Valid Citation

[columbus]

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

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

Nope.
Even when I was a kid, riding my dinosaur to elementary school, the reference to Piltdown had an asterisk after it, and a disclaimer pointing out that it was not widely accepted.
Sorry, the only people I have known in my life who found it important are the Creationists.
Which I find particularly ironic, given that Creationism is based entirely on even weaker evidence. But Creationists don't like to talk about that fact. They make endless exceptions for their own implausible assertions, and the lack of evidence.
Tom

 

[columbus]

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.

To what end will you be citing your poll?

Are you going to start a thread about how not to do research? About seriously flawed polling techniques?
?
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

To what end will you be citing your poll?

Are you going to start a thread about how not to do research? About seriously flawed polling techniques?
?
Tom

It has been cited already. Post #1

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]

LoLz

 

[columbus]

It has been cited already. Post #1



LoLz

Maybe I am missing something. I thought you were planning to cite the poll you posted, in the future.
No?
Science is not a citation. How hard is that?
Tom

 

[ChristineM]

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.

If evidence is provided that evidence will be evaluated and peer reviewed. Should that evidence prove to be valid then whatever theory it challenges will need to me modified or scrapped.

 

[Enoch07]

Maybe I am missing something. I thought you were planning to cite the poll you posted, in the future.
No?
Science is not a citation. How hard is that?
Tom

Possibly, should the need arise. So far no need.

Out of all the people who say they support scientific methods etc, only 8 have had the conviction to stand behind a "no" vote. Very interesting unexpected discovery here. I honestly though this poll would have 20+ No votes with only 1 or 2 yes votes by some Fundies by this time.

Why do you think people are so afraid to stand behind the methods they say they stand for?

 

[ChristineM]

Possibly, should the need arise. So far no need.

Out of all the people who say they support scientific methods etc, only 8 have had the conviction to stand behind a "no" vote. Very interesting unexpected discovery here. I honestly though this poll would have 20+ No votes with only 1 or 2 yes votes by some Fundies by this time.

Why do you think people are so afraid to stand behind the methods they say they stand for?

It is somewhat unfair in that you did not define what "science".
For that reason alone i did not vote

Edit : there are those on here who make all sorts of bogus claims and claim science, creationists for example, citing that oxymoron, creation science

 

[columbus]

Why do you think people are so afraid to stand behind the methods they say they stand for?

Not bothering with your very badly worded poll isn't the same as being afraid to stand behind the methods.

You are doing a swell illustration of how badly polling can be done. Kudos for that, I guess.
But it is a good thing nobody is depending on you for useful data. You are also illustrating why scientists are so fussy about quality Data. Not just any assertions qualify. Scientists want to examine your methods as well as conclusions, that's why you have to publish in peer reviewed journals.
Not just post something on the internet.

Tom

 

[Enoch07]

It is somewhat unfair in that you did not define what "science".
For that reason alone i did not vote

Post # 14 for clarification.

 

[ChristineM]

Post # 14 for clarification.

Fyi, i have edited the post with additional detail.

 

[ChristineM]

Post # 14 for clarification.

Read #14 (didn't take long ;-)

My edit above is valid then and I'm still not voting

 

[Enoch07]

Not bothering with your very badly worded poll isn't the same as being afraid to stand behind the methods.

You are doing a swell illustration of how badly polling can be done. Kudos for that, I guess.
But it is a good thing nobody is depending on you for useful data. You are also illustrating why scientists are so fussy about quality Data. Not just any assertions qualify. Scientists want to examine your methods as well as conclusions, that's why you have to publish in peer reviewed journals.
Not just post something on the internet.

Tom

LoLz

You are so off base here Tom. The irony is thick.

You are literally making my argument for me then accusing me of not making the argument!

LoLz

 

[Enoch07]

Read #14 (didn't take long ;-)

My edit above is valid then and I'm still not voting

Ok, whatevs

 

[columbus]

You are literally making my argument for me then accusing me of not making the argument!

Sorry, maybe it's me who is thick here. Please explain to me again how you are going to use the poll you posted. What the point to your OP is.
Type very slowly.
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

Sorry, maybe it's me who is thick here. Please explain to me again how you are going to use the poll you posted. What the point to your OP is.
Type very slowly.
Tom

It can only be used for 1 thing Tom.

To prove you can't use a vague or generalized citation and expect it to be valid.

Take it from @sayak83 who is undoubtedly one of the most intelligent people on this website.

Saying "science" does not make a citation.

 

[columbus]

To prove you can't use a vague or generalized citation and expect it to be valid.

Which is why scientists don't do it.
As opposed to religious people, who often start truth statements with "God says" as though that was somehow a strong citation. Scientists refer to much more precise Data.
They might generalize for the benefit of people like myself who don't have a degree in their field. But that's not the same thing.
Tom

 

[columbus]

It can only be used for 1 thing Tom.

What can it be used for?
Preaching to the choir?
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

Which is why scientists don't do it.
As opposed to religious people, who often start truth statements with "God says" as though that was somehow a strong citation. Scientists refer to much more precise Data.
They might generalize for the benefit of people like myself who don't have a degree in their field. But that's not the same thing.

Again your stating my case.

What can it be used for?
Preaching to the choir?

That's nonsensical. I stand by my post #35.

 

[columbus]

Again your stating my case.

Again, what case? Scientists don't use vague and generalized citations. So the answer to your poll is no.

Religionists do, that's why there are zillions of religious views. All with the same level of support from Reality.
Which is not much.
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

Again, what case? Scientists don't use vague and generalized citations. So the answer to your poll is no.

YES! You are correct! The answer is No! So vote No!

LoLz

This is not rocket science!