Exploring the Harmony Between Faith and Science in Understanding Life

[AV1611VET]

Pluto is still Pluto. Why does it matter a jot to you or anyone that it's not classified as a planet anymore? What does it change?

Did you see the answer to your question in that reply?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here, Warden ...

Scientific Misconduct Incidents

... knock yourself out.

Apple Sky, please take notes as to how my answers to their questions are being handled.

Some people just don't want to hear it.

I never said that scientists don't lie or are incapable of lying. That's you putting words in my mouth.

But calling ALL scientists dishonest because of the actions of a minority is dishonesty in itself.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did you see the answer to your question in that reply?

That Pluto is still Pluto. Yes, it's still an object floating in space beyond Neptune with the classification of Pluto. That much has not changed and will not change. Whether it's a planet or not is what changed, but it's still Pluto.

 

[AV1611VET]

I never said that scientists don't lie or are incapable of lying. That's you putting words in my mouth.

But calling ALL scientists dishonest because of the actions of a minority is dishonesty in itself.

Do you remember saying this:

Because your view on 'trusting God' does not match the same as others 'trusting God', which means that even if they do trust God but do so in the respect that Bible is not a literal work of literature and the world does not conform to literal reading of the Bible, then you're still going to call any scientist dishonest.

Peruse that Wikipedia article and tell me if YOU will call those scientists dishonest.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do you remember saying this:

Did you read the part of my quote before the part you coloured, or did you just choose to ignore that?

 

[AV1611VET]

That Pluto is still Pluto. Yes, it's still an object floating in space beyond Neptune with the classification of Pluto. That much has not changed and will not change. Whether it's a planet or not is what changed, but it's still Pluto.

But the IAU felt they had to change from honest to dishonest to get Pluto demoted, didn't they?

Evidently they felt they couldn't get Pluto demoted from an honest vote, so they demoted Pluto using a dishonest one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you read the part of my quote before the part you coloured, or did you just choose to ignore that?

From this post ...

Name a specific living scientist who is dishonest and why you think they are dishonest or retract your slur.

... and taking my Wikipedia article into consideration ... do you feel a retraction is necessary?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But the IAU felt they had to change from honest to dishonest to get Pluto demoted, didn't they?

Evidently they felt they couldn't get Pluto demoted from an honest vote, so they demoted Pluto using a dishonest one.

What does it change about Pluto that it no longer being a planet means that it suddenly warrants calling scientists across the world and all disciplines dishonest?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From this post ...



... and taking my Wikipedia article into consideration ... do you feel a retraction is necessary?

Not really since I didn't say that. Hans Blaster did. I said:

Because your view on 'trusting God' does not match the same as others 'trusting God', which means that even if they do trust God but do so in the respect that Bible is not a literal work of literature and the world does not conform to literal reading of the Bible, then you're still going to call any scientist dishonest.

You're arguing with me over something I didn't say.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does it change about Pluto ...

Nothing.

Pluto isn't going to change that easily.

Not in my mind, not in Alan Stern's mind, not in the mind of the California State Assembly, not in the mind of the New Mexico House of Representatives, not in the Illinois Senate.

Only in the minds of ... let's just say ... others.

... that it no longer being a planet means that it suddenly warrants calling scientists across the world and all disciplines dishonest?

Well, let's see.

From the Wikipedia article you obviously didn't read, let's go around the world, shall we?

First example was from the University of Texas.

Buckle your seat belt, the second example was from Australia.

Iraq for the third example.

(Getting dizzy? I am.)

South Africa next.

Germany next.

Back to the US.

Want the rest of the itinerary?

 

[AV1611VET]

You're arguing with me over something I didn't say.

Then I apologize for getting the wrong person.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nothing.

I'm only going to focus on this bit since this really is the only bit that matters.

Because it is 100% correct: nothing about Pluto changes. Classifying it as a planet, a dwarf planet or not a planet at all, doesn't change anything about it one jot.

So why should you or I or anyone get their panties in a twist that a very, very, VERY small number of scientists in the world decided to change the descriptive definition of Pluto?

 

[AV1611VET]

So why should you or I or anyone get their panties in a twist that a very, very, VERY small number of scientists in the world decided to change the descriptive definition of Pluto?

Must not have been too small.

If they were that small, how did Pluto get demoted at all?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Must not have been too small.

If they were that small, how did Pluto get demoted at all?

However, sampling 400 representative members out of a population of 9,000 statistically yields a result with good accuracy (confidence interval better than 5%). Astronomer Marla Geha has clarified that not all members of the Union were needed to vote on the classification issue: only those whose work is directly related to planetary studies.

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

Astronomer Marla Geha has clarified that not all members of the Union were needed to vote on the classification issue: only those whose work is directly related to planetary studies.

Remember this, from my Pluto Issue thread?

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Remember this, from my Pluto Issue thread?

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists.

I remember an unsourced claim.

And I remember repeatedly asking you, along with others asking, why it matters so much at all to you for you to bring it up IN EVERY THREAD YOU TAKE PART IN.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I remember repeatedly asking you, along with others asking, why it matters so much at all to you for you to bring it up IN EVERY THREAD YOU TAKE PART IN.

Because Pluto is an excellent poster child against those who think science walks on water.

 

[jayem]

For the record, there are also plenty of bad actors in the religious realm. Here's an absolutely true story. I worked in health care for 40+ years. One of my patients, a very nice lady in her 60s, had severe osteoarthritis in her right hip. X-rays confirmed there was no ball and socket joint space at all--the femoral head was grinding itself into the pelvic bone with calcifications in all the soft tissues. She walked very slowly, and painfully, with a cane and didn't want to take narcotics. She really needed a hip replacement, but was fearful of major surgery. She and her husband were deeply religious and frequently attended those Pentecostal and charismatic revival meetings, where participants get emotionally hyped up to an altered state of consciousness ("Slain in the Spirit") in the hope she'd be cured. One day she came into the office just beaming. At a high-power revival event, the holy spirit finally cured her. And honestly, she looked better than I'd ever seen her. She was walking without her cane, and was happily pain-free for the first time in years. I suggested we take some new X-rays to document her recovery. Which we did. It was great that she felt better, but the X-rays showed the same calcified soft tissue, collapsed femoral head, and absent joint space. I told her that I didn't see much change yet. But I was glad she felt better, and she could come back anytime. A week later, she was back in the office. This time in a wheelchair. Not only was the pain worse, but now she was also deeply depressed, thinking that she must have offended God, and is now being punished. I don't know what revival meeting she attended, but whatever charlatan, rip-off con-man was running the show needs jail time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because Pluto is an excellent poster child against those who think science walks on water.

Only in your mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know what revival meeting she attended, but whatever charlatan, rip-off con-man was running the show needs jail time.

I agree.

But I'll ask you what I asked Warden:

Do you know any scientist that was fired from his job?