And people wonder why I am a skeptic

[Lilly]

I'm not going to bother with a citation that shows that when people favor superstition over science, bad things happen. Any citation would merely be the opinion of someone else. Do you really need a citation from someone else to accept that when a society accepts misinformation and ignores it's scientists, it is generally very bad? Do you really require a citation to accept that ignorance is a bad thing for a society?

When a society favors superstition over science, "bad things" do indeed happen. See this thread for an example of one such "bad thing".

Ignorance really isn't bliss.

[truethat]

No I can't see the difference. See you operate from the premise that there is no bias or agenda in science. That's not been my experience.

My experience is that science is pushed on the general public in a way regarding Evolutionary science, that is not done with the other sciences.

YOu don't see Physicists freaking out if their studies are not understood by the general public for example.

Obviously this comes as a result of the push of Creationists and IDers trying to pass themselves off as scienctists. HOWEVER in my opinion sciences that deal with evolution should be held to at least the same level of integrity as any other science, especially because of the controversy.

You constantly suggest that these Scientists are somehow better standard than regular people and would never ever misrepresent the facts.

That hasn't been my experience. Anyway I made my point. Anyone who says that she was right to use the word proves is wrong.

So there's no real point in debating here with people who have blind faith in scientists and think they are beyond reproach.

YAWN

Continue your ranting. I'm out.

[truethat]

When a society favors superstition over science, "bad things" do indeed happen. See this thread for an example of one such "bad thing".

Ignorance really isn't bliss.

This thread isn't about religion or superstition Lilly, so your point is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The thread is about a scientists misrepresenting the facts but par for the course "LETS TALK ABOUT BAD RELIGION INSTEAD!"

[Raptor]

Now here's what I see.

*avoids answering questions*

So there's no real point in debating here with people who have blind faith in scientists and think they are beyond reproach.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Raptor

[truethat]

Actually never mind, I see when you can't "Win" its back to baiting and bashing religion two things that feel more comfortable than admitting that Science made a mistake.

So enjoy yourselves.

Edited February 15, 2008 by truethat

[Neognosis]

My experience is that science is pushed on the general public in a way regarding Evolutionary science, that is not done with the other sciences.

How is evolution pushed on the general public? Because it's taught in schools? Because scientists are forced to defend it in the face of creationists?

YOu don't see Physicists freaking out if their studies are not understood by the general public for example.

Physics is not under attack by a religious group. There are not schools required to put a sticker on their physics books citing the bible as another explanation for physics.

Obviously this comes as a result of the push of Creationists and IDers trying to pass themselves off as scienctists.

FINALLY.

HOWEVER in my opinion sciences that deal with evolution should be held to at least the same level of integrity as any other science, especially because of the controversy.

They absolutely are. Your disconnnect with reality here is that you are taking the poor choice of word in a NEWSPAPER article and using it to support the fallacious argument that scientists let their own get away with bad science. This simply is not true. Her statement would have NEVER stood if printed in a peer science journal. Scientists generally are not goign to get upset about ONE word that appears in a NEWSPAPER article that really doesn't change anything. Her published paper would NEVER say "prove," because she would not be allowed to get away with that in a peer reveiwed publication.

Why is that so hard for you to accept?

This thread isn't about religion or superstition Lilly, so your point is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

It has CLEARLY come to incorporate a religious angle, as you yourself keep saying that when a religious person makes misstatement, they are called to task. (this is NOT true anyway. They aren't called on semantics. They are called out based on a concerted and organized effort to spread disinformation)

Lilly had every right, and was relevant, to point out why scientists don't let disinformation go unchecked. So stop being a bully and throwing a fit every time the discussin evolves away from you.

You constantly suggest that these Scientists are somehow better standard than regular people and would never ever misrepresent the facts.

I never said that, and neither did anyone else.

But what we did say, was that they are unable to misrepersent facts in their peer reviewed journals. And those are the publishings that matter, as those are the papers other scientists read and test and build off of. We don't really care that one word was misspoken in a newspaper article. It's unfortunate, but it's not really that significant given that in the peer journals, that won't happen.

