The Falsifiability Criterion

[AV1611VET]

He's AV1611VET. He does what he does, and there's no way to explain it.

QV my last post.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's also on my computer.

Transfer stains?

 

[AV1611VET]

All it would take to disabuse reputable scientists from their tentative acceptance of a scientific claim is the disconfirming evidence they would expect to find if the hypothesis is false.

Plus a rigged vote.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

You don't know me very well, do you?

Here are my standards I use:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

What you're calling "anti-science rhetoric," I call "prioritizing."

Alright. Thanks for confirming that you are doxastically closed. I won't waste any more your or my time. All your future posts will be justifiably ignored.

 

[AV1611VET]

Alright. Thanks for confirming that you are doxastically closed. I won't waste any more your or my time. All your future posts will be justifiably ignored.

Here I go on IGNORE again!

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

For everyone's awareness, this thread resides within a debate forum that expects participants to defend their arguments on the basis of logic and evidence. If you hold a position that is personally non-negotiable, even when challenged with valid objections, then don't bother posting it here or you will be ignored and reported for violating the terms of this thread. There is no point joining a debate thread if you aren't willing to argue in good faith. Please don't waste your or our time if no quantity or quality of evidence will ever function to prove or disprove the claim you are defending. Thank you for understanding.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

QV my last post.

As I said: no way to explain it.

 

[Larniavc]

I am stating that from what I understand about evolution,

…………….

 

[Jerry N.]

Reputable science doesn't function to "prove" a proposed hypothesis by any means necessary. It functions by demanding that the scientists design the experiments to try and disprove the hypothesis if it is false. The deep time hypothesis is falsifiable in this way but continues to survive the experiments that are designed to try and disprove it. Gerrymandering of the results is not something that can occur without being immediately exposed in the replication and critical peer-review process.

“Peer-review” is like asking your neighbor if their child is a good kid. I worked in publishing peer-reviews journals for many years. It is usually more of a cabal than actual review. The question is not whether an article is good science or not, but rather if the writer is part of the club. This was with mechanical engineering, and it was obvious how the process works. This was even evident when it was something as scientifically verifiable as lubrication of friction joints.

 

[BCP1928]

“Peer-review” is like asking your neighbor if their child is a good kid. I worked in publishing peer-reviews journals for many years. It is usually more of a cabal than actual review. The question is not whether an article is good science or not, but rather if the writer is part of the club. This was with mechanical engineering, and it was obvious how the process works. This was even evident when it was something as scientifically verifiable as lubrication of friction joints.

That said, mechanical engineering isn't science.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

“Peer-review” is like asking your neighbor if their child is a good kid. I worked in publishing peer-reviews journals for many years. It is usually more of a cabal than actual review. The question is not whether an article is good science or not, but rather if the writer is part of the club. This was with mechanical engineering, and it was obvious how the process works. This was even evident when it was something as scientifically verifiable as lubrication of friction joints.

Your personal anecdote is appreciated but not sufficient to justify extrapolating it to all applications of peer-review in all scientific fields. Accordingly, your opinion is noted but does not function to falsify the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Jerry N.]

Your personal anecdote is appreciated but not sufficient to justify extrapolating it to all applications of peer-review in all scientific fields. Accordingly, your opinion is noted but does not function to falsify the Theory of Evolution.

What you wrote is true, but my point was that peer-review is not sufficient evidence that a particular paper should be taken as fact or even sufficiently vetted. “Publish or perish” is a very strong incentive to write what supervisors and colleagues agree with to keep or advance one’s career.

 

[Jerry N.]

That said, mechanical engineering isn't science.

Is that a joke? If it isn't, define "science."

 

[AV1611VET]

That said, mechanical engineering isn't science.

From AI Overview:

Mechanical engineering is considered a science, specifically applied science. It involves the application of scientific principles and mathematical concepts to design, analyze, and manufacture mechanical systems and devices. While not a pure science like physics or chemistry, it relies heavily on these foundational sciences and engineering science fundamentals.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

What you wrote is true, but my point was that peer-review is not sufficient evidence that a particular paper should be taken as fact or even sufficiently vetted. “Publish or perish” is a very strong incentive to write what supervisors and colleagues agree with to keep or advance one’s career.

What reasonably obtainable evidence would you expect to find if your claim about the unreliability of the peer-review process is false?

 

[AV1611VET]

What reasonably obtainable evidence would you expect to find if your claim about the unreliability of the peer-review process is false?

From AI Overview:

Peer review, a cornerstone of scientific validation, can be compromised through various forms of misconduct, leading to false or misleading results being published. Examples include fabricated or manipulated data, fake reviewer identities, and conflicts of interest among reviewers.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

What you wrote is true, but my point was that peer-review is not sufficient evidence that a particular paper should be taken as fact or even sufficiently vetted. “Publish or perish” is a very strong incentive to write what supervisors and colleagues agree with to keep or advance one’s career.

My previous response to your post above was probably not sufficiently clear. So, please consider this response instead:

For reputable peer-reviewed journal articles about various aspects of evolution by natural selection, what evidence would you expect to find if your claim about their unreliability is false? In other words, what evidence would demonstrate to your satisfaction that the claim you are making is false or at least insufficiently supported? Please provide citations for the specific and relevant journal articles you have in mind.

 

[Jerry N.]

What reasonably obtainable evidence would you expect to find if your claim about the unreliability of the peer-review process is false?

I was looking for a good example that would illustrate the problem. One would be the migration of humans into the Americas. It has taken decades for paleontologists to move the date from 10,000 years ago to 25,000 years ago, even though the evidence was there that the 10,000 year date was probably wrong. The old guard has to retire or die for new ideas to emerge.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

I was looking for a good example that would illustrate the problem. One would be the migration of humans into the Americas. It has taken decades for paleontologists to move the date from 10,000 years ago to 25,000 years ago, even though the evidence was there that the 10,000 year date was probably wrong. The old guard has to retire or die for new ideas to emerge.

Your response above doesn't answer my question. I'm not asking for the evidence you have to support your claim. I'm trying to understand if your claim is falsifiable or not. What, if any, evidence would falsify the claim you are making to your satisfaction?

 

[Jerry N.]

My previous response to your post above was probably not sufficiently clear. So, please consider this response instead:

For reputable peer-reviewed journal articles about various aspects of evolution by natural selection, what evidence would you expect to find if your claim about their unreliability is false? In other words, what evidence would demonstrate to your satisfaction that the claim you are making is false or at least insufficiently supported? Please provide citations for the specific and relevant journal articles you have in mind.

I’m not saying that papers are necessarily false or fabricated. I’m sure that most of the writers who get published generally do their best. However, I am saying that peer-review is not a guarantee that dissenting views have been considered. This is in addition to the posting by AV1611Vet.