Evolution answers

[Dinwar]

We all know Mendel, Darwin, Newton and Einstein all fudged data and even made Colossal Mistakes in their conclusions/theories. Are they big enough names that put science on a not so scientific footing?

Well, since science isn't revealed truth the way religion is, no. Many scientists commit errors of knowledge--they don't know something, so draw incorrect conclusions. This is part of the scientific process, and it is irrational to criticize people for not acting on knowledge they don't have. Some commit errors of analysis--they misinterpret the data. Sometimes this is due to honest errors--alchemists were not irrational, but merely mistaken--and sometimes not--no one, despite your best efforts to paint a contrary picture, has ever argued that fraud doesn't happen in science. These are discovered in time, and corrected; again, all part of the scientific process.

Science would survive if every big name that any non-scientist knew was proven wrong tomorrow. What you refuse to understand is that science is about the PROCESS, not about the specific facts. Science has no dogma, merely a method.

 

[Dinwar]

There is no branch of science single-handedly created and dominated by a single person. It's a collaboration. That's why it's OK for a single person to make a mistake.

I'd say it's more of a conversation than a collaboration. Often it's a very loud conversation, and it's not unheard of for the conversation to turn violent (a few sedimentologists and paleontologists of my aquaintance have police records for brawling), so we can't really say we all work together. A really good way to make a lot of headway in science is to get two groups that HATE each other--they'll work harder than you'd believe to prove the others wrong. But it's an effective conversation, because we all agree to play by the same rules.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Second try...

Define "evolutionist".

 

[foophil]

Thanks for all the constructive feedback so far. My prior education in this subject matter was simply a general biology course plus a couple of core biology courses around 20 years ago in college when I was interested in this stuff. It all seemed so simple to grasp (in general) back then, and I find it... annoying... that others don't see it the same way.

I submitted my replies to the two I mentioned in the original post and haven't heard a peep from them since. I was kind of hoping for more questions from them (as I love to look things up and learn that way), but am having a good enough time reading through what this thread has turned into.

 

[dlorde]

Dean Kenyon ... was no ordinary scientist.

Certainly true, he's a well-known young-Earth creationist and ID proponent...

 

[Brian-M]

Mounting rejection of evolutionary theories by Canadian scientists and other evolutionary biologist.

Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's 'rut'

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=f0d3d638-ec38-4397-8015-96e92046e3a2

From that article...

Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution. The list was posted on the Internet this week.

At least two of the scientists teach at Christian universities, while another runs an organization dedicated to the links between Islam and science.

Some of those contacted yesterday acknowledged their doubts about Darwinism coincide with their religious beliefs, and espoused the controversial idea of "intelligent design" -- that some guiding hand was behind life on Earth.

I suspect that there might be some religion-based bias in their conclusions.

We all know Mendel, Darwin, Newton and Einstein all fudged data and even made Colossal Mistakes in their conclusions/theories. Are they big enough names that put science on a not so scientific footing?
Brilliant Blunders: From Darwin to Einstein - Colossal Mistakes by Great Scientists That Changed Our Understanding of Life and the Universe
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/brilliant-blunders-mario-livio/1111944882?ean=9781439192375

Mendel probably fudged data, but that doesen't mean that everyone else did. Einstein said that including the cosmological constant in his theory was his greatest blunder, but what about the rest of them? All your link leads to is a site selling the book, it provides no details about the content of the book that could be used to support your case.

I suspect for Darwin most of the problems will be the assumption that horizontal gene transfer doesn't happen, and a lot of the speculative nonsense that he wrote in books like Descent of Man (such as his hypothesis on how hereditary characteristics are passed on to the next generation.)

Simply linking to a site selling the book doesn't support your case against the theory of Evolution in the slightest, and might even count as an ad-hominem attack against Darwin, since you're effectively accusing him of fudging data without presenting any evidence that he did.

 

[justintime]

From that article...


I suspect that there might be some religion-based bias in their conclusions.



Mendel probably fudged data, but that doesen't mean that everyone else did. Einstein said that including the cosmological constant in his theory was his greatest blunder, but what about the rest of them? All your link leads to is a site selling the book, it provides no details about the content of the book that could be used to support your case.

I suspect for Darwin most of the problems will be the assumption that horizontal gene transfer doesn't happen, and a lot of the speculative nonsense that he wrote in books like Descent of Man (such as his hypothesis on how hereditary characteristics are passed on to the next generation.)

