Evidence for your beliefs

[Todd]

Hi,

This is my first post and Topic on this site, so I'll quickly introduce myself.
My name is Todd, 15 years old live in Sydney and I'm Christian and happily got saved about 2 months ago.

So anyway, I think this is a similar topic to something was put on before but anyway, I'd like to try it again.

I want people on this to state their belief and give evidence for why they think it is right or why they believe in it.

I myself as stated above am Christian, I don't know how many people have heard of this but before that I was an evolutionist, take note of what I say here evolutionists, "I didn't WANT to believe in God, because I was afraid of going to Hell for sinning, so I decided that if I believed there wasn't a God there wasn't a hell to possibly end up going to when I die, so I chose something that ruled God out, it took me ages but after 3 years I realised how pathetic evolution is because although I DID believe in it I never saw any proof of it" So anyway after this, I became Christian and saw proofs of it straight away, I've had a lot of my personal prayers answered and there's easily much proof in the bible with so many fulfilled prophecies and SCIENTIFIC FACTS that support the Bible, so thats my reason for trust in the Lord now, I'd write something longer but I'm tired right now.

Anyway, everyone else, I wanna hear your thoughts

[commonsense]

i expect a transitional fossil to be partially one thing like a bird and partially a reptile. To have the characteristics of both (muscle distribution, bone structure, internal set up in general)

So, shouldn't Archaeopteryx count, by this definition? It has characteristics of both.

no no no it doesnt have the muscle distribution, bone structure,internal set up of both it has all of these characteristics as a bird and a bird alone its outside is the only thing that looks like a mix

[Jose]

So, shouldn't Archaeopteryx count, by this definition? It has characteristics of both.

no no no it doesnt have the muscle distribution, bone structure,internal set up of both it has all of these characteristics as a bird and a bird alone its outside is the only thing that looks like a mix

If you go back to Orthomimus, you'll find that its bone structure (and therefore muscle distribution) were also pretty much those of a bird. Remember, when Alton Brown of Good Eats wants to carve a chicken, he gets out his T. rex skeleton model to determine the bone articulation--because they are pretty much the same. And T. rex is the end of a different lineage from birds! Besides, what's wrong with having residual dinosaurian characteristics on the outside? You're not going to get teeth and claws (which are bones) without internal structures (like bones) going along with them, after all.

[mrmufin]

If the interpretation of scientific data is, as you suggest, impacted by the ideology of the scientist(s) interpreting the data, what could be done to interpret scientific data more comprehensively and objectively?

Doctors take the Hypocratic Oath before they get out into the real world of practicing medicine. In part of that oath is the familiar "first, do no harm". I think we can avoid a majority of scientific ideology if we have our scientists take a similar oath. Why not create a "Dialectic Oath" or some name thereof with the basic premise "Truth is truth". Where the idea is that if the data indicates an answer that the scientist does not like, he still has to present it.

Truth is truth, yes. And in earlier posts in this thread it has been mentioned that the truth of science is not absolute, it's more like "True to the best of our knowledge and abilities." This is why I have suggested that understanding is a more accurate word than truth when it comes to describe scientific objectives. To exemplify, "True to the best of our knowledge" would include nineteenth century theories of luminiferous ether and the twentieth century theory of special relativity, but not a twentieth century ether theory, since special relativity is both consistent with the observational data and inconsistent with the ether. I'm not sure how many scientists regard special relativity as absolute, though most, I'd bet, accept it as a pretty accurate theory.

In short, when scientific data interpretations are wrong, the corrections are usually made by other scientists.

I know there are peer reviews and critiques of presentations. What I am proposing is that before it gets to a peer review or published in or near public consumption media it should be reviewed by critical thinkers that are outside that science field.

By what standard do you determine if someone is a critical thinker? I'm not a scientist. Do you think I might qualify for a seat on such a review panel?

"Review by critical thinkers prior to public consumption" is peer review. When you pick up an issue of a scientific journal, the articles have already been reviewed by persons who are probably far more qualified than you or I to comment on the interpretation and implications of the data. If you're looking for a philosophical or moral interpretation of scientific data, ask a philosopher, not a scientist. While I agree that there may be some misrepresentation of data, or biased conclusions made from the data, I'd suspect that those incidences are most prevelant in sources where scientific peer review is not present, such as books, films, miniseries, etc. authored by nonscientists (or even scientists) which present the data in a fashion designed to generate revenue, validate a particular worldview, promote a legal principle, etc.

Something to the effect of the FDA. Control what is viable. Allow what has been logically reviewed and criticized to its final affect on the world. Big picture evaluations. Not limited to its own field of expertise, but knows how or if the data will fit into the other sciences, et al.

Ah, but just as the pharmaceuticals are developed by scientists and engineers employed by corporations, the FDA employs more scientists and engineers to evaluate the product. The theory is that since the FDA does not stand to profit from a drug, it can impartially evaluate its safety. In other words, the FDA is one example of peer review.

Further, the majority of scientific investigation is done under the auspices of universities, government agencies, and some nonprofits. These institutions tradiitonally lack the motive for profit, unlike corporations with shareholder interests and expectations. While there is some science being done in corporations, it tends to be more at the developmental level and strictly focused, rather than pure research. Browsing through articles in Science, Nature, Scientific American, etc. indicate where the scientific research for the article took place.

