Guno צְבִי (04-22-2018), Mott the Hoople (04-22-2018), ThatOwlWoman (04-22-2018)
Darth is confusing scientific consensus with a hypothesis. All scientists create and record exacting conditions any time they do any experiment, whether its drugs with phenotype interaction in a clinical trial or dropping an apple to demonstrate gravitational attraction.
So if some weird scientist studying primordial soup has a recipe, that is to be expected. Why Darth thinks that scores him a point, I have no idea. By the same token scientists until success is achieved tweak
the recipe and the hypothesis.
That assumptions are made in science is a point?
Guno צְבִי (04-22-2018), Mott the Hoople (04-22-2018), ThatOwlWoman (04-22-2018)
Micawber (04-22-2018), Mott the Hoople (04-22-2018), ThatOwlWoman (04-22-2018)
Religious scientists must always be wondering if Jebuss is messing with the results.
What makes you think they aren’t? Have you ever been to a scientific conference?
Consensus in science are extraordinarily difficult to reach and when they are it’s because there is an extraordinary body of research and fact upon which consensus is built. That doesn’t mean that scientists don’t consider what is known as tentative or that there is far more to be learned. It is a general consensus that what facts are known are widely agreed upon by independent scientists. Building a consensus in science is extremely difficult to do and it is equally absurd to dismiss them out of hand on the basis that we don’t know everything.
Your argument is the god of the gaps argument that because there are gaps of knowledge in a scientific field that a scientific consensus agreeing about those facts which are known to have a high probability of being correct are some how invalid because they are widely agreed upon isn’t rational.
Last edited by Mott the Hoople; 04-22-2018 at 07:12 AM.
You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!
Cypress (04-22-2018), ThatOwlWoman (04-22-2018)
Exactly. And that is precisely why science is far more to be trusted than the latest crackpot religious "intelligent design" type explanation. I personally find the ability to change one's POV once new evidence is in much more trustworthy than rigid clinging to disproven ideas, because once chosen it becomes some sort of emotional investment by the believer.
Cypress (04-22-2018), Mott the Hoople (04-22-2018), rjhenn (04-23-2018)
There is consensus....and then there is consensus. Evolution is a foundational tenet of science. It is not a par with your garden variety theory. It has been so thoroughly tested and probed with multiple lives of evidence over the course of more than a century, that is has been basically elevated to the vaunted status of a scientific tenet or law. While interesting questions remain, the basic outlines are firmly established.
Now, when wingnuts trot out this "consensus can be wrong!" argument, I can tell you exactly where that comes from: they have heard over the years that climate science consensus is wrong, because "science" used to think the sun went around the earth. Of course, the educated among us know that the pre-Coperincan view of the solar system was not based on the scientific method...it was based on religious dogma, speculation, and guesswork...which the scientific method and scientific consensus ultimately corrected.
Mott the Hoople (04-22-2018), rjhenn (04-23-2018), ThatOwlWoman (04-22-2018)
It is fundamental to science that when an set of conditions is met, the result will be the same.
If that was not the assumption, there would not be the requirement of replication.
If the result can not be replicated then nothing has been discover, except that the experiment has been shown to be invalid.
If the recipe only has the same result for some percentage, that is reported with the understanding that something is unknown
that is knowable. Never is it thought some religious pixie dust is lacking from the procedure, despite the joy it may
bring god in the gaps crowds.
Once god was on high riding a winged horse, now he has to hide in quantum fuzziness or inside black holes.
We are winning, bigly.
rjhenn (04-23-2018)
PostmodernProphet (04-22-2018)
I think it was stretch who was trying to drag me down by comparing me to Aristotle or some other ancient braintrusts. It made me think about
the geocentric view of the universe and how these brilliant scientists had to make fantabulous mathamatic equations to explain the bizarre apparent motion
of planets with all the perturbations and reversals of course, when if they but held a heliocentric view, the math would be much simpler. Sadly, if the said or did so,
they'd have been burnt at the stake. Makes me wonder how many knew but did those exotic math equations anyway just to stay alive.
"So Pope in 1400, uh, venus goes retrograde, then flips a bitch, does a 180, then shoots straight upwards at double time, then......." -court scientist
Cypress (04-22-2018)
Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017
Bookmarks