Actually, Alex the most abusive posts are the ones from you, and this is not the forum for that. Our questioning of Bob’s credentials came about because, based on his statements here on the scientific method, the degree of faith required to accept the findings of oneself and other scientists if that method is followed, and petty little things like his understanding of statistics, suggest that, if he is a scientist, he might not be a very good one. In my case that would be the pot calling the kettle black but I recognize my limitations.
As for his, your, and DSYoung’s philosophical statements, most, while perfectly suitable for college bull sessions around a pitcher of beer and a bong, are simplistic and inappropriately applied here. They are neither good science nor good philosophy.
Even less so when you consider the point that Cecil made about people choosing the wishy-washy theistic perspective in order to avoid hurting G-d’s feelings.
“Well, we do believe in evolution, but we’re sure you invented it Mr. Gaseous Vertebrate in the sky!”
What I meant was that bob simply tried starting a thread about philosophy. People then reacted with hostility. Try reading the first few posts. This is not acceptable, excusable, or… and I don’t even understand where you get this idea… justifiable.
Some of you profess that such ideas are beer and bong philosophy. Underserving of consideration. Philosophers such as Descart would very much disagree. Then again, the ideas are so frighting that you’re right, perhaps they should not be given a second thought after the first. Then again, philosophers such as Descart would disagree.
However, what none of you can argue with is that many posters chose to ignore the philosophical questions at hand, chose to read intentions and meaning not inherent in the OP, and veered off on tangents about how creationists are stupid, ridiculous, etc.
None of you can argue that these are closed-minded, reactionist responses. They would be reactionist if they were directed at a creationist. They are especially telling when they’re directed at an innocent question. It is not intellectually honest, and you people feed fuel to the fire when Creationists call their opponents unreasonable, clubbish, and unthinking. For is this not the behaviour you exhibited?
No, they didn’t, or at least not out of proportion to the thread premise. The argument was “any idea with less than 100% proof is no better than any idea with 0% proof.” It’s richly deserving of ridicule. It screams out for ridicule. It’s wearing a leather slave outfit and crawling to its mistress with a whip handle in it’s mouth, dropping it before her spiked leather boot, licking the boot clean and begging tearfully for ridicule.
You’re criticizing us for not being stupid enough. Get real.
In his first post he suggested that the earth being more than 10,000 years old is only supported by evidence because no one has been around that long, but he seems to imply that in contrast the earth having a liquid centre is supported by facts because it is something occurring right now (OK - I may be reading a little bit into what he said, but that sure looks to me like what he means).
What he got hammered for, among other things, is treating those two situations as being somehow different. In both cases you have to depend on evidence and have no hope of being able to examine either case directly; in the one case because we don’t have time machines, and in the other case because we haven’t a hope in the near future of drilling down several thousand miles to check out the core. I’m sorry, but I just can not see any reasonable philosophical difference between those two situations - both depend on indirect evidence and both are not directly observable.
Can you prove that Descarte existed? He is not alive. On the other hand, I can see Homer Simpson on TV right now so I think that he is a better source of philosophy. Can you prove me wrong?
That was not the argument. Again, stop reading your crap into things. I’m not saying bob’s posts were perfect. For instance, bob is mistaken in drawing distinction between the evidence we have for an old earth and the evidence we have that the earth’s core is molten, or some other ideas he considers “facts.” Yet the inescapability of uncertainty is the only thing we truly know to be true. The ones who’ve replied, “I’ve stopped thinking those scary thoughts since college” only exemplify the faith Bob refers to. I wonder if those people would be surprised to learn religious types come to believe their ideas by the same mechanism.
I think you deserve Bob an appology, or at least concede that there has been a misunderstanding.
Man, let me get my head around this… what if life was, like, a big computer program, maaaaaaan? And war is just, like, the system crashing?
Can you prove me wrong? The “inescapability of uncertainty” inspires heuristics (i.e. let’s operate on the assumption that gravity, though not 100% proven, is consistent because exceptions are rare), not faith and hopefully not fear. Assuming the Earth is 4-5 billion years old may not be “provable” in the absolute sense the OP wants, but every test we can run supports it, while no tests show a greater likelihood of a 10,000 year-old Earth.
Shame still on you for confusing religion and science and trying to mock us for not joining you. You haven’t raised a single valid point so far. What is the question about philosophy asked by the OP, according to you? “Nothing is certain”? Well, thanks. I haven’t been this impressed since my last fortune cookie.