By the way, do you know what "rant" means?

Take a look at your own posts, complete with sarcasm, "yawn"s, maniacal laughter, name calling, general childish behavior, overstating the opposition, logical fallacies, and a general inability to admit error, etc. and then try to determine which one of us is ranting.

Your point might get understood a little faster if you were not using these tactics and remained calm and rational.

[truethat]

What do you mean finally? I've said that from the get go, give me a freaking BREAK.

You have no objectivity on this issue whatsoever so its pointless.

You say it doesn't matter. Ok so how many times doesn't it matter? How many times is it ok to do this? Several months ago I pointed out that a program on television did the same thing.

All of you did the same thing that you did in this thread.

Answer this quesiton. Why are you so compelled to defend something that is a blatant error without pausing to investigate the issue?

You did the same thing, so did Raptor, Lilly, Capeo, Shaftsbury and Tiggs regarding a science show that talked about the surface of the planet billions of years ago. Back then you said it wasn't science supported, (it was) that the people commenting were not "real scientists" (not only were they real they were among the most notable in their field) that it wasn't aimed at the public (it was) that it was religions fault (its not) and finally when you couldn't argue that any more the fails safe, ITS NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL!

So all I see on this forum is when a scientist makes a mistake you are first inclined to downplay it rather than admit that its a mistake.

You do this every single time I've pointed this out. And in most cases with no actually research on this topic.

For examply you at first stated that ONCE it was published and peer reviewed, which it already HAD BEEN, but you didn't know that because you didn't even pause to read the article, you just went straight to excusing the mistake.

Several other people in this thread have noted that she shouldn't have used the word. All of you have ignored those comments and acted like I'm somehow wrong to bring this up.

We've had several diversionary religion bashing statements one of which done by a moderator.

So I'm sorry if I don't see you as objective or rational when it comes to discussing mistakes in science.

You are free to continue deciding what IS or IS NOT important if that makes you feel better. To me you prove my point the more you go on. So please.............continue.

Edited February 15, 2008 by truethat

[Neognosis]

Actually never mind, I see when you can't "Win" its back to baiting and bashing religion two things that feel more comfortable than admitting that Science made a mistake.

Nobody is bashing religion. Try to see the words people write, and not the just the preconceived ideas you have of what you think they will write. Also, one scientist, in a NEWSPAPER article, misspoke one word. That is unfortunate, but is hardly "science made a mistake." As point out over and over, she'll be held to higher standards in the peer journals she must publish in.

I don't expect you to admit that you've blown this out of proportion, as I've yet to see you concede a single point in any post, in any topic, but at least try to understand why everyone thinks you are blowing this out of porportion. And it's not "winning" or "losing" a debate, it's trying to get multiple viewpoints to help form a better opinion, and parsing others and yourself for accuracy. It's not a contest, truethat, it's a discussion. Maybe that's why you are always so aggressive and defensive and unpleasant to share forum space with.

[Raptor]

You know I see a lot of "playing dumb" in this thread. Amuse yourselves. You have no objectivity on this issue whatsoever so its pointless.

So instead of actually addressing our arguments, you just call us biased and run. That's fantastic.

[Neognosis]

What do you mean finally? I've said that from the get go, give me a freaking BREAK.

They why do you keep wondering why evolutionary biologists are forced to adress the public more than physicists or bottanists, etc?

You have no objectivity on this issue whatsoever so its pointless.

Just because we don't agree with you and point out several things you've said that are not accurate or that are blown out of porportion doesn't mean we're not objective, truethat.

[truethat]

So instead of actually addressing our arguments, you just call us biased and run. That's fantastic.

No actually I edited that. You are not objective. You tend to defend first ask questions later and throw diversionary religion bombs.

Anyway the reason I am out is that people are telling me not to bother. Science people. That you don't represent the reality and that its obvious you are just arguing with me for personal reasons.

So on that note. I'm bowing out.

