Science: True vs Pseudo - nPeace vs sayak83

sayak83 · Jul 11, 2019

nPeace said:
Oh okay.
I'll remember that the next time I see a Woodpecker banging its beak against the hard bark of a tree. I'll tell the girls with their long fingernails, "There's nothing to it. You can do it."
Then I'll try to keep a straight face.

The way you are speaking is no different it seems, than when it was suggested that the cell was such a simple thing, that evolution to multicellular organism, was just a snap of the finger.
However, over a century and a half later, what do the know of evolution from unicellular to multicellular?
Many hypotheses exists.

Scientific observations have clearly revealed how genes that stimulated keratin formation in the jaws and retarded teeth formation evolved in dinosaurs as they evolved into modern birds through a series of mutations in the jaw formation genes of these organisms. In fact scientists have created toothed birds by reversing these mutations to confirm this. Further details here,

The words in red do sound quite nice, don't they.
What was observed? How does one reverse a mutation that has not been seen to occur... far more, a series of them?
Did they create mutations that produced the result... say like a mouse to elephant, and then reverse it?
Why reverse a process that you observed in realtime?

Regarding your article How did dinosaurs evolve beaks and become birds? Scientists think they have the answer
I think the entire article says it all.

Once you know that many dinosaurs had feathers, it seems much more obvious that they probably evolved into birds.

...and that's just the beginning of the article.
Suggestions and proposition are made... I understand.
What scientists think, or believe, and what has actually been demonstrated through the scientific method, are two completely different things.
Pseudoscience -
statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.

Did you answer my question? Which one? They were several.
However, apparently no, you have not answered the questions. You added something other than what you were saying. So you can perhaps explain what question you were attempting to answer.

Heterochronic truncation of odontogenesis in theropod dinosaurs provides insight into the macroevolution of avian beaks
At least seven transitions to edentulism occurred independently in theropod dinosaurs (1 ⇓–3), all presumably accompanied by the appearance of a horny beak (1). Although the structure and morphogenetic events of beak formation have been well studied in extant birds (4 ⇓–6), evolutionary developmental mechanisms linking beak formation and tooth loss have proven difficult to test, given extant models. Previous authors hypothesized that avian tooth loss was due to inactivation of odontogenic signaling pathways (7), but acknowledged that regional tooth loss initially accompanied various acquisition of beaks in Cretaceous birds (8, 9). Therefore, degradation of the odontogenic program alone cannot provide a developmental explanation for the coupling of tooth loss and beak formation (9). Macroevolutionary hypotheses for these phenomena have included weight-saving in response to the evolution of flight (1, 10) and efficient processing of herbivorous diets (3). Weight-saving hypotheses have been rejected by recent studies (11, 12) and fail to explain the tradeoff between tooth loss and beak development in nonvolant theropod lineages, while hypotheses related to dietary specialization appear salient for at least initial rostral beak formation in theropods.

Here we provide fossil evidence consistent with postnatal truncation of odontogenesis in several lineages of theropod dinosaurs that eventually reach complete edentulism.

Heterochrony - Wikipedia
Heterochrony can be identified by comparing phylogenetically close species, for example a group of different bird species whose legs differ in their average length. These comparisons are complex because there are no universal ontogenetic timemarkers.

That extract is the bare minimum, of what the article reveals.
How is any of this different to what was said earlier here?
Assumptions are made, and there is no way to verify that those assumptions are true.

For example...

Despite greatly differing neck lengths, giraffes (right) have no more cervical vertebrae, just 7, than their fellow giraffids, okapi (left). With the number constrained, the development of the vertebrae is extended, allowing them to grow longer.

How long did it take the giraffe's neck to grow? 10 years? 100? 1,000,000? 100,000,000?
How long did it take the character on the right to grow?

What does similarities reveal, other than that things are similar?
What does similarities between a Transam and Mustang reveal?
Also, just because scientists can clone sheep, doesn't mean that cloning naturally occur, does it.

