Creation started with nothing?

[gluadys]

and in more depth, they show us that magin of error is not a simple equasion with absolutes.

It is a ratio. And the ratio is derived mathematically from many observations about polling and sampling.

But rather a formula that can be manipulated and adjusted to say pretty much whatever I want it to. IOWs margins of error can and usually are misleading.

I think you are still too far away from even understanding what a margin of error is to make such a sweeping judgment.

The only difference is before the evidence. IOW's the evidence collected in both are the absolutes.

So in some respects, a margin of error is based on absolutes.

water quality results came back X, Y number of times. The number of people that responded X, Y number of times. and after this collection of evidence, we do the calculations.

OK, now we are getting into a source of confusion. One thing I did not go into, but the articles did, is "level of confidence". Level of confidence is not the same thing as margin of error, but you are using an example of level of confidence as if it were an example of margin of error.

What you normally see at the bottom of an opinion poll, underneath the tabulation of the results, is a sentence with two figures in it. It is usually worded along the lines of "This poll is correct within 3%, 19 times out of 20"

3% is the margin of error.
19 out of 20 is the level of confidence. As you can see this is not the same as 3%. It is 95%.

So what this is saying is that 95% of the time (19 times out of 20) you can count on the true answer being within 3% of the polling figures. 5% of the time, the poll figures may be outside that margin of error.

Let's try this with a scientific sampling. Not one that would happen in real life, but it will do for an illustration. Let's say my doctor wants a very thorough review of my blood sugar. So instead of having the nurse take one test, he asks her to draw about 60 millilitres of blood into a test tube and divide it into 20 samples of 3 millilitres each. Then each of these 20 samples is analysed.

19 of the samples give a reading somewhere between 5.2 and 6.9% (acceptable). One gives a reading of 32%. (unacceptably high).

Should the doctor tell me my blood sugar levels are ok or that they are unacceptably high?

I forget the exact numbers, but the approval rating for President Bush was low, again I don't remember the numbers, but for the sake of discussion let's say 25. The approval rating for the media reporting President Bushes approval rating was lower, for the sake of discussion 20.

Two different subjects. Two different polls. Two different results. What else would you expect?

Now apply this to our discussion. Because of how margin of error is calculated, I can test for anything and get a low margin of error. I can test whether a mouse is in the cookie jar and the margin of error would be less than 1%, but that doesn't mean that the mouse lives in the cookie jar or that mice live in all cookie jars, or that the mouse is always in the cookie jar. What it means is that every time I tested, the mouse was there.

Not quite. What happened is that every time you tested, you got a positive result. But did you get a positive result because the mouse was there or even when the mouse was not there. (Ditto in reverse. Sometimes you may get a negative result even though the mouse is there.)

This is not about margin of error,. but about level of confidence in the test. If the test results correlate well with the actual presence or absence of the mouse, we have a high level of confidence in the test. If the test gives a lot of false positives (test says mouse is there, but it really isn't) and false negatives (test says mouse is not there, but it really is), we have a low level of confidence in the test.

But, if we factor in that my children may have been playing a trick,

Again, this speaks to level of confidence, not margin of error. For one thing, the test is only to show if the mouse is there or not. It is not about why the mouse is there. If the kids put it in or took it out while you were not looking, and the test correctly reports that the mouse is or is not there, nothing is wrong with the test.

On the other hand, if the kids have rigged up something that creates a false positive (makes it look as if the mouse is there when it is not) or a false negative (hides the presence of the mouse even when it is there), then they have damaged the confidence one can have in the results. But it is still a level of confidence question, not a margin of error question.

Answer the blood sugar question above, and then we can explore further what a margin of error really is. So far you have really dealt with level of confidence, and that is a different factor.

 

[gluadys]

Poor poor gluady's, I provided you with a string of evidence and showed you how to draw a conclusion of all the evidence and still you insist.

None of which answered the key questions.

Who is biased? What in particular are they biased about?

I would imagine that there are scientists as unbiased as is humanly possible. I would also bet they are seldom if ever published because they don't fit the community model.

So the answer to the "who" question above is "the whole scientific community"? Or as near all of it that it makes no great difference? I really want to know if that is the claim you are making.

Look at it this way, if your culture tells you that any given religion let's take christianity, is truth, and all the evidence that is ever presented by the leaders of the community show only the evidence for christianity and if you would be attacked and falsely accused if you reviewed all the evidence and came to a different conclusion, how much freedom would you have to actually evaluate the evidence for youself.