Simply linking to a site selling the book doesn't support your case against the theory of Evolution in the slightest, and might even count as an ad-hominem attack against Darwin, since you're effectively accusing him of fudging data without presenting any evidence that he did.

Here is a brief review of the book. It highlights the colossal blunders covered in the book. 'Brilliant Blunders'.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/b...nders-by-mario-livio.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Review of Brilliant Blunders by Mario Livio
http://physics.about.com/od/physicsbooks/fr/BrilliantBlunders.htm

 

[fishbob]

Well, since science isn't revealed truth the way religion is, no. Many scientists commit errors of knowledge--they don't know something, so draw incorrect conclusions. This is part of the scientific process, and it is irrational to criticize people for not acting on knowledge they don't have. Some commit errors of analysis--they misinterpret the data. Sometimes this is due to honest errors--alchemists were not irrational, but merely mistaken--and sometimes not--no one, despite your best efforts to paint a contrary picture, has ever argued that fraud doesn't happen in science. These are discovered in time, and corrected; again, all part of the scientific process.

Science would survive if every big name that any non-scientist knew was proven wrong tomorrow. What you refuse to understand is that science is about the PROCESS, not about the specific facts. Science has no dogma, merely a method.

Evolution - change over time.
Science - discovery and correction over time.
Creationism - deliberate ignorance all the time.

 

[fishbob]

Certainly true, he's a well-known young-Earth creationist and ID proponent...

You mean a "cdesign proponentsist".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists

 

[justintime]

Well, since science isn't revealed truth the way religion is, no. Many scientists commit errors of knowledge--they don't know something, so draw incorrect conclusions. This is part of the scientific process, and it is irrational to criticize people for not acting on knowledge they don't have. Some commit errors of analysis--they misinterpret the data. Sometimes this is due to honest errors--alchemists were not irrational, but merely mistaken--and sometimes not--no one, despite your best efforts to paint a contrary picture, has ever argued that fraud doesn't happen in science. These are discovered in time, and corrected; again, all part of the scientific process.

Science would survive if every big name that any non-scientist knew was proven wrong tomorrow. What you refuse to understand is that science is about the PROCESS, not about the specific facts. Science has no dogma, merely a method.

Then explain with such a process in place. Why??: "Many of the great discoveries of our past have been found through pure accident. The reasons for these accidental discoveries range from clumsiness and luck to unclean or unsafe laboratory practices."

http://www.businessinsider.com/science-discoveries-that-were-complete-accidents-2012-9

 

[dlorde]

Then explain with such a process in place. Why??: "Many of the great discoveries of our past have been found through pure accident. The reasons for these accidental discoveries range from clumsiness and luck to unclean or unsafe laboratory practices."

I think this shows that the process works very well; it can even produce results in adverse conditions - given a modicum of scientific curiosity, without which most of those accidental discoveries would never have been made.

But there's little doubt that such serendipity accounts for only a small minority of discoveries - they're particularly memorable because they were serendipitous.

 

[justintime]

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Then explain with such a process in place. Why??:

"Many of the great discoveries of our past have been found through pure accident.

The reasons for these accidental discoveries range from clumsiness and luck to unclean or unsafe laboratory practices."

I think this shows that the process works very well; it can even produce results in adverse conditions - given a modicum of scientific curiosity, without which most of those accidental discoveries would never have been made.

But there's little doubt that such serendipity accounts for only a small minority of discoveries - they're particularly memorable because they were serendipitous.

The article states many of great discoveries have been through pure accidents....quite different from your serendipity for only a small minority of discoveries.

It also suggests there is nothing particularly special about the scientific method because luck, accidental discoveries, clumsiness and even unsafe laboratory practices produced many of the great discoveries. Very different from the much haloed scientific method.

 

[Sideroxylon]

The article states many of great discoveries have been through pure accidents....quite different from your serendipity for only a small minority of discoveries.

It also suggests there is nothing particularly special about the scientific method because luck, accidental discoveries, clumsiness and even unsafe laboratory practices produced many of the great discoveries. Very different from the much haloed scientific method.

The accidental discoveries in science like those of Röntgen or Fleming were observational. As Pasteur pointed out this kind of luck comes to the prepared mind. Without some sort of theory laden observation you are not even going to recognize the significance of what might occur in front of you.

