10 popular fallacies and misconceptions about evolution

page: 9
43
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Howdy,

I admire that kind of skepticism. It's what modern science is founded on, after all. I mean, a good scientist should always read the Methods and Results sections of the data (possibly multiple times) and only then move on to the Discussion and Conclusion sections. See, in a scientific paper, the methods show how data were produced and the results shown are said data. The researchers then discussed the data and drew conclusions, sometimes faulty, but in order to become established science, those methods and conclusions must be deemed sound and reflective of the data.

I do think you have valid reason to say that sometimes faulty conclusions are drawn from limited data. This is indeed why I disagree with you that more overlapping data is a bad thing and does not support one hypothesis. Of course, you are also correct in stating that all data are merely evidence and support, but there must be a point where compilation of data (if independently found and based on good scientific methodology) offers a strong enough case to support the theory. I really don't like discussing the philosophy of science (not my area of study, don't want it to be...), but perhaps you should consider the following?

Not all scientific knowledge is derived in the same method, no matter how rigidly the researcher follows methodology. The human element will always change the general thoughts of an experiment, the derivation of a hypothesis, but the methods and data ensure that even slight derivations from the norm can be traced. Now, in geology, it is often hard to look at a rock and say "Ah, it formed in X conditions." Too many rocks can be formed in too many different ways for a glance to tell you what you need to know. So, the method of of multiple working hypotheses is often employed, encouraged, and favored.
www.gly.uga.edu...

Let me give you an example of why this needs to be the case... Say I find a granite. Great, I know it must be an igneous rock. Okay, but there are several different ways the granite could have formed. Was the melt generated by sedimentary rock? Was the melt evolution such that other, mafic minerals were separated via density (sinking or floating of crystals), sieving, or perhaps did a granitic melt mix with a smaller basaltic melt? Well, a geologist knows to look at the evidence offered by rocks in the field and laboratory studies to make multiple predictions on what one would find based on where and how the granite were emplaced. The following (less than scientific source that I do believe might have been "borrowed" from some textbooks...) source has some criteria with which to determine the hows and wheres, but each one of those criteria were once a tested hypothesis, and each one was certainly observed in multiple samples.
www.gly.uga.edu...

Sincere regards,
Hydeman




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

I didn't say that overlapping data is a bad thing. I said it is not as substantially a better thing or as additionally supportive of a conclusion as it is commonly given credit for and it introduces more possibilities of logical fallacy or incorrect premises when compared with a single subject. Any time you can get corroboration from multiple sources it's a good thing. The problem I have is when people attempt to use that as a definitive answer to a question and claim that it leads to fact where there is none.

Jaden
edit on 26-8-2014 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden


Any time you can get corroboration from multiple sources it's a good thing. The problem I have is when people attempt to use that as a definitive answer to a question and claim that it leads to fact where there is none.


and then you have people who use that as the sole reason to disregard any facts they dont agree with.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Howdy,

Perhaps we are merely quibbling over semantics here... I agree that the only thing in science that could be considered a fact are data. Theories are compilations and explanations of facts supported by data. Perhaps you object only to the laymen's (not scientists) speech using imprecise words that approximate what scientists try to communicate? I certainly agree that clearer communication is always important to consider, but the way you made it sound seemed like you disregarded evidence entirely... I mean, sure, sometimes extrapolation is faulty, but that doesn't change the facts the extrapolation was based on.

I do think that when considered logically, two independent hypotheses that rely on the same principles (theories and facts/observations in science) to explain different yet related phenomena support one another does create a more complete understanding of nature. I do think you are understating the usefulness and accuracy of interrelated studies. What you seem to be indicating is a situation where one scientist might cite the (un-reviewed and unverified) work of another person, thus creating a potential problem of substantiating one's claim with potentially false information. I don't think that's usually found to be the case in peer reviewed journals of science...

In essence, I do think an answer with substantial evidence is more likely than an answer with very little evidence, and I do think the grounds of more evidence is sufficient to say a theory is well supported. If a layman wants to say that a theory is proven, take it as a semantic difference in speech between those versed in science and those not. I don't claim to know much about mechanics, so I would hope a mechanic could infer what I meant by a layman's description, should a problem arise with my car.

