Issues in Scienceville.

[Cabal]

I realize that the term "scienceville" is a made up term. I am the author. I find it a useful way group the various components of science together rather than just referring to one field. The slamming is done by the actual happenings. These are incidents that DO happen and I will be adding more.

Why is so much to ask that you keep the focus on the individual groups at fault, instead of using a term that smacks of generalisation?

 

[Hespera]

I realize that the term "scienceville" is a made up term. I am the author. I find it a useful way group the various components of science together rather than just referring to one field. The slamming is done by the actual happenings. These are incidents that DO happen and I will be adding more.

Now it is time for YOU to back up your continued slams againt creation science and creationist arguments. You continue to attack them but I never see any claims from you as you require from me.

Name a claim of "creation science" such as are offered to falsify evolution.
You choose; they are all as described.
Palyxy mantracks?
Polyystrate fossils?
Flood carved grand canyon?
Sea shells on mountains?

that kind of thing, there is an endless list; you choose.

 

[Hespera]

I am familiar with the “Theory” of Evolution, and the Creationists have a few valid points, but their bias causes them to make many erroneous conclusions. These mistakes cost them any credibility, and the few valid points they make are ignored because of it.

Atheist scientists also have a bias and tend to overlook the problems with the theory of evolution, as it currently stands.

However there are scientists without a bias that sees these flaws, but no one has come up with a better theory.

Physicist myself, but I can see how evolution could be modified, and might look into that in detail some day.

Science and Religion do not speak the same language, and often uses different but equally valid logical methods. But there are always misunderstanding when people of different languages and perspective try to communicate, and emotional attachment makes it even harder.

I think you are drawing an utterly false equivalence.

Please name a "valid point" from creation science.

There are an awful lot of scientists who are not atheists; is only the atheists who have "bias" and 'overlook the problems" but christians are not biased and see the problems?

However there are scientists without a bias that sees these flaws, but no one has come up with a better theory.

what flaws?

equally validlogical methods

that is like for a 6000 yr old earth and a flood, vs geology and paleontology? there is no logic to be found on the bible side of that. no data either.

 

[Inan3]

but no one wanted to know. Sargent's research was ignored by the scientific community and his career stymied.[/b]

Kettlewell's peppered moth experiment was "sacred"; critics were "demonised", their views were dismissed as "heresy". But the evidence grew and in 1998 a prominent biologist, whose weighty judgments could not be rubbished, reviewing it in 'Nature', said his shock at the extent of the doubts was like discovering as a child "that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas eve.""

"Judith Hooper's book raises the question as to why such a shoddy piece of scientific research was so readily accepted by the scientific community and allowed to attain iconic status in evolutionary biology. Her answer: because scientists wanted to believe it. Once it had been cited enough times, it became an irrefutable article of faith. It became on of the dogma of unbelieving scientists"

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

Why is so much to ask that you keep the focus on the individual groups at fault, instead of using a term that smacks of generalisation?

Because I believe that this is basically how things work in the whole of the science areana. I actually believe that there are things that are rejected and ignored because they do not fit in with what the science community "wants" to believe. Those that do attempt to show the errors are stymied and labeled as heretics which can basically destroy their careers as a scientist. Thus it, it keeps the majority of scientists intimidated to only submit things that will fit in with the flow that has already been put in place in the scientific community. Hence, all evidence is NOT submitted and therefore the truth is not complete.

BEFORE I ever read this article, my observation and conclusion was as she said, "Once it had been cited enough times, it became an irrefutable article of faith." I believe that is how evolution got its beginnings and the status it claims today.

 

[Cabal]

Because I believe that this is basically how things work in the whole of the science areana. I actually believe that there are things that are rejected and ignored because they do not fit in with what the science community "wants" to believe.

Then you're going to have to provide more evidence than some brief, shallow criticism of the peppered moth experiment if you want other people to believe that science is that corrupt at every level. A lot more.

As I said in the other thread, what does a naughty evolutionary researcher halfway around the world from me have to do with my research on the atom-light interaction? Even if there was a fraudulent atomic physicist working nextdoor to my lab, sure, my work would naturally come under greater scrutiny, but I'd still expect my colleagues and I to be treated fairly on a case-by-case basis.

If on the other hand, my inquisitor was someone who only presented a few scant pieces of evidence about another field and already had a somewhat subjective bee in their bonnet about atomic physics for other reasons (like because their over-9000 year old religious text told them that discretisation of matter was the work of the devil, for example) then I'd hardly trust them to give a fair appraisal of my work.

