I am a skeptic. Unless they can prove it then its just theory to me. It might BE the ANSWER. I'm not suggesting that its definitely NOT the answer.

But they can't prove it so its a hypothesis. And "horned dinosaurs" and the surface of the earth 4.4 billion years ago are two entirely different subjects as has been pointed out earlier.


I'll give you an example of what I mean about the "science community" since everyone seems to be confused by that.


Say for example a space rover was out and found a "tool" on Mars. An stick like object with a sharpened end that looked as though it was made.

I pretty much guarantee you that if the UFO groups out there went bananas screaming that evidence had been found that proved life existed on Mars, that the "science community (and by that I mean the community dealing with the issue not the Kiwana's Club of Secret Scientists) would make a loud statement to say, "We can't assume anything based on this, this doesn't prove anything."

They would step forward to say clearly that this should not be presumed to prove anything.


And the reason they would is that many of them consider Alien theories to be a load of baloney, so they wouldn't want to do anything that would support that.


Likewise if someone found a relic of a boat in Mt Ararat, the science community (again the one that deals in such things) would step forward to publicly correct that this is not evidence of Noah's ark and that no one should jump to conclusions.


Another example is when soft tissue was found inside the T Rex bone, the science community (the one's dealing with that issue) stepped forward to caution people not to make rash assumptions about this.

(And yes I know that the soft tissue wasn't actually soft.)


But when science is used to bolster theories that the science community THINKS MIGHT be true, even though they have no evidence and can't prove it, you never hear a peep from them.

True,

Firstly, what is it about the 'surface of the Earth' 4.4 billion years ago is actually the issue here? You say 'what it looked like', does that mean the theory that it was molten?

Secondly, are you a skeptic because scientists haven't proved this, or because you don't know if they've proved it? This is why I raised the point about knowledge being important in skepticism.

It seems that we are skeptics when we assume nothing has been proved to us personally. However the method would indicate we find out as much as we can about the subject first, before we claim skepticism about it. Maybe you have investigated in depth, I'm not suggesting you haven't, but if not then it's not skepticism you are displaying, but a lack of knowledge. This, I think, is true in many cases where people claim skepticism.

Not sure what you mean, I read all the posts between my last one and this and nobody pointed out they were 2 different subjects ?

The point I was trying to make is that scientists are very interested in the Paleoenvironment. Time and time again, evidence was brought up concerning the enviroment in which the animals lived. Understanding the conditions at that time are extremely important if you want to understand how the animals lived and why they evolved. It makes no difference if you are studying the conditions of 10mya to 4.4 billion years ago, the methods may be different, but the data is just as important and relevant.

Edited for clarity>>

You say the scientists are guessing at the conditions at that time, I say they have more information than you give them credit for.

I'm talking about the method. Its not a position. To me it doesn't matter if what they are saying is true or not. But the fact that they can't prove it and yet insist on it is pretty much a leap of faith to me. Not in the data but in the method.

2 + 3 = 5



Ok so we take that and we an prove it. Here count // and then add /// more and what do we have.


You could also assume that if I say X plus 3 = 5 that X is 2. But that's not necessarily true. It might be 2. Logic suggests that in all likelyhood its two. Lets add to the situation that this is a math equation in a kindergarten class. Even more likely that the answer is 2.


But the answer is a variable representing a whole equation


Now say someone argues that a variable representing a whole equation is too sophisticated of a number for a kindergarten class. But I argue that the kindergarten class is way in the future where math is more advanced etc.


We can't predict the answers when we don't have all the information. We can make very good guesses. In this case a variable representing a whole equation is just as good a guess as (2)

they are both correct.

Figuring out what the answer could be, and what the answer is are two different things.


Now consider that we are supposed to plug the answer into a different equation and so on and so on. By the end of it all the answers are going to be drastically different.

So to me, while I might agree with pretty much most of what is being said, I see actually a sloppiness in the scientific method.

In mathematics it would be more correct to say X = 2 in your example above. No matter what the equation is that X represents, the product of that equation is 2. Logic doesn't suggest that this is likely, it tells us that it is so. I understand your point about 'X is 2' but that is a reference to the symbols rather than the solution.

Also, in pure mathematics numbers are abstract, they do represent 'things', so it would be incorrect to say 2 apples + 3 bananas = 5 oranges. That is not mathematics.

Now, going back to your question about the surface of the Earth and what it was like 4.4 billions years ago. I accept you are skeptical about that, but what is it you are skeptical of? I don't see how one can take a position of skepticism without being able to express why the subject might not be as stated/believed by others.

Also, can you please point out the sloppiness in scientific method as I can't see what you do? I agree scientists can be sloppy in their application of the method, but I can't see where the method itself is sloppy.

The reason I am asking this is, again, my point about skepticism being relative to the knowledge of the alleged skeptic. You have not addressed/acknowledged this contribution I had hoped to make yet and I was hoping this example might show why I believe it is very important.