Really though, I generally agree with your sentiment.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Whether you wrote it yourself or it came from someone else is irrelevant. From my vantage point, it is indeed a second hand source and simply saying you write it doesn't mean you actually did. It lacks support and you still have yet to show any sort of reference for the information at hand. If its your own writing then great. But your level of mocking condescension is awfully telling when instead of supporting your statement you turn to an ad hominem attack on me.

Without supporting your statement it is exactly what you claim it is not, supposition and personal anecdote. It's got nothing to do with thinking for yourself vs. letting someone else do my thinking for me. It's because I insist on source material to check the veracity of someone's claims that I am fully aware of things like the minuscule amount of physical evidence for Gigantipithicus Blacki whereas your mother I law took someone else's second hand claim as authentic. I'm not sure what textbooks you've been reading that claim and of the various members of the Gigantipithicus family had a complete skeleton but I've never seen it described as such in my entire life.

The simple fact that I'm asking for source material is proof that I am indeed thinking for myself because I am unwilling to take your word for something as truth. Due diligence and research are the hallmarks of independent thinking. Writing a blog or post on Facebook...not so much. It's great that you want to put your own version out there but if someone can't see what led you to that conclusion you're part of the problem not a solution.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

Wrong... Science is not an ever changing thing... It resists change vehemently... In fact, the more that you use overlapping theory and conclusions in the way that they are used, the more resistant to change it becomes. If you have a faulty theory this exacerbates the problem, it doesn't help it.

The people from the other field were taught with the same false paradigms that the people in the other field were. They use each other to bolster their own beliefs and conclusions, each becoming more resistant to change.

As new evidence comes about, it is rejected because it flies in the face of the accepted paradigm, so the increased resistance causes data to be excerpted as extraneous or outliers and you end up with flawed results and false resistance to change.

As the rabbit hole that is created from this gets deeper, you get a more ingrained paradigm than the greatest caused by religion in the middle ages, because it is not only hiding under the guise of authority, it creates more niche fields that then rely on an appeal to authority fallacy because of the inability for people to be considered cross field experts.

That is the main danger that is created from attempting to use overlapping fields as additional evidence for conclusions.

Anyone from one field questioning the conclusions is written off due to an appeal to authority fallacy. Especially when that authority is hopelessly and usually irrevocably trapped within their own paradigm.

Western medicine is a a perfect example of that. You will never get the paradigm to accept a cure for a disease, because the people that control the paradigm don't want cures, they want symptom abatement so that people will be forced to purchase their symptom abatement drug or method.

So they control education, they control the paradigm. They write off anyone that doesn't agree with them and support a belief in the niche field, appeal to authority, overlapping field conclusion fallacious logic that ends up with them in control of the paradigm and the typical scientist is either too stupid, or too reliant on the paradigm controllers money to care, or too small in numbers to affect any changes in the paradigm and the paradigm control structure.

So go on keeping thinking that way, I don't expect the majority to stop thinking that way, they never have and they likely never will.

The sad thing is that it is a self defeating structure. It can only be maintained until it creates a level of stupidity so rampant that no more progress can be made and then it collapses.

Jaden



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

I truly wish that scientists WEREN'T also doing the same thing. I wish it were only laymen arguing the point. Unfortunately, people like yourself that are willing to look at science honestly are few and far between. The ones that aren't are the ones supporting the paradigm and disregarding counter evidence out of hand.

Jaden
edit on 5-9-2014 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't have problems with them making guesses. I have problems with them obfuscating what they are claiming and or calling it likely, fact, etc... which is often done.

Jaden



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Howdy,

Well, I simply disagree. Science itself is(should be) an unchanging method, certainly, but scientific knowledge (to be more clear) does change. Did you learn about the land bridge hypothesis for explaining fossil fauna locations, or did you learn about plate tectonics theory when you were in high school?