But this is only the beginning of rigorous testing of the circumstance of the apparent new phenomena.

 

[justintime]

The accidental discoveries in science like those of Röntgen or Fleming were observational. As Pasteur pointed out this kind of luck comes to the prepared mind. Without some sort of theory laden observation you are not even going to recognize the significance of what might occur in front of you.

But this is only the beginning of rigorous testing of the circumstance of the apparent new phenomena.

The scientific method allows for the prediction of outcome based on the hypothesis being true. These discoveries were not predicted but pure accidents, luck, unintended outcomes despite sloppy laboratory procedures.

 

[pantsorama]

It also suggests there is nothing particularly special about the scientific method because luck, accidental discoveries, clumsiness and even unsafe laboratory practices produced many of the great discoveries. Very different from the much haloed scientific method.

You do not understand what the Scientific Method is. Discovery is merely the first step in the process - really its step 0. Step one is taking that Discovery and forming a null hypothesis. If you stop at the discovery, you have not used the scientific method. Many a classic forms of woo stops at the initial "discovery": homeopathy, Chiropractic, 9/11 Truthers, Astrology, Perpetual Motion, UFOs, the face on Mars, Bigfoot, etc.. Your post is a strawman of the what the scientific process actually is. The "discovery" part is easy. The real Science is hard work.

Anyway, from that article:

In 1946 Percy Spencer, an engineer for the Raytheon Corporation, was working on a radar-related project. While he was testing a new vacuum tube that drives a radar set known as a magnetron, he discovered that a chocolate bar he had in his pocket melted.

He became intrigued and started experimenting by aiming the tube at other items, such as eggs and popcorn kernels. He concluded that the heat the objects experienced was from the microwave energy.

In 1895 Wilhelm Roentgen, a professor of physics, was working with a cathode ray tube.

Although the tube was covered, he noticed a nearby fluorescent screen would glow when the tube was on. He tried placing items between the object and the screen to block the rays, but found that a number of objects could be penetrated by the rays. When he placed his hand in front he noticed he can see his bones.

And that's just the first two. I could go on, but it's not worth my time.

Further undermining your argument, the article you linked at best contains one Scientific discovery - Penicillin (really the theory of antibiotics). The rest are technological advances - not scientific ones. And despite this each product had to be vetted before it was put to public use. And that process of vetting uses, guess what? The Scientific Method.

I can assure you that, despite you cognitive bias, there are far more cases where a Discovery leads to nothing constructive, only perhaps a Time Cube-like website where the writer claims to have "disproved Einstein."

Finally, even if there are things that are discovered by happenstance, how does that in any way lead you to the conclusion that therefore No other method for discovery exists. It does not follow. If I say you can get to New York from DC by driving up I-95, you have not proven me wrong by saying "Here are some examples of people flying from DC to New York."

 

[justintime]

You do not understand what the Scientific Method is. Discovery is merely the first step in the process - really its step 0. Step one is taking that Discovery and forming a null hypothesis. If you stop at the discovery, you have not used the scientific method. Many a classic forms of woo stops at the initial "discovery": homeopathy, Chiropractic, 9/11 Truthers, Astrology, Perpetual Motion, UFOs, the face on Mars, Bigfoot, etc.. Your post is a strawman of the what the scientific process actually is. The "discovery" part is easy. The real Science is hard work.

Anyway, from that article:





And that's just the first two. I could go on, but it's not worth my time.

Further undermining your argument, the article you linked at best contains one Scientific discovery - Penicillin (really the theory of antibiotics). The rest are technological advances - not scientific ones. And despite this each product had to be vetted before it was put to public use. And that process of vetting uses, guess what? The Scientific Method.

I can assure you that, despite you cognitive bias, there are far more cases where a Discovery leads to nothing constructive, only perhaps a Time Cube-like website where the writer claims to have "disproved Einstein."

Finally, even if there are things that are discovered by happenstance, how does that in any way lead you to the conclusion that therefore No other method for discovery exists. It does not follow. If I say you can get to New York from DC by driving up I-95, you have not proven me wrong by saying "Here are some examples of people flying from DC to New York."

Do you know how many scientists walk around with chocolates in their pockets hoping it will lead to some new discovery? Or why scientists don't believe in cleaning up their mess because they hope it will lead to some new antibiotic discovery? The scientific method is not based on superstition but the discoveries are largely accidental, luck and unintended outcomes not predicted by science.