And this seems to go even farther. You seem to be saying that the whole culture is biased all in one pro-science direction. And that people are unable to access information that presents alternatives. Is that your claim?

I'll hold on commenting on the rest of this post until these questions are answered.

 

[razzelflabben]

Then I take it they were with denominations that don't put the high priority on scholarship that the denominations I am familiar with do. In the denominations I am familiar with, teaching Old Testament at a post-graduate level without knowing the Hebrew oneself just isn't done. Knowing the Hebrew is a prerequisite for the position.

(I also assume that you personally were not studying Old Testament at a post-graduate level, but as an interested lay-person.)

It was college level old testament and you would take it wrong if you take it the way you intend to. But correcting you is fruitless because you only want to see things your way.

The problem is this, it isn't until you get to graduate level old testament courses that it is necessary to understand any ancient heb. to teach old testament. At that time, there are varying degrees of knowledge. If you are interested in the actual interpretation and not just the exegesical interpretations, you need to seek out those whose masters of study are the ancient heb. lang. it is those professionals that will provide you with the actual interpretations. All others, might be right or they might be wrong. Take for example the man who has a rash, he goes to the Dr. and says Dr. I have a rash. The dr might diagnos the rash correctly or he might diagnose it incorrectly because it is not his field of expertise. So the man treats it according to the dr.s orders and the rash remains. What does he do now? He can continue on, or he can go to a dr. whose expertise in in skin conditions, especially rashes and ask that dr. about the rash.

This is what we are doing here. We have a question about chronology or framework interpretation of the ancient Heb. text. So we go to the experts and the experts say things that lean one way, but are not conclusive. (note here the one reference you provided that agreed with what I showed you) so the answer still was not satisfied, the rash remained. NOw it might be that the experts were right or they might be wrong since there is no clear cut answer. So what do we do then? We go to the expert whose field of study was rashes (ancient heb. lang.) a liftime of study on a matter should give the demotologist a better oppertunity to correctly diagnose the rash over the dr. who studied it one year in med school. And so we went to the experts in rashes (ancient Heb lang.) and they all agreed that it is a text that is both framework and chronological.

But instead of believing the experts in rashes you choose to follow the advice of the dr. who spent one year studying rashes. That is your right to choose, but, to insist that your experts are of a greater authority should be an insult to every educated person on the face of the planet. Education is about expertise in a given area, not about trying to know it all.

 

[razzelflabben]

But it is not the scientists that are the problem. The tests are the problem. The scientists are honestly reporting the results of the tests. Yecs agree this is the case. They agree that if they did the tests themselves, they would get the same answers as the scientists.

So no bias here.

The problem has to be in the tests themselves. Or in some assumption on which the tests are based.

So what are some of the reasons young-earthers suggest for why the tests may be giving the wrong results?

Or in some assumption on which the tests are based. See here what you said, or in some assumption on which the tests are based. The assumption that is false is that there are no variables. That we have removed the variables from the equasion. You insist on looking at the tests and saying see, we graded them and this is the results. But when you are shown that there was something you didn't account for in calculating the conclusion you insist it didn't happen. Hum..................let me see............................I have a planter sitting in my bed room from my grandmothers funeral. It is growing and thriving and so I continue to water it as I have since the day I got it. But one day, it begins to die. I can't figure out why, I am doing everything the same way I always have. I water it the same, it is in the same window, nothing has changed except that where it once was thriving it is now dieing. Tests for age are a little bit like this (I am streatching to find an analogy not already used so it isn't totally like this)our test results always come out the same, the plants always thrive when I water this way and keep them in this window, etc. But something changed, and that changed affected the end results. What changed is that my daughter decided to help care for the plants and over watered. In the question of age of the earth, what changes is the variables, the things we don't know. And yes, science has much it doesn't know. And so the end results which are the conclusions we draw, are not the same as they should be if we are right in our assumptions. The tests all say the same thing, the tests all say that if I put my plants in this window and water them this way, they will thrive. And plant after plant shows the test results to be accurate. The test is solid. But we must draw conclusions in order for it to make any sense to science. And if the conclusions remove all the variables, we will absolutely find somwhere along the way that we are way wrong.

