Shift on Red Shift

[busterdog]

Inbetween the noise here on this thread is some really important stuff that does need to be earnestly debated so that the credibility of the Christian faith is upheld.

Again, my favourite example is the geocentric universe model, which claims that all the stars, including the sun, and planets revolve around the Earth, which was thought to be at the centre of the Universe.

Now what is interesting is that the geocentric model was the dominant theory through Jesus' time, having been proposed by Plato and Aristotle, in the 4th century BC, and then carried on by the Greeks, who eventually called it the Ptolemaic theory. Most likely, Paul and the apostles would have believed that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, and would presumably have interpreted the Bible to say so. This interpretation was then vigorously defended by the Christian church until the 17th century.

It was not until 1610 when Galileo finally provided enough evidence to convince most scholars of the day that the geocentric theory could not possibly be correct. Many religious leaders were sceptical and claimed Galileo was a heretic, and even today, there are still fundamentalist Christians who interpret the Bible to show that the Earth is the centre of the Universe. Most scientists, though, have a different idea.

I think the various debates here in the Origins section are similar to those that prevailed during Galileo's time- those people, like us, did not doubt the authenticity of the Bible, but vigorously debated how the scriptures were to be interpreted. It was only through much honest inquiry and reasoned debate that the present theories came to be accepted by the vast majority of people, includings Christians.

So we need to carry on with debates like this, but we also need to do so in a calm and responsible fashion that upholds our Faith and sets a good example for the rest of the world.

Maybe that is a whole other thread. I think it is evident that every single writer in the Bible understood cosmology quite well, or at least took dictation from someone who did.

You can find lots of evidence that after the collapse of the Roman empire, there was a significant lapse of science.

For example, the argument is that pi was invented by the greeks, when in fact, it is all over the ancient world. Sperical geometry for the purposes of map making was highly sophisticated in some places in the ancient world. IT wasn't until about 1950 that science caught up with some of that ancient ability.

A number of the ancient observatories suggest a sophisticated ability to caluculate the movements of the stars. The sun revolving around the earth just seems completely alien to that level of sophistication.

I understand the arguments about the Bible, but I don't understand why the supposed geocentrism is taken literally while Gen. 1 is taken metaphorically. Why make the assumption in that direction?

Often, it seems that scripture deliberately baits us or tests us in making a decision about what it says. One of the best examples has to do with the molten sea and its mathematical proportions.

1Ki 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
2Ch 4:2 Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Actually, the math works out perfectly, but many people assume it is all wrong -- and worse yet, use this example to impeach the Bible.

 

[busterdog]

Normally I don't look very far into scientific arguments. But this one actually caused me to take a look. I did a google on Mr. Setterfield and in all the links I found not a single one called him a fraud. Only one said he was dishonest but the vast majority had nothing negative to say about the man. Yet here he's called a fraud among other negative connotations. It would appear that the folks out there are much kinder than those here. How is it acceptable for us to be so vitriolic when the world isn't?

If you get into the FAQ section of Setterfield.org, you will also find a pretty good run down of lots of the supposedly contrary science.

Another thing you will see time and again is the charge that Setterfield doesn't under something really basic, like relativity. You see the snotty question and the pretty calm, rational response.

You have to respect that. One hammer who made that claim was completely schooled, since it was Setterfield who understood the different theories of relativity and how the experimental evidence supported his view.

This is really equivalent to calling him a crank. How many times does a guy have to shoot down the specious claims of the "accepted" scientists before he gets some street cred? None of the accepted scientists express disgust at their very ornery "peers" who are politely and solidly dismissed in a way that even the likes of me can understand. I am sure he isn't accepted broadly, he is mostly embarassing those who confront him directly.

My Church had a split before I joined. Allegedly it was theological. But, people were almost punching each other they were so mad. It wasn't about theology and this isn't about science. Many an ox could be gored here. If you get schooled by the likes of Setterfield, the brilliant work that goes into your campaign for tenure or an endowed chair maybe looks a little less wonderful.

Also remember that Setterfield is working really on the borders of science. We are such extreme levels of what is detectable and what isn't that there is bound to be conflict. First, in the land of things like quantum tunnels and planck spaces, you are bound to get lots of speculation because your ability to measure what is happening is much different than it is usual science. THis is the land of what brilliant minds call inherently absurd behavior of matter and energy. And, lots of pet theories short on concrete observation are in jeopardy of correction in such a world.