I assume you are aware that that plate tectonic theory is a recent adoption by the scientific community (happening in the fifties...), but are you aware that it was proposed some forty years before that? The problem was simply one of evidence... There was detailed evidence of land bridges that do and did exist. On the other hand, there was little that could be directly linked to or directly support plate tectonics (for example, a mechanism by which continent-sized blocks of rock could move was missing). It was only later when enough evidence from paleomagnetic studies and a detailed understanding of oceanic basalt and geology that plate tectonics finally became an accepted theory, thus breaking what you might call a "paradigm."
en.wikipedia.org...

See, I agree that science makes it difficult for new, perhaps better, theories when they are first proposed, but this is not a bad thing. This is necessary skepticism until enough evidence has been gathered to show sufficient support for a theory. The problem which I think you are seeing is one of evidence... In order to support a new theory (differing from one already proposed and supported by evidence) you need AS MUCH OR MORE evidence to support the new theory or refute the old. Rather, I should say, before entirely refuting a theory, you need to show a better theory with more evidence and predictive capabilities than the old theory. The fact that some theories reach into multiple disciplines and do increase predictive capabilities means that they must be falsified and replaced in each respective discipline (consider gravity something of this nature). Why create something new (a force of nature that is not gravity) when gravity works consistently in geology, physics, astrophysics, and chemistry? I know, we've discussed that there are legitimate overlapping theories, but how can you tell which ones are not legitimate when so many are? Can you give me a specific example?

Again, I am telling you that I disagree with your assessment. Skepticism of new claims is necessary for proper science (method) to be done, and skepticism needs to be quelled before new theories can be accepted. If the evidence is not up to par, then the evidence is not up to par, and thus the hypothesis presented is not acceptable. Even if it were correct, we cannot merely assert it so without evidence, and as I said, you need a lot of evidence to truly shift paradigms (and yet it has happened several times in recent history).

As for crossing fields, I certainly don't want advice about geology from 9/10 psychologists. I certainly don't want to have a surgical operation performed by 9/10 geologists (being generous here...). Would you want to take the advice of 9/10 sociologists on how to fix a mechanical problem with your car's engine? See, there certainly exists the fallacious argument from authority, but there also exists true argument from true authorities.

I cannot speak with direct experience of the medical field (I took what I believed to be the easier field of the sciences...), but I do have an opinion on such matters. It is my opinion that some diseases have no cure. Let me clarify, there is no one cure, and there might certainly never be "a" cure. Cancer, for example, is not the same for every patient. What might "cure" one person of cancer might not cure another, simply because of the differences in the cancers (forgive my generalities here, I'm certainly no expert). More simply, there are many (varied) mutations that lead to what we call "cancer," and no one treatment will be effective for all... (Again, I suggest you do seek the experts' explanations on this, as I'm sure I'm not doing the best job here, I have no medical expertise, merely a few biology classes).
en.wikipedia.org...

If I may ask, have you ever considered the possibility that scientists are not ignorant, unintelligent, or involved in a conspiracy to "privatize" niches in knowledge? Have you ever once questioned if you were being overly critical of this system, or perhaps questioned why you were so critical of it? I'm curious to know, as I see a world of evidence pointing against your claims, which in my opinion you have provided little evidence to back up (but I am young and naive, so do forgive me my inexperience here). If I am truly so blind to the reality of my world, the usefulness of my scientific methodology (as suggested by the claims you made), I certainly want to know the truth. I am an idealist when it comes to the method, but I certainly understand the imperfection of the human element.

Sincerest regards,
Hydeman



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't have problems with them making guesses. I have problems with them obfuscating what they are claiming and or calling it likely, fact, etc... which is often done.

Jaden


How are they doing that? Can you please list some instances where this is occurring or articles that present certain evidence that presents a different conclusion? As I noted in point 10, hoaxes DO happen, but once they are exposed they are stricken from scientific study. So I am going to have to see some convincing evidence that this is a widespread occurrence and not just your word as a random forum poster. From the way it appears to me, you are just making that up because you cannot accept that something science says contradicts your world view.





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join