It isn't the test that is flawed, it is the conclusions and calculations and assumptions that are flawed. Let me see, another analogy......................Martha Stewart was making candy the other day, she was showing people how to calabrate a candy thermometer. The age tests are kind of like this, they are using a thermometer that is calabrated wrong, so the answers always come out the same but the measure is flawed. Remember our discussion about the yardstick whose measure was off and how that would affect our outcome as would the distance we were measureing with it. This is what I am saying to you. A biased scientist who wants the results to be X will not admit the calabration is off if the results are X. Infact, a truely biased scientist and scientific community will instead, try to create an illusion that the calbrations are accurate.

 

[Gottservant]

Sometimes, I get in a discussion about something and something gets me thinking.

[...]

In previous discussions I have had on the forum, it has been asserted that creation is about something from nothing and science knows that isn't true.

[...]

So what really has me stumped is where this idea that creation is something from nothing comes from and how anytime I try to discuss the biblical account of creation, I am talked down to because from science we know that something doesn't come from nothing? Not only do I not suggest that somthing comes from nothing, but the bible doesn't suggest it either.

Nothing is definately there in the beginning. It has to be. Only with nothing present can the glory of God be constrasted in a way that is revealing.

Genesis describes nothing as having potential. It is a deep (Genesis 1:2). It is also without comprehension (John 1:5).

The problem is not that the nothing is there, the problem is that people try to bridge the gap between nothing and something by leaping from nothing to doing something, without involving God. There is a reason the bible says "the just shall live by faith" Hebrews 10:38, that reason is that living by faith is the only way, especially when attempting to comprehend something and nothing at the same time.

Living by faith, we say, "there was nothing and then God spoke!". There is no need for nothing to lead to doing something. Speaking is something but it does not require that anything be done, necessarily (Luke 10:42 ). It is the world that wants there to be a passage between nothing and something without the Door, because it is a slave to sin (John 8:34) and cannot stop. We do not need to be like that.

 

[razzelflabben]

As you did. With a "yes" or a "no". In this case you answered "yes".

actually, I didn't answer yes, I said it depends on how you view the question. If you view it one way, the answer is yes, another way, the answer is no.

So what are you saying now? That your "yes" does not mean "yes"?

see above and read for context. some questions dispite your insistance are not as easy as yes or no. Some questions require more of an answer.

Fine, but since we are measuring how long it took the light to travel from the star to the earth, it doesn't matter whether it is originating from the star or collecting there from some other source.

it absolutely does. Light that is collecting is older than light that is originating.

Let me try (with some trepidation) an analogy. The Walmart outlet in Springhill is expecting five deliveries today. One truck will come from Amesbury, another from Beaconsfield, another from Chadwick, one from Digby and one from Elmvale.

Among these, Elmvale is the point closest to Springhill, and as it happens the routes from Amesbury, Beaconsfield, Chadwick and Digby all pass through Elmvale to get to Springhill.

Now apply this analogy to the starlight. Springhill is the earth. Elmvale is the star. The truck coming from Elmvale is the star's own light, originating in the star itelf. The trucks coming from the other four points represent light from other sources collected at Elmvale and from Elmvale on, they all travel the same route as the one originating in Elmvale.

All of them travel the same route from Elmvale to Springhill, so they all travel the same distance. And (since they are really light, not trucks) they all travel at the same constant speed from Elmvale to Springhill.

So all of them take the same amount of time to get from Elmvale to Springhill (from the star to the earth).

Sure, if we wanted to know how long each took to get from its original source (Amesbury, Beaconsfield, Chadwick, Digby) we would get different answers for each.

But that is not the question the scientist is asking. He is not asking how long the light took to get from its original source to earth. He is asking how long it took to get from the collecting point (the star) to earth.

And that is the same answer for all five.

If we are measuring light, then you are wrong, in addition, you analogy shows that another thing missing is the exact distance Elmvale is away. So we have two vaiables that are not yet answered, are we measureing the light or the distance the light is traveling. And secondly, the distance the light must travel. If we are measureing the light's distance, then the source is of vital importance because if you remember the mountain river analogy, light coming into the stream will still appear to be from the original spot. Let me see, using your analogy. All the trucks would appear to be coming from Elmvale if they all passed through there, so what is the actual distance the light is traveling. Now this messes with your analogy which is trying to make the point of least distance, and so what we need to do now is determine the distance of the actual star to see if it is less or greater than we thought. So let's look at measureing this kind of distances.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kids_space/star_dist.html&edu=high
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=292
so now we add another problem to the equasion. problem 1. what are we measuring, the light or the apparent source of the light 2. the distance the light has to travel. Both present a problem for your conclusions.

 

[razzelflabben]

Because we don't have the evidence yet. We don't even know yet what evidence we need.