You do understand that science is not in the business of proving anything? Science is only in the business of generating hypothesis, finding evidence, and inferring based on the evidence which hypothesis is more likely than the others? All scientific conclusions are inevitably probabilistic, that is why all scientific papers use probabilistic language in their conclusion ( may, could, should, probably, likely, unlikely) etc.
If you want proof and definitive statements, then nothing in science provides anything like that.....ever.

nPeace · Jul 11, 2019

sayak83 said:
You do understand that science is not in the business of proving anything? Science is only in the business of generating hypothesis, finding evidence, and inferring based on the evidence which hypothesis is more likely than the others? All scientific conclusions are inevitably probabilistic, that is why all scientific papers use probabilistic language in their conclusion ( may, could, should, probably, likely, unlikely) etc.
If you want proof and definitive statements, then nothing in science provides anything like that.....ever.

I appreciate what you are saying, but this is why I am making an argument for true science against psuedscience.
The article I linked in the OP was dogmatic in it's claims, as most are about the evolution on a macro level, as we were discussing. You were kind of dogmatic in you claims also, by saying that if we see A, then what is to prevent B, and then you proceeded to pull up information to try to support those claims.

They don't have to be proven, but making claims as though they are scientific facts, is pseudo.
I find this is common in particular areas. We can't deny this does not happen.

An argument from authority
Appeals to authorities
Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a valid argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources, with some holding that it is a strong argument which "has a legitimate force", and others that it is weak or an outright fallacy where, on a conflict of facts, "mere appeal to authority alone had better be avoided".

If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument.

Use in science
Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority as authority has no place in science. Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:

One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.

One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923, when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made, that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956, scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority, despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23. Even textbooks with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24 based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.

This seemingly established number generated confirmation bias among researchers, and "most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter's number, virtually always did so". Painter's "influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence", and scientists who obtained the accurate number modified or discarded their data to agree with Painter's count.

I believe we are seeing this same pattern even today where this theory (evolution) is concerned, and the majority turn a blind eye to it, because it favors their world view.
However, others rightly oppose it, even though they take heat for it - Hats off to them.
Someone needs to stand up for true science.
It's not a small number of scientists who are appalled at what is called scientific fact, or true science, in this era.

The way I see it, if there is valid reason to doubt a claim, or dismiss it, even if most favor an interpretation of evidence in support of it, and accept it as the best opinion, then persons need not consider that view.

So let me ask this question. You don't see extrapolating on an idea where the scientific method cannot be applied, and claiming it a fact, to be pseudo science?

sayak83 · Jul 12, 2019

nPeace said:
I appreciate what you are saying, but this is why I am making an argument for true science against psuedscience.
The article I linked in the OP was dogmatic in it's claims, as most are about the evolution on a macro level, as we were discussing. You were kind of dogmatic in you claims also, by saying that if we see A, then what is to prevent B, and then you proceeded to pull up information to try to support those claims.

They don't have to be proven, but making claims as though they are scientific facts, is pseudo.
I find this is common in particular areas. We can't deny this does not happen.

An argument from authority
Appeals to authorities
Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a valid argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources, with some holding that it is a strong argument which "has a legitimate force", and others that it is weak or an outright fallacy where, on a conflict of facts, "mere appeal to authority alone had better be avoided".

If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument.

Use in science
Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority as authority has no place in science. Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:

One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.

One example of the use of the appeal to authority in science dates to 1923, when leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made, that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s until 1956, scientists propagated this "fact" based on Painter's authority, despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23. Even textbooks with photos showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24 based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.

This seemingly established number generated confirmation bias among researchers, and "most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter's number, virtually always did so". Painter's "influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence", and scientists who obtained the accurate number modified or discarded their data to agree with Painter's count.

I believe we are seeing this same pattern even today where this theory (evolution) is concerned, and the majority turn a blind eye to it, because it favors their world view.
However, others rightly oppose it, even though they take heat for it - Hats off to them.
Someone needs to stand up for true science.
It's not a small number of scientists who are appalled at what is called scientific fact, or true science, in this era.

The way I see it, if there is valid reason to doubt a claim, or dismiss it, even if most favor an interpretation of evidence in support of it, and accept it as the best opinion, then persons need not consider that view.

So let me ask this question. You don't see extrapolating on an idea where the scientific method cannot be applied, and claiming it a fact, to be pseudo science?

Given that you agree that science makes probabilistic claims based on evidence based inferences, what makes you believe that the particular scientific article I linked to regarding evolution of beaks as unscientific?

nPeace · Jul 15, 2019

sayak83 said:
Given that you agree that science makes probabilistic claims based on evidence based inferences, what makes you believe that the particular scientific article I linked to regarding evolution of beaks as unscientific?

