The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > How to fix the broken scientific system > Comments

How to fix the broken scientific system : Comments

By Peter Ridd, published 10/1/2011

Because of problems with the scientific system, we cannot have faith that some of the big scientific theories have been properly tested.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. 18
  11. All
Good on you Dan!

You took the time to read it well enough to identify minor errors.

Did you scrape up the honesty to take note of the many more instances in which creationist shills were caught out being dishonest? Such micrometric analysis as you seem to have performed would make the question moot.

Given, therefore, that major creationist figures *are* habitually dishonest, why bother with their quibbles with professional scientists?

Given that your objections to (for instance) current cosmology depend on letters by others, long disposed of and easily so, perpetuated by sites that make no effort whatsoever to emphasise the validity of mainstream views, what does that make your me-tooism except perpetuation of a dodgy chain letter?

And why bother about Plimer's spelling? You think it a bit too hard to correct your own without telling stories that are not true, after all. Found an archaic reference for "expodential", or were you just making it up? like your objections to professional scientists no doubt.

What's next? Velikovsky?

The vast majority of scepticism is crank scepticism, raised in objection to mainstream science by know-nothings. Genuine scepticism, such as I might employ in the workplace has no relation with the publicity seeking kind displayed so often by twits and yourself.

Get over it Dan. Better science will *not* be supporting creationism in any form, nor calling valid historical findings into disrepute sufficient that the ignorance you prefer will prosper.

Rusty.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Thursday, 27 January 2011 10:48:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty, I think by now we all see the strength of your major argument against the creationist viewpoint. 

'Creationists are dishonest'

For intellectual power and persuasiveness it ranks right up there with: Jews are greedy, Muslims are violent, Gypsies are thieves, blacks are lazy, Greens are loopy, JWs are smelly, and AGW sceptics are crackpot denialists.

I hope that one day you might be more comfortable living with the thought that some people just might hold a different viewpoint to yours.     
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 28 January 2011 10:55:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That might be overstating the case a little, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Rusty, I think by now we all see the strength of your major argument against the creationist viewpoint. 'Creationists are dishonest'<<

I have no doubt that some creationists are entirely sincere in their beliefs.

However, it has also been known for some of them to argue in a fashion that teeters on the brink of dishonesty and, occasionally, to topple over the edge.

You yourself are not exempt from this accusation, by the way.

Your dogged insistence that you are "comparing different theories using the same measuring stick", when that measuring stick of yours is demonstrably bent, is just one example.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 28 January 2011 5:40:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By gum, I think he's got it.

Creationists *are* dishonest. or willfully ignorant beyond belief is the only qualifier I might add.

A day or two in the library will dispel any doubt that any prominent creationist is well enough versed in (say) evolution to be fit to do other than apologise to those who know better.

Dan, you are at *least* willfully ignorant and willing to pass off your sophistry as if it bore in any way upon the honest scholarship of scientists, making you, in my opinion, insufficiently honest to comment on my profession, it's practices, it's findings. Your own comments on molecular evolution exposed your lack of understanding of even the basics, let alone the key fundamentals in the problem.

Your own writings here make me wish that all degrees were revocable, as you clearly got your alleged philosophical degree without gaining any understanding about judging the relative merit of argument.

Do provide immediate historical references for "expodential". If not, I must regard you and expect others to similarly regard you as someone who hopes that statements made by you in error will be accepted as true.

Found any evidence that Hubble was wrong? Since you are so keen on the "issues" and all.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Friday, 28 January 2011 10:08:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Was Hubble wrong about the big bang?

It's not just creationists that believe other lines of inquiry are being undervalued and neglected.

Widely respected (recently deceased) astronomer, Geoffrey Burbidge said, ‘Big bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and [in] many cases, untestable assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.’

He believed his quasi-steady state theory was probably closer to the truth than the big bang. He was quoted in the NY Times saying (in line with the sentiment in Ridd's article) that 'there is such a heavy bias against any minority view in cosmology that it may take a very long time for this to occur.' [for most to take note of other views] 

Some evidence that may challenge big bang cosmology include finding the occasional 'old' galaxy at a 'young' or distant part of the universe; galaxies clustering in huge sheets alternating with massive voids which go against the expectation of smoother distribution, especially in the 'early universe'; red shift quantization; data showing galaxies that are physically close to high red shifted quasars.    

But I'd prefer to discuss evidence with those capable of reasoned discussion. 

I had continued this discussion for a while, following in the spirit of Ridd's article (and this website in general), for the sake of promoting understanding. Yet you've demonstrated how slurs and slander are your preferred lines of attack. If you are so leery of my opinion, then you're probably best off discussing things amongst yourselves.  
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 1 February 2011 12:43:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's a valid question, Dan S Merengue.

>>Was Hubble wrong about the big bang?<<

Quite possibly. No-one yet has come up with a theory that causes all the scientists to throw up their hands and say "well, no use looking any further, eh? It's all crystal clear". So I expect they'll carry on their research, and let us know when they find something.

>>...big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.<<

It is quite significant, though, that having that "faith" hasn't stopped cosmologists from continuing their enquiries, examining new data as it arrives, and bringing forward new ideas for review.

>>...'there is such a heavy bias against any minority view in cosmology that it may take a very long time for this to occur.'<<

But, as we have already discussed when you quoted Planck, Burbridge's ideas - assuming they are sound - will gain greater currency once the present crop of cosmologists dies out. And the fact that he put them forward at all pretty much guarantees that someone will follow through with them.

And what's the rush, anyway?

But it does interest me that you introduce Burbridge, whose point of departure from the more conventional cosmologists was "a version of Dr. Hoyle’s Steady State theory of an eternal universe. In the new version, small, local big bangs originating in the nuclei of galaxies every 20 billion years or so kept the universe boiling."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/science/space/07burbidge.html?_r=1

So, instead of one big bang, we have a never-ending string of them. Sounds nicely... tidy, to me. But do tell, how does it mesh with your young-earth creationist views?

>>But I'd prefer to discuss evidence with those capable of reasoned discussion<<

So would we, Dan S De Merengue. Unfortunately, as we discussed, you use a different "measuring stick", which kinda unbalances the dialogue to start with.

>>Yet you've demonstrated how slurs and slander are your preferred lines of attack<<

On the contrary, my "preferred lines of attack" are logic and reason. Sadly, they are only effective when deployed by both sides of the discussion.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 1 February 2011 2:23:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. 18
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy