Valid Citation

[Enoch07]

To put the poll into context.

As we know the majority of science agrees on what Evolution - Wikipedia is.

But there are a small % of scientist that challenge this. As noted here Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia
an exert: The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1] Many scientific associations have rejected the challenges to evolution proposed by ID proponents.[2]

That being if a creationist were to challenge evolution and cited "science" as a valid citation, because of the small % of scientist that disagree with the majority. Is that a valid citation?

Before people get carried away. I am not challenging evolution.

I am just curious if vague citations are acceptable? I have casted my vote already, with no take backs allowed so consider your vote seriously, and the precedent it sets before you vote. As I will cite this poll and it's results in future debates.

 

[Skwim]

I am just curious if vague citations are acceptable? I have casted my vote already, with no take backs allowed so consider your vote seriously, and the precedent it sets before you vote. As I will cite this poll and it's results in future debates.

Of course vague citations (I'm only guessing at what a "vague" citation is) aren't acceptable. As I understand your term, vague citations aren't acceptable from within science so why would they be acceptable from outside of it?

.

 

[Enoch07]

Of course vague citations (I'm only guessing at what a "vague" citation is) aren't acceptable. As I understand your term, vague citations aren't acceptable from within science so why would they be acceptable from outside of it?

I agree. If you would be so kind to cast your "No" vote I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm inclined to go with yes and no depending on what is being cited and for what reason. If it's a scientific piece that is blown out of proportion or context then it is not a valid citation because the writers do not likely support the specious reasoning so often demonstrated by the ID camp and would be horrified to have their names linked to such pseudo-scientific drivel. Whereas if it is a scientific piece that directly supports a given tangent then it would be a fair citation.

For this reason I could not vote in the poll. *sniffle*

 

[Guy Threepwood]

To put the poll into context.

As we know the majority of science agrees on what Evolution - Wikipedia is.

But there are a small % of scientist that challenge this. As noted here Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia
an exert: The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1] Many scientific associations have rejected the challenges to evolution proposed by ID proponents.[2]

That being if a creationist were to challenge evolution and cited "science" as a valid citation, because of the small % of scientist that disagree with the majority. Is that a valid citation?

Before people get carried away. I am not challenging evolution.

I am just curious if vague citations are acceptable? I have casted my vote already, with no take backs allowed so consider your vote seriously, and the precedent it sets before you vote. As I will cite this poll and it's results in future debates.

No, not where 'science' is referring to quoting academic consensus as you say, as opposed to scientific method.

George Lemaitre, Max Planck, Einstein did not represent consensus either

Likewise there are many scientists who have pointed out the fatal flaws with evolution, but it's the substance that counts, real science is not about who has the biggest army!

 

[Enoch07]

Come on folks let see some conviction! Cast those votes! Whatever they may be!

 

[Enoch07]

I'm inclined to go with yes and no depending on what is being cited and for what reason. If it's a scientific piece that is blown out of proportion or context then it is not a valid citation because the writers do not likely support the specious reasoning so often demonstrated by the ID camp and would be horrified to have their names linked to such pseudo-scientific drivel. Whereas if it is a scientific piece that directly supports a given tangent then it would be a fair citation.

For this reason I could not vote in the poll. *sniffle*

Ok taking what you aaid into consideration. Hypothetically what if a world renown scientist like Neil degrasse Tyson were to denounce evolution and when asked why he responds "science". Is "science" a valid citation? It doesn't really matter if it's a creationist, or a scientist. The explanation of "science" is not acceptable.

Evidence and research that specifically supports his position would be needed. A generalized explanation of just "science" would not be acceptable. Don't you agree? If so go ahead and hit that "No" vote!

 

[Nakosis]

To put the poll into context.

As we know the majority of science agrees on what Evolution - Wikipedia is.

But there are a small % of scientist that challenge this. As noted here Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia
an exert: The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1] Many scientific associations have rejected the challenges to evolution proposed by ID proponents.[2]

That being if a creationist were to challenge evolution and cited "science" as a valid citation, because of the small % of scientist that disagree with the majority. Is that a valid citation?

Before people get carried away. I am not challenging evolution.

I am just curious if vague citations are acceptable? I have casted my vote already, with no take backs allowed so consider your vote seriously, and the precedent it sets before you vote. As I will cite this poll and it's results in future debates.

You can't cite science. You can site a scientist. Then it depends on the credibility of the scientist.

 

[Skwim]

I agree. If you would be so kind to cast your "No" vote I would greatly appreciate it.

I might, but I don't recognize science as a citation, viable or not. What I do recognize is that a cited statement can be scientific or not, in which case I would say, yes, a cited statement may indeed be viable when refuting evolution. OR, it may not be.

.

 

[Enoch07]

I might, but I don't recognize science as a citation, viable or not. What I do recognize is that a cited statement can be scientific or not, in which case I would say, yes, a cited statement may indeed be viable when refuting evolution. OR, it may not be.

.

Your vote would be "No" then.

 

[Skwim]

Your vote would be "No" then.

No, I abstain.

.

 

[columbus]

I voted no.
Science is not an authority. It is an attitude and a method. Nor are scientists. It's the data, the evidence, that is the authority.