Again you have not answered my question. Why? What did I say was pseudo science?

sayak83 · Jul 16, 2019

sayak83 said:
All these recent observations show that DNA can change at a faster rate than initially thought. So, if there was sufficient time for evolutionary changes to occur with slower rates, the currently observed faster rates would make the explanation even more plausible would it not?

See, I don't agree with your understanding of either the scientific method or pseudo-science. For me any field of inquiry that is accepted as science by the majority of practicing scientists (who have PhD degrees in sciences) is science and the rest are pseudo-science. That's the end of the story. The scientific method is primarily a philosophers' attempts to crystallize scientific activity in a simplified form that they can then analyze. Most scientists consider the scientific method as merely a convenient and rhetorically useful fiction and never think about it or mention it in their research work.

Indeed, today, even philosophers have accepted that "the scientific method" is a fictitious construction and often not a very useful one.

Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

First was a phase from Plato and Aristotle up until the 17th century where the specificity of scientific knowledge was seen in its absolute certainty established by proof from evident axioms; next was a phase up to the mid-19th century in which the means to establish the certainty of scientific knowledge had been generalized to include inductive procedures as well. In the third phase, which lasted until the last decades of the 20th century, it was recognized that empirical knowledge was fallible, but it was still granted a special status due to its distinctive mode of production. But now in the fourth phase, according to Hoyningen-Huene, historical and philosophical studies have shown how “scientific methods with the characteristics as posited in the second and third phase do not exist” (2008: 168) and there is no longer any consensus among philosophers and historians of science about the nature of science.

“Scientific knowledge differs from other kinds of knowledge, especially everyday knowledge, primarily by being more systematic” (Hoyningen-Huene 2013: 14). Systematicity can have several different dimensions: among them are more systematic descriptions, explanations, predictions, defense of knowledge claims, epistemic connectedness, ideal of completeness, knowledge generation, representation of knowledge and critical discourse. Hence, what characterizes science is the greater care in excluding possible alternative explanations, the more detailed elaboration with respect to data on which predictions are based, the greater care in detecting and eliminating sources of error, the more articulate connections to other pieces of knowledge, etc. On this position, what characterizes science is not that the methods employed are unique to science, but that the methods are more carefully employed.

So here are the points
1) There is no such thing as the scientific method.
2) Science is merely generation (and application) of knowledge about natural phenomena by refined versions of ordinary investigative techniques by specialists.
3) What makes knowledge scientific is that it is generated by scientists and accepted by the majority of the scientific community.
4) Scientific knowledge is not automatically true, but since it is generated by specialists through a laborious process, and has achieved acceptance by a majority of other experts, it is more likely to be true than other competing types of knowledge claims.

That's it.

nPeace · Jul 19, 2019

Thank you for explaining your point of view clearly.
I think scientists try to bypass the scientific method in order to establish a belief, which is incompatible with the scientific method.
In effect, it's pseudoscience qualified as science, based on PhDs, imo.

The scientific method, it is claimed, is designed to prevent cognitive assumptions from being the prime factor, leading to the the conclusion.
So you think this is useless, because of its ineffectiveness?

sayak83 · Jul 19, 2019

nPeace said:
Thank you for explaining your point of view clearly.
I think scientists try to bypass the scientific method in order to establish a belief, which is incompatible with the scientific method.
In effect, it's pseudoscience qualified as science, based on PhDs, imo.

The scientific method, it is claimed, is designed to prevent cognitive assumptions from being the prime factor, leading to the the conclusion.
So you think this is useless, because of its ineffectiveness?

I think the scientific method is a simplifying fiction created by the philosophers. It never had much use in the scientific community in ANY field whatsoever. No paper or original research monograph in physics, chemistry or biology refers or mentions the scientific method while justifying the validity of their results. No PhD thesis uses it, no scientific conference presentation mentions it. It only exists as an abstract concept among philosophers who philosophize about science and is not used by scientists.

Its good to see that philosophers are finally recognizing this and are dropping this concept from their analysis of science.

sayak83 · Jul 19, 2019

nPeace said:
Thank you for explaining your point of view clearly.
I think scientists try to bypass the scientific method in order to establish a belief, which is incompatible with the scientific method.
In effect, it's pseudoscience qualified as science, based on PhDs, imo.