Leonardo, it seems as though you are trying to corner me into saying that I don't know about evolution so that you can suggest that this is why I am skeptical. I also think this is because you are ticked off at me saying the same thing to you in another thread and this is your little vendetta. Because if you weren't thinking this you would clearly SEE where I have pointed out what it is I have a problem with. It gets tedious to repeat over and over again so I will suggest that you go back and read my previous posts because its clearly outlined.



I have a problem with science saying that its SCIENCE through and through but not pointing out where it is NOT SCIENCE when the presented opinion is one in which they are in agreement with. I have a problem with them not following their own rules. The presentation of the science theory to the public as a fact when it is just a scientific theory is what bugs me. And I DO know the difference between a theory and a scientific theory I understand that its not the same as a guess.



Here's an example of a suggested school curriculum. This documents what the NSTA thinks should be taught to 8th graders in science class.

http://www.nsta.org/publications/evolution.aspx





http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?filetic...D&tabid=144
As you can see in this curriculum guide the surface of the earth




http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3111_origins.html

Yes I know that NOVA is not a science program per se, however when a Science program routinely wins AAAS Science Journalism Awards it does show that they are being recognized as a sort of science authority.

If you read the transcripts from their program you will see these kinds of statements:




These men are scientists not paid actors. They are highly educated and well known scientists. I do imagine that if a person was watching them and knew their credentials they would be recognized as an authority in the field.


Mike Zolensky http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/People/zolensky.html

Neil de Grasse Tyson http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/

Bill Hartmann http://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/wmh.htm


Again these men are scientists, so the big come back that members of the science community don't support the rogue Discovery Channel or Nova groups going out blabbing all sorts of crap that's not been proven, is absolutely a ridiculous argument.

My statement is correct. When scientists promote their leaps of faith (aka in my opinion as religion) as fact if the rest of the community agrees with the leap, they don't come forward to insist that they should be more cautious about jumping to conclusions.

But let a creationist start speaking out and all hell breaks loose. Most of the arguments are directed at creationists, not just general skeptics like myself.


Now to me, for all we really know, there could be totally different explanation that we don't have the knowledge to comprehend yet. For example the way in which it was believed that the earth was the center of the solar system. Until it was found that we have a heliocentric solar system all sorts of wrong conclusions were presented in science. (Which ironically the science community tries to pass off on religion)

http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/5629/84


Here's a snippet from this article




You will see in this article as well


http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/plantEvolution.shtml





In all of the articles I have posted you see the words, assume, might, suggest, etc. So why the big flip out on people who say I'm going to hold back on accepting this theory. I'm only going to view it as a theory?

This article says the same thing that I have been saying

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html




Now read a little bit further and you will see what I mean about the Creationist agenda being the issue they wish to address. Its as I said, evidence that they will pipe up loudly against any perceived criticism of the theory but only when its to batter down Creationists. I don't agree with creationists but I do have criticisms of the theory.

Let me state again, I accept EVOLUTION where it is a real scientific theory, that is in the evidence. But in the mechanism I am skeptical that they have figured this out yet. When I state this I'm most often accused of not knowing the difference between scientific theory and regular theory, then I'm accused of falling for the Creationist agenda or getting my information off the Creationists website etc etc etc. Or I'm accused of rejecting evolution outright. I have never stated this.


The article further goes on to state this




Ok so how is it then, that when I say I don't think that scientists can really say that they know what the surface of the earth looked like 4.4 billion years ago I'm an uneducated fool?

No its just reasonable doubt. Its reasonable to see that its impossible for them to make any conclusive statements about the earth that long ago. All their data is based on our capability to comprehend evidence we have at our disposal now, and theory we have developed with our limited understanding.

I do not believe that modern science has worked out the kinks just yet and just like X is that variable of a more complicated equation I believe that the answers to the origins of life on this planet are going to be more complicated and more simple than we could possible imagine right now.

And it is on this FACT that I base my skepticism.

True,

I never said you were uneducated or a fool. Please don't get so defensive...sheesh!

I asked you about how you had decided that what scientists have concluded about the surface of the Earth 4.4 billion years ago was possibly incorrect. You have provided links to information and I'm looking through them, thanks. You didn't provide links before, simply said "I have a problem with the way scientists think they know what the surface of the Earth was like 4.4 billion years ago". That statement alone, without reasoning and evidence to support it, is not skepticism. I hope you see that and realise this is NOT an attack.

I wasn't interested in your view of evolution so why you choose to muddle both subjects together I don't know. As I said, I'm interested in whether it's valid for people to be skeptical of a subject they know either little about, or make statements about that might indicate THEY are assuming knowledge - not the scientists. This line of questioning is relevant to your thread and the topic of skepticism. I believe people are skeptical of subjects simply because they do not have the knowledge that specialists in that field may have. There is no slight on anyone to admit that, it's just that the total of human knowledge is too vast for any one person to accumulate.

Anyway, I'll be back later after some reading.

I see what I'm not being clear on Leonardo.

I'm SKEPTICAL that the science community (those who specialize in relevant fields) is not pushing an agenda.