One of them just sent me this and asked me to post it.

http://defendscience.org/ds_commentary3.html

Edited February 15, 2008 by truethat

[Neognosis]

No actually I edited that. You are not objective. You tend to defend first ask questions later and throw diversionary religion bombs.

I don't think any of us have done that. I don't think anyone else thinks we've done that either. I think most of it is in your imagination.

Anyway the reason I am out is that people are telling me not to bother. Science people. That you don't represent the reality and that its obvious you are just arguing with me for personal reasons.

I'm certainly not. I still am waiting for you to explain your underlying assertion that all evolutionary science is unreliable and conspiratorial based on the one word poorly spoken in a newspaper article by an excited discoverer.

If this is true, why don't they get away with this in peer reviewed journals?

Why does science revise it's theories based on new evidence if they are unwilling to consider new evidence?

Why does science constantly check and balance itself?

Why does science have journals that are peer reveiwed, where the findings must be verified and are picked apart by other scientists to verify their validity?

Why do the same journals also then publish papers with other possible explanations or conclusions from those very findings?

We've all conceded that she should have been more careful in her wording, and that human beings, even scientists, are human and therefore have bias.

But your assertion seems to go beyond that, and implies that the whole scientific community operates under some personal bias and wither misinterprets or maybe fakes evidence to keep their theories alive? If that's true, how do you answer the above questions?

One of them just sent me this and asked me to post it.

http://defendscience.org/ds_commentary3.html

Here, this is from your own cite:

While making explicitly clear that this is not about science trying to destroy religion, our statement says that it is about opposing both a political agenda and a particular biblical literalist ideology that seeks to undermine and destroy the scientific method and process.

They are trying to perserve the scientific method and process in the face of religion and superstition that is starting to seep into the science class and undermine the foudnations of science. What is wrong with that? Ignorant and superstitious people are not good for democracy or for a society in general. They are trying to safeguard the very scientific method from bias by a political agenda so that we can produce educated people who understand science and can make good decisions in the future.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Neognosis

[capeo]

Again, this is ridiculous. Science can "prove" things. The tooth proves a neanderthal died in the area. Tools and trade items prove neanderthals lived in the area. Isotopes proved the neanderthal in question lived with 12.5 miles of the site for the better part of it's life. I don't even understand why this is being harped on. Also note: "Our findings prove that ... their settlement networks were broader and more organized than we believed." See the ellipses? This quote has been edited. It would actually pay to find the real quote if folks are going to continue to make a big deal out of nothing.

[truethat]

Here comes the brigade. You all attack me do you notice that rather than addressing the OP. Its what you do in every thread like this. As I stated, the scientist made an error in using the word and it hasn't been corrected by other scientists.

The only reason a big deal is being made is you all need to defend at all costs and bring in the warheads when it comes down to it.

As I stated, continue, you are just proving my point.

Thank you Capeo for proving my point again. That you didn't bother to investigate it before you defended it.

Here is the fill missing from the ellispses

"Our findings prove that their mobility was significant and that their settlement networks were broader and more organized than we believed," she said.

Edited February 15, 2008 by truethat

[Raptor]

No actually I edited that. You are not objective.

I won't waste my time typing out a full new response, it wouldn't be much use after you've already displayed your unwillingness to acknowledge what I've written. Instead I'll just repost my last relevant post and ask that you point out the errors, which should be easy for you to do because us "science people" aren't accepting the reality of the situation.

The Science community goes out of its way to correct errors made by Creationists and IDers with a zealous attitude that they are misleading the public.

But when one of their own do it, its not a big deal.

We've already said that Panagopoulou didn't use the word "proves" appropriately, thankfully she didn't use it in the actual scientific paper.

Since when do you see members of said "scientific community" buzzing around creationists because of a small error (yes, small) like mistakenly using the words "proves that..." in place of "indicates with a high level of probability that..."? In the event that that did happen, were the creationists ever harrassed for this mistake? Or were they simply corrected, similarly to how people here have already corrected the words used by Panagopoulou?