I know the FDA has its faults and time delays, but look at how tightly controlled and in my mind exceptionally protective it is of our well being. It has all but stopped crack pot snake oil peddlers. Having an FDA type of agency along with an oath for scientific investigators could bring down the ideology of the majority of science. On both sides.

Yes, but the FDA is seeking to protect the public from potentially unsafe foods and drugs. Scientific understanding is not consumed in the same fashion with the same potential for immediate consequence as harmful food or snake oil cures. Wrong as it was, nobody died from ether theory.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Jose]

If the interpretation of scientific data is, as you suggest, impacted by the ideology of the scientist(s) interpreting the data, what could be done to interpret scientific data more comprehensively and objectively?

Doctors take the Hypocratic Oath before they get out into the real world of practicing medicine. In part of that oath is the familiar "first, do no harm". I think we can avoid a majority of scientific ideology if we have our scientists take a similar oath. Why not create a "Dialectic Oath" or some name thereof with the basic premise "Truth is truth". Where the idea is that if the data indicates an answer that the scientist does not like, he still has to present it.

Unfortunately, the ideology that creeps into scientific interpretation is usually that which is prevalent in the society in which the scientist lives. When science was Natural Theology, the interpretation of the data was always "this is what God created; he must have had an inordinate fondness for beetles." Today, we interpret the data this way "the world has lots of niches in which beetles are successful. No wonder there are so many species of them." Other people might interpret the data by saying "better get a bug net for my bed because of all these danged bugs."

In fact, real scientists look extra hard for the data that they don't like. They have almost nothing at stake except "scientific priority" and short-lived fame among other scientists. To publish something that is wrong is a disaster. They want data that prove themselves wrong, because it prevents them from looking like idiots.

The folks who do trials of drugs (vioxx, celebrex, for example--and nicotine, to be even more explicit) have a lot at stake, and therefore hide the results they don't like. If they publish negative results, they get fired. There's a big difference here.

I know the FDA has its faults and time delays, but look at how tightly controlled and in my mind exceptionally protective it is of our well being. It has all but stopped crack pot snake oil peddlers. Having an FDA type of agency along with an oath for scientific investigators could bring down the ideology of the majority of science. On both sides.

The trouble with the FDA is that it is not independent. It has been forbidden (by Congress) to say anything at all about tobacco or anything that is called a "nutritional supplement." Nutritional supplements must kill enough people that it becomes clear that they are dangerous before FDA can even begin to investigate. That's why it took so long to ban ephedra.

And look at Splenda! The "no calorie" sweetener that is "safe for diabetics" and approved by FDA says, right on the label, that it's at least 1/3 dextrose (another name for glucose), at least 1/3 maltodextrin (short-chain starch, which is digested to glucose within minutes of eating it), and less than 1/3 sucralose. They pretend it's all sucralose, which it is not. FDA has been told that companies can choose any "serving size" they want, and that they can call anything less than 1/2 gram "zero." So, they choose 1/2 gram as the serving size, and say there's no sugar, and no calories. The darned stuff is at least 2/3 glucose! My diabetic friends get sick every time they eat anything that's made from the stuff!

No, FDA isn't your model for this. They are unable to control the things they are supposed to control because Congress has passed laws that prevent them from doing so. I note that this is the Republican-controlled Congress. This stuff didn't start happening until the Contract with America (which meant contract with big business).

The bottom line is that you're best with the current system in science: make it really important to have a new scientist disprove an older scientist, or prove a long-established theory wrong. This gets 'em fame among scientists, which is just about all they have to gain. Sure, there may be mistakes, but they will be caught. Many have been caught, and many more will be caught. The system works pretty well.

[mrmufin]

The trouble with the FDA is that it is not independent. It has been forbidden (by Congress) to say anything at all about tobacco or anything that is called a "nutritional supplement."

This is a good point. I interpreted Icarus's statements about the FDA in more of an idealistic sense: the pharmaceutical companies develop a drug, it gets evaluated by a (theoretically) impartial agency which either validates or dismisses the claims of effectiveness made by its manufacturer. In the context of data interpretation being biased, it's not that the FDA has no bias, but that the FDA's bias is (allegedly) free from the profit motives of the corporation. While I was typing my reply to Icarus I kept thinking "Vioxx... should I mention the Vioxx?"

Regards,
mrmufin

[Icarus]

Sorry for the delay. Work, holidays, family, not wanting to think anymore for a while...

In short, when scientific data interpretations are wrong, the corrections are usually made by other scientists .

What I am proposing is more authoritative. How well do you think American drug companies would listen to peer review or critiques without the FDA? Peer review and rebuttal carry no weight. The scientist is still able to market her ideologies without recourse. In order for the public to know the difference is to have a "final" authority to tell us the the "best understanding is...".

"Review by critical thinkers prior to public consumption" is peer review. When you pick up an issue of a scientific journal, the articles have already been reviewed by persons who are probably far more qualified than you or I to comment on the interpretation and implications of the data. If you're looking for a philosophical or moral interpretation of scientific data, ask a philosopher, not a scientist. ...

Again, SJ has no authority to dispell the bad. It only has its readers. It can make comment. But that is about it. We need a judge agency that has power to say to science that has too much ideological influence "stop. that is not correct. if you want to continue spouting that conclusion, you need to [insert action here]" The reason I suggest other critical evaluations like philosophy is that it is