Those that do attempt to show the errors are stymied and labeled as heretics which can basically destroy their careers as a scientist. Thus it, it keeps the majority of scientists intimidated to only submit things that will fit in with the flow that has already been put in place in the scientific community. Hence, all evidence is NOT submitted and therefore the truth is not complete.

Which is obviously incorrect - if it was, there would be no progression in science at all. Certainly no massive leaps forward. What were Einstein, Planck and Darwin, then? The system backfiring? Pretty funny that those few backfires resulted in entire subjects being overturned, no?

 

[Cabal]

Come to think of it, I'm about to co-author a paper that's presenting data for an observation that wasn't expected. I have every confidence that it will get published.

 

[Cabal]

BEFORE I ever read this article, my observation and conclusion was as she said, "Once it had been cited enough times, it became an irrefutable article of faith."

Ok. So? You and the author could both be wrong - and it doesn't go into that much detail as to why the peppered moth experiment is wrong, ignores all the other research that's been done on the moths and makes the same false-dichotomy logical error that many creationists do.

I believe that is how evolution got its beginnings and the status it claims today.

Even though theories in science are overturned on a regular basis? There is no such thing as "irrefutable" in science - but if you're going to make a claim and try and overturn a theory, you'd better bring sufficient evidence.

*http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/research/personal/majerus/Swedentalk220807.pdf

An interesting review of the peppered moth affair, and I'm surprised to see that one of the erstwhile critiques of the peppered moth example was Jerry Coyne, who's one of those eeeeevil outspoken atheists that are no doubt in charge of a massive conspiracy at every level of science.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2008.00987.x/full

The same author of that above link (also an atheist) also got a paper published where he considered bat predation instead, and published results that did not show natural selection based on predation-by-moth-colour by bats.

Quite clearly, we're just trying to keep a lid on this peppered moth fakery by publishing all this inconvenient data in the open.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is so much to ask that you keep the focus on the individual groups at fault, instead of using a term that smacks of generalisation?

Because these 'individual groups' suddenly become a single unit when people boast about how science does this, that, and the other thing for us.

Scienceville loves to take the credit for successes, but failures suddenly become someone else's fault.

And you guys have got room to talk -- seeing as how we Christians supposedly marched off on Crusades, hanged witches, and put people through an inquisition.

 

[AV1611VET]

Come to think of it, I'm about to co-author a paper that's presenting data for an observation that wasn't expected. I have every confidence that it will get published.

Ya -- get it published before someone else does.

Then get it peer reviewed.

(Or has it been peer reviewed already?)

 

[Cabal]

Because these 'individual groups' suddenly become a single unit when people boast about how science does this, that, and the other thing for us.

That wouldn't be in response to ignorant people making a broadbrush attack on all of science, would it? Noo, you guys would never do that.....

Scienceville loves to take the credit for successes, but failures suddenly become someone else's fault.

No, I'm not going to deny that some scientists make booboos every now and again, what I take issue with however is the claim that a few mistakes make the entire process suspect, nor do I appreciate singling out scientists when they were not the only people at fault, and in many of your trademark PRATTs that's definitely the case.

And you guys have got room to talk -- seeing as how we Christians supposedly marched off on Crusades, hanged witches, and put people through an inquisition.

Given that there is a definite scientific method, it's quite easy to point out what is and isn't scientific, but seeing as different forms of Christianity are little more than one subjective opinion and personal interpretation vs. another, you're not really comparing like with like here.

 

[Cabal]

Ya -- get it published before someone else does.

Yeah, that's the idea, not that I think that someone's going to beat us to it on this one. What's your point?

Then get it peer reviewed.

(Or has it been peer reviewed already?)

That would be what happens when we submit it to the journal.....

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I'm not going to deny that some scientists make booboos every now and again, what I take issue with however is the claim that a few mistakes make the entire process suspect...

Give me a break, Cabal.

Like I said, one town -- one town -- puts [alleged] witches on trial, and it's all of Christianity's fault; isn't it?

 

[Cabal]

Give me a break, Cabal.

Like I said, one town -- one town -- puts [alleged] witches on trial, and it's all of Christianity's fault; isn't it?

They did more than just trial them, and it was a practice by more than just one village.

It's not any adherent's fault personally (beyond those personally involved, obviously), but that's one of the downsides of having such a vague text prone to so many subjective interpretations (and lest we forget, one which can't be altered but on pain of damnation) - it's hard to justify one subjective interpretation over another, and everyone thinks their interpretation is correct. In that sense, it is the fault of making such a flawed text unquestioningly foundational.

I'm sure the Salemites for the most part thought they were doing God's will, just as every other Christian does even though they may not agree with burning witches - so in that sense, I see no point in frantically denying they were Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, that's the idea, not that I think that someone's going to beat us to it on this one. What's your point?