The scientific method, it is claimed, is designed to prevent cognitive assumptions from being the prime factor, leading to the the conclusion.
So you think this is useless, because of its ineffectiveness?

There are two and only two ways to understand what science is.
1) Read scientific papers from reputable journals (we have some good indices for that SJR : Scientific Journal Rankings)
2) Going to major science conferences and listening to scientists as they present their work. Here is a list that gets updated,
Science Events: Scientific conferences, courses, meetings and more at Natureevents Directory

Reading a scientific paper properly is one of the key training a scientist receives during her doctoral degree. It is not easy to do at all. But much of science becomes clear when one is able to do it. Here is reasonably good guideline,

Scientific Papers | Learn Science at Scitable

Scientific papers are for sharing your own original research work with other scientists or for reviewing the research conducted by others. As such, they are critical to the evolution of modern science, in which the work of one scientist builds upon that of others. To reach their goal, papers must aim to inform, not impress. They must be highly readable — that is, clear, accurate, and concise.
To be accepted by referees and cited by readers, papers must do more than simply present a chronological account of the research work. Rather, they must convince their audience that the research presented is important, valid, and relevant to other scientists in the same field. To this end, they must emphasize both the motivation for the work and the outcome of it, and they must include just enough evidence to establish the validity of this outcome.

Papers that report experimental work are often structured chronologically in five sections: first, Introduction; then Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion (together, these three sections make up the paper's body); and finally, Conclusion.

The Introduction section clarifies the motivation for the work presented and prepares readers for the structure of the paper.

The Materials and Methods section provides sufficient detail for other scientists to reproduce the experiments presented in the paper. In some journals, this information is placed in an appendix, because it is not what most readers want to know first.

The Results and Discussion sections present and discuss the research results, respectively. They are often usefully combined into one section, however, because readers can seldom make sense of results alone without accompanying interpretation — they need to be told what the results mean.

The Conclusion section presents the outcome of the work by interpreting the findings at a higher level of abstraction than the Discussion and by relating these findings to the motivation stated in the Introduction.

A good piece of science is basically a scientific paper that satisfies these requirements and is found to be of interest by other scientists in advancing their own research efforts.
Note also the style guidelines that are strongly recommended by Nature for a good scientific journal.

One other thing. In science, any systematic action or observation in order to elicit evidence or data that seeks to support or falsify a hypothesis is called an experiment. So observation with a telescope for signs of exo-planets is as much an experiment as smashing subatomic particles in CERN or growing bacterial strains in a petri dish.

Hope this clarifies the thing somewhat.

nPeace · Jul 24, 2019

Thank you for the information.
At least I learned one thing I did not know.
Science Without the Experimentation
Science relies on the use and application of imagination to prompt new questions and uncover breakthrough interpretations of new or unexpected findings. The role that science plays in exploring, and ultimately proving new theories about our universe is possible because a basic structure exists to govern the conduct of science — namely, The Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method has been the subject of intense and recurring debate throughout the history of science. Different philosophers and scientists, from Aristotle to Descartes to Isaac Newton to Richard Feynman have all offered their own variation on the most appropriate way to determine what is provable, verifiable, and appropriate in our quest to understand the natural world. In recent years, as new research methodologies and sources of data have become available, the questions about whether a universal methodology can be applied have surfaced again, and with further advancements, such debates will likely continue.

I always thought that in determining what is true science, there was a universal agreement - conclusive, regarding the importance of the Scientific Method.
The scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter. Even the best-intentioned scientists can't escape bias. It results from personal beliefs, as well as cultural beliefs, which means any human filters information based on his or her own experience. Unfortunately, this filtering process can cause a scientist to prefer one outcome over another. For someone trying to solve a problem around the house, succumbing to these kinds of biases is not such a big deal. But in the scientific community, where results have to be reviewed and duplicated, bias must be avoided at all costs.

That's the job of the scientific method. It provides an objective, standardized approach to conducting experiments and, in doing so, improves their results. By using a standardized approach in their investigations, scientists can feel confident that they will stick to the facts and limit the influence of personal, preconceived notions.

