Evolution Theory is Error

CDfm · 08-12-2008 6:59pm

sink wrote: »

And what you put out is paranoia induced by years of religious indoctrination.

an atheist scientist will have an atheist bias.

Its his blog he can post what he wants.

I was merely suggesting a new topic:pac:

sink · 08-12-2008 7:03pm

CDfm wrote: »

an atheist scientist will have an atheist bias.

Its his blog he can post what he wants.

I was merely suggesting a new topic:pac:

Well surprise surprise you are on a atheist board. I think I can speak for all atheists when I say the onus of evidence is on the proponent of any claim, without evidence their claim is rejected just as we reject your claim that god exists. And what exactly do you mean by the 'dangers of Dawkins'?

AtomicHorror · 08-12-2008 7:06pm

CDfm wrote: »

AH - I know you are a scientist and your stuff is very well written. I operate in business and what you put forward is idealistic and is pro-science. And its a very good article.

You work in business. I'm pleased to hear that. I'm not sure where the idealism is... is it in this sentence?

Me wrote:

So, scientific research is conducted all over the place. It is done to varying standards and with varying bias or agenda.

CDfm wrote: »

However it doesnt point out the dangers of Dawkins and that he neither disproves or proves the existence of God. Thats a major ommision.

From an article about how scientific research enters the public consciousness? How so?

If Dawkins ever writes a paper disproving the existence of God I'll be right in there to review it and blog it. I don't see how that would have been relevant to my piece at all.

CDfm wrote: »

I am not a creationist.

I know that. But your understanding of science is needlessly limited. I'm suggesting you need to take a closer look. Critical reading of science journalism and even some of the primary literature is not at all unattainable for the average person.

CDfm · 08-12-2008 7:18pm

Wicknight wrote: »

They are? I thought they were doctors?

...

Doctors- dont they essentially have science qualifications with the Hippocatic oath on top as an ethical quality mark?

CDfm · 08-12-2008 7:25pm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I know that. But your understanding of science is needlessly limited. I'm suggesting you need to take a closer look. Critical reading of science journalism and even some of the primary literature is not at all unattainable for the average person.

AH - thats not nice my feelings are hurt :pac:

AtomicHorror · 08-12-2008 7:30pm

CDfm wrote: »

AH - thats not nice my feelings are hurt :pac:

Only if you reckon you're below average... I'd be very surprised.

Would it help if I offered to hug you or would that make this a bit weird?

CDfm wrote: »

Doctors- dont they essentially have science qualifications with the Hippocatic oath on top as an ethical quality mark?

I think the point was that a doctor is not automatically a scientist. Scientific qualifications don't make a scientist. Following the scientific method does. Most doctors don't, nor would it be practical for them to do so. A few do research, and are thus scientists. The rest are diagnosticians.

In science we build models that explain data.

In diagnosis they try to fit specific-case data to a model that was built by scientists.

Samba · 08-12-2008 7:30pm

Gareth37 wrote: »

Now I am a scientist by profession but science should not be abused in this way.

The Science of Spiritual Healing is it?

AtomicHorror · 08-12-2008 7:34pm

Samba wrote: »

The Science of Spiritual Healing is it?

The more I look at that sentence, the more I'm convinced he just left out "not" by accident. It's the "Now" and "but"... they jar unless you put "not" in there.

CDfm · 08-12-2008 7:37pm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In science we build models that explain data.

I will give you a hint who gave me my love of science

http://ie.ratemyteachers.com/schools/ireland/youghal/youghal_c.b.s./kieran__dennehy

AtomicHorror · 08-12-2008 7:43pm

CDfm wrote: »

I will give you a hint who gave me my love of science

http://ie.ratemyteachers.com/schools/ireland/youghal/youghal_c.b.s./kieran__dennehy

I don't like Irish for a similar reason and when I was a teen I used to talk a lot about how useless the language is and how irrelevant. I got over it though. I also read Friel's Translations and finally twigged the importance of preserving language.

sink · 08-12-2008 7:53pm

Compare that to my Chemistry and Maths teachers and you will see where I got my love for science.

http://ie.ratemyteachers.com/schools/ireland/dublin_20/the_kings_hospital/peter__o%2527boyle

http://ie.ratemyteachers.com/schools/ireland/dublin_20/the_kings_hospital/mark__campion

Interesting site I've never been on it before.

