Science Denial

[Ygrene Imref]

Academia makes proclamations of absolute truth or knowledge? I'd like to see some examples.

Anything that is phrased "scientific fact" fits that archetype. You have already seen examples of this - the most notable is evolution, stationed as scientific fact.

 

[RickG]

You cannot be accurate when you start from error. It is that simple. Assumptions are not accuracy.

Then I presume I need to contact the author of the textbook I paraphrased that statement from, Quaternary Dating Methods (Walker, 2006) Accuracy and Precision, pp 5-6.

If you knew for sure that, for example, dating methods have ZERO error, and that a biological or frozen sample is POSITIVELY from a certain period - and that the concentrations of chemicals in the sample is POSITIVELY suggestive of certain events, then maybe there is a point.

Neither dating methods or any scientific discipline work with or even suggest zero error. That is why numerous data points are required to obtain a high probability within statistical error acceptability (reliability).

But, there is no positivity when you are trying to determine properties of a dynamic system using frozen samples - and assuming the concentration inside can be correctly dated, and information can be accurately derived.

Yes it can with statistical significance, and concentration is completely irrelevant with respect to dating methods.

That is a lot of CERTAINTY that is required. But, forgetting all of that: you cannot give an accurate answer to a system starting with error.

I am very confused with that statement. It seems to imply a lack of understanding of statistical significance and other related statistical operations.

No, that is an assumption based on the concentration of particles, magnetic alignments and the idea that something frozen-in has been that way for anmeasurable amont ofntime comparable to the confirmation of dating method.
The use of the word "assumption" in the physical sciences is quite often misunderstood. Assumptions in science are based on repeatable tests with positive results over and over, in fact, most assumptions are literally "facts". As I previously stated, concentrations have nothing to do with dating methods.

Uncertainty, especially in measurement, is related to the amount of precision in a measurement, not its accuracy.

That's why instruments are calibrated to specific standards.

Based on what? How can the real date of a system or sample actually be determined if it from the past? You use extrapolation from physical properties, historical essence, and methods assumed to work.

Seriously? The 2% is the statistical reliability from the data.

If you ignore that beginning with error carriers error over operations, then it can certainly work.

Nothing is being ignored.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Not even 1+1 is a fact: it is an axiom. The identity "1" is an axiom. The fact that that element "1" can undergo the operation of addition is corollary of axiom of 1.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Then I presume I need to contact the author of the textbook I paraphrased that statement from, Quaternary Dating Methods (Walker, 2006) Accuracy and Precision, pp 5-6.


Neither dating methods or any scientific discipline work with or even suggest zero error. That is why numerous data points are required to obtain a high probability within statistical error acceptability (reliability).


Yes it can with statistical significance, and concentration is completely irrelevant with respect to dating methods.


I am very confused with that statement. It seems to imply a lack of understanding of statistical significance and other related statistical operations.

You cannot have an accurate answer when you start from error. I have the same example three times.

If you begin operations with an erroneously determined parameter, all the operations using that parameter, and it's images, are erroneous.

The unit ball: choosing r=1.2 gives error, using r to then find volume multiples the error. When you use 0.00000075% of a system''s observed data, you begin with error. It is that simple.

If you ignore that starting with error produces error through operations, then everything else works out.

 

[Skreeper]

Anything that is phrased "scientific fact" fits that archetype. You have already seen examples of this - the most notable is evolution, stationed as scientific fact.

A scientific fact is not absolutely true. It is most probable that it is true based on the available evidence. It can still be falsified. Science labels evolution as fact because it has been observed and all the available evidence points to it being true. That is not equal to absolute knowledge or truth.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

A scientific fact is not absolutely true. It is most probable that it is true based on the available evidence. It can still be falsified. Science labels evolution as fact because it has been observed and all the available evidence points to it being true. That is not equal to absolute knowledge or truth.

Well, now we are talking semantics. As I said, laity don't know the difference between absolute truth, and scientific fact. Academia does not attempt to make a defined enough distinction, and they certainly don't stop people from assuming a fact or theory is absolute truth.

The lack of transparency is one of the reasons why many people are suspicious of AGW, and academia in general. Saying scientific fact isn't [absolute] truth is like saying what they say is "their truth," because there is only ONE TRUTH, not a thousand personal truths.

Lack of transparency.

 

[RickG]

Anything that is phrased "scientific fact" fits that archetype. You have already seen examples of this - the most notable is evolution, stationed as scientific fact.