And of course, setterfield has the audacity to quote scripture and believe it literally.

 

[Deamiter]

A number of the ancient observatories suggest a sophisticated ability to caluculate the movements of the stars. The sun revolving around the earth just seems completely alien to that level of sophistication.

lol, apparently you've never seen an ancient star chart that maps the movement of the planets? By the time Copernicus came along, there were circles upon circles (known as epicycles if you care to use google). Here's a simple example. I'm trying to find one of the famous detailed maps that were carefully calculated and drawn out... and which perfectly predict the movement of the planets in geocentric orbits!

http://www.williston.k12.vt.us/Houses/Meeting/Meeting/8thGradeChallenge/web site/ptolemy chart.html

 

[Deamiter]

Also remember that Setterfield is working really on the borders of science. We are such extreme levels of what is detectable and what isn't that there is bound to be conflict. First, in the land of things like quantum tunnels and planck spaces, you are bound to get lots of speculation because your ability to measure what is happening is much different than it is usual science. THis is the land of what brilliant minds call inherently absurd behavior of matter and energy. And, lots of pet theories short on concrete observation are in jeopardy of correction in such a world.

You do realize that what he's claiming doesn't have anything to do with the borders of what we know right? He's taken the VERY first attempts to measure the speed of light (from 300 years ago) and instead of taking the actual values, he changes them to fit his function. Then he throws out 'outliers' that don't fit with his function, sometimes throwing out whole METHODS that don't fit what he thinks the speed of light should have been and sometimes just because he doesn't like them. Then he claims that these show the speed of light has been changing, but of course we can't verify that because it's STOPPED changing...

None of this has anything to do with cutting-edge quantum physics. It's purely manipulation of centuries-old data to fit assumptions about the age of the universe.

There's no new data, no new measurements... just analysis that most CREATIONIST physicists have acknowledged as faulty in their own creationist journals.

 

[Deamiter]

Some websites and quotes:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/speed_of_light.html

Aardsma, an ICR member, wished to "caution creationists against a wholesale, uncritical acceptance of the Norman and Setterfield hypothesis." He noted, for instance, that Setterfield had completely ignored the error bars and treated every data point as having equal significance. He noted that a more standard treatment of the same data indicated no measurable change at all in the speed of light.

Aardsma also had some issues with the data adjustments. Setterfield used an adjusted figure for Romer's measurement in 1675, which brought it up from being 24% too low to being 1.5% high. But he used an unadjusted figure for Cassini's much higher 1693 measurement.

Hugh Ross, an astronomer and Old-Earth Creationist, said in Facts and Faith (Summer 1989) that the whole issue was an abuse of Christian apologetics. He pointed out that if C was as little as 3% higher, it would wipe out all life on earth, by making the Sun hotter.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/lightdoc.htm
Note that this site goes further in great detail.

And just what is the magic curve? S explains, "Its general form
is a log sine curve, with a logarithmic vertical axis, typical of
most energy functions. The general equation is
Log c = A + B (Log sine (T))
where A and B are constants that have the respective values 5.47..
and -1.94.. [just the sort of thing one would expect, no? -RD]"
And just where do these magic values come from?, Again, we have S,
"The time function T expresses the years (t) of time elapsed since
Creation in a scale of degrees. For example, if we take 6000 years
as being the complete range of the curve, these 6000 years take up 90
degrees of the Log sine scale so the transformation to obtain (T)
in degrees is T = t x 90/6000, that is, T = .015 t."

At this point, the knowledgeable reader can be forgiven for groaning
in dismay at such a thoroughly contrived and artificial curve, a curve
whose value at the instant of Creation is conveniently infinity and
whose subsequent date for levelling off is, amazingly enough, one of
the parameters of the formula (6000 years after Creation)! Based on
questionable selection of observations in the first place and aided
and abetted by a hideously contrived curve to fit the data, we have
S concluding that "The best date of origin for the curve as determined
by the observational evidence is 4040 B.C. +- 20 years."

http://www.fsteiger.com/light.html

 

[shernren]

Read this and what is your impression of what was done.

http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkalan.html

I'm no statistician so my comments aren't professional. But I don't think the issue of researcher bias is as obvious here as it is in the original Setterfield paper (which I agree is relatively screwed up). The last bit had quite a few PRATTs (spiral galaxies should be disintegrating, helium doesn't match U/Pb dating, etc.) which are irrelevant to the rest of the paper. There seems to be less or little reliance on the Roemer values.

