC STUDY...SUN GAVE BIRTH TO EARTH..Then a detailed journalist interviews said scientist who gives a very scientific sounding explanation as to why the sun gave birth to the earth. It takes 10 or 20 years to find out that this guy was all wet to begin with, but in the mean time people have started believing the nonsense about the sun giving birth to the earth.

The same kind of thing happened with the gay gene. The early scientific reports were wrong but people like howard treesong actually believe it to be true. Eugenics was also wrong but fooled a lot of people into believing it.

Yes.... science can correct itself... but in the mean time the damage has been done.

Well, science can't correct itself, it isn't a thing which takes actions and I think a lot of the misconceptions regarding what the scientific method actually is can be traced back to the fact that people seem to view it as a monolith.

But, on to your main point, the issue there isn't one with the scientific method, as what you're describing is its good and proper function whereby bad theories are discarded and good theories are maintained. The problem is with the news media, and the general gullibility of people. Unfortunately, people will always believe stupid things about which they know little, it just sort of comes with the territory. Sure, scientists could probably do more to bring their work to the public, and some of them have been pretty vocal about doing (Carl Sagan is a great example) but doing so is hard work; especially for people accustomed to throwing around technical terminology with their peers.

And, quite honestly, there isn't a whole lot of reason to bring legitimate science into public discourse; excepting certain issues regarding politics. Whether or not Joe the Plumber has a good understanding of general relativity, evolution, or string theory is irrelevant because he isn't likely to be doing any work in any of those fields, and such knowledge isn't going to make him a better plumber, or even a better person.

More importantly, what you're talking about is true of any body of knowledge; including religion. There have been a ton of crap theological concepts thrown around over the centuries, and even though they were often quickly discredited amongst those in the know they still managed to do a number on society. Its really just a fact of the human condition that bad things will happen in the course "testing" our theories against the world in which we live.

Manchu wrote:
Again, do any of those statements I posted earlier trouble you?

Sorry missed it...

- All matter is composed of atoms, which are themselves made up of sub-atomic particles.
No trouble

- Genetic material is made up of nucleic acid in almost all known life.
I wouldn't have a problem with this statement

- The sun radiates a continuous stream of particles, which spread outward at the speed of 1.5 million kph
No problem with solar wind.

- There are approximately 22,000 species of ant.
Based on my current understanding of phyla classification... no problem

- Matter exhibits both wave and particle properties.
I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to say either way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:GG is coming across as someone who distrusts science, period, not that he is a skeptic.

I suspect its actually about cultural and political associations with science.

dogma wrote:More importantly, what you're talking about is true of any body of knowledge; including religion. There have been a ton of crap theological concepts thrown around over the centuries, and even though they were often quickly discredited amongst those in the know they still managed to do a number on society.

Ooh, that's a good point.

GG, think about all the nonsense that's been spoken about Christianity over the centuries, by people inside the Church and those outside. Now consider whether you think that nonsense should discredit the speaker, or the Church at large.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:You know you could be onto something..but also I would add how these cultural and political associations create biases in scientists. (That goes for both secular and creation scientists)

GG

As I pointed out in another one of these threads, you seem to be continuing under the assumption that scientists are atheists. While there are more atheists in science than in the general population, they remain a minority are not atheist.

Ultimately, most are comfortable with having faith and following the scientific method.

sebster wrote:

dogma wrote:More importantly, what you're talking about is true of any body of knowledge; including religion. There have been a ton of crap theological concepts thrown around over the centuries, and even though they were often quickly discredited amongst those in the know they still managed to do a number on society.

Ooh, that's a good point.

GG, think about all the nonsense that's been spoken about Christianity over the centuries, by people inside the Church and those outside. Now consider whether you think that nonsense should discredit the speaker, or the Church at large.

Nooo... I agree with what dogma is saying there, in fact I was getting ready to respond to him and say just that.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

generalgrog wrote:You know you could be onto something..but also I would add how these cultural and political associations create biases in scientists. (That goes for both secular and creation scientists)

GG

As I pointed out in another one of these threads, you seem to be continuing under the assumption that scientists are atheists. While there are more atheists in science than in the general population, they remain a minority are not atheist.

Ultimately, most are comfortable with having faith and following the scientific method.

Uhh that's why I included this little nugget..."(That goes for both secular and creation scientists)" So I'm not sure how you missed that?

GG

sebster wrote:Ultimately, most are comfortable with having faith and following the scientific method.

True but I can understand where GG is coming from. Howard's statement that homosexuality has been observed in nature is a good example. This is the kind of statement that links the scientific method to extra-scientific ideologies and agendas in a negative association.

generalgrog wrote:Really... where have I ever said that ALL science was to be denied?

