Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii)

[AV1611VET]

Quite the contrary, what they do often show is a cyclic pattern, as we continually test our conclusions and refine our theories with new evidence and new questions.

Please show me, Saltes, where Thalidomide slipped through the cracks here.

I submit it was in Step 4, where Frances Kelsey wanted more testing, but got ridiculed.

She finally had to put her foot down -- thank God -- and put up a roadblock on it.

So ... Step Four = Test with Experiment, to a point, then ridicule anyone who wants more testing.

Step Five = Analyze Data ... you know ... deformed babies?

Step Six = Report Conclusions ... to the press. Blame it on big pharmacy, big government, or big management.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Please show me, Saltes, where Thalidomide slipped through the cracks here.

Before we stray off-topic, let's consider Nebraska Man. We can see how the circle model gets to work on the conclusion that it was a primate fossil. New observations were made, which caused researchers to test and revise the conclusion.

Field work resumed in the spring of 1925 at the site where Cook had found the original Hesperopithecus tooth in 1917. It was material uncovered at the site during 1925 that undoubtedly sowed the seeds of doubt about the true possessor of the Nebraska tooth. As evidence accumulated in subsequent field seasons, Gregory became aware that, despite the tooth's uncanny superficial resemblance to an anthropoid molar, Hesperopithecus was probably an extinct peccary. Gregory announced his retraction in Science at the end of 1927.

Anyway, turning to thalidomide, I'm not sure what is meant by 'slipped through the cracks', and we could (if we wanted) quibble for a long time about whether government regulatory agencies evaluating clinical studies are 'doing science', but let's skip that. The FDA had not come to the conclusion that it was safe and effective. Some European countries did come to that conclusion and approved the drug. The wheel had come full circle to differing conclusions.

Then, new observations came to light (as you say, deformed babies) starting the circle again. This increased confidence in the conclusion made by the FDA, and decreased confidence in the opposite conclusion. So much so that the latter conclusion was revised in accordance with the new evidence. Nothing slipped through any cracks. Some people made a mistake. And then it was corrected after new evidence came to light.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I think your real beef with the scientific method is that it has no square labelled ABSOLUTE TRUTH on it. This is again the same dichotomy between science and creationism that was pointed out in post #2.

If one becomes deluded into possessing ABSOLUTE TRUTH, one becomes immune to new evidence... even when one is wrong.

 

[sjastro]

LOL -- maybe it's because of the first six letters?

I'm surprised we're allowed to walk on the courthouse lawns!I'm sure it does establish relevancy with them.

Science breeds hostility ... and hostility needs a target.Surprise! Surprise!

Yes, I'm sure born-again academians -- called to be academians by God -- can represent a moral minority within the scientific infrastructure.

Perhaps these guys took you as an "anti-intellectual, anti-science brute" because they've been reading too many of Estrid's posts?

There are two aspects of your post worth commenting on.
Firstly there is the psychology of projection where you are basically describing your own behaviour of hostility and projecting it on others.
Secondly is the selective criticism of attacking science for its failures as if it has a conflict with morality while at the same time sponging off the fruits and benefits science has given you.
If science has an issue with morality what does this say about your own morals?

The only way for you to avoid being a hypocrite is to go live in a cave and disown science entirely.

 

[AV1611VET]

Before we stray off-topic, let's consider Nebraska Man. We can see how the circle model gets to work on the conclusion that it was a primate fossil. New observations were made, which caused researchers to test and revise the conclusion.

That's nice -- but who labeled this thing PREMATURELY?

The FDA had not come to the conclusion that it was safe and effective. Some European countries did come to that conclusion and approved the drug. The wheel had come full circle to differing conclusions.

This is the 411 on Thalidomide AS I UNDERSTAND IT:

Number One:

Experiments back then were done on lab mice, because mice were considered closest to us humans.

What happened to them, was sure to happen to us.

Aspirin and Thalidomide are the perfect dichotomy.

Aspirin caused mice to give birth to horribly-disfigured babies, while doing nothing to humans.

Thalidomide did nothing to mice, but caused horribly-disfigured human babies.

Number Two:

It was [assumed/hypothesized/theorized/conjectured/considered] at the time that no drug could pass through the placental wall in pregnant mothers.

But Thalidomide showed otherwise.

And this assumption was made despite the fact that mothers hooked on heroin were already giving birth to babies with heroin dependency.

So they knew better.

That's my understanding, for what it's worth.

Please correct me where I'm wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think your real beef with the scientific method is that it has no square labelled ABSOLUTE TRUTH on it. This is again the same dichotomy between science and creationism that was pointed out in post #2.

That's nice.

But thinking like that prevents one from recognizing ABSOLUTE TRUTH, if they read it in a Book written by God himself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Firstly there is the psychology of projection where you are basically describing your own behaviour of hostility and projecting it on others.

You mean like others do, when they project their hostilities on to the government to do something about "those Ten Commandments out there on the courthouse lawn"?

Secondly is the selective criticism of attacking science for its failures as if it has a conflict with morality while at the same time sponging off the fruits and benefits science has given you.

I'm sure that if I, or anyone, just made the blanket statement that science conflicts with morality, we would be inundated with requests for examples.

I give out those examples like candy, and they don't like it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But thinking like that prevents one from recognizing ABSOLUTE TRUTH, if they read it in a Book written by God himself.

Correct, scientific thinking will never get you to the ABSOLUTE TRUTH square, but the method can certainly falsify a broad range of hypotheses written down in books.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That's nice -- but who labeled this thing PREMATURELY?

A scientist in 1922 before the additional observations were made in 1925 and following years?

