The Scientific Method & Macroevolution?

[justlookinla]

"Seems that most of the evidence is actually guesses and suppositions with no underlying scientific method."--justlookinla

Give us examples of scientific evidence that is actually guesses and suppositions.

You didn't read the comment properly.

"Those who promoted the errors of science had evidence, didn't they? Seems that most of the evidence is actually guesses and with no underlying scientific method."

In other words, what was claimed to be evidence wasn't evidence, but was simply guesses and suppositions with no underlying scientific method.

How may 'truths' of science today are based on claims of 'we have evidence' when in fact they don't have evidence? The claim that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms is one. (Not abiogenesis)

 

[Loudmouth]

You didn't read the comment properly.

"Those who promoted the errors of science had evidence, didn't they? Seems that most of the evidence is actually guesses and with no underlying scientific method."

I read it correctly.

Please give us examples of scientific evidence that is actually guesses and suppositions. Or were you just making it up?

 

[crjmurray]

It seems that the original misquote goes back to Lewin.

Science Magazine: Sign In

Yes. We've established that.

 

[sfs]

I found it in Sepkoskis book but he addresses the fact that it is a misquote. Freakin hilarious.
​

the following was published 2005 in sepkoskis paper that was co authored by gould:

Maynard Smith was not alone among the
geneticists in welcoming the work of paleontologists such as Gould: in
reference to Gould’s macroevolutionary analysis of the fossil record,
Francisco Ayala remarked ‘‘we could not have predicted stasis from
population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists
say that small changes do not accumulate.’’
​

remember, gould was at the conference and he also co authored the above paper with sepkoski.
gould would never have allowed this quote if it was not factual.

ayala never contacts "science" about this quote but yet he contacts NAIG.
NAIG never contacts science either but instead goes on a letter writing campaign to creationist sites.
"science" never amends this article, nor does it publish any errata concerning it.
of all the letters received by "science" concerning this article, not a single one of them mentions this snafu concerning ayala.

Ayala didn't (as far as we know) contact Science about a disputed quote in a news report; frankly, that would have been a pretty bizarre thing for him to do. What he did do was write a long, thoughtful piece about all of the issues involved, and published it in Science the next year (here). No, he did not agree with Gould. Who said what at the conference doesn't matter at all. What matters is whether the scientific community was convinced or not.

 

[justlookinla]

I read it correctly.

Please give us examples of scientific evidence that is actually guesses and suppositions. Or were you just making it up?

The point is, and disagree if you must, the errors which science has promoted had the claim that there was evidence supporting it. It wasn't evidence based on the scientific method, thus it was only the erroneous guesses and suppositions of the opinions of scientists.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I read it correctly.

Please give us examples of scientific evidence that is actually guesses and suppositions. Or were you just making it up?

You don't actually think he will provide an example, do you?

 

[DerelictJunction]

The point is, and disagree if you must, the errors which science has promoted had the claim that there was evidence supporting it. It wasn't evidence based on the scientific method, thus it was only the erroneous guesses and suppositions of the opinions of scientists.

So, you actually are not able to provide even one guess or supposition.

Why should we take you at your word that science is a bunch of guesses and suppositions if you cannot even support your claim with a single one?

 

[justlookinla]

So, you actually are not able to provide even one guess or supposition.

Why should we take you at your word that science is a bunch of guesses and suppositions if you cannot even support your claim with a single one?

If you wish to claim that science is error-free, that's your decision.

 

[bhsmte]

So, you actually are not able to provide even one guess or supposition.

Why should we take you at your word that science is a bunch of guesses and suppositions if you cannot even support your claim with a single one?

Because, he is using guesses and suppositions, to claim someone else is doing the same.

That's how the fundy game works.

 

[justlookinla]

Because, he is using guesses and suppositions, to claim someone else is doing the same.

That's how the fundy game works.

Are you a proponent of error free science?

 

[DerelictJunction]

If you wish to claim that science is error-free, that's your decision.

If you wish to lie about my claims, that is your decision.

Care to show us one guess or supposition that you claim science is rife with?

 

[sfs]

If you wish to claim that science is error-free, that's your decision.

Science is riddled with errors. It just has many fewer errors than any other way of understanding the natural world. If you're betting against the well-established conclusions of science, you're very likely to lose money.

 

[justlookinla]

If you wish to lie about my claims, that is your decision.

Care to show us one guess or supposition that you claim science is rife with?

You're either in agreement that science is error free or science is not error free. Which is it?

 

[justlookinla]

Science is riddled with errors. It just has many fewer errors than any other way of understanding the natural world. If you're betting against the well-established conclusions of science, you're very likely to lose money.

Were the errors 'well established'?

 

[Loudmouth]

If you wish to claim that science is error-free, that's your decision.

"Seems that most of the evidence is actually guesses and suppositions with no underlying scientific method."--justlookinla

Give us examples of scientific evidence that is actually guesses and suppositions.

 

[justlookinla]

"Seems that most of the evidence is actually guesses and suppositions with no underlying scientific method."--justlookinla

Give us examples of scientific evidence that is actually guesses and suppositions.

Give us the scientific evidence which produced the scientific errors.

 

[Loudmouth]

Give us the scientific evidence which produced the scientific errors.

You are claiming that the evidence is in error. Please give us examples.

 

[justlookinla]

You are claiming that the evidence is in error. Please give us examples.

I'm claiming that science has had errors in the past. These errors were presented at the tie as true, with underlying evidence. Subsequently, the truths were found to be error, the evidence not actually evidence but only guesses and suppositions of scientists.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm claiming that science has had errors in the past.

"Seems that most of the evidence is actually guesses and suppositions with no underlying scientific method."--justlookinla

You clearly said that the EVIDENCE is guesses and suppositions.

Please give us examples.

 

[sfs]

Were the errors 'well established'?

Very rarely. In any case, where is the evidence that you claim is guesses and suppositions?