CDfm · 08-12-2008 7:58pm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I don't like Irish for a similar reason and when I was a teen I used to talk a lot about how useless the language is and how irrelevant. I got over it though. I also read Friel's Translations and finally twigged the importance of preserving language.

I learned a lot about sarcasm:D

AtomicHorror · 08-12-2008 8:36pm

CDfm wrote: »

I learned a lot about sarcasm:D

You still haven't confirmed if you want that hug. My arms are getting tired.

CDfm · 08-12-2008 8:54pm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You still haven't confirmed if you want that hug. My arms are getting tired.

Ah your alright-Im not that kind of Christian - maybe another time:D

AtomicHorror · 08-12-2008 9:03pm

CDfm wrote: »

Ah your alright-Im not that kind of Christian - maybe another time:D

Zombrex · 08-12-2008 11:56pm

CDfm wrote: »

Doctors- dont they essentially have science qualifications with the Hippocatic oath on top as an ethical quality mark?

No?

Zombrex · 09-12-2008 12:04am

CDfm wrote: »

I havent discovered anything. I am just pointing out the fact that science aint pure and scientists are in it for the money - thats not logic its greed.

Irrelevant

The personal motivations for the scientist are beside the point. The scientist will either produce good science or they won't. Why they produce good science has no bearing on that. They could be producing it to take over the world and enslave the human race, it still will either be accurate or inaccurate science (ie theories that accurately model and predict a phenomena)

CDfm wrote: »

A lot of science is just about conjecture and unprovable models - a ball of smoke.

No science is about conjecture, if it was it wouldn't be science.

Not sure what you mean by "unprovable models" ... no model can be "proven" so it is a bit of a moot point.

CDfm wrote: »

an atheist scientist will have an atheist bias.

Again irrelevant. The personal bias of the scientist is irrelevant to the model they produce. The model will either be accurate or it won't.

Your statement is like saying an atheist mathematician will produce atheist bias in his equations, which is nonsense. The equations will either be correct or they will be incorrect.

CDfm · 09-12-2008 12:13am

Wicknight wrote: »

Irrelevant

The personal motivations for the scientist are beside the point. The scientist will either produce good science or they won't. Why they produce good science has no bearing on that.

Not really - AH can only peer review so much stuff:D

AtomicHorror · 09-12-2008 12:27am

CDfm wrote: »

Not really - AH can only peer review so much stuff:D

Thankfully I don't need to do that much given that there's no shortage of reviewers. You realise that all science undergoes peer review as a condition of the work being accepted publication? So everyone pitches in with the review work because they need others to do the same so they can get published. You also realise that this is separate to independent replication of that work, which is a condition of the work being accepted as valid by the community? That replication can be an aim in itself or more usually is part of an extension to the work by a competing lab.

I'm just making sure you get all this because I really get the impression that you're still not clear on how it works.

CDfm · 09-12-2008 12:28am

Wicknight wrote: »

Irrelevant

The personal motivations for the scientist are beside the point. The scientist will either produce good science or they won't. Why they produce good science has no bearing on that. They could be producing it to take over the world and enslave the human race, it still will either be accurate or inaccurate science (ie theories that accurately model and predict a phenomena)

No science is about conjecture, if it was it wouldn't be science.

Not sure what you mean by "unprovable models" ... no model can be "proven" so it is a bit of a moot point.

Again irrelevant. The personal bias of the scientist is irrelevant to the model they produce. The model will either be accurate or it won't.

Your statement is like saying an atheist mathematician will produce atheist bias in his equations, which is nonsense. The equations will either be correct or they will be incorrect.

Not everything is clearcut - emotions are the enemy of logic.

We know there is bias towards whoever commisions research and that not all reviews can be adequetly funded.Personal bias is not irrelevant as they can choose to cherrypick what data they release.