I've made this point over and over, and it's a long one -- but to try to shorten it down, why can't scienceville share their findings?

Instead, they erect their Tower of Babel of countries that are ahead of others scientifically, like it's some kind of game or something.

Supposedly, the U.S. is 27th of 195 or something, and instead of nrs. 1-26 bringing us up to speed, we get ridiculed and pressured to become #1.

It's no wonder teenage suicides are on the increase; these poor kids are being pressured to overachieve by a group of narcissistic zealots.

 

[Psudopod]

Because I believe that this is basically how things work in the whole of the science areana. I actually believe that there are things that are rejected and ignored because they do not fit in with what the science community "wants" to believe. Those that do attempt to show the errors are stymied and labeled as heretics which can basically destroy their careers as a scientist. Thus it, it keeps the majority of scientists intimidated to only submit things that will fit in with the flow that has already been put in place in the scientific community. Hence, all evidence is NOT submitted and therefore the truth is not complete.

And what evidence do you have for this? What has been suppressed? If this is how science works, then there must be countless examples. You must be able to show papers that got rejected simply for their conclusions, rather than because they were faulty in their working. You've got the whole of science to choose from, but so far the only example you've given is an issue over staged photos. Peppered moths still show variation that is enviromentally selected, exactly what we would expect.

On the other hand, I don't think I've heard anyone, ever, claim that no scientist has ever made a mistake, or worse committed fraud. Of course they have. And you know why they get found out? People check their work and see things don't add up. What we don't do, is condemn an entire process (science is a methodology, it's not an entity, it's not a business, it's simply a way of invesitgaing things; ) on the basis of some examples of people doing it wrong. People don't suddenly decide to write off christianity on the basis of some greedy televangelists or evil molesting priests.

 

[Cabal]

I've made this point over and over, and it's a long one -- but to try to shorten it down, why can't scienceville share their findings?

What? I said it's going to be published? What's your problem? How are we not sharing the data? I'm not giving details right now because we're still in the process of checking and finalising the data. What, would you prefer I shot my mouth off now and made a serious scientific claim that was incorrect?

I've no doubt in my mind that if we were to do that, ignorant pedants like you would be the first to complain that we weren't being thorough enough, or too reckless with our claims.

Instead, they erect their Tower of Babel of countries that are ahead of others scientifically, like it's some kind of game or something.

It's not....it's really not. But hey, you guys can lag behind if you want.

Supposedly, the U.S. is 27th of 195 or something, and instead of nrs. 1-26 bringing us up to speed, we get ridiculed and pressured to become #1.

Science is an international process - science education....well, that's a bit more territorial, and I can only imagine some of the honking from some American Christians if "ivory tower liberal" (har har) academics from other countries (oh noes! foreigners!) came along and started trying to improve your education system.

It's no wonder teenage suicides are on the increase; these poor kids are being pressured to overachieve by a group of narcissistic zealots.

Nah, they're much more likely to commit suicide from a group of narcissistic zealots driving them to it because they happen to like people of the same gender and that's wrong because their god says it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not any adherent's fault personally (beyond those personally involved, obviously), but that's one of the downsides of having such a vague text prone to so many subjective interpretations...

Then why aren't others doing it, and why do I happen to be right in condemning it, myself?

 

[Cabal]

Then why aren't others doing it

Morality moves on with or without Christianity, AV - you just happen to born in a generation that wholesale thinks such primitive morality is irrelevant, and rightly so - but I'm sure Internet theologians will come up with some cop-out term for this (like "dispensationalism", for example) to make out that things are going exactly as planned and that Christianity is totally on top of things, yes sir.....

That said, witchburning may have gone out of fashion, but there are still the same kind of irrational and unjustifiable value claims going around Christians (those with the same kind of mindset today as witchburners had before, anyway) - the recent obsession over homosexuals is a prime example.

and why do I happen to be right in condemning it, myself?

You're right, but for the wrong reasons. Hint: you won't find a good reason not to do it in the Bible.

 

[Jro]

criticism kettlewell - Google Scholar

I just did a google scholar search for 'criticism kettlewell' and came up with 1300 results. So much for a lack of rigor.

 

[LittleFeather]

Cabal

Congratulations on your paper, I do hope it gets published.

The U.S. is slowly, well maybe quickly, becoming a third world country. We are slipping in health, education, economic output, virtually everything seems to be sliding towards another Dark Ages where science is persecuted by the right wing religious nuts.

But that seems to be what a lot of Americans want, to return to “the good old days”. Like there ever was any to begin with.