I'm not necessarily skeptical about their science, because as you stated we can't really be skeptical about the actual science of it since it is so complicated for a layman like me.


But what I am skeptical about is the way in which they suggest that SCIENCE is impartial and objective.

As you can see in the posts above it is not. They clearly have a desire for their theories to be accepted as fact and tend to trample over people who resist doing so.

That is not science. That's emotion.

This is an interesting statement to me in several ways:

1. The stories of many discoveries include the involvement of people who didn't know better than to question what was "known."

2. Apply this same stance to Christianity and the Bible and basically the opinions of just about everyone on this site would have to be thrown out because almost no one here has actually studied the Bible or Christianity.

3. It seems to imply that skepticism should only be accepted from people who have the right "education," which to me sort of diminishes skepticism itself. Why shouldn't anyone be able to question, as long as they are also willing to learn from those who do know, even if it's just to come up with better questions, not necessarily to agree.

[quote name='IamsSon' date='Sep 26 2007, 06:03 PM' post='1906013']
This is an interesting statement to me in several ways:

1. The stories of many discoveries include the involvement of people who didn't know better than to question what was "known."

2. Apply this same stance to Christianity and the Bible and basically the opinions of just about everyone on this site would have to be thrown out because almost no one here has actually studied the Bible or Christianity.





Now I know I am not the sharpest knife in the box ,so run this by me again will you .Correct me if I am wrong but does the first bit say discoveries were made by people who questioned the known ,I take this to mean the likes of Galileo and Copernicus who questioned the sun going round the earth and proposed a heliocentric theory.The second part is the problem for me ,for it seems to be saying anybody who questions the bible ,their opinion is worthless .I have not studied the bible ,I could never swallow the Genesis bit so there was no point going any further.without any further study I can say I don't believe it.
How will studying it make any more believable ? on the contrary the more you read it the more incredible it becomes


fullywired

That's true. Just reading the story of Genesis and Noah's ark should have been big red flashing warning signs-STOP here and right now. Do not go beyond this point.
I went to bible studies for 15 years and the explanations (apologetics) and (bible concordance) seemed to be either glossing over the texts or interpreted to "their" understanding. Alot of archeological BS & pseudo-science. Some of it was true. Not enough though.
After a while I was going for the amusement factor of it and they could tell that I was there to debate not study. Digesting crap is not truly a study. Or is it crapology ? No it's mythology with some historical elements. That's all.
Most it made little sense no matter how they explained it. And I became angry because I noticed how they intentionally avoided the naughty parts of the bible. If I brought it up I was looked at like if I had just blurted out some terrible family secret such as: "Uncle Tommy put his finger on my pee pee yesterday". I'm serious. You could see the discomfort and fear and then they quickly put on the "grin mask" to save face. Just like when politicians get caught in a lie. The more they grin-the more they are talking crap.

So, basically, because these people chose not to discuss passages which are admittedly "adult-oriented" in that particular setting and you insisted on doing so, despite the fact that you could see you were making them uncomfortable you judged that they were hiding something? Did you ever ask a pastor to discuss those passages with you in private? No, of course not, that would not have been as fun, right?

TRUE THAT!

What is in direct opposition of scientific method is rejecting valid and irrefutable empirical evidence. This is exactly what those who oppose evolution do and yes those who oppose evolution without any regard for the data collected are in fact fools.


Being skeptical of something is in fact to doubt whatever is presented. The only way to truly be a skeptic in my opinion is to believe what the evidence shows and doubt claims made that do not have any solid backing or substance.

In regards to religion there is really no evidence for an almighty space daddy or that a zombie Jesus existed etc. Now is there any evidence for things like creationism etc.

It seems to me when people don't know something or how something works they automatically jump to the irrational conclusion that it must be God or whatever. A perfect example of this would be someone who sees Mary on a burnt piece of toast or under an over pass on the wall etc.

Really?

So you are taking Skepticism as a position. I see.


I take it as a method. This is probably why so many people wind up debating about things.

Doubting whatever is presented to you is kinda silly. Someone hands you a poem and you doubt it?

I choose to THINK about whatever it is that is handed to me before forming an immediate opinion either way.

True,

Do you think many people claim skepticism about something when they aren't necessarily being skeptical, but doubting simply because of their beliefs? Not everyone has the same definition of skepticism but I think it might be worth seeing what the official definition is...



Source, from The American Heritage Dictionary definition which is, imo, closest to the skepticism you are speaking of.

Is your statement "I'm SKEPTICAL that the science community (those who specialize in relevant fields) is not pushing an agenda." one of skepticism? It might not be considered skepticism according to the method because how would you achieve the aim of relative certainty about what is, in effect, an opinion about someone's motives? As you pasted in your OP...



So your statement of skepticism is really a statement of cynicism? That's not an attack on your stance, I suspect we all mistake skepticism for cynicism.

Regarding your point about 'sacred cows' and the derision of evolution skeptics. If those 'skeptics' are making their case from a lack of evidence for evolution then I see no problem with that...but is there a lack of evidence? This is where the knowledge of the subject is important. Someone who has not studied evolution or evolutionary theory in any great depth might not be aware of any evidence, and many who have the evidence presented to them refuse to accept it (a lot of those because it contravenes their beliefs). This is not skepticism, it is cynicism. The skeptic will appreciate the evidence and reason the claim may indeed be true.

Is disputing evidence valid then? What reason would a person have for presenting false evidence? An agenda, as you say, but that leads to a belief (unproven and perhaps unprovable) in a conspiracy and that is not skepticism, because belief isn't reason, it's faith. The other reason for presenting false evidence is poor understanding of the subject by the presenter. I suppose the only way to counter this is to research the subject yourself and find out where the evidence might be faulty.



Iams,

As my opinion above states, skepticism doesn't seem to be applicable when there can be no evidence supplied to support a claim. In this case, claims about meaning or context of passages in the bible can be subject to skepticism as there is, I believe, some historical evidence to support some passages. With regards Christianity itself (or any religion), the claims of the religion are based on unprovable belief. With no evidence to support them these claims aren't subject to skeptical methodology...just doubt.

I do agree that anyone should be able to question anything, but questioning itself isn't necessarily skepticism. At least, not in the sense of the skeptical method.

Actually, questioning the veracity of a claim IS skepticism, questioning what we think we know is skepticism, AND given that the spiritual environment lies outside of the purview of science, doubting it's existence simply BECAUSE it's outside the purview of science is NOT skepticism.

Leonardo,

It gets a little tedious when you keep insisting that I am saying that I doubt evolution in and of itself.

I don't know how much more clearly I can state my point.

But ironically you are almost proving my point.

When someone says that evolution is no longer just a science but an agenda pushed by the science community, (and by evolution I mean it in general, not the proven aspects of evolution but the whole thing, macro and micro) it is a fact.


Let me say that again, its a FACT that the sciences connected to evolution theory are being pushed on the general public as a fact where scientists, renowned scientists in their field, will flat out make fantastical statements about this topic with no conclusive evidence.

And as you can see when you question them for doing this you are attacked and derided as a fool for daring to question the authority. Except the authority is lying. The authority is making guesses and presenting them as fact.

Refer to the quotes from the Nova program if you want an example.

I don't have to know the answer to know someone is lying about what they know. A scientist makes no bones about telling a Creationist that they are lying if they say they know that God created the universe because there is no proof. But tell them that they are lying about their predictions of the unfolding of life on the planet and they tell you that you don't know what you are talking about.

Cornered, they eventually reveal that you are correct and that they are theorizing etc. But its not presented this way. (Refer to the Nova quotes if you want an example or read a bit of Dawkins)



But when I say this or Iams says this for example, the conversation tends to flip over to Creationism or "sky daddy" rebuttal.

This is not a true rebuttal of the statement. What Creationists or religious people believe has NO BEARING on the science of evolution.

The fact is that the science community treats evolution like a new religion

Definition of religion


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion

The bolded definition is something that I see in the way evolution theories are pushed into the education system and the world under the guise that its SCIENCE.

But the difference between God theory and science is that Science is testable. So pray tell how is the surface of the earth 4.4 billion years ago TESTABLE? Its not. So its always going to be theory. Why? Because even if we THINK that we can predict what happened and we THINK that we understand what all that means, we have no idea what the variables were back then. It could be things we never even heard of.

And so while its OK to use science for useful predictions, theoretical predictions are just as silly to me as SKY DADDY statements.

We believe that the world started in a big bang. You do? Great. That's a matter of faith then, because even if there is evidence to make this seem likely, its no different to me than a Creationist suggesting that the "Order" in the universe is evidence of an intelligent creator.

Well written, True.

Unfortunately,.... yep, I hear the keyboard pounding already... I can't help but thinking that they will miss the point and will tell you how ignorant you are, for your unwillingness to blindly accept what scientists, those perfect paragons of honesty and virtue, deign to disclose to the ignorant rabble from their lofty lily-white towers.

Waits for the inevitable God accusation which has no bearing whatsoever on what I'm saying. Waits for the Oh the general science community doesn't do this, its just a few rogue scientists that popped a cork.

Oh and also the accusation that if I prefer to remain ignorant that's my stupid choice.


And one last "evolution or big bang or the surface of the planet" which one man!


But not any real attempt to understand what I'm saying because what I'm saying is true.

Oh wait lets not forget the "some of my best friends are scientists and they don't act like this"


Yawwwn.

Iams,

I was referring to the skepticism this thread was opened to discuss though, which is the method skepticism. Yes, in the broader sense skepticism is simply doubt and therefore this could be applied to doubting spirituality and religion as well. That it is not science is of no consequence and, if True is correct that her opinion counts as skepticism, then all other opinions do as well.

Who said they don't? I'm not sure where you are going with this. Would you like to clarify?


Again my opinion of evolution has no bearing on whether or not the Science community has presented its case.

It HASN'T. In some areas it has but not to the degree that they present the case to the public.