So iof a scientist reviews works on an area he cwill release favourable data and not include unhelpful data.

All I am saying accept there is bias and Christians believe only reviewing matters scientifically means you automatically exclude faith matter5s and in itself you studies would be flawed.

AtomicHorror · 09-12-2008 12:37am

CDfm wrote: »

Not everything is clearcut - emotions are the enemy of logic.

We know there is bias towards whoever commisions research and that not all reviews can be adequetly funded.

Peer review is not funded! For goodness sake you have no idea what you're talking about!

CDfm wrote: »

Personal bias is not irrelevant as they can choose to cherrypick what data they release.

Which will be painfully obvious due to peer review, if not meta-analysis, if not independent replication. Hence personal bias becomes irrelevant because it is assumed that this will happen.

CDfm wrote: »

So iof a scientist reviews works on an area he cwill release favourable data and not include unhelpful data.

Why? What motive does he have to allow his competitors to publish rubbish work? If anything he has motive to block or stall their publication in order to further his own work.

CDfm wrote: »

All I am saying accept there is bias...

WE DO! THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PEER REVIEW, SYSTEMATIC REVIEW, META ANALYSIS AND INDEPENDENT REPLICATION. OH DEAR GOD, WHY ARE YOU HAVING SUCH A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THIS?

CDfm wrote: »

...and Christians believe only reviewing matters scientifically means you automatically exclude faith matter5s and in itself you studies would be flawed.

What the hell are you talking about? So we should take wild speculation into account when we do research. Okay. Let's just consider any and all brain farts any random person has. That'll make matters clearer.

Seriously, you talk an unbelievable stack of crap when you try to talk about science.

CDfm · 09-12-2008 1:03am

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Thankfully I don't need to do that much given that there's no shortage of reviewers. You realise that all science undergoes peer review as a condition of the work being accepted publication? So everyone pitches in with the review work because they need others to do the same so they can get published. You also realise that this is separate to independent replication of that work, which is a condition of the work being accepted as valid by the community? That replication can be an aim in itself or more usually is part of an extension to the work by a competing lab.

I'm just making sure you get all this because I really get the impression that you're still not clear on how it works.

I am clear on peer review - but am very aware on how the commisioning of research reports can influence reported findings.

So bias can be there at each stage from commisioning to peer review review.

The area of review and methodoligy is determined by its terms of reference. by definition you cant review a religous belief scientifically.

Science can only be reported as science and to compare religion and science using the same system is not helpful.

There will be overlap- especially where there are questions of ethics on a science issue. Thats not anti-science.

CDfm · 09-12-2008 1:08am

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Peer review is not funded! For goodness sake you have no idea what you're talking about!

Which will be painfully obvious due to peer review, if not meta-analysis, if not independent replication. Hence personal bias becomes irrelevant because it is assumed that this will happen.

Why? What motive does he have to allow his competitors to publish rubbish work? If anything he has motive to block or stall their publication in order to further his own work.

WE DO! THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PEER REVIEW, SYSTEMATIC REVIEW, META ANALYSIS AND INDEPENDENT REPLICATION. OH DEAR GOD, WHY ARE YOU HAVING SUCH A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THIS?

What the hell are you talking about? So we should take wild speculation into account when we do research. Okay. Let's just consider any and all brain farts any random person has. That'll make matters clearer.

Seriously, you talk an unbelievable stack of crap when you try to talk about science.

You assume a perfect market which doesnt exist. Its fine in theory but not in practice.

You should be an economist.

CDfm · 09-12-2008 1:09am

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Peer review is not funded! For goodness sake you have no idea what you're talking about!

Which will be painfully obvious due to peer review, if not meta-analysis, if not independent replication. Hence personal bias becomes irrelevant because it is assumed that this will happen.

Why? What motive does he have to allow his competitors to publish rubbish work? If anything he has motive to block or stall their publication in order to further his own work.