So, now that you have made me aware of this, it would seem to me, that man does not even know what he purports scientific knowledge to be.
So would I be right in saying that various scientists apparently, choose to use, various "scientific methods"?
So since we are on the subject of evolution, could you tell me what 'scientific method' is used there?

sayak83 · Jul 24, 2019

nPeace said:
Thank you for the information.
At least I learned one thing I did not know.
Science Without the Experimentation
Science relies on the use and application of imagination to prompt new questions and uncover breakthrough interpretations of new or unexpected findings. The role that science plays in exploring, and ultimately proving new theories about our universe is possible because a basic structure exists to govern the conduct of science — namely, The Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method has been the subject of intense and recurring debate throughout the history of science. Different philosophers and scientists, from Aristotle to Descartes to Isaac Newton to Richard Feynman have all offered their own variation on the most appropriate way to determine what is provable, verifiable, and appropriate in our quest to understand the natural world. In recent years, as new research methodologies and sources of data have become available, the questions about whether a universal methodology can be applied have surfaced again, and with further advancements, such debates will likely continue.

I always thought that in determining what is true science, there was a universal agreement - conclusive, regarding the importance of the Scientific Method.
The scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter. Even the best-intentioned scientists can't escape bias. It results from personal beliefs, as well as cultural beliefs, which means any human filters information based on his or her own experience. Unfortunately, this filtering process can cause a scientist to prefer one outcome over another. For someone trying to solve a problem around the house, succumbing to these kinds of biases is not such a big deal. But in the scientific community, where results have to be reviewed and duplicated, bias must be avoided at all costs.

That's the job of the scientific method. It provides an objective, standardized approach to conducting experiments and, in doing so, improves their results. By using a standardized approach in their investigations, scientists can feel confident that they will stick to the facts and limit the influence of personal, preconceived notions.

So, now that you have made me aware of this, it would seem to me, that man does not even know what he purports scientific knowledge to be.
So would I be right in saying that various scientists apparently, choose to use, various "scientific methods"?
So since we are on the subject of evolution, could you tell me what 'scientific method' is used there?

As I have said before, the ideology of scientific method (or even discipline-specific scientific methods) is not very useful in either understanding or doing science imo. No other human endeavor is beholden to any such thing to achieve excellence. There is no over-arching "singing method" or "painting method" or "sports method" or "writing method" or "cooking method". There are some rough and ready rules or thumb of course, but there is no algorithmic set or instruction manual that would make one a premiere singer, a premiere artist, a premiere athlete or a premiere chef. Same in science.

nPeace · Jul 24, 2019

sayak83 said:
As I have said before, the ideology of scientific method (or even discipline-specific scientific methods) is not very useful in either understanding or doing science imo. No other human endeavor is beholden to any such thing to achieve excellence. There is no over-arching "singing method" or "painting method" or "sports method" or "writing method" or "cooking method". There are some rough and ready rules or thumb of course, but there is no algorithmic set or instruction manual that would make one a premiere singer, a premiere artist, a premiere athlete or a premiere chef. Same in science.

Okay. So which method do you use when preparing breadfruit to eat?
I was asking what scientific method is used in evolutionary biology - specifically in relation to the theory of evolution?
If you don't know. Okay.
Which field of science are you in, may I ask?

nPeace · Jul 24, 2019

Do you agree? Or not?

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe.

Though diverse models for the scientific method are available, there is in general a continuous process that includes observations about the natural world.

sayak83 · Jul 25, 2019

nPeace said:
Okay. So which method do you use when preparing breadfruit to eat?
I was asking what scientific method is used in evolutionary biology - specifically in relation to the theory of evolution?
If you don't know. Okay.
Which field of science are you in, may I ask?

What is breadfruit? Anyways....
Every scientific paper outlines their method of investigation and observation in the "materials and methods" section. Its there precisely because there is no common "method" and a case by case assessment by peers need to be made is the method is satisfactory for the study at hand. For example, here is an evolutionary study where there is a clear materials and methods section.

Rates of Dinosaur Body Mass Evolution Indicate 170 Million Years of Sustained Ecological Innovation on the Avian Stem Lineage

My specialization is in chemistry, chemical engineering, thermodynamics and heat transfer physics and engineering.

nPeace · Jul 26, 2019

sayak83 said:
What is breadfruit? Anyways....