You tend to defend first ask questions later and throw diversionary religion bombs

Was that a diversionary comment? You mentioned Creationists and I responded accordingly.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Raptor

[capeo]

Here you go:

"Our findings prove that their mobility was significant and that their settlement networks were broader and more organized than we believed," that's her full quote.

Now what was proved? Only that the above was more than we PREVIOUSLY thought. Read the sentence in proper light of grammar and you'll find she's simply saying that it proves neanderthal populations were more mobile than previously thought and that they used this mobility more than we thought they did. And it does do so. So what's the issue?

[Neognosis]

I have never stated the things you keep asking me to defend Neo,

ARe you saying that your ONLY issue is with the poor choice of words in an EDITED qoute? (thanks Capeo..I didn't even notice that!) and that you DON'T see this as some supporting evidence to doubt the entire evolutionary theory?

Then why is your thread title:

And people wonder why I am a skeptic, When it comes to Evolutionary Science?

You are a skeptic about evolutionary science why?

You keep saying it's because you think there's some conspiratorial bias that is not parsed out by the peer review process, and this just isn't true.

If I'm wrong about what I think you are saying, can you sum up your point for us in a few sentences? Maybe we're all confused by your hystrionics and not getting your point.

[capeo]

Here comes the brigade. You all attack me do you notice that rather than addressing the OP. Its what you do in every thread like this. As I stated, the scientist made an error in using the word and it hasn't been corrected by other scientists.

The only reason a big deal is being made is you all need to defend at all costs and bring in the warheads when it comes down to it.

As I stated, continue, you are just proving my point.

Thank you Capeo for proving my point again. That you didn't bother to investigate it before you defended it.

Here is the fill missing from the ellispses

"Our findings prove that their mobility was significant and that their settlement networks were broader and more organized than we believed," she said.

Attack you? I didn't even address my post to you so you can come down off the cross, True. I addressed what the article says and how I don't see any fault in the logic of the woman's quote.

EDIT: you'll note I already posted the full quote. Again, I see no problem with it. She's addressing physical evidence and stating how it's changing previous views on neanderthal migrations.

Edited February 15, 2008 by capeo

[truethat]

You defended it before you bothered to even read it and now you are splitting hairs. Continue please. Its quite interesting.

[Neognosis]

Here you go:

"Our findings prove that their mobility was significant and that their settlement networks were broader and more organized than we believed," that's her full quote.

Now what was proved? Only that the above was more than we PREVIOUSLY thought. Read the sentence in proper light of grammar and you'll find she's simply saying that it proves neanderthal populations were more mobile than previously thought and that they used this mobility more than we thought they did. And it does do so. So what's the issue?

Thanks Capeo. I am , frankly, embarassed that I didn't dig that up myself and allowed myself to be baited by truethat.

You defended it before you bothered to even read it and now you are splitting hairs

You attacked it before you bothered to find out the whole quote in context.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Neognosis

[truethat]

ARe you saying that your ONLY issue is with the poor choice of words in an EDITED qoute? (thanks Capeo..I didn't even notice that!) and that you DON'T see this as some supporting evidence to doubt the entire evolutionary theory?

Then why is your thread title:

And people wonder why I am a skeptic, When it comes to Evolutionary Science?

You are a skeptic about evolutionary science why?

You keep saying it's because you think there's some conspiratorial bias that is not parsed out by the peer review process, and this just isn't true.

If I'm wrong about what I think you are saying, can you sum up your point for us in a few sentences? Maybe we're all confused by your hystrionics and not getting your point.

You are wrong about what I am saying but I'm not about to explain it to for the millionth time. As noted in your own words "You didn't even notice...."

In other words yet another admits that they defended the quote without taking the time to even read it well let alonefind the entire quote.

Continue, as I said you are just proving my point.

By the way Neo several people HAVE gotten my point, you consistantly have told me what I am saying when I have not said anything other than

I've noticed that in fields surrounding evolutionary science, when a scientist makes an error its usually excused by tte supporters of science as no big deal. But if a IDer or a Creationist made the same type of mistake people would be all over it.