All I've stated is that they haven't proven what they suggest they have. And in some cases I don't think they ever will.

Since many of these theories are like a house of cards, it requires a leap of faith to believe that all the underlying cards are the right ones. Someone might suggest that if card A holds up Card B and C and D that it would be necessary for card A to have a certain value.

The fact that B and C and D are held up is often presented as evidence that card A is actually the value that they had predicted it would be. But its not known. Its still a guess. It could be something we've never heard of before.

True,

As this is your thread then, would you like to provide a definition for skepticism, including the method it uses, so we all may know what it is you are speaking of? I assumed, it appears wrongly, that you were referring to skepticism as the method and definition you posted in your OP...



...it appears this is not the case as you now say skepticism is valid without evidence, as in your claim:



In fact, is the claim itself skepticism, or is it skepticism to ask instead for evidence of your claim? In which case, do you have evidence that evolution is pushed as an agenda?

Cheers!

Leonardo I've given you evidence of my claim. You rejecting it for no other reason than your position that I am wrong is plain DOUBT not method.

You are the one who is being cynical. The evidence shows clearly that by habit the science community pushes an agenda.


I've given you my evidence and directed you to other ways of finding it out on your own. But you cling to the preconceived notion that I am wrong based on......your position.


This is what I am talking about.

Sorry, the Nova article? That was your evidence?

That was a couple of scientist engaging in non-scientific chat and speculation. It was made as entertainment as well as being slightly informative. How was that evidence?

Forgive me if you haven't made your evidence clear, but I really cannot see any evidence that scientists have an agenda for 'pushing evolution' as you put it.

As you can see, I am skeptical of your claim because I have yet to see compelling evidence for it. I don't say you are wrong, simply that you have not proved your claim so, according to the skeptical method, it should be discounted.

I ask again. Does your claim qualify as skepticism? What is it you are skeptical of and can evidence be produced to convince you? You see what I am saying? If what you say you are skeptical of is an unprovable belief (that there is this agenda) then this does NOT qualify as skepticism, but as a belief itself. According to your own definition of skepticism, posted in the OP, it is a process or reason and reduced by evidence. If neither reason nor evidence exist then surely how can you claim skepticism?

The reason I am pushing this is because you, very early on in this thread, agreed that people confuse skepticism with cynicism. Then you claimed skepticism on certain topics but maybe you are cynical instead of skeptical? I am (hopefully) trying to help clarify what may be skepticism versus what may be cynicism.

So, is there a way to provide evidence that would convince you there is no agenda in science?

So I see where the difference lies as well. If my skepticism is a METHOD then I then take responsibility for that method.

If I sit back and wait for someone else to prove to me what they say then I am really accepting them as an authority rather than double checking the issue myself.

This is what my Snopes reference earlier addressed.


I gave you the Nova article to show simple statements. I gave you other scientific journals. I gave you the suggested lesson plan for 8th Grade etc. I'm not about to sit here posting years of evidence because you are too lazy to go out and find your answer?

This is a really interesting point. People have become so accustomed to other people handing them the answers that they no longer have the desire or ability to go out and research anything themselves.

And before you say that you aren't that interested then why are you replying in the thread so much? What in particular is your reasoning?

What it looks like to me is taking on skepticism as a position based on general laziness when it comes to self education.

That in and of itself is the heart of the problem. When we elevate the authority to a position over us, and reject the right of the common to question, suggest the doctrine or dogma has a legitimate authority based on our unwillingness to actually take on the responsibility of learning, we operate in a skepticism as a position. An EASY position. Anyone can sit back and say "prove it" and then kick back suggesting that there will never be enough proof.

I could do that with the topic of evolution. That's not what I am referring to.

Well we get a lot of what I see out there today. Web surfers who think education is in "sound bites" rather than research and thought.

Lovely speech, True, but what is it addressing?

You say you are skeptical of scientists motives, so why then aren't you looking for evidence they have none. Skepticism is not taking a position, after all. Yet you have taken a position that scientists have an agenda, based on a school curriculum (that doesn't include lessons on what the Earth's surface looked like 4.4 billion years ago - and yes, you posted that as a response to my inquiry about that point), a Nova article about a casual discussion, an article about embiosymbiosis - and your issue with that was the use of words such as "assume, might and suggest", an article on AAAS which requires a subscription to access (and you only posted that part which is free to view, did you read the whole article?), an article on TalkOrigins which again indicates some aspects of evolutionary theory are uncertain and, to cap it off, a couple of links on a later post pointing to DVD's about life on Earth pre-dinosaurs.

How does this lead you to take the position that scientists have an agenda, yet claim this is down to use of the skeptical method? The method itself, in your OP, suggests it is the duty of the claimer to provide evidence, not the skeptic so please don't resort to personal insults and insinuations of laziness.

Rather than just post these links and suggest a casual link to your claim, you have to show how they make your claim conclusive. I, as the skeptic, accept your claim (in the neutral sense) but suggest you have no evidence so dismiss the claim.