This is something that religious people often fail to grasp. There's no real human authorities in the scientific world. There's no prophets, people who are to be believed simply because they say something. Nobody would care about what Dawkins thinks about biology, except that he has demonstrated a command of the information available. Information available to everyone. That's completely different from a prophet, who is believed to have special information that cannot be replicated or examined.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

I don't even know what I am being asked. Are we talking about just saying "science!" Then a drop mic? Or are you asking whether a person should quote a scientific peer reviewed study or be publishing a scientific study in order to refute a concept held by most mainstream scientists?

Op lacked clarity.

 

[Enoch07]

I don't even know what I am being asked. Are we talking about just saying "science!" Then a drop mic?

Yes

 

[Father Heathen]

No, not where 'science' is referring to quoting academic consensus as you say, as opposed to scientific method.

George Lemaitre, Max Planck, Einstein did not represent consensus either

Likewise there are many scientists who have pointed out the fatal flaws with evolution, but it's the substance that counts, real science is not about who has the biggest army!

You're right. It's not determined consensus. It's determined by the insurmountable mountain of evidence around which such a consensus was formed.

 

[Enoch07]

No, I abstain.

.

Where is your conviction!

Ok well I tried. I know you agree with me you are just too stubborn to admit it!

 

[sayak83]

To put the poll into context.

As we know the majority of science agrees on what Evolution - Wikipedia is.

But there are a small % of scientist that challenge this. As noted here Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia
an exert: The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1] Many scientific associations have rejected the challenges to evolution proposed by ID proponents.[2]

That being if a creationist were to challenge evolution and cited "science" as a valid citation, because of the small % of scientist that disagree with the majority. Is that a valid citation?

Before people get carried away. I am not challenging evolution.

I am just curious if vague citations are acceptable? I have casted my vote already, with no take backs allowed so consider your vote seriously, and the precedent it sets before you vote. As I will cite this poll and it's results in future debates.

Saying "science" does not make a citation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're right. It's not determined consensus. It's determined by the insurmountable mountain of evidence around which such a consensus was formed.

phrenology, Piltdown man,steady state- an academic consensus is inherently susceptible to being built around things other than evidence

 

[Father Heathen]

phrenology, Piltdown man,steady state- an academic consensus is inherently susceptible to being built around things other than evidence

Eh, I'm lazy tonight so I'm just going to copy and paste from Rationalwiki:

The fact that Piltdown Man was a deliberate fraud has repeatedly been used by creationists and intelligent design advocates as evidence that the entirety of evolution is a fraud. The problem with this should be self-evident, but let's go through it anyway.

It is true that Piltdown Man was a deliberate fraud, which did confuse paleontologists for many years. Some scientists accepted it, others were skeptical right from the start. Since nature doesn't lie, most scientists take field discoveries at face value, trying to explain the discovery within the current understanding of the particular field. However, anything that falls too far outside of the expected is received with a highly skeptical eye. The case of Piltdown is no exception, and it is worth noting that experts in the field almost immediately began to question the find, as they should.

Piltdown Man was created with the objective of fooling scientists, not lay people, so it only succeeded for a short time. The very fact that it was eventually revealed to be a fake is evidence that science is inherently capable of seeing through illusion, acknowledging errors, and refining its ideas by use of the scientific method. It shows that theories like evolution are based on solid and consistent evidence[9] that behaves in expected ways. It is also worth noting that though the creationists like to chirp about evolution's errors, frauds, or simple mistakes, not one of those errors or frauds has been exposed by so-called "creation science". Every single one of them, from Piltdown to Haeckel were found by experts in evolution, doing the work of evolutionists.

Conversely, religiously-derived creationist beliefs do not change, are not capable of evaluating the quality of a specimen, cannot identify a hoax from a real specimen, and cannot adapt to new information about the world from genetics to the size of our universe. Most importantly, they fail to provide any new understanding of the world.

The fallacy of those using Piltdown Man to disprove evolution can be summed up thusly:

• A single forgery does not overturn the actual evidence that does exist and isn't a forgery.
• A single forgery does not prove that all evidence is forged (this would be confirmation bias at its very worst, a non sequitur at the very least).
• Science actually spotted the fraud and corrected the mistake. Meanwhile, Christians still insist that the Shroud of Turin was Jesus' burial cloth, even though it has been proven to be forgery made in medieval Europe based on radiocarbon dating.
• Piltdown Man wasn't universally accepted by the scientific establishment because of its conflict with other pieces of evidence — it takes a lot more than that to fool practicing scientists.
• The techniques that were used to definitively prove that Piltdown Man was fake are the exact same techniques as those used to date real fossils.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Eh, I'm lazy tonight so I'm just going to copy and paste from Rationalwiki:

Yes, that's pretty much how Piltdown man became so widely accepted!

"it only succeeded for a short time" (40 years! )

But of course nobody is skeptical of evolution based on this alone, it is just one glaring example of various problems with confirmation bias, the peer pressure review system in academia, and the problem of declaring 'undeniable facts' from scientific lazyness

, Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History, examined the Piltdown and Sheffield Park finds and declared that the jaw and skull belonged together "without question"