True. But before we can gather evidence, we need to know what evidence to look for. So before we can gather (or fail to gather) evidence that "life was faltering" we need to think about what sort of evidence would show that life was faltering.

That is how you turn an imaginary "what if" into a hypothesis. You suggest an observation which would determine whether the "what if" was/is actually happening or not.

If X (life was faltering) is true, what else must be true? What do we look for to establish that X is true? (or to falsify it?)

a question for science not me.

Until we have that, science cannot do anything with a "what if".



Oh, it follows straight on from what we have been discussing. We have established that science makes claims about the age of various things and that the ages suggested by science are at variance with the ages compatible with a young-earth.

Now we have this suggestion from the young-earthers, that what the scientists are seeing is not age, but appearance of age.

Would that suggestion even exist without the scientific claim of age?

You say there are other things to consider in appearance of age. What other things? What else other than the scientific observations, tests and reasoning that back up their claims provides any hint at all of appearance of age?[/quote]

 

[ExpatChristian]

It is also without comprehension (John 1:5).

Well, if it is without comprehension then don't talk about what you claim cannot be known. Makes sense doesn't it? Somethings cannot be known. The ulitmate ontological questions cannot be solved by even the greatest philosopher. That is the boundary of faith. As a non-literalist Christian, I say now, that what can be engaged with is what can be seen and tested by science (this does not mean science has remit over the aformentioned limits, only that science has remit over what can be seen), and this includes the inescapable fact that things evolve. This can be simulated in controlled experiments. If you deny it, you are denying the truth of God's divinely inspired world and the profound mechanisms by which it reveals his power.

 

[razzelflabben]

OK, now we are getting into a source of confusion. One thing I did not go into, but the articles did, is "level of confidence". Level of confidence is not the same thing as margin of error, but you are using an example of level of confidence as if it were an example of margin of error.

they are interconnected and if you truely understand one you understand the other.

hould the doctor tell me my blood sugar levels are ok or that they are unacceptably high?

actually, the dr. would take blood 20 different times if he wanted an accurate reading. But by all means continue.

Two different subjects. Two different polls. Two different results. What else would you expect?

if they were testing the same thing, and they were unbiased, the results should be within the margin or error of each other. Now shouldn't they?

Answer the blood sugar question above, and then we can explore further what a margin of error really is. So far you have really dealt with level of confidence, and that is a different factor.

So far you haven't given an accurate example of how your blood sugar would be tested for true accuracy. In order for a base line to be provided it would be necessary to give you a glucose tolerance test. This test measures the sugar in your blood over a period of time given the introduction of sugar to the body. Thus we would measure how your body is metabolizing the sugar in your body. We first get a baseline, this guide as it were for what your body is doing. From that, we can then determine if your sugar levels are constantly too high, sometimes too high, or what is going on. Of course there are other tests, but this is one of the most common for identifying whether the problem is long term or short term.

 

[razzelflabben]

And this seems to go even farther. You seem to be saying that the whole culture is biased all in one pro-science direction. And that people are unable to access information that presents alternatives. Is that your claim?

not at all, but understanding would require reading for comprehension which you don't seem to be able to do.

 

[razzelflabben]

Nothing is definately there in the beginning. It has to be. Only with nothing present can the glory of God be constrasted in a way that is revealing.

Genesis describes nothing as having potential. It is a deep (Genesis 1:2). It is also without comprehension (John 1:5).

The problem is not that the nothing is there, the problem is that people try to bridge the gap between nothing and something by leaping from nothing to doing something, without involving God. There is a reason the bible says "the just shall live by faith" Hebrews 10:38, that reason is that living by faith is the only way, especially when attempting to comprehend something and nothing at the same time.

Living by faith, we say, "there was nothing and then God spoke!". There is no need for nothing to lead to doing something. Speaking is something but it does not require that anything be done, necessarily (Luke 10:42 ). It is the world that wants there to be a passage between nothing and something without the Door, because it is a slave to sin (John 8:34)and cannot stop. We do not need to be like that.

But where you are right that many people try to remove God and God is the center of the GEn. story, I would also say that faith does not give us a right to invent things about God that allow us to wrap our minds around him. For example. we can't insist that God created something from nothing just because it allows us to be able to comprehend God. That is not faith either. Consider the Centurion, Jesus marveled at his faith. A faith he discribed as understanding and knowing that Jesus authority was final. If we comprehend that God's authority on this issue if final. We take away from Gen. and understanding that God did it. and that is about all. Instead we try to read into the text what is not there in an attempt to understand what we cannot understand. Thus my insistance that we look at the absolutes of the text and not get all mucked up and involved in the non absolutes. Faith is about understanding and accepting God and what He says for who He is and what He says. Not trying to read into it and invent what is not, just because it helps us to comprehend.