I'll ask again, is there a way, in your opinion, that evidence could be provided to substantiate that there is no agenda in science?

If not, then your claim of skepticism is really belief.

Why I am interested in this thread is precisely why you asked your questions in the OP. Many people do not know what skepticism, in the sense of applying a method to claims of others, is. They mistake belief and cynicism for skepticism. I am trying to show that it is true and you are very kindly helping me make this very point

Leonardo

You state several things in your post that are not true. The most prominent one is that the Nova show was



How do you come to that conclusion? Is that how you view a television special that is produced and shown and sold? A "casual discussion"

Doesn't that sound like a ridiculous justification to you?

Could you stop right there, because you've twice blown this off like its nothing. But I'd like you to address how a show that is regularly awarded by the science community and uses highly regarded scientists to narrate the show presenting these views to the public is a "casual conversation."

Because if you are simply going to dismiss any evidence that you want, well then you aren't interested in skepticism as a method but a position.



It is not my belief that scientists are pushing the agenda. It is a fact. Pointing this out hopefully will encourage people to pay attention to this. And encourage the community to be more objective about it.

I'd like to see these type of articles aimed at those rogue television shows and "casual conversations" as you call them, with the same level of intensity they are aimed at Creationists.

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/04/05...lligent-design/



http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/gould.html


And finally I would say what would constitute proof to me is if NO SCIENTIST ever again made statements like the ones made by the Nova show scientists. No scientist ANYWHERE EVER AGAIN made a declarative statement based on conjecture and presented it as science.

And if on the off chance that some rogue scientist DID, there would be an immediate condemnation from prominent scientists in the same field.

Basically following their own rules outlined pretty well in this link

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/unt.not.html

Interesting. How do you become the authority on what is and what isn't evidence?

The links true provided seem to support her claim that scientists--be it all scientists, some scientists, or people who are perceived to be scientists with all the rights, privileges, and authority afforded to scientists by the lay-public--present parts or all of the theories supporting the idea that life occurred in some completely natural way without need of an external creator as if they are absolute, undeniable, verifiable fact, despite the fact that scientifically this cannot be proven to be 100% true.

True,
You give one scientific journal, which states:


To me, it seems you pick this because of the word assume. Leonardo is correct in his statement, one must have knowledge of the subject at hand to be skeptical. Do you know why this can be assumed?

Scientists use of vocabulary is much different that use in layman’s terms. This includes the word assume. In science we can make assumptions so long as we are checking they hold true. To illustrate let’s use a simple example involving the physics of light and an early experiment with light.


Thomas Young was the first scientist to successfully show that light had wave like properties, with his famous double slit experiment. When shining a light through two slits onto a screen we get a banding pattern. Each light band we call a bright fringe and dark ones are dark fringes. In the center is the most intense light band, we call it the 0 order band, on either side is the first order, second order etc.

It appears as something like this..


The whole setup looks as such:


Now, we can call the distance between the double slits and the screen, L. The distance between the slits, d. The distance between two light bands as x.

Say we had a simple problem like find the distance between the central bright fringe (0 order) and the 3rd order bright fringe. We are given that the distance between the two slits is 1x10^-4 m and the distance between the slits and screen is 3 m. And the light is red light (wavelength 650 nm). We need to make an assumption to solve this. The assumption we can make is that: If the distance, d, is significantly smaller than the distance, L, we can treat the two paths from the slits to point, P, as parallel.

Lets look at a picture.


So if we treat them as parallel, then we can draw a line perpendicular to l₁ such that:

l₂= l₁ + d.
Then if we measure the distance between the two slits, d, we can say that
l₂ - l₁ = d = d sin (q) (q will equal theta).

We also need two more equations I will give you rather than derive.
Bright fringe: d sin (q) = my (y= lambda or the wave length of light) (m= any whole integer)
X = L tan (q)

So we can solve this problem very simply give the assumption holds true, And is d<<<L?

Yes we can see that by the numbers.
So to solve sin (q₃)= 3(y/d)
q₃ = sin^-1(3(y/d)) = 1.12
Finally with the last equation above, we can solve X₃= 3 tan (1.12) = .059 m
If we actually measured the distance with a ruler, we would find this is true so are assumption must be correct.

Sorry if you did not find that the most interesting example, but I wanted something that was quick and did not require lots of explanation.

The point though, is that assumptions are ok to make if you know your assumptions are accurate, often why we use the word approximation instead of assumption but they are one and the same. If you do not know why the assumption can be made though, then you are without knowledge and have no room to pass judgment on the actual assumption itself, which unless you can answer why we can make the assumption that Nb and Ta are not fractionated during geothermal processes then you are really arguing from a standpoint of ignorance, rather skepticism as a thought process.