This is pretty damn close.

generalgrog wrote:Most people on here know my feelings on the modern scientific movement. So.. relying on modern science which is rooted in liberalism and secular humanism isn't going to score any points with me.

Actually no.... not close at all.

generalgrog wrote:Uhh that's why I included this little nugget..."(That goes for both secular and creation scientists)" So I'm not sure how you missed that?

GG

I think I misunderstood your point. I read creation scientists as 'scientists who believe in creation science', so intelligent design, irreducible complexity and all that. And that science consisted of them and secular scientists. Given that, I thought it was necessary to point out that most scientists are believers who go about conducting secular science.


Anyhow, you're right that there's political and cultural bias in science, it's a human institution, by rights it has to have some. The thing is that science requires testing, and is always open to being re-tested or replaced with a better idea.

Where did GG say he was above anyone? I don't get that impression at all.

I mean, I'm a political scientist (whether or not that's an oxymoron can be debated later) and I can tell you from experience that there is bias in my work. For one thing, I never engage realist literature because I long ago concluded that its crap. As such, like GG's Attenborough example, I don't include possible realist explanations of phenomena in my work, because I believe that many other events in the past have discredited it as an explanatory 'theory'.

Manchu wrote:

sebster wrote:Ultimately, most are comfortable with having faith and following the scientific method.

True but I can understand where GG is coming from. Howard's statement that homosexuality has been observed in nature is a good example. This is the kind of statement that links the scientific method to extra-scientific ideologies and agendas in a negative association.

True, so it's prone to being misused for political ends. But if a thing isn't true, others can go on to test that. I think it's wise to treat with scepticism any new scientific announcement, simply because scientific journalism really isn't all that interested in waiting for something to be properly peer reviewed before reporting it. But to continue to doubt things that have been tested and repeated again and again is just not sensible.

I'm not sure that someone who is so distrustful ("skeptical" is simply too ironic in this context) of the messenger ever really hears the message.

And anyone who chooses to believe in something, no matter how irrational, will always come up with excuses to believe.

Wow, it's like we're all back in day one of Phil 101.

I have an interest in irrationality.

sebster wrote:It has demonstrated predictive power (it suggested a range of things that subsequently turned out to be true) and has been observed (we've witness speciation in flies, for instance).

Yep.

If it wasn't science then the origin of the species would become one more thing in the giant list of things that we don't understand at this point. People who confuse faith and science would attempt to use this gap in our knowledge to declare there must be a God.

Or we would still understand it, but just understand it without the use of the scientific method.

You can say 'if evolution had occured then we would observe very similar genetic markers between species believed to have reasonably recent common ancestors'. We have looked at the genetic markers and observed that very thing.

Yep; already covered that one, I'm so quick you know.

You can say 'if various parts of the body would be suboptimal because they evolved through a non-directed process, so the final result would be a lot less efficient than if someone had designed the part to perform it's final task.' We can observe this in things such as the eye, which are a mess of design, with veins going all over the place, and producing a final result that doesn't work anywhere near as well as it should. The design makes sense when you look at it as a series of evolutionary steps, but little sense as deliberate design.

I wouldn't consider this as scientific, because I don't see how the similarities could be quantified. Also, for it to function as a test of the theory these inefficiencies would have to be unknown prior to the theory's conception (in some cases I'm sure this is true, in other cases it wouldn't be).

Ahtman wrote:And anyone who chooses to believe in something, no matter how irrational, will always come up with excuses to believe.

Wow, it's like we're all back in day one of Phil 101.

Did you see the dakka discussions thread were people were talking about how probability wasn't real? If you've been through that thread then nothing here could possibly worry you.

What? You're going to have to explain this one to us!

Orkeosaurus wrote:I wouldn't consider this as scientific, because I don't see how the similarities could be quantified. Also, for it to function as a test of the theory these inefficiencies would have to be unknown prior to the theory's conception (in some cases I'm sure this is true, in other cases it wouldn't be).

It was observed subsequent to the theory's inception. When Darwin first proposed the idea we didn't know that much about the workings of the human body.

That said, the observation of the eye in and of itself isn't science, and it certainly doesn't 'prove' evolution, but the observation is part of the scientific method. That and countless other observations build into a greater thing.

I didn't mean the eye specifically, I meant things like men having nipples.

By the way: GG, why would God put nipples on men? Especially if he dislikes homosexuality? That seems really weird.

Orkeosaurus wrote:why would God put nipples on men? Especially if he dislikes homosexuality?

What kind of logical leaps are we making here?

Manchu wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:why would God put nipples on men? Especially if he dislikes homosexuality?

What kind of logical leaps are we making here?

I don't know but something tells me it ends with a jar of peanut butter and a copy of the TV Guide.