Is Evolution a Religion?

[Gwenyfur]

No wonder you have no idea what you're talking about. A theory gives an explanation to observed facts. A theory in the scientific sense is far far more than just an 'idea'.

oh, I'm so sorry my redneck vocabulary doesn't match yours....
same idea...same difference

 

[Gwenyfur]

WOAH! Okay, I'm going to stop you right there. Immediately go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory. You need to read atleast the entire section labeled "Science", and I would suggest taking a look at more than that. A theory is far more that just an unproven idea, and a fact is absolutely not a proven theory. Theories do not become facts, and facts were never theories. They are two completely different concepts used to support scientific discoveries.

Once you've had a chance to review what a theory means and how it relates to facts, let me know. Then I'll tackle the rest of your post.

actually (and I'm really surprised you don't know this) Wikipeidia isn't exactly the best source to use, since anyone can post anything whether it's true or not...however I did visit dictionary.com and even though the vocabulary is different, the meanings are pretty much the same Bear with the redneck in me...I'm not the most eloquent, but that doesn't mean I don't know what means what

 

[The Lady Kate]

actually (and I'm really surprised you don't know this) Wikipeidia isn't exactly the best source to use, since anyone can post anything whether it's true or not...

And every article is subject to review... questionable articles are routinely put to votes and edited or deleted as needed.

I recent survey (I forget from where) listed Wikipedia as reliable as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. That's the power of peer review.

however I did visit dictionary.com and even though the vocabulary is different, the meanings are pretty much the same

The scientific definition or the general one? Science has its own vocabulary.

 

[Dannager]

actually (and I'm really surprised you don't know this) Wikipeidia isn't exactly the best source to use, since anyone can post anything whether it's true or not...

A recent scientific study has rated Wikipedia on par with the Encyclopedia Brittanica in accuracy when it comes to scientific concepts. I assure you, their definition of theory and the article surrounding it are entirely accurate. As The Lady Kate noted, it is subject to review by experts in the relevant field.

however I did visit dictionary.com and even though the vocabulary is different, the meanings are pretty much the same Bear with the redneck in me...I'm not the most eloquent, but that doesn't mean I don't know what means what

No, you don't know what means what. A fact is not a proven theory, and a theory is far more than an unproven idea. Please read the Wikipedia article that I linked to. It is accurate, concise and informative and will do you a great deal of good when it comes to understanding the topic that you are discussing.

Dictionary.com is not a scientific source, but if you'd prefer to use it, the first definition of "theory" applies to scientific theories:

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Note that it tells you that a theory is used to explain facts. Facts are observations, theories are explanations for why we observe facts. Please read the Wikipedia article, it will explain the relationship between theories and facts far better than I can in my own words.

 

[Numenor]

oh, I'm so sorry my redneck vocabulary doesn't match yours....
same idea...same difference

Well I actually used pretty much the same words as you, just in the right order

 

[Remus]

As is often the case, there's more to the story. Here's an article talking about this study:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5997332.html

For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.

In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.

[Wales (wikipedia founder)] also acknowledged that the error rate for each encyclopedia was not insignificant, and added that he thinks such numbers demonstrate that broad review of encyclopedia articles is needed.

So Gwenyfur, you are right to be skeptical.

 

[artybloke]

I'm sure there are errors on encyclopedias; but the definition of a theory seems to be exactly what all the scientists on this discussion board seem to operate with, so if they are anything to go by, what's the problem?

It's not as if words only ever mean one thing.

Anybody else think it strange that people who don't even know what science is criticise scientists for things that science doesn't even say? I wouldn't expect most scientists to know as much as I do about 20th century modernist poetry; why should I expect to know better than a scientist what science is?

 

[Dannager]

As is often the case, there's more to the story. Here's an article talking about this study:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5997332.html





So Gwenyfur, you are right to be skeptical.

Huh, I wasn't aware that there was as much as a 25% disparity in smaller inconsistencies. For the time being, Wikipedia will suffice, as it atleast has the major points intact and that's really all Gwenyfur needs right now. Quite frankly, though, I still don't believe the inconsistencies to be a significant threat to the ability to find accurate information on Wikipedia, especially considering it has a much more extensive nature than the Encyclopedia Britannica (and it is peer-edited).