As an after thought I am going to make you a nice long in depth thread like the radiometric dating one I did on the history, age and evolution of earth for those less than informed on earth’s planetary evolution. Hopefully, the turn out of the science “doubters” will be much higher on this one. You seem to think that the conditions of early earth are complete guesswork and we have no idea of what it is like, this is far from the truth. Further suggesting that you are uneducated on the matter. Zircons, for instance, are one example of a great information source on the conditions of early earth, so are Chondrites, Eucrites and Diogenites. As far as Hibbertopterus’s (your giant sea scorpions) time we know what the earth was like then even more so than 4 billion years ago. That was a measly 250 million years ago, nothing on a planetary time scale. The planets, fossils, delta-oxygen findings and rock’s formed, to name but a few ways, gives us a lot more detail about the conditions then, than you seem aware of. The conditions during the Paleozoic-Mesozoic Bridge are actually fairly well understood. While you may say hey its only a theory, it is a theory supported by mountains of facts, evidence, observations, hypotheses and testable data. Again, giving further evidence that Leonardo’s statement is correct, you have to have knowledge of something to be skeptical of it. This is knowledge you appear to lack.



Also, I think that you feel scientists attack creationism as a way to get rid of religion; this could not be farther from the truth. The few scientists, who do speak out against creationism, do so in a science classroom sense. Creationism and ID are not science, in any way, shape or form. There is a very real danger involved in growing up a generation of people believing pseudoscientific ideas are science. I don’t expect you to understand this as you seem to have a chip on your shoulder against, science.

Also, you are still persisting in this delusion of the scientific community. You state that the scientific community has some kind of agenda, akin to some of the more weird conspiracy theories I have heard on this website. The scientific community in the way you make it sound does not exist. You do not pay dues and get your monthly “scientific community” pass. It’s not a club. You have not shown sufficient evidence that the scientific community has secret agendas, only that you believe they do and your belief seems to be inspired by distrust of the scientific community (probably due to lack of knowledge) and a cynical attitude toward science.

A theory is not some random hypothesis, a theory is supported by individual hypotheses, facts, observations etc. Theories are a truth in their own way, and only become more accurate with time. Seriously, the "oh its just a theory argument is old". She has not supported her claim whatsoever.

calamax


Why have I pointed out the word assume? Do you honestly suggest that its because I think that science hasn't proven things? Do you seriously suggest that I think its just some giant leap of faith?


What I said is that creationist arguments have nothing to do with the failure of Evolutionists to back up some of their more fantastic claims. Suggesting that "this is what the earth was like" is not the same thing at all as saying "Evidence shows that the earth most likely looked like this"

Saying "Based on testing we can assume......" is not the same thing as saying "BILL HARTMANN (The Planetary Science Institute): We all hear about the impact 65 million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs. And you're getting that kind of impact something like once a month on the early Earth.



That's an assumption and not a fact. So why not simply say it that way? My only reason for posting the articles that say ASSUME and SUGGEST is that OUTSIDE of Evolutionists it seems to be common practice in the world of Science to use this kind of careful language.
But ironically when it comes to predicting the past, Scientists seem to be less careful about it.

Read what they say for example:



Basically they are gleaning what they can from the very little that is left, and making decisive statements without knowing the full picture, but then presenting it to the public as if they have "figured it out"


Now to some degree it certainly is true that most science doesn't operate in this agenda driven way. But you are wrong to suggest that it doesn't occur in the fields of evolutionary science, precisely because they get emotional when creationists come in.




Please show me where I ever stated this even ONCE on the entire history of me posting on this board.

What I said is that more and more Evolutionists are getting away from what science is truly supposed to be and turning this discussion into a new religion.

And they are pushing this religion on the public in many different ways. Namely by presenting things to young people as if they are facts when they are not facts. Taking advantage of the "entertainment" area where the line is blurred to suggest something is Science when its really a fantasy of the evolutionist. Presenting Fantasy as science is no different than God theory to me.

See this is why its always important to be clear what we are assuming and what is actual scientific theory. Perhaps a better way to approach it would be to always indicate what level of authority is given to differing theories.

Another key factor is in using the term, The THEORY OF EVOLUTION or EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. These two phrases cover a huge huge array of biological development. But rather than calling it biological development and simply looking at the way it works it is presented as THEORY and by that I mean THEORY in the realm of non science. It is presented as the ANSWER to Creationism. And that is not what science is supposed to be concerning itself with.

You can continue to suggest that I think the Science Community is some secret order by way of side stepping a very significant point that I have made.

When a scientist (especially one that is well regarded by his peers, you know the peer review you are always yammering on about) makes a statement publicly in the name of science, and doesn't use science terminology but rather FANTASY, he or she should be publicly called on it immediately.

But as I've stated from the beginning, when a scientist does this, but is pushing something that other scientists agree with, they look the other way.

Its not like any other science out there in that it is angrily trying to shut up its critics or those who don't embrace it fully. This in and of itself goes against the very definition of scientific method. Science relies on skepticism as a method.



True science is supposed to be objective independent of religious or political points of view. You can not deny that Evolutionary science has very much concerned itself with shutting down the creationists as not science and thus have adopted patterns of behavior that are more like evangelical fanatics pushing an answer, than neutral and objective explorers of information.

REPO MAN!

Maybe you stated in a previous post but what are these fantasies you are accusing us with?
I believe people like Carl Sagan and Neil Degrasse Tyson are among the most important scientists for the simple fact that they encourage public knowledge of science. I can say that Sagan was a major influence in my decision.

A little snippet that may be of interest



What is Skeptical Inquiry?

Skeptical inquiry is a method of investigation which guides the evaluation of claims of fact. Four words neatly summarize the skeptical credo: Prove what you claim!

Skepticism's core value judgment holds that empirical evidence must support a falsifiable claim to justify acceptance of that claim. A skeptic strives to identify and clearly articulate assumptions and, when they are questioned, rigorously test those assumptions. Science is the best tool yet-invented for producing evidence that skeptics consider valid.


http://danfingerman.com/skeptic/

I finally got around to checking out this show, and NO it is not presented as fact.

After reading review after review, it was pretty clear that they used a great deal of artistic license, and it's primary purpose is to entertain.

"In the "Trilogy of Life" documentary, included on the Walking With Monsters DVD, the producers of the "Walking With" trilogy state that their intention was not to write a scientific thesis but to bring prehistoric animals to life. The documentary also states that science is littered with mistakes (some scientists might even say that science only progresses by making mistakes) and that while scientists can make guesses as to how these prehistoric creatures might have looked or behaved while they were alive, there is no guarantee that these guesses are correct and in this case, we have no way of knowing for sure."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_with_Monsters

I think you are blowing this way out of porportion.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't read the fine print off the website while the show was airing without it.

But I think that statement is absolutely in agreement with my point and now its shucked off like its no big deal.

I'm not the one blowing it out of proportion. It is what it is. Read that quote again that you posted. It is what it is.

The people who are blowing it out of proportion are the ones getting upset that I'm pointing out a fact.


Here is more of what the Wiki article states.

Hmmm I'm glad that you used one of the men who declaratively made statements in the documentary as though they were factual.


This to me is fantasy.


See above post and the wikipedia post for some of those fantasies.

Skeptism is like eating Durian fruit for the first time.

(This might be a really dumb post. Fair warning. I've had far too little sleep the last three nights. )

Durian fruit smells like a Donkey's butt (it's really really bad smelling), and yet people love and eat this stuff like it's going out of style in Malaysia.

The facts are there -- Durian fruit smells bad, so people CAN assume that Durian fruit is bad, that it tastes awful. It's a good assumption to make.

The Skeptic will look at that and think "lordy that smells bad, I'm having a very hard time believing is tastes good, BUT look at the 5 other people who are clearly enjoying it, hmmm, maybe I should try it, I still doubt that it will taste good."

The Cynic would say "No way man, that stuff just smells bad, it has to taste awful, those people who look like they're enjoying it are actually faking it, they don't really like it"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durian


Hmm that's an interesting post MissMel's but its got me itchin!


I got a fever and the only prescription is more Durian fruit!

"Interesting point" was a nice way to put it. I appreciate that.

I'm not firing on all cylindars today. LOL.

"Theories are truth IN A WAY" What way? Is it the same way that 2+2=4? If it isn't then I have every right to doubt it.

OK, so then what is wrong with asking someone who believes life began naturally through random events PROVE WHAT YOU CLAIM!

You know.... I have gone for days on just the contents of one MRE (Meal-Ready-to-Eat) bag, and I STILL would not go anywhere near anything that smelled like donkey butt... which by the way, Miss Mels... how DO you know how a donkey's butt smells... and do we want to know.

Nothing is wrong with it just as there is nothing wrong in asking you to prove your creation story is true


fullywired

Really IamsSon, you don't want to know how I came to know that little tidbit of information... let's just say it wasn't something I experienced on purpose. haha.

No one ever said that there was something wrong with it.

The problem is that we learn through deduction and inference, while you're asking for "been there, watched it happen, took pictures to prove it" proof; which is entirely unascertainable. Even if we were able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt which mechanism spurred abiogenesis and we were able to prove that the conditions on Earth x billion years ago were just right for this to take place, you still wouldn't be happy because "no one was there".

Good, I'm glad we agree.

Sorry, that's weak, because it's NOT about what I require, it's about what SCIENCE requires.

The SCIENTIFIC PROCESS requires, observation and independently repeatable, verifiable results, not me. AND based on that, just a simple reading of what the scientific process requires, even if someone was able to make life occur spontaneously from non-organic matter, it would still NOT prove that is how it happened, it would only prove that humans can, in a controlled environment, cause life to generate spontaneously from non-organic materials. Therefore, for ANYONE to presume that they know, scientifically, how ANYTHING in the past occurred is B.S. and anyone--ESPECIALLY a REAL scientist--should recognize that.

Skepticism is more explainable then "I believe in a guy who lives in the clouds, who watches and controls everything we do!"

Goatness always right.

Not that I necessarily disagree with this concept but would you care to explain it because I don't quite see how "Skepticism" is more explainable?

Are you taking Skepticism as a position then?