 

[pantsorama]

Do you know how many scientists walk around with chocolates in their pockets hoping it will lead to some new discovery?

I now know of at least one. That's all it took. How does this invalidate The Scientific Method? Are you claiming Jebus showed him the way to make TV dinners possible?

Or why scientists don't believe in cleaning up their mess because they hope it will lead to some new antibiotic discovery?

Many people are just messy and/or lazy. So? What is the point in observing this?

The scientific method is not based on superstition but the discoveries are largely accidental, luck and unintended outcomes not predicted by science.

The process of discovery is not always predicted by science. But so what? No one who supports the SM claims that the SM predicts what we will discover next. The SM is a testing method. In fact it makes no predictions at all, a theory makes predictions, but even then its not about something a broad as the future of human discovery. A valid theory makes predictions only within a narrow range of ideas that the theory is about. AND STILL WE TEST THOSE PREDICTIONS!

Again. More simply this time. Follow the bouncing ball.

1) Discovery != scientific method.

2) Discovery & the scientific method are not mutually exclusive.

3) The 'discoveries" in that article only worked because of applications of the Scientific Method. Discovery was only the first (zeroth?) step in the process.

4) In many (most) discoveries that are not followed by the Scientific Method, people come to stupid conclusions. Examples were provided.

5) Discovery of technological advances of new products != development of a scientific theory. (I call this the "Safety Glass is categorically different than theory of evolution" corollary.)

In short, if you think someone inventing the microwave oven disproves evolution, you probably are not being objective.

 

[justintime]

Again. More simply this time. Follow the bouncing ball.

1) Discovery != scientific method.

2) Discovery & the scientific method are not mutually exclusive.

3) The 'discoveries" in that article only worked because of applications of the Scientific Method. Discovery was only the first (zeroth?) step in the process.

4) In many (most) discoveries that are not followed by the Scientific Method, people come to stupid conclusions. Examples were provided.

5) Discovery of technological advances of new products != development of a scientific theory. (I call this the "Safety Glass is categorically different than theory of evolution" corollary.)

In short, if you think someone inventing the microwave oven disproves evolution, you probably are not being objective.

Nobody is suggesting that scientific method leads to discovery of any sort. I just posted a link that claims many of the great discoveries of our past have been found through pure accident and gives other reasons.

The reasons for these accidental discoveries range from clumsiness and luck to unclean or unsafe laboratory practices.

 

[Retrograde]

At least two of the scientists teach at Christian universities, while another runs an organization dedicated to the links between Islam and science.

Islamic science? You mean like in algebra and chemistry - not to mention astronomy (ever wonder why so many major stars have Arabic names?). (although I somehow don't think that's what they intended).

 

[pantsorama]

Nobody is suggesting that scientific method leads to discovery of any sort.

Oh really?

The scientific method is not based on superstition but the discoveries are largely accidental, luck and unintended outcomes not predicted by science.

You appear to have an expectation that science should be able to predict these discoveries, and that not doing so is evidence of science's failures. Which is a total non-sequitur. I think you know this since you keep avoiding that point.

I just posted a link that claims many of the great discoveries of our past have been found through pure accident and gives other reasons.

You posted a link all right. The rest of that statement is refutable. 10 != "many of the great discoveries of our past" in either an absolute or relative sense. "and gives other reasons" is also falsifiable, and is another non-sequitur. I pointed this out earlier where I highlighted passages where the technological discovery was honed and enhanced through the application of the SM. Again you ignored that.

The reasons for these accidental discoveries range from clumsiness and luck to unclean or unsafe laboratory practices.

So? You are clearly implying there is some significance to this accidental process of discovery. So out with it. What do you claim dumb luck discoveries mean. And how does the meaning you derive from these discoveries invalidate evolution or the scientific method?

I claim how things were discovered means nothing other than an amusing anecdote. I further claim it is entirely likely these things were discovered many times before, and were it not for the SM, (and the hard work of further experimentation) it probably got ignored.

Again, this speaks to the idea that discovery void of the SM leads to bad conclusions.

If you can't articulate that then you are JAQing off, afraid your idea will get debunked, or hand waving the details while expecting buy in. None of which are very satisfying or convincing. So ante-up.