 

[Remus]

I'm more concerned with the "series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements" than anything else.

 

[Dannager]

It would help to see some examples of what they meant by "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements". It would also help to know whether or not they included scientific articles flagged as disputed.

 

[shernren]

162 factual errors out of 42 reviews is approximately 4 per article, and an article typically has at least 200 (probably) factual statements which could be correct or incorrect. A 2% error rate is nothing too much to be worried about, especially when the survey says nothing about how these results can be extrapolated to the rest of the site. And 2% error isn't going to change "theory" into "just a theory which really isn't confirmed even though thousands of scientists work day and night on experiments any one of which could go wrong and disprove it."

 

[Remus]

It would help to see some examples of what they meant by "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements". It would also help to know whether or not they included scientific articles flagged as disputed.

It's just two links away from the zdnet article.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/exref/supplementary_information.doc

 

[Remus]

And 2% error isn't going to change "theory" into "just a theory which really isn't confirmed even though thousands of scientists work day and night on experiments any one of which could go wrong and disprove it."

True, but it does show how things are presented here in a much better light than is warranted. I posted a link to the details, which was very easy to find. I’m not sure why I’m the only one to find it. Take a look at the errors. If you want to claim that the wiki is reliable, then by all means, use it. Just don’t be surprised when you get called on it.

 

[Numenor]

What this does show also is that peer-review is a very powerful process for spotting and correcting error. I'm sure all those articles in Wikipedia and Britannica have been or will be cleaned up.

So who peer-reviews Creationist research?

 

[Remus]

What this does show also is that peer-review is a very powerful process for spotting and correcting error. I'm sure all those articles in Wikipedia and Britannica have been or will be cleaned up.

These experts from Nature weren't peers of those that wrote those articles. If you read in the nature article, you'll see that:

As well as comparing the two encyclopaedias, Nature surveyed more than 1,000 Nature authors and found that although more than 70% had heard of Wikipedia and 17% of those consulted it on a weekly basis, less than 10% help to update it.

The vast majorty of the authors are not qualified to write what they do.

So who peer-reviews Creationist research?

I really don't know. I don't follow their research. I am curious how the possibility of Creationist research being wrong would make the Wiki any more reliable. Or is this just some logical fallacy? Who can put a name on this fallacy? I can’t think of it at the moment.

 

[Dannager]

The vast majorty of the authors are not qualified to write what they do.

Actually, I'd say that 80 or so editors per 1000 Nature authors is a pretty good figure. Extrapolated to the entire scientific journal community, that's a lot of people - far more than I expect any other published encyclopedia contracts for their scientific entries.

 

[Remus]

Actually, I'd say that 80 or so editors per 1000 Nature authors is a pretty good figure. Extrapolated to the entire scientific journal community, that's a lot of people - far more than I expect any other published encyclopedia contracts for their scientific entries.

How many thousands of authors do you think they have? How many of those authors also write for other journals? The Wiki reports that they have had over 100,000 people who have edited at least 10 times. To reach a low 10%, you'd have to extrapolate that out to over 100 journals, or over 10,000 authors. Again, that would be assuming that the rate of contribution is consistent. Possible? Perhaps, but is 10% really good? I would say definitely not!

It is worth noting that formal encyclopedias don't have to worry about laymen changing what the experts have written. Unfortunately, this is a problem that the Wiki has. Either way, if there’s one thing we should all take away from this is that encyclopedias are less than reliable.

My suggestion to everyone is to raise your standards. The information is out there and although it might not be as easy to find as the Wiki, I can assure you that it's going to be much more reliable. If you doubt me, all I can say is check it out for yourself. However, if you want to continue to trust such sources, then more power to you. In fact, it is to my advantage if you do use it. It makes my task much easier.

 

[Dannager]

How many thousands of authors do you think they have?

I'm not certain. I imagine a few thousand, but if you can find a figure by all means let us know.

How many of those authors also write for other journals?