I don't see fudging in this one, but then again I don't know what fudging would look like. So please do enlighten us.

 

[Deamiter]

I'm no statistician so my comments aren't professional. But I don't think the issue of researcher bias is as obvious here as it is in the original Setterfield paper (which I agree is relatively screwed up). The last bit had quite a few PRATTs (spiral galaxies should be disintegrating, helium doesn't match U/Pb dating, etc.) which are irrelevant to the rest of the paper. There seems to be less or little reliance on the Roemer values.

I don't see fudging in this one, but then again I don't know what fudging would look like. So please do enlighten us.

He doesn't dwell on the Romer value, but it's still central to the curve fit;
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/lightdoc.htm

2. Norman and Setterfield's data contains a data point from 1693 which
is far higher than any of the others, attributed to "uncorrected
observations of the Roemer type, by Cassini." Aardsma quotes Norman and
Setterfield: "Observations by Cassini (1693 and 1736) gave the orbit
radius delay as 7 minutes 5 seconds. Roemer in 1675 gave it as 11
minutes from selected observations. Halley in 1694 noted that Roemer's
1675 figure for the time delay was too large while Cassini's was too
small." (p. 11 in _The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time_.
In Aardsma's words, Norman and Setterfield are using a "reworked or
'corrected' value for Roemer's c determination ... and an uncorrected
value for Cassini. It is peculiar that Norman and Setterfield were
content to use an uncorrected value for Cassini, given the comments by
the eminent and talented Halley, above. It is also unfortunate, since
this single, anomalous point is responsible for most of the apparent 38
km/s/year decay which they report. Furthermore, Roemer's uncorrected c
determination would graph below the line at -24%, more than offsetting
the uncorrected Cassini value."

Also you'll note that they threw out a number of outliers that are more than 3 standard deviations from their curve. The curve, of course, is entirely arbitrary and actually goes to infinity at the time of creation (though Setterfield has lopped it off for no other reason than if he DIDN'T make it start a few days after creation and at the value he did, it wouldn't account for atomic decay dating...

Don't be fooled -- his model does not PREDICT the current speed of light, or the current atomic decay measurements, or even the date of creation. He has both selectively adjusted data and picked an arbitrary curve (that needed to be cut off of course) that fits his beliefs about the age of the universe and the change in c.

 

[Mallon]

I understand the arguments about the Bible, but I don't understand why the supposed geocentrism is taken literally while Gen. 1 is taken metaphorically. Why make the assumption in that direction?

Most TEs understand that scriptural writings about both the Creation account and geocentrism were taken literally by their original audiences. We don't take them literally anymore, because we know better from observation that this cannot be the case. Therefore, we take these accounts 'metaphorically' today, keeping in mind that the early Hebrews understood 6-day creation and geocentrism to be literal. There's not cherry-picking or favouritism going on here. We've simply taken the whole accepting science thing a step further than creationists (most of whom also no longer believe in a geocentric solar system).

 

[busterdog]

Most TEs understand that scriptural writings about both the Creation account and geocentrism were taken literally by their original audiences. We don't take them literally anymore, because we know better from observation that this cannot be the case. Therefore, we take these accounts 'metaphorically' today, keeping in mind that the early Hebrews understood 6-day creation and geocentrism to be literal. There's not cherry-picking or favouritism going on here. We've simply takening the whole accepting science thing a step further than creationists (most of whom also no longer believe in a geocentric solar system).

... or a flat earth.

Not sure what you are saying here, however. I think you could have a great variety of belief in audiences.

Usually you have the biggest misunderstandings where you have serious cultural upheaval and trauma -- like at the time of the inquisition.

From my study of primitive cultural, many of them have an enormous sensitivity to what is happening around them. There is an uncanny ability at times to comprehend very difficult problems. One such example is that the Dogon peole of Africa seemed to understand that their sacred dog star was a binary system before their were telescopes.

However, I am not sure whether you are saying that the text itself intends to communicate a literal geocentrism or said otherwise, that the writer of the text was oblivious to how the solar system actually works. That probably would be an excellent thread.