I am not concerned whether an individual accepts or dismisses evolution, for most people it is a personal preference or belief. However, from a scientific point of view there is a single fact that I cannot show to be wrong. If evolution were false, would we not find remains/fossils of all life forms in all layers of geologic strata, especially the oldest layers. The fact is that we don't. I can't explain that fact without evolution.

 

[Skreeper]

Well, now we are talking semantics.

It is not just semantics. It is an important distinction that I hope you will remember exists from now on.

Saying scientific fact isn't [absolute] truth is like saying what they say is "their truth," because there is only ONE TRUTH, not a thousand personal truths.

Actually what it means is that it is true in the sense that all the available evidence points to it. If there were evidence that the theory is false then it would be revised.

 

[AV1611VET]

A scientific fact is not absolutely true. It is most probable that it is true based on the available evidence. It can still be falsified. Science labels evolution as fact because it has been observed and all the available evidence points to it being true. That is not equal to absolute knowledge or truth.

It's interesting that the word "fact" is not found in the Bible.

"Truth" is, but not "fact."

Thus in the Biblical sense, you can have truth w/o facts.

In short, facts can take a hike.

 

[Skreeper]

It's interesting that the word "fact" is not found in the Bible.

"Truth" is, but not "fact."

Thus in the Biblical sense, you can have truth w/o facts.

In short, facts can take a hike.

Good for you but I don't care what the Bible says.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good for you but I don't care what the Bible says.

I thought the topic of this thread was SCIENCE DENIAL, not BIBLE DENIAL.

(Right, Rick?)

 

[RickG]

Well, now we are talking semantics. As I said, laity don't know the difference between absolute truth, and scientific fact. Academia does not attempt to make a defined enough distinction, and they certainly don't stop people from assuming a fact or theory is absolute truth.

The lack of transparency is one of the reasons why many people are suspicious of AGW, and academia in general. Saying scientific fact isn't [absolute] truth is like saying what they say is "their truth," because there is only ONE TRUTH, not a thousand personal truths.

Lack of transparency.

How is information, research and data on AGW not transparent? It is available to everyone, including you and me.

 

[FrankDux]

Did I really just see somebody say the Bible has nothing to do with facts and that " facts can take a hike "

[infinite recursive facepalm]

" fact " is from the Latin word " facere " meaning " to create "

 

[AV1611VET]

Did I really just see somebody say the Bible has nothing to do with facts and that " facts can take a hike "

You saw someone say the word "fact" is not in the Bible and that facts can take a hike.

 

[FrankDux]

Yes, the scriptures were not written in English, that is very profound

carry on with your " science "

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, the scriptures were not written in English, that is very profound

carry on with your " science "

QV please ... and note the date:

Dear Lewis, I do accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact ... and scientific facts can take a hike.

Just like it was a scientific fact at one time that Pluto was our ninth planet and Thalidomide was a pre-natal wonder drug, the theory of evolution is a scientific fact that I think can take a hike.

If it's Truth you want to hear, instead of facts, that's different.

Sincerely, AV1611VET

 

[Ygrene Imref]

It is not just semantics. It is an important distinction that I hope you will remember exists from now on.



Actually what it means is that it is true in the sense that all the available evidence points to it. If there were evidence that the theory is false then it would be revised.

It is semantics because now we are saying facts aren't truth, or they aren't absolute truth - which means there is a "truth," and an absolute "truth" to attain.

That is asinine. Something is either true or not. Fact is an attempt at objectively isolating and identifying the truth. So, whoever says something is fact is implying something is the Truth. And, there is only one truth.

So, either there is a disingenuous semantics game being played, or the arrogance of academia won't allow them to admit that what they deem fact is not actually true - like a universal disclaimer. What is going on now is nontransparency and redefining truth.

If you ignore that starting with error produces error through operations, then everything else works out. Then, the "facts" do, in fact, become subjective.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I am not concerned whether an individual accepts or dismisses evolution, for most people it is a personal preference or belief. However, from a scientific point of view there is a single fact that I cannot show to be wrong. If evolution were false, would we not find remains/fossils of all life forms in all layers of geologic strata, especially the oldest layers. The fact is that we don't. I can't explain that fact without evolution.

You don't know why fossils exist. You don't know if there was a rogue dwarf planet that caused a global event, or a binary system that wreaked upheval on the surface and living creatures. You don't know if "the gods" caused fossilized remains to exist when they destroyed things. You don't know if fossils have "apparent ages" that make them seem older than they actually are - through radiological, chemical, biological or epidemiological reasons.