One can only assess 'prematurity' after the new information comes in.

The alternative is to never come to any conclusions. Because there might always be something out there in the future waiting to disrupt one's tentative conclusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

The alternative is to never come to any conclusions.

That can't be avoided though.

Conclusions MUST occur.

And they do, despite whistleblowers and those who warn to the contrary.

Remember the Challenger?

 

[essentialsaltes]

That can't be avoided though.

Conclusions MUST occur.

And they do, despite whistleblowers and those who warn to the contrary.

Welcome to the human condition. People make errors of judgment.

 

[sjastro]

You mean like others do, when they project their hostilities on to the government to do something about "those Ten Commandments out there on the courthouse lawn"?

"Whataboutism" is not an effective form of argument and doesn't address your own psychological projections on others.

I'm sure that if I, or anyone, just made the blanket statement that science conflicts with morality, we would be inundated with requests for examples.

I give out those examples like candy, and they don't like it.

OK lets look at one of your examples, the IAU removing Pluto's status as a planet.
How this is an example with science conflicting with morality?
Before you trot out the vote was rigged example, let me remind you failure to provide proof for this assertion amounts to smearing the reputation of astronomers who voted in favour of removing Pluto's planet status and reflects on your own morals.

 

[AV1611VET]

Before you trot out the vote was rigged example, let me remind you failure to provide proof for this assertion amounts to smearing the reputation of astronomers who voted in favour of removing Pluto's planet status and reflects on your own morals.

QV please:

The Vote To Demote Pluto Was Rigged

QV please:

The vote was rigged.

SOURCE

 

[sjastro]

QV please:

The Vote To Demote Pluto Was Rigged

QV please:

SOURCE

Here we have an example of surfing the net to find support for your confirmation bias.
This is the same tired nonsense which focuses on emotive language but no evidence the vote was rigged.

Can you answer the question of many astronomers who voted in favour for demoting Pluto did so because they are corrupt as opposed to those who did so for legitimate technical reasons?

The vote was so overwhelmingly in favour to demote Pluto the IAU didn't even have to take a count.
Yellow cards indicated a vote for Resolution 5A "Definition of Planet" which led to Pluto's demotion.

 

[AV1611VET]

The vote was so overwhelmingly in favour to demote Pluto the IAU didn't even have to take a count.
Yellow cards indicated a vote for Resolution 5A "Definition of Planet" which led to Pluto's demotion.

My, my.

Look at all those empty chairs.

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter.

The Pluto Issue

 

[sjastro]

My, my.

Look at all those empty chairs.

You think this is evidence of a rigged vote?
Did you expect 10,000+ astronomers to have turned up given voting is not compulsory and only a percentage of which have a professional interest in Pluto.

If the vote was tight there might be a claim the early leaving of members might have affected the vote.
Given the vote was overwhelmingly in favour of demoting Pluto what evil genius was able to convince the vast majority of those who would have voted to maintain Pluto's planetary status to leave early and not vote???
These pro Pluto astronomers are obviously not very bright.

Then there is a the case of many planetary scientists not being able to vote because they are not members of the IAU.
So what?
To be a member of the IAU requires a PhD in astronomy and planetary science is multidiscipline subject where a PhD in other fields such as geology, physics and chemistry also qualify.
Only the planetary scientists with a PhD in astronomy could vote.

The Pluto Issue

This is the ultimate in confirmation bias using your own link to support your assertions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Pray tell me, how did you guys manage to reduce the amount of CO₂ being pumped into the atmosphere?

We, as a species, didn't - hence the extreme weather.

 

[ruthiesea]

Some people like to point out that scientific conclusions change. This is true. They change as more information is gathered and discoveries are made. That is the strength of science.
Creationism does not change no matter how much is discovered. In fact, creationism does not allow questioning of it’s conclusions.

"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned" ~ Richard Feynman

 

[AV1611VET]

Some people like to point out that scientific conclusions change.

That's because scientific conclusions change.

This is true.

Yup.

They change as more information is gathered and discoveries are made.

Yup.

That is the strength of science.

What's its weakness?

Creationism does not change no matter how much is discovered.

Because creationism isn't science.

Case in point: can you name me ONE THING that has been discovered that substantiates creationism at the scientific level?

In fact, creationism does not allow questioning of it’s conclusions.

Knock yourself out with questions. That's what I'm here for. Creationism is my forte.

And if you won't ask questions, I'll ask them myself in the form of thought-provoking challenges.

"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned" ~ Richard Feynman

Then get Feynman in here, and I'll eat him for dessert.

 

[ruthiesea]

That's because scientific conclusions change.Yup.Yup.What's its weakness?Because creationism isn't science.

Case in point: can you name me ONE THING that has been discovered that substantiates creationism at the scientific level?Knock yourself out with questions. That's what I'm here for. Creationism is my forte.

And if you won't ask questions, I'll ask them myself in the form of thought-provoking challenges.Then get Feynman in here, and I'll eat him for dessert.

You are correct that creationism isn’t science. Therefore, just as science stays out of religion, so religion should stay out of science.
Science has not discovered anything that substantiates creationism. There is nothing besides religious belief that leads to creationism. No one has ever said that they discovered evidence that would, sans the Bible, lead them to the conclusion of creationism. Not every on has the same religious beliefs as creationists. Therefore, every religion that addresses the origin of the universe and life has the same amount of believability as creationism.
Science, however, is based on evidence and is independent of religion. It depends on evidence and our G-d given abilities to learn, to discover, and to draw conclusions based on evidence.
I have no questions to ask you about creationism as my religious beliefs are different than yours.