 

[Mallon]

Not sure what you are saying here, however. I think you could have a great variety of belief in audiences.

You implied above that TEs take the Creation account metaphorically while we take biblical geocentrism literally. I am saying both accounts were taken literally by their original audience (as history shows) and that we no longer understand them this way because of observational science. We're not making 'assumptions' in any 'direction'.

However, I am not sure whether you are saying that the text itself intends to communicate a literal geocentrism or said otherwise, that the writer of the text was oblivious to how the solar system actually works. That probably would be an excellent thread.

Most TEs will argue that the writer was oblivious to the solar system around him, telling inspired spiritual truths through his own limited understanding of the universe. So no, I don't think the author intended to communicate geocentrism, but because this was his understanding of the galaxy, God's majesty is spoken of in this context. But the message isn't the medium. Creationists will beg to differ because they seem to have a different understanding of what 'inspiration' means. They take it to mean that God whispered the exact words to write in the ears of the biblical authors, and that human error has not -- indeed cannot -- penetrate written Scripture. Any passage that may discount such a view, such as reference to earthly pillars, windows of heaven, or a sun that "rushes back to where it rises", is quickly chalked up to metaphor so as to avoid corruption of the YEC paradigm, regardless of how such passages were interpreted in ages past.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So no, I don't think the author intended to communicate geocentrism, but because this was his understanding of the galaxy,

one of the useful ways of looking at the topic is to make a distinction between what things the authors of used to make other theological points and what things the Scripture is teaching as binding on subsequent believers. Geocentricism is being used to communicate, it is not the principle being communicated. It is incidental to the discussion and is an accommodation to the worldview of the human writer.

I'm not sure that this solves problems like demon possession as the source of mental illnesses, but it does seem to help solve a few of the more difficult problems with modern science in Genesis for example.

 

[KerrMetric]

If you get into the FAQ section of Setterfield.org, you will also find a pretty good run down of lots of the supposedly contrary science.

Isn't is funny. These guys can never resist the urge to be "experts" on everything that goes against their preconceived worldview.

Setterfield made his "reputation" on the c-decay topic but he cannot stop there. He also has to chime in on everything else he doesn't like for no other reason than he doesn't like it.

This is a common hallmark of cranks in all fields. Go to the perpetual motion machine websites and you'll see the authors give their alernative versions of quantum mechanics or relativity or geopolitics and macroeconomics. Lambert Dolphin is an excellent example of this for instance. There is more psychology to all of this than science.

You have to respect that. One hammer who made that claim was completely schooled, since it was Setterfield who understood the different theories of relativity and how the experimental evidence supported his view.

Really - look at this from his website:

Einstein's Equation

Comment:As for the physical problems with the c-decay model, probably the easiest refutation for the layman to understand invokes probably the only science equation that is well known by all, e = m c2. Let us imagine, if you will, that we have doubled the speed of light [the c constant]. That would increase e by a factor of 4. The heat output of the sun would be 4 times as hot. And you thought we had a global warming problem now. In other words, if the speed of light was previously higher (and especially if it was exponentially higher), the earth would've been fried a long time ago and no life would have been able to exist.​

Setterfield: In the 1987 Report which is on these web pages, we show that atomic rest masses "m" are proportional to 1/(c2). Thus when c was higher, rest masses were lower. As a consequence the energy output of stars etc from the (E = m c2) reactions is constant over time when c is varying. Furthermore, it can be shown that the product Gm is invariant for all values of c and m. Since all the orbital and gravitational equations contain G m, there is no change in gravitational phenomena. The secondary mass in these equations appears on both sides of the equation and thereby drops out of the calculation. Thus orbit times and the gravitational acceleration g are all invariant. This is treated in more detail in Atomic Quantum States, Light and the Redshift. (3/11/00)

So he believes that if masses are proportional to 1/c^2 then his problems are solved and stars shine at the same rate no matter what the c value is.

RUBBISH. Stars do not shine by direct mass to energy conversion of E=mc^2. They are not antimatter-matter conversion to energy factories. Stars shine by the conversion of mass defect to energy via the E=mc^2 equation. The mass defect is NOT proportional to mass. Thus having mass proportional to 1/c^2 does NOT solve the problem.