I've noticed as a result that especially in the field of evolutionary science that people are reluctant to criticize becaue they fear any criticism will be picked up by the religious as evidence that the entire theory is wrong.

I've noticed a reactionary stance in the field against this that I believe corrupts the integrity of the field. This quote is just a small example.

Edited February 15, 2008 by truethat

[truethat]

Thanks Capeo. I am , frankly, embarassed that I didn't dig that up myself and allowed myself to be baited by truethat.

You attacked it before you bothered to find out the whole quote in context.

No I didn't. Why would you say that? See you just want to win the argument. I did check it out before I posted it, in addition Tiggs posted it on the first page, but you've been so busy ranting you've not been objective enough to see anything.

Notices that NEo has nothing to say, not only did he miss the elipses but he missed the fact that Tiggs posted it on page one. So now I await his twisted debate answer because he flat out is busted for defending something to the HILT and with extremes that only on the last page he's actually taken the time to read.

Edited February 15, 2008 by truethat

[Raptor]

You defended it before you bothered to even read it and now you are splitting hairs. Continue please. Its quite interesting.

Was this directed at me?

So you say that the scientific community attacks creationists on account of every error they ever make make, while allowing everything written by other scientists go unchallenged. In response I point out that creationists are rarely, if ever at all, attacked for such minor errors and that the scientist was in fact corrected for her error here, instead of actually conceding (or even acknowledging) that, all you say is that I'm splitting hairs?

Insane. Could you at least explain your reasoning?

Edited February 15, 2008 by Raptor

[truethat]

No it was directed at Capeo.

No I didn't say that the scientific community attacks creationists on account of every error they ever make make,

while allowing everything written by other scientists go unchallenged. In response I point out that creationists are rarely, if ever at all, attacked for such minor errors and that the scientist was in fact corrected for her error here, instead of actually conceding (or even acknowledging) that, all you say is that I'm splitting hairs?

I never said that at all. Again you are trying to WIN the argument so you are twisting my words.

I love how you've all ignored all the comments about Science from science sites etc.

Continue

So now you've had to exaggerate what I said and make it extreme because otherwise you wouldn't have a leg to stand on

Continue

Anyone else want to prove more of my points for me

[capeo]

You are wrong about what I am saying but I'm not about to explain it to for the millionth time. As noted in your own words "You didn't even notice...."

In other words yet another admits that they defended the quote without taking the time to even read it well let alonefind the entire quote.

Continue, as I said you are just proving my point.

By the way Neo several people HAVE gotten my point, you consistantly have told me what I am saying when I have not said anything other than

I've noticed that in fields surrounding evolutionary science, when a scientist makes an error its usually excused by tte supporters of science as no big deal. But if a IDer or a Creationist made the same type of mistake people would be all over it.

I've noticed as a result that especially in the field of evolutionary science that people are reluctant to criticize becaue they fear any criticism will be picked up by the religious as evidence that the entire theory is wrong.

I've noticed a reactionary stance in the field against this that I believe corrupts the integrity of the field. This quote is just a small example.

This quote is no example of what you say as it doesn't deal with evolution in any way, shape or form. As for IDers or creationists, everything they posit is a mistake, has no evidence and hence isn't even subject to self or peer correction. The comparison isn't valid. They are not on the same playing field. Scientists actually have to back up their theories with evidence. Some evidence undeniably proves things. The evidence this woman is citing is a good example of that. Also, note, science doesn't even address or attempt to disprove creationism as a form of research. It's just the results of many years of research in many fields that allows those scientists that publically address it (the vast majority don't) to be easily dismissive of it.

Again, this quote, when read grammatically correct, really is no issue. It's much ado about nothing.

I also love how you seem to think you anything about what goes on in the field of evolutionary biology or it's correlaries. What journals do you read? If you read any, you'd know that huge amounts of revision, change and new evidence is the rule, not the exception. About 1% of it, if that, reaches the public forum. Then a quote taken out of context makes you think you know whats going on in a huge discipline that encompasses many fields of science? Is that not a bit presumptuous?