Probably a good number, but then again there are a lot of other scientific journals out there and only a select few people get published each issue in Nature. There are a lot of scientists out there.

The Wiki reports that they have had over 100,000 people who have edited at least 10 times.

And how many of these pertain to entries on science that people writing in Nature would be editing? I imagine not all that many, considering how little of a percentage scientific articles make up on Wikipedia.

To reach a low 10%, you'd have to extrapolate that out to over 100 journals, or over 10,000 authors. Again, that would be assuming that the rate of contribution is consistent. Possible? Perhaps, but is 10% really good? I would say definitely not!

Again, this extrapolation is based on the presumption that the people editing more than ten times are only doing so to scientific articles. As there are huge swaths of articles that are not scientific ones, and as someone must have put them there, I don't think this is a valid assumption to make.

EDIT: Also worth noting - I just took a look at the statistics viewer on Wikipedia, and though 100,000 people have edited articles at least 10 times, only 50,000 of them have done so with articles on the primary, English site.

 

[Remus]

I'm not certain. I imagine a few thousand, but if you can find a figure by all means let us know.

Oh, I'm sure we can estimate this. Let's see, judging by the ToC, I'd estimate that the current issue of Nature has about 100 authors. Taking this back 10 years gives us about 12,000 authors. This is assuming that none of these authors published more than once which is hilghly unlikely. That would give us around 1200 authors who have contributed to the Wiki. Judging by this, it would seem that 10% is a valid estimation of how many experts vs. laymen have contributed to the Wiki.

Probably a good number, but then again there are a lot of other scientific journals out there and only a select few people get published each issue in Nature. There are a lot of scientists out there.

So it's safe to assume that we can't use the same number of authors for every journal since many won't be unique authors. Would you agree with this?

And how many of these pertain to entries on science that people writing in Nature would be editing? I imagine not all that many, considering how little of a percentage scientific articles make up on Wikipedia.

Again, this extrapolation is based on the presumption that the people editing more than ten times are only doing so to scientific articles. As there are huge swaths of articles that are not scientific ones, and as someone must have put them there, I don't think this is a valid assumption to make.

You have a valid point. So what do you think would be a fair number? It would seem that you are in a catch-22. Either the number of experts contributing is low, thus the number of errors in the Wiki is high, or there are a high percentage of experts contributing to the Wiki and yet the number of errors is still high. If the latter is true, then it shows that either the experts are publishing errors, ignoring errors, or do not have enough influence.

EDIT: Also worth noting - I just took a look at the statistics viewer on Wikipedia, and though 100,000 people have edited articles at least 10 times, only 50,000 of them have done so with articles on the primary, English site.

Nature has German, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean versions. How many of those authors do you think only speak English?

 

[KerrMetric]

Oh, I'm sure we can estimate this. Let's see, judging by the ToC, I'd estimate that the current issue of Nature has about 100 authors. Taking this back 10 years gives us about 12,000 authors. This is assuming that none of these authors published more than once which is hilghly unlikely. That would give us around 1200 authors who have contributed to the Wiki. Judging by this, it would seem that 10% is a valid estimation of how many experts vs. laymen have contributed to the Wiki.
So it's safe to assume that we can't use the same number of authors for every journal since many won't be unique authors. Would you agree with this?

You have a valid point. So what do you think would be a fair number? It would seem that you are in a catch-22. Either the number of experts contributing is low, thus the number of errors in the Wiki is high, or there are a high percentage of experts contributing to the Wiki and yet the number of errors is still high. If the latter is true, then it shows that either the experts are publishing errors, ignoring errors, or do not have enough influence.

Nature has German, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean versions. How many of those authors do you think only speak English?

A couple of points. I don't know any colleagues in science who have ever contributed to wikipedia. Most technical articles I have read on Wikipedia seem to be contributed by well meaning amateurs.

The journal Nature has a poor reputation in the science community as a way of getting science. The papers are usually very cursory and are really meant as a way of garnering attention for breaking news and as a stepping stone to finding the real journal articles by the same authors. They are for the most part glorified abstracts.