Google the binding energy/nucleon graph. Does it look proportional to mass? NO it does not. Just scaling the mass of particles by 1/c^2 does not help at all.

**** WARNING ****

Many low level websites will often say that E=mc^2 is the reason stars shine. This is true ONLY if you realise that the mass being talked about is the MASS DEFECT which is the difference between the mass of the constituent nucleons and the mass of the nucleus made up from the nucleons. In energy terms this is called the nuclear binding energy.

The mass defect is NOT easily calculated and is NOT proportional to the mass of the constituent nucleons hence Setterfield is just plain WRONG (what a shock) and also is exhibited in the well known binding energy graph which peaks at Iron.

****

EDIT *** Someone should also ask Setterfield how he gets the GM product as an invariant. G is an experimentally derived constant. So how can m proportional to 1/c^2 be invariant. Saying it is, as he does above, does not make it so.

This is really equivalent to calling him a crank. How many times does a guy have to shoot down the specious claims of the "accepted" scientists before he gets some street cred? None of the accepted scientists express disgust at their very ornery "peers" who are politely and solidly dismissed in a way that even the likes of me can understand. I am sure he isn't accepted broadly, he is mostly embarassing those who confront him directly.

He's a crank because what he proposes isn't science. It's cranky, hence he is a crank.

My Church had a split before I joined. Allegedly it was theological. But, people were almost punching each other they were so mad. It wasn't about theology and this isn't about science. Many an ox could be gored here. If you get schooled by the likes of Setterfield, the brilliant work that goes into your campaign for tenure or an endowed chair maybe looks a little less wonderful.

Alreay have tenure so it's not a concern. Setterfield needs to actually go to school before he does any schooling. Based upon his "published" work he wouldn't be able to hack it I'm afraid.

Also remember that Setterfield is working really on the borders of science.

No - he is working outside of science doing unscientific things.

We are such extreme levels of what is detectable and what isn't that there is bound to be conflict. First, in the land of things like quantum tunnels and planck spaces, you are bound to get lots of speculation because your ability to measure what is happening is much different than it is usual science. THis is the land of what brilliant minds call inherently absurd behavior of matter and energy. And, lots of pet theories short on concrete observation are in jeopardy of correction in such a world.

No we are not. He's pushing an agenda of the absurd that is rule out by experiment and observation.

And of course, setterfield has the audacity to quote scripture and believe it literally.

That's his problem - believing certain things literally and trying to pigeonhole the real universe into that worldview which leads to fudging data etc. etc.

 

[Servant222]

My purpose here in mentioning geocentrism was to draw a parallel between the debate that went on in the 17th century regarding geocentrism, and the current debate about the literal interpretation of the Bible regarding a young earth/old earth as, in this specific thread, it applies to the red shift and the speed of light.

Geocentrism was the dominant theory for at least 2000 years- from about 400 BC to about 1610; like, we're talking about a lot of learned people over centuries, including most likely all of the apostles, who all interpreted the Bible literally to mean that the Earth was the centre of the Universe.

As Copernicus and others started to suggest that the geocentric theory was wrong, they were very strongly criticised by the church of the day. As new data kept coming in, ever more elaborate explanations were needed to try and explain away the concept of a solar system, with the earth circling the Sun.

Finally, in 1610, with Galileo, scientific reasoning prevailed, and our present theories about the solar system were accepted.
-------------------------------------

When some of you dismiss science out of hand, or start trying to use information that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, you are doing the same thing that was done by the early Church with regard to geocentrism. I maintain that when that happens, our Faith is thrown into disrepute, and souls are potentially lost.

I just hope that it doesn't take 2000 years for the Christian community to thoroughly review some of these issues and resolve them.

 

[Servant222]

Just out of curiosity, do other faiths engage in this debate; like do Muslims have the same furious debates about young age/old age, evolution, etc.?

 

[Deamiter]

Not all muslims of course (just as creationism is largely isolated to the United States with sects elsewhere) but yes creationism is a large issue in many countries. A few years back, I read news reports of teachers receiving death threats in Turkey for teaching evolution.

Fundementalist Muslims and Christians really do see the world very similarly by rejecting anything that disagrees with their assumptions.

 

[shernren]

Just out of curiosity, do other faiths engage in this debate; like do Muslims have the same furious debates about young age/old age, evolution, etc.?