Oh no. You're missing out on some good stuff.
Breadfruit.

sayak83 said:
Every scientific paper outlines their method of investigation and observation in the "materials and methods" section. Its there precisely because there is no common "method" and a case by case assessment by peers need to be made is the method is satisfactory for the study at hand. For example, here is an evolutionary study where there is a clear materials and methods section.

Rates of Dinosaur Body Mass Evolution Indicate 170 Million Years of Sustained Ecological Innovation on the Avian Stem Lineage

"their method" ???

Okay, so some scientists with PhDs, don't believe there is such a thing as pseudoscience, and don't agree with this: "Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.
Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited."

So those same scientists if consistent, do not have a problem with "Creation science", and agree that it is science, since papers are presented "that satisfies these requirements and is found to be of interest by other scientists in advancing their own research efforts".

So there are no biases against "Creation science". It's a myth.
Do Creation Scientists Publish in Mainstream Journals?
If ICR scientists are “real” scientists, then they should publish in respected, peer-reviewed, mainstream journals, right? In fact, many have. But mainstream journal editors’ zeal for naturalism can keep them from fairly analyzing contrasting views on origins - leading them to say “no” to quality creation science.

Science reviewers and journal editors serve as gatekeepers, closing the gate to prevent bad science from reaching the printed page. For example, they are right to reject a submitted article if its conclusions rest more on speculation than on results. But they can also close the gate for unscientific reasons.

So it seems as though, due to there being no way to determine anything, where scientists are concerned - pseudoscience seems to be viewed differently from person to person; science and the methods of determining scientific knowledge seems to be viewed differently from person to person... :shrug:

How can I proceed from here? What's true science? What pseudo science?
Or maybe there is neither. There is just science. Just send in your papers and make sure they meet "the requirements".
Even if those papers get thrown out, it's still science. They just didn't produce any accurate results.

sayak83 said:
My specialization is in chemistry, chemical engineering, thermodynamics and heat transfer physics and engineering.

That's a lot. Okay, so you are a chemist.

sayak83 · Jul 26, 2019

nPeace said:
Oh no. You're missing out on some good stuff.
Breadfruit.

"their method" ???

Okay, so some scientists with PhDs, don't believe there is such a thing as pseudoscience, and don't agree with this: "Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.
Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories, and continued adherence long after they have been experimentally discredited."

So those same scientists if consistent, do not have a problem with "Creation science", and agree that it is science, since papers are presented "that satisfies these requirements and is found to be of interest by other scientists in advancing their own research efforts".

So there are no biases against "Creation science". It's a myth.
Do Creation Scientists Publish in Mainstream Journals?
If ICR scientists are “real” scientists, then they should publish in respected, peer-reviewed, mainstream journals, right? In fact, many have. But mainstream journal editors’ zeal for naturalism can keep them from fairly analyzing contrasting views on origins - leading them to say “no” to quality creation science.

Science reviewers and journal editors serve as gatekeepers, closing the gate to prevent bad science from reaching the printed page. For example, they are right to reject a submitted article if its conclusions rest more on speculation than on results. But they can also close the gate for unscientific reasons.

So it seems as though, due to there being no way to determine anything, where scientists are concerned - pseudoscience seems to be viewed differently from person to person; science and the methods of determining scientific knowledge seems to be viewed differently from person to person...

How can I proceed from here? What's true science? What pseudo science?
Or maybe there is neither. There is just science. Just send in your papers and make sure they meet "the requirements".
Even if those papers get thrown out, it's still science. They just didn't produce any accurate results.

That's a lot. Okay, so you are a chemist.

Usually creationism papers get thrown out as they do not meet the standards set by the science journals. I believe that in one of the earlier posts I provided some general points of what makes a good scientific paper.

A paper rejected from journals in science is not accepted as scientific by the science community. Its like an athelete who fails to qualify in any of the sports events at national or international stage.

A psudoscience is like a fake athelete who tells people he has won events and produces fake medals when in fact he has not even qualified in any actual atheletic events.

nPeace · Jul 26, 2019

sayak83 said:
Usually creationism papers get thrown out as they do not meet the standards set by the science journals. I believe that in one of the earlier posts I provided some general points of what makes a good scientific paper.

A paper rejected from journals in science is not accepted as scientific by the science community. Its like an athelete who fails to qualify in any of the sports events at national or international stage.

A psudoscience is like a fake athelete who tells people he has won events and produces fake medals when in fact he has not even qualified in any actual atheletic events.