WE DO! THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PEER REVIEW, SYSTEMATIC REVIEW, META ANALYSIS AND INDEPENDENT REPLICATION. OH DEAR GOD, WHY ARE YOU HAVING SUCH A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING THIS?

What the hell are you talking about? So we should take wild speculation into account when we do research. Okay. Let's just consider any and all brain farts any random person has. That'll make matters clearer.

Seriously, you talk an unbelievable stack of crap when you try to talk about science.

You assume a perfect market which doesnt exist. Its fine in theory but not in practice.

You should be an economist.

marco_polo · 09-12-2008 1:18am

CDfm wrote: »

All I am saying accept there is bias and Christians believe only reviewing matters scientifically means you automatically exclude faith matter5s and in itself you studies would be flawed.

CDfm wrote: »

Science can only be reported as science and to compare religion and science using the same system is not helpful.

I'm confused.

Zombrex · 09-12-2008 1:19am

CDfm wrote: »

Not everything is clearcut - emotions are the enemy of logic.

We know there is bias towards whoever commisions research and that not all reviews can be adequetly funded.Personal bias is not irrelevant as they can choose to cherrypick what data they release.

Irrelevant, the data they release is immaterial.

What you are taking about is not science. When the tobacco industry says "Smoking is safe", that is not science.

CDfm wrote: »

So iof a scientist reviews works on an area he cwill release favourable data and not include unhelpful data.

Again irrelevant because that isn't science.

No one would take the conclusions of the scientist without knowing the experiment that they carried out. Releasing "favourable data" would be pointless, you would just be ignored.

Again the problem here is your apparent lack of understanding of what science actually is.

Zombrex · 09-12-2008 1:21am

CDfm wrote: »

I am clear on peer review - but am very aware on how the commisioning of research reports can influence reported findings.

Report finding are not "science"

Peer review is not carried out by the person commissioning a study. And as AH points out science isn't commissioned. You appear now to be talking about things like social studies, like how many fat people are in Kildare or who buys the Irish Times on Fridays ...

Seriously, are you just ignored what EVERYONE is saying to you

AtomicHorror · 09-12-2008 1:22am

CDfm wrote: »

I am clear on peer review - but am very aware on how the commisioning of research reports can influence reported findings.

In industry yes. You're failing to differentiate between differing sources of funding and failing to recognise how well understood bias is in the scientific community.

CDfm wrote: »

So bias can be there at each stage from commisioning to peer review review.

Scientific research is not "commissioned". That is not to say that money from big business comes without strings, but as I'm trying to explain to you over and again, there are independent systems in place to account for this.

CDfm wrote: »

The area of review and methodoligy is determined by its terms of reference.

Peer review does not have externally defined terms of reference. Neither does systematic review or meta-analysis. What are you talking about? Research itself may have such terms, but this is usually defined by the researcher and not the funding body.

CDfm wrote: »

...by definition you cant review a religous belief scientifically.

We can certainly use science to refute assertions made by religions about the natural world. With regard to non-testable issues of faith, I challenge you to find me a peer-reviewed paper which does what you are asserting should not be done.

CDfm wrote: »

Science can only be reported as science and to compare religion and science using the same system is not helpful.

Who is doing that?

CDfm wrote: »

You assume a perfect market which doesnt exist. Its fine in theory but not in practice.

You should be an economist.

I don't understand what you're getting at with this statement and I'm rapidly losing patience with your obtuse arguments and constantly shifting points.

AtomicHorror · 09-12-2008 1:31am

At this point I think we're wasting our time. CDfm has a picture in his head of how research works and isn't going to move on it. He keeps saying he understands peer review and understands the rest of the system and then makes statements which demonstrate that he just thinks what he did at the start. The structure of the system he is describing in no way resembles how funding, research, review or verification are carried out. In fact he seems to confuse some of the terms for each other.

sdep · 09-12-2008 1:46am

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow -- yay, our very own creationism thread!!!

I believe the current vogue expression is 'qft'.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

At this point I think we're wasting our time.

Now remember, a creationism thread is for life, not just for Winterval - and we've not even hit our first thousand posts yet.

Evolution Theory is Error

Comments