Academia ASSUMES fossils are remains from a very long time ago. They use their dating methods - which are not perfect and measurably erroneous - to further substantiate their claims. But, that also assumes that isotopes in biological entities do not undergo spontaneous radioactivity (which can, in fact, happen,) aging the remains.

The fossil theory is desperately necessary for the evolution FACT - and FACT is truth, or its own entity? Carbon dating goes up to 75,000 years, but loses accuracy long before that point.

Carbon 14 was doubled due to our nuclear testing age, so if someone comes and collects our fossils some centuries from now, they wont have an accurate measure to date - or rather, the dating will be in error. How do we know a similar event did not happen for the samples we gathered? We dont.

So, you have to ignore many, many things in order to assume the things about evolution. It is a great academic track of a theory, since you need infinite time for some of the things it suggest to naturally happen - and 3 billion years is a while enogh.

This is why if you start with error, but ignore that starting with error will pollute operations over that error, then everything else works out. Core and Carbon dating methods assume, extrapolate and account for inconsistencies based on what is assume should be.

So, if scientists claim it is FACT, they should either add a caveat, or stop saying it is FACT.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

How is information, research and data on AGW not transparent? It is available to everyone, including you and me.

I just explained it. For some reason, FACT does not equal TRUTH, unless you want to say differently - that was the semantic problem addressed above.

There is a TRANSPARENCY problem because scientists, for example, do not tell the layperson, "This is a scientific FACT, but that doesn't imply it is true, or accurate in the denotation sense..."

Instead, they project their FACT and theories, and then when we have a discussion about the nonfatal aspects of their work (as has happen many times in history,) there is a exclamation that "fact" doesn't imply Truth, or that there is no such thing as 100% accuracy, so the founded "FACTS" are enough.

That doesn't work for those of us who have been in academia, have seen what goes on, and know the scientifc legalese that protect intellectual property and the sources from which they come. In other words: academia is misleading at best.

That isn't even addressing the misleading actions in which some scientists ignore that starting with error produces error through operations. AGW has had enough scandal to be ridiculed even in the public eye; it is the new "evolution," which apparently is fact, not but fact enough to be truth.

You don't see the misleading circumlocution between how academia defines their facts, the truth and what people perceive based on what academia says? It is painfully obvious - unless you defend academia like one would defend one's religion when confronted with hypocrisy or error.

 

[Speedwell]

You don't know why fossils exist. You don't know if there was a rogue dwarf planet that caused a global event, or a binary system that wreaked upheval on the surface and living creatures. You don't know if "the gods" caused fossilized remains to exist when they destroyed things. You don't know if fossils have "apparent ages" that make them seem older than they actually are - through radiological, chemical, biological or epidemiological reasons.

Academia ASSUMES fossils are remains from a very long time ago. They use their dating methods - which are not perfect and measurably erroneous - to further substantiate their claims. But, that also assumes that isotopes in biological entities do not undergo spontaneous radioactivity (which can, in fact, happen,) aging the remains.

The fossil theory is desperately necessary for the evolution FACT - and FACT is truth, or its own entity? Carbon dating goes up to 75,000 years, but loses accuracy long before that point.

Carbon 14 was doubled due to our nuclear testing age, so if someone comes and collects our fossils some centuries from now, they wont have an accurate measure to date - or rather, the dating will be in error. How do we know a similar event did not happen for the samples we gathered? We dont.

So, you have to ignore many, many things in order to assume the things about evolution. It is a great academic track of a theory, since you need infinite time for some of the things it suggest to naturally happen - and 3 billion years is a while enogh.

This is why if you start with error, but ignore that starting with error will pollute operations over that error, then everything else works out. Core and Carbon dating methods assume, extrapolate and account for inconsistencies based on what is assume should be.

So, if scientists claim it is FACT, they should either add a caveat, or stop saying it is FACT.

There are issues with your post which I'm sure the scientifically trained amongst us will proceed to point out.

However, the thing that stands out to me is your use of the term "desperately." There is no desperation in science. Scientists aren't in a desperate struggle to "prove" evolution to anybody. The theory of evolution is take for granted as the only viable theory accounting for the diversity of life on our planet. It is under no serious threat at this time, but scientists stand ready (the younger ones eagerly) to modify the theory at any time as new information becomes available. The idea that evolutionary biologists have some motive for their work that they are desperate to achieve --besides finding out what actually happened--is laughable.