• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Two kinds of science, polar opposites of each other

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Here’s an algorithm for testing a post for what I’m asking for:
1. Was it posted before I started this thread?
2. Is it arguing against some belief or beliefs, or denouncing a religion or its followers?
3. Does it call anything that it’s saying “science” or “scientific”?
4. Is everything that it’s calling “science” or “scientific” a direct quote from results of honest and responsible research, as reported by the people who did the research?

If the answer to all those questions is “yes,” then please post a link to that post.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
It might take a few rounds of this, for people to understand what I’m asking for. I’m asking for links to posts that were made before I started this thread, where people were calling what they were saying against other people’s beliefs “science” or “scientific,” where what they were calling “science” was direct quotes from results of honest and responsible research, as reported by the people who did the research.
Easy as pie, friend. Easy as pie. Also - I understood exactly what you were after from the get go. Please see:

ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans

About halfway down is a link directly to a scientific journal. Actual scientific findings. The post itself summarizes and points out the relevance of the scientific evidence. I knew I could find this old topic, given a little searching. And in my search, I stumbled on another accidentally:

Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

There are a few links in this one. A couple to what you would likely consider media outlets (though with a decidedly scientific focus) and a couple of them to unbiased informational resources containing taxonomy charts, anatomy diagrams, and descriptions of relevance.

My guess is you just don't wade deep enough into the posts on the non-theistic, scientific side of things. I see this type of referencing and linking all the time. This is a case of limited scope - you mistaking your microcosm for the macrocosm. As the proverbial saying goes: "You need to get out more."
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
((There are many things that people call “science.” One that I’ll be discussing here is honest and responsible research and reporting the results. That’s the kind of science that I love, and the kind of science that gave science its reputation. Another is media and faction stories about reports of research, and pronouncements of professional associations. The first meaning is the one that people will cite to defend their use of the word “science,” but in forum debating that is never what anyone actually means when they call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific.” In forum debates, when people call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific,” they only ever mean the second kind of science, media and faction stories about research reports, and pronouncements of professional associations. Anyone who disagrees with that, please show me some counter examples.

Look! The emperor has no clothes!))
When I talk about science on this forum I usually speak from what I learned studying for my degree, or in my career subsequently. Sometimes I reference science articles, true, and sometime papers. An example of the latter is the concurrent thread here (post 59 and subsequent): A Flood of Nonsense

There are plenty of other contributors here who clearly speak from professional knowledge rather than second-hand media stories, Polymath and Sayak 83 to give two immediate examples - there are others.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Seriously now... did you not just blanket-state in this (and in other threads, I noticed) that people invoking "science" or "scientific information" within a debate forum are always appealing to "media and faction stories about research reports.
Yes, I did say that, but then I added pronouncements of professional associations, and there might be other things that I missed. What I mean is people calling “science” or “scientific” something they read or heard somewhere, other than results of honest and responsible research, as reported by the people who did the research.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I honestly thought you might pull this stunt, so here goes:

Specifically answering each of your queries for the OP "ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans":
1. Was it posted before I started this thread?
Is "Jul 18, 2012" early enough to qualify or no? I'm just not sure, you see, because now you're making me think everything is not what I expected it to be. Oh man... I think I am having a panic attack. No... no... hold on... just some bad gas.
2. Is it arguing against some belief or beliefs, or denouncing a religion or its followers?
This was specifically posted within the sub-forum "Evolution vs. Creationism" on this very site. So yes, this is arguing against specific creationist claims that evolution or common-descent is not true.
3. Does it call anything that it’s saying “science” or “scientific”?
The closest I think this post has is calling out that the ones performing the research/analysis are "scientists":
When scientists infect cells with retroviruses and determine where in the genome the insertion occurred these are the results they get:
oh wait... no! Then here, specifically referencing the evidence as being "scientific":
If they share a relatively recent ancestor then they should share nearly all of their ERVs at the same location in their genomes which are called orthologous ERVs. This is the scientific test for common ancestry.
Boom.
4. Is everything that it’s calling “science” or “scientific” a direct quote from results of honest and responsible research, as reported by the people who did the research?
In this particular OP, yes, yes it is. Check out the links to the any of the actual materials referenced:
Retroviral DNA Integration: ASLV, HIV, and MLV Show Distinct Target Site Preferences
Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome | Nature
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome | Nature


In conclusion... you need to just stop.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
The two are not polar opposites. Totally false dichotomy. Non professional reporting ranges from shallow stupid and mostly wrong, to better written and more understandable than the original. You are making shades of grey into night and day, and it is not there.

Media and faction stories? What is that? Faction?

As for professional associations, like what? The American Chemical Society, say?

They do not do "pronouncements" and your suggestion that professional associations are to be classed with blurbs on Yahoo as unreliable is nothing but garbage. IF that is what you are saying. clarify svp. (not the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists, another group not into phony pronouncements)
I agree that some sources are more reliable than others, and I’m not denouncing people trusting sources other than reports by researchers of the results of their research. What I’m denouncing is calling anything else but that “science” or “scientific.” Among other things it’s dishonest if they defend their use of the word “science” by defining science as what what scientists do.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I'm also not sure why the 'pronouncements of professional organizations' are problematic. They represent the scholarly consensus at the time regarding the state of research. That seems to be a good source of information.
I disagree, but that isn’t the point. That isn’t what I’m denouncing. What I’m denouncing is calling that “science.”
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I disagree, but that isn’t the point. That isn’t what I’m denouncing. What I’m denouncing is calling that “science.”

You are very confusing. Calling WHAT "science"?

The so called "pronouncements" from "professional
organizations"? What are you talking about?