 

[razzelflabben]

It is also without comprehension (John 1:5).

Well, if it is without comprehension then don't talk about what you claim cannot be known. Makes sense doesn't it? Somethings cannot be known. The ulitmate ontological questions cannot be solved by even the greatest philosopher. That is the boundary of faith. As a non-literalist Christian, I say now, that what can be engaged with is what can be seen and tested by science (this does not mean science has remit over the aformentioned limits, only that science has remit over what can be seen), and this includes the inescapable fact that things evolve. This can be simulated in controlled experiments. If you deny it, you are denying the truth of God's divinely inspired world and the profound mechanisms by which it reveals his power.

Wouldn't a literalist be limited only to what the text says? For example, the absolutes of the text would be the only beliefs if we are literalists wouldn't they? That would leave a literalist with more questions about origins than answers wouldn't it?

 

[gluadys]

It was college level old testament

Yes, there are a lot of lay people who take college-level courses. But professional training for clergy (of the sort Kline was engaged in) takes place at post-grad level. Much more specialized and requiring a much higher degree of expertise.

I don't know about your church, but mine requires that candidates for clergy already be college graduates. All theological training happens at the post-grad level and the professors have to qualify to teach at that level. That means a PhD.

The problem is this, it isn't until you get to graduate level old testament courses that it is necessary to understand any ancient heb. to teach old testament.

Yes, and that was the qualification listed even in the thumbnail sketch of Meredith Kline. For five different seminaries. What did you think they were? Kindergartens?

In addition the three other clergy all had to have had at least a post-grad education whether or not they went on to teach. An M. Div. is the minimum qualification for clergy in most Presbyterian churches.


Face it. You just don't want to recognize their qualifications because you disagree with what they say. I thought better of you than that.

 

[gluadys]

The assumption that is false is that there are no variables.

No variables in respect to what?

Science, in general, assumes that variables exist and sets out to study them. So they note, for example, that weight varies with gravity. And that the force of gravity itself varies according to the inverse square law. In fact, many of the equations used in science are equations that measure variables like gravity.

But scientists may conclude, in a specific case, that something is constant and does not vary. An example would be the speed of light in a vacuum.

In this case we are talking about the age of things like the earth, fossils in the earth, geological features in the earth and also about the age of stars and of the universe. And the various tests used to measure those ages.

So when you say science assumes there are no variables, I expect you mean one or more variables related to these tests.

So, in relation to these tests, what are the particular variables scientists are not accounting for?

 

[gluadys]

actually, I didn't answer yes, I said it depends on how you view the question. If you view it one way, the answer is yes, another way, the answer is no.

Oh, you must be referring to a different question then. It would have helped if you had quoted it. I thought you were still referring to this one, where you did answer "yes"


from post 221

Now, we have one source of light: light created before the stars. One possibility. Is it the only possibility? Or is it also possible that there are other sources of light as well e.g. electric lamps, flashlights, candles, fires, and yes, stars. Are these possible additional sources of light?

yes, as others might be as well.

Light that is collecting is older than light that is originating.

That would be correct. So the light that originates with the star would be the youngest light, and any other light coming from the same direction would be older. When we determine the minimum age of the light, we know how old the light coming from the star itself is, and any other light will be older than that.

We don't particularly have to know how much older the other light is. Only that it must be older than the light originating from the star itself.

So, if the light from the star itself is 4 years old, any other light collected by it and also appearing to come from it must also be at least 4 years old. It could be 1, 10, 300 years older, but not younger.

Agreed?

If we are measuring light, then you are wrong, in addition, you analogy shows that another thing missing is the exact distance Elmvale is away.

I didn't mention the distance, but why would you assume we don't know it. If you want a figure, let's say it is 175 kilometres from Elmvale to Springhill and that an average speed for a truck going that distance is 80 kilometers an hour. That would make the average time for the trip 2 hours and about 11 minutes.

So we have two vaiables that are not yet answered, are we measureing the light or the distance the light is traveling.

They are related. We measure the age of the light by measuring the distance it has travelled. We know the speed of light, so we know how far it can travel in a second, a minute, a year, etc. We refer to these distances as light-seconds, light-minutes, light-years.