The thing we are criticizing was Bob’s lack of realization that no decently competent scientist accepts theories as anything but provisional. It is possible he is working with a bunch of losers, and got taught by idiots, but he needed to give some examples and not just assume this was true. One mistake most students make in writing papers (well, I think most - I did) is in writing absolutely, not provisionally. Professors and advisors - or reviewers if it gets that far - soon correct that mistake. How anyone could get a PhD without learning to not go beyond the true state of certainty is beyond me.
To be honest, Alex, those thoughts haven’t been scary since I discussed them while indulging in an herb packaged with an etched DEA tag stating it produced “moderate paranoia.” After that I accepted that everything I thought I knew could turn out to be wrong tomorrow. This attitude has served me well since my degree is in Anthropology and since graduating a fair amount of what I was taught has been tossed out, or at least reassesed. Sure, I’m sometimes slow to accept some of the changes but that’s because I’m an old crank, not because I
fear the new.
Yes. Precisely. If he managed to earn a science doctorate while still maintaining this totally fallacious understanding of how science actually works, then he really needs to consider going back to the school that bestowed the degree, and ask for a refund.
Wow, I didn’t realize this was The Pit, nor did I realize my credentials were on trial here. I have successfully solved the atomic structure of many proteins involved in cancer metastasis, and I’ve published this work in Nature, the top science journal. Please tell me how my “totally fallacious understanding of how science actually works” has inhibited my research? I’m able to be very practical and analytical when it comes to science, but I also enjoy the philosphical arguments. As for the refund bit, if you knew anything about research in this country you’d know that graduate students in science do not pay for school, we are supported by grants or departments or the state.
If you’d reread my posts again you’d see that I clearly stated I believe the earth is 4 billion years old, but my point was you cannot discount the other side’s argument because there is no proof, just theories. Some theories are more logical than others and contain more supporting data, but in the end they remain theories. I’ve avoided reposting because this isn’t Great Debates or The Pit, and I’ve already stated my side and let people take their shots at me uncontested. But I am now posting to let you know that attacking my Ph.D. is off topic and in my opinion an unwarranted personal attack, especially with my research and publication record. If you can’t post something that contributes to the discussion and can only think of a way to put me down, please just do not post.
So, which papers in Nature or Science or anywhere else claim to prove anything? If you’ve read creationist literature (and all people concerned about evolution should) you’ll know that lack of “proof” of it is one of the common arguments. That’s precisely because they don’t know (or pretend not to know) about different levels of evidence and support for a hypothesis or theory. For them, it is either proven, or equally likely to be true as any other hypothesis. We’d expect you to know better than this. Do you think that all theories and hypotheses are created equal? No one has “proven” the Big Bang theory either, but it is sure a hell of a lot more likely than Steady State.
Lest you think this is a complete dogpile on you, expressing doubt of your claimed qualifications, I refer you to my post #31. MY main concern is that persons who claim to be scientists don’t have the courage to defend it. If you believe the Earth is four billion+ years old based on the collected scientific theory and are confronted by someone claiming it’s only 10,000 years old, the better response is “That’s nice, let me know when you have some evidence” rather than “Hmm, your ‘no-one was there to see it’ argument is compelling and should get comparable consideration”.
I have no reason to doubt you’re a scientist. I have more than enough cause to doubt your ability to teach science, though. Claims that maybe God created the entire universe one second ago don’t belong, let alone deserve serious consideration, in a science class.
No; you can’t prove it in the sense you can prove Euclidean theorems, but you can certainly “discount” young Earth creationism, to about .0002 cents on the dollar. There aren’t two “just theories”; on one side, you have a THEORY–“just” theories being the great pillars of scientific thought–on the other, religious dogma not only wholly unsupported by any evidence, but directly contradicted by (literally) mountains of evidence. (Actually Earth’s age has probably gone beyond “theory” to the point of being a “scientific fact”, with the understanding that in science even “facts” may in some ultimate sense be held to still be tentative and in principle subject to revision.)
I think this statement from your OP was responsible for much of the strength of the reaction you’re getting. Why single out geologic ages, but not the composition or structure of the Earth’s core? Is the statement that matter is made of atoms “provable fact” or “just theory”? How about the statement that living organisms are made up of cells? Where is this line that you’re drawing?