What "pronouncements" and what organizations???
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I agree that some sources are more reliable than others, and I’m not denouncing people trusting sources other than reports by researchers of the results of their research. What I’m denouncing is calling anything else but that “science” or “scientific.” Among other things it’s dishonest if they defend their use of the word “science” by defining science as what what scientists do.
No that can't be right. It is perfectly "scientific" to speak in layman's terms and to quote lay sources on any subject you like, so long as the nature of the argument or explanation is one based on science. Science is a way of approaching certain sorts of issue.

If somebody in a newspaper calculates the annual CO2 emission from US road transport, for example, from previous statistics on it, is perfectly reasonable to say that is a "scientific" thing to do.

I spent part of my career considering and explaining the effect of lubricating oils on large marine diesel engines and the effects of fuel combustion back on the oil. And then looking for improvements. That was science (chemistry, physics and engineering), even though it went nowhere near any journals or peer review. Science is all around us.

Trying to make out that the only things that can be said to be "science" are what is written in academic research papers is absurdly narrow, in my view.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
No that can't be right. It is perfectly "scientific" to speak in layman's terms and to quote lay sources on any subject you like, so long as the nature of the argument or explanation is one based on science. Science is a way of approaching certain sorts of issue.

If somebody in a newspaper calculates the annual CO2 emission from US road transport, for example, from previous statistics on it, is perfectly reasonable to say that is a "scientific" thing to do.

I spent part of my career considering and explaining the effect of lubricating oils on large marine diesel engines and the effects of fuel combustion back on the oil. And then looking for improvements. That was science (chemistry, physics and engineering), even though it went nowhere near any journals or peer review. Science is all around us.

Trying to make out that the only things that can be said to be "science" are what is written in academic research papers is absurdly narrow, in my view.

IOW, if I read you right, the below statement in italics
belong is a denunciation in need of a problem to denounce.

What I’m denouncing is calling anything else but that “science” or “scientific.

i
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
And, of course, to make the story interesting, these journalists have to 'play up the controversy' and make things seem more unusual than they actually are. They are selling the *story*, not the science.

This is true.

Non professional reporting ranges from shallow stupid
and mostly wrong, to better written and more understandable
than the original.

This can indeed occur but I've learned to get as close to the original research as possible because most of the time the story is sensationalized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I honestly thought you might pull this stunt, so here goes:

Specifically answering each of your queries for the OP "ERVs: Evidence for the Origin of Humans":

Is "Jul 18, 2012" early enough to qualify or no? I'm just not sure, you see, because now you're making me think everything is not what I expected it to be. Oh man... I think I am having a panic attack. No... no... hold on... just some bad gas.

This was specifically posted within the sub-forum "Evolution vs. Creationism" on this very site. So yes, this is arguing against specific creationist claims that evolution or common-descent is not true.

The closest I think this post has is calling out that the ones performing the research/analysis are "scientists":

oh wait... no! Then here, specifically referencing the evidence as being "scientific":

Boom.

In this particular OP, yes, yes it is. Check out the links to the any of the actual materials referenced:
Retroviral DNA Integration: ASLV, HIV, and MLV Show Distinct Target Site Preferences
Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome | Nature
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome | Nature


In conclusion... you need to just stop.
Thank you. Well done. I wasn’t able to verify that what that’s calling “scientific” is a direct quote from the research report, but this does look to me like an example of what I was asking for. I was wrong. It was a reckless exaggeration to say that this never happens in the forums. I see that it might have happened once, seven years ago. Thank you for pointing this out.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
@Jim There is a "joke" amongst researchers that for a radical new ideal to be adopted a new generation of professionals has to take over. And there have been enough stories about faked results as well.

So as @Audie wrote, it's not black/white.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
((There are many things that people call “science.” One that I’ll be discussing here is honest and responsible research and reporting the results. That’s the kind of science that I love, and the kind of science that gave science its reputation. Another is media and faction stories about reports of research, and pronouncements of professional associations. The first meaning is the one that people will cite to defend their use of the word “science,” but in forum debating that is never what anyone actually means when they call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific.” In forum debates, when people call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific,” they only ever mean the second kind of science, media and faction stories about research reports, and pronouncements of professional associations. Anyone who disagrees with that, please show me some counter examples.

Look! The emperor has no clothes!))
You mean like this?
Big Bang Theory Primer
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
If somebody in a newspaper calculates the annual CO2 emission from US road transport, for example, from previous statistics on it, is perfectly reasonable to say that is a "scientific" thing to do.
Agreed.
I spent part of my career considering and explaining the effect of lubricating oils on large marine diesel engines and the effects of fuel combustion back on the oil. And then looking for improvements. That was science (chemistry, physics and engineering), even though it went nowhere near any journals or peer review. Science is all around us.
Agreed. Thank you for pointing that out.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Thank you. Well done. I wasn’t able to verify that what that’s calling “scientific” is a direct quote from the research report, but this does look to me like an example of what I was asking for. I was wrong. It was a reckless exaggeration to say that this never happens in the forums. I see that it might have happened once, seven years ago. Thank you for pointing this out.

Good for you, that you finally conceded this was reckless
and inappropriate for you to raise such false charges.

That is kinda what several of us have been pointing out to you.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
The only kind of science that I think deserves its reputation is honest and responsible research, and reports of the research by people who did it. I’m opposed to calling anything else but that “science,” in discussions about current issues. Now I’ll go even farther and say that I think it would be better for science and for discussion purposes to never call anything that people are saying “science” at all. If people are quoting directly from some research, all they need to do is cite the research. Calling it “science” adds nothing to the argument, creates needless and useless distractions, and helps perpetuate lines of alienation between people, consequently damaging the reputation of science and weakening its impact.
 
Top