When we know the distance and the speed, we can determine the time it took for the journey. The travel time is also the age (at least the minimum age) of the light.

Think of our trucks going from Elmvale to Springhill again. When we know the distance (175 km.) and the speed (80 kmp) we know how long the journey takes (2 hours + 11 minutes).

This tells us the truck itself must be at least 2 hours and 11 minutes old, because it had to exist that long ago in Elmvale to begin the journey. It could be older, but it can't be younger, not even if it came direct from the assembly plant to the loading dock.

Let me see, using your analogy. All the trucks would appear to be coming from Elmvale if they all passed through there, so what is the actual distance the light is traveling.

If we wanted to get the actual time of the whole trip for each, we would have to measure from the earlier point of origin, and we would have to know whether it was Amesbury, Beaconsfield, Chadwick or Digby. And we would get a different time for each, and also the time for Elmvale which would be different from each of the above.

But since Elmvale is our "star" and what we want to know is how old is the light from Elmvale, all we need to measure is the distance from Elmvale. We know that all the other distances will be longer, and the light correspondingly older. The "star" at Elmvale gives us the minimum age of all the light that passes through it, whatever the source.

So if we are looking at light that appears to come from Alpha Centauri, a star 4 light years away from us, we know that even if the light originated elsewhere, and is only making the last leg of its journey via Alpha Centauri, it took 4 years to travel that last leg. So it must be at least 4 years old. Could be more, but not less.

so now we add another problem to the equasion. problem 1. what are we measuring, the light or the apparent source of the light 2. the distance the light has to travel. Both present a problem for your conclusions.

We are directly measuring 2. the distance. Since we already know the speed, we can then use the equation distance/speed=time.

 

[gluadys]

a question for science not me.

Then it won't be answered until science has a reason to ask the question. Providing some evidence that life was indeed faltering would give scientists a reason to ask the questions, "why was it faltering?" and "what happened to save it?" Then you might get the conclusion you are suggesting.

But at the moment we have no evidence that life was faltering, so scientists are not asking why or what happened to reverse the situation.

Now in the same post, I asked you a question which you have not answered yet.

We have established that science makes claims about the age of various things and that the ages suggested by science are at variance with the ages compatible with a young-earth.

Now we have this suggestion from the young-earthers, that what the scientists are seeing is not age, but appearance of age.

Would that suggestion even exist without the scientific claim of age?

Here's another.

You say there are other things to consider in appearance of age. What other things? What else other than the scientific observations, tests and reasoning that back up their claims provides any hint at all of appearance of age?

 

[gluadys]

actually, the dr. would take blood 20 different times if he wanted an accurate reading.

I said it wasn't a real life example, but one for illustrative purposes. (Just like you taking a position as a devil's advocate although you don't hold it personally.) So, given that it is only for illustrative purposes, consider the question.

19 of the samples give a reading somewhere between 5.2 and 6.9% (acceptable). One gives a reading of 32%. (unacceptably high).

Does the doctor tell me my sugars are acceptable, or unacceptably high?

if they were testing the same thing, and they were unbiased, the results should be within the margin or error of each other.

But they weren't testing the same thing.

 

[gluadys]

not at all, but understanding would require reading for comprehension which you don't seem to be able to do.

OK, so not the whole culture. That's a relief.


But who then? The whole scientific community (barring a few unbiased rebels)?

 

[Critias]

(barring a few unbiased rebels)?

That's an interesting statement, rebels who have no bias. Personally, I doubt anyone in this debate, whether scientific or not, is unbiased.

 

[gluadys]

That's an interesting statement, rebels who have no bias. Personally, I doubt anyone in this debate, whether scientific or not, is unbiased.

I was keeping in mind this statement of razzelflabben's:

I would imagine that there are scientists as unbiased as is humanly possible. I would also bet they are seldom if ever published because they don't fit the community model.

She has spoken often about biased scientists, but I thought it was a reference to individual biases. Now I think what she is driviing at is a bias endemic to the whole scientific community, but I am asking her to confirm that.

I would agree with you that everyone, including scientists as human beings, have their blind spots and prejudices and pet hobby horses that can warp their viewpoints. The question is what happens when you move from an individual to a community perspective. Do the various individual biases get reinforced or mitigated by the group perspective? Science has a pretty good record (though not perfect by any means) of sifting out personal bias. But is there a community bias? And if so, is it unjustified?