Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[PsychoSarah]

I know how it really works. You may know the book definition but I've been in R&D most of my career. If an idea offends somebody, they ignore it.

If that were true, Freud would have never become popular in psychology, because all of his proposals were highly controversial, and most were offensive.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's becasue Science is a popularity contest where
we vote on what is true and what isn't. All minority
views are wrong.

Science is determined by evidence, not votes.

 

[Loudmouth]

I know how it really works. You may know the book definition but I've been in R&D most of my career. If an idea offends somebody, they ignore it. Just like here. People are all the same way. There are scientists on this forum and that's exactly how they are. Actually, they are the worst. They hold only to what is the most popular and always think they are right. Hardly ever open to different ideas unless it's hugely popular first.

We follow the evidence, not opinions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are describing the rules for a popularity contest for ideas.
This new study may explain why peer review in science often fails

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Fake Paper Exposes Failed Peer Review | The Scientist Magazine

It's not what I said, but whatever.

Peer review is mainly the route to publication in a specific journal. It's well known that peer review isn't always as reliable as it could be, and that some journals (e.g. many Chinese journals) have slack or fake review procedures. It doesn't help ideas to be accepted if they're published in journals known to have poor peer review. Ultimately, the data is the arbiter, regardless of social constructivist/networking ideas of validation. As I said, it's a human endeavour, but it's the best we've got, and it's pretty successful much of the time.

 

[sfs]

I know how it really works. You may know the book definition but I've been in R&D most of my career.

So how many scientific papers have you written, peer reviewed or edited?

There are scientists on this forum and that's exactly how they are. Actually, they are the worst. They hold only to what is the most popular and always think they are right. Hardly ever open to different ideas unless it's hugely popular first.

If scientists all think all of your ideas are wrong, maybe the problem isn't with the scientists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This just takes it back to everything ultimately pointing to a creator of some kind. For all we know, maybe it is "galaxy flatulating pixies". Speaking for myself, I see evidence of a creator. The nature of that creator is, of course, up for debate (a debate which helps keep online forums in business). But I can't rule out a First Cause.

Again, I'm not going to conclude that the pyramids just poofed into existence from nowhere. •‿•

Nothing points to a creator. You have only demonstrated that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Perhaps we should discuss that first.

 

[SkyWriting]

If scientists all think all of your ideas are wrong, maybe the problem isn't with the scientists.

Likely some do. Which ideas are you considering?

 

[SkyWriting]

Peer review is mainly the route to publication in a specific journal. It's well known that peer review isn't always as reliable as it could be, and that some journals (e.g. many Chinese journals) have slack or fake review procedures. It doesn't help ideas to be accepted if they're published in journals known to have poor peer review. Ultimately, the data is the arbiter, regardless of social constructivist/networking ideas of validation. As I said, it's a human endeavour, but it's the best we've got, and it's pretty successful much of the time.

And it's a popularity contest for ideas. I don't see why you don't like that description.

 

[SkyWriting]

If that were true, Freud would have never become popular in psychology, because all of his proposals were highly controversial, and most were offensive.

I don't know that he ever was popular.

 

[sfs]

Likely some do. Which ideas are you considering?

Whatever ideas you're talking about -- it's your claim, not mine. "They hold only to what is the most popular and always think they are right. Hardly ever open to different ideas unless it's hugely popular first." What ideas did you mean?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And it's a popularity contest for ideas. I don't see why you don't like that description.

I don't think it's correct - for reasons already explained.

 

[Queller]

For example, how "old" was the wine Jesus created?
According to a "scientist" at the party, it was the best
wine he'd tasted. This reveals that a scientist would
not conclude that the wine was only minutes old. It's
a perfectly understandable and forgivable error.

What scientist?

 

[Queller]

A myth is simply a fact you choose to not believe.

I was not aware the Zues and Thor were facts.

 

[SkyWriting]

I was not aware the Zues and Thor were facts.

Thor is my Dog.
noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind:

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't think it's correct - for reasons already explained.

You "reasons" simply described the contest rules.
All contests have a custom set of rules.

 

[Queller]

Thor is my Dog.
noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind:

I don't see anything in that definition about myths being facts in spite of lack of belief. Can you point to it?

 

[SkyWriting]

What scientist?

A sommelier at the party sampled the wine.

 

[Queller]

A sommelier at the party sampled the wine.

There was a sommelier at the wedding party?

 

[Rajni]

Nothing points to a creator. You have only demonstrated that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Perhaps we should discuss that first.

Nah, I'm good. Everything comes from something.

 

[Gene2memE]

And it's a popularity contest for ideas. I don't see why you don't like that description.

Perhaps he doesn't like it because its incorrect?

Peer review is not a "popularity contest for ideas" - it's a systematic analysis of information to determine whether it is valid or not.

It's far from flawless, but it's also just part of a wide process.