There are fundy Muslim creationists. An immediate example is Harun Yahya, who seems to have a liking for Hovind arguments.

There are also, as far as I know, Vedic creationists.

So yes, this is not merely a Christian problem. But if you consider creationism a backlash against scientism/atheism, and if (I don't know this for sure) most scientism advocates / vocal atheists are Westerners, it would make sense that their most prominent attacks are against Christianity and hence that the most prominent creationist backlash comes from Christianity as well.

My purpose here in mentioning geocentrism was to draw a parallel between the debate that went on in the 17th century regarding geocentrism, and the current debate about the literal interpretation of the Bible regarding a young earth/old earth as, in this specific thread, it applies to the red shift and the speed of light.

Geocentrism was the dominant theory for at least 2000 years- from about 400 BC to about 1610; like, we're talking about a lot of learned people over centuries, including most likely all of the apostles, who all interpreted the Bible literally to mean that the Earth was the centre of the Universe.

As Copernicus and others started to suggest that the geocentric theory was wrong, they were very strongly criticised by the church of the day. As new data kept coming in, ever more elaborate explanations were needed to try and explain away the concept of a solar system, with the earth circling the Sun.

Finally, in 1610, with Galileo, scientific reasoning prevailed, and our present theories about the solar system were accepted.
-------------------------------------

When some of you dismiss science out of hand, or start trying to use information that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, you are doing the same thing that was done by the early Church with regard to geocentrism. I maintain that when that happens, our Faith is thrown into disrepute, and souls are potentially lost.

I just hope that it doesn't take 2000 years for the Christian community to thoroughly review some of these issues and resolve them.

It's really quite difficult to draw direct and simple parallels between geocentrism and creationism; it is a complex issue which needs a lot of background in the history of science to fully unravel. We have to remember that creationists today are opposing science which has found its feet with the scientific method and a good grasp of methodological naturalism. That was not what Galileo was up against. Galileo's problems were a mix of political pressure, personal arrogance, philosophical disagreement, and of course Scripture-quoting opposition.

Not only did Galileo have to deal with how his heliocentric propositions explained observations, he also had to deal with issues like how we can know that heavenly matter is subject to the same physical laws as earthly matter. Today we take it for granted that the same fundamental principles that govern our chemistry and physics here on earth also keep stars burning; to a mind steeped in Aristotelianism, this would not have been an easily accepted idea. We can see that he had philosophical battles as well as scientific ones and that this wasn't a simple case of merely literal interpretation contra facts vs. figurative interpretation using facts. Fact itself was probably perceived differently in the day; it was Galileo (AFAIK) who first properly articulated notions of acceleration and kinematics and all those other things we take for granted today. The idea that science was really "natural theology" persisted all through the debacle.

Having said that, Galileo does make some good comments about the relationship of science and scripture which are still important in terms of the creationism dispute.

 

[Deamiter]

bump -- there's a quite a few posts between 127 and 132 that directly challenge Setterfield's claims and that have been apparently utterly ignored by YECists.

 

[KerrMetric]

bump -- there's a quite a few posts between 127 and 132 that directly challenge Setterfield's claims and that have been apparently utterly ignored by YECists.

That's because none of them actually want to get their hands dirty and try to understand the science. I have mentioned post 132 on two other threads to busterdog (since he seems to want Setterfield to be credible) but he just ignores the critique - even though I have seen him viewing this thread recently.

 

[shernren]

I especially liked this site: http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/ ... the author took cDK so seriously and mathematically that the whole model, flattered by the attention, keeled over dead and promptly ceased to describe the universe accurately. I daresay Bridgman has taken cDK even more seriously than Setterfield himself, but the results of their torrid romance aren't pretty ...

 

[grimbly]

I'm glad you decided to bring that site up. I pointed it out to KM in another thread but thought it might be overkill for the current level of discussion. Kinda like bringing a couple of tactical nukes to a rabbit hunt, effective but are they really necessary??

That being said, Bridgman's site does offer a stark contrast between the methodologies practiced by professional scientists versus what you see from amateur dabblers. Unfortunately I would imagine most people's eyes would start to glaze over by about the third page. Still my hats off to Bridgman for putting together such an excellent site. He's also amassed a pretty decent set of links to other resources also.