Fake athlete?
You don't need a fake athlete. A fake athlete won't get started.
So an athlete.

Fake medals?
They can keep them. They don't need to be given anyone.

How does the athlete not qualify? By not following the rules.
So what rules qualify them?

What if the athlete breaks the rules, but officials overlook that, and allows him/her to qualify, and the athlete takes advantage of that, and accepts the medals, which he/she has not won fair and square... because they bypassed the hard part?

Are they rules, other than what each official decides.
It seems, as you have said, the scientific method is ignored by those who don't want that rule, and settle for another.
So while some say, the athlete must be able to pass that, in order to qualify. Others say, "Uh uh. They only need to pass this one, in order to qualify."
So they overlook the fact that the athlete did not qualify, and allowed him/her, in the event. So all they have to do now, is complete a course that any athlete "with more brain" can carry out successfully.
Then they take advantage of those who may not be able to compete against that.
That's pseudoscience, as I understand it... going by this definition.
"Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method."

Actually, it appears to me the scientific method - in some form - can be, or is applied in the four sections of the paper, since the experiment still has to be carried out to test an idea, and I expect that it would be repeated, and observations made, and conclusions reached based on the results.

So imo, I think we really just went in a big circle, and came right back to where I started.
To claim something is scientific, when it is nothing more than a belief, because you cannot use the scientific method to verify it, is pseudoscience - not true scientific knowledge, or fact.
@sayak83 so the fake medals would be claims and beliefs that given millions of years x will happen.

Since we apparently are going nowhere here, I'll give some thought to whether I will go further with what I had in mind.

sayak83 · Jul 27, 2019

nPeace said:
Actually, it appears to me the scientific method - in some form - can be, or is applied in the four sections of the paper, since the experiment still has to be carried out to test an idea, and I expect that it would be repeated, and observations made, and conclusions reached based on the results.

So imo, I think we really just went in a big circle, and came right back to where I started.
To claim something is scientific, when it is nothing more than a belief, because you cannot use the scientific method to verify it, is pseudoscience - not true scientific knowledge, or fact.
@sayak83 so the fake medals would be claims and beliefs that given millions of years x will happen.

Since we apparently are going nowhere here, I'll give some thought to whether I will go further with what I had in mind.

I personally avoid such philosophical generalizations. You may choose to do so. It depends a bit on personal preference.

I believe the best way to move forward is to look at one or two well cited papers of evolution on some topic you find of interest and try to unravel why (or why not) its conclusion are scientifically sound. On the way we can discuss the methods used in that research as well.

nPeace · Jul 28, 2019

sayak83 said:
I personally avoid such philosophical generalizations. You may choose to do so. It depends a bit on personal preference.

What do you mean... for example?

sayak83 said:
I believe the best way to move forward is to look at one or two well cited papers of evolution on some topic you find of interest and try to unravel why (or why not) its conclusion are scientifically sound. On the way we can discuss the methods used in that research as well.

Oh. So you only want to look at the positives, but want to avoid the negatives.
Is that not like the athlete saying, "Let talk about the fact I have medals. Don't mind how I got them."?

sayak83 · Jul 28, 2019

nPeace said:
What do you mean... for example?

Oh. So you only want to look at the positives, but want to avoid the negatives.
Is that not like the athlete saying, "Let talk about the fact I have medals. Don't mind how I got them."?

I believe discussions are pointless unless it is in the context of specific pieces of research investigations or specific questions. You may choose any research question that you find suspect and we can look at whether the scientific conclusions hold up to scrutiny or not. After all, my expertise is in understanding science as it is actually practiced and not in philosophical speculations about its nature.

sayak83 · Aug 19, 2019

nPeace said:
What do you mean... for example?

Oh. So you only want to look at the positives, but want to avoid the negatives.
Is that not like the athlete saying, "Let talk about the fact I have medals. Don't mind how I got them."?

Resuming the discussion.
We can of course debate the soundness and validity of the methods and conclusions that were made in the scientific paper. I am saying that the discussion will be more fruitful if we look at a specific scientific paper in evolutionary biology and see what it is actually doing and saying. A general discussion without any examples to look at or analyse is too vague and hand-wavy imo.

Science: True vs Pseudo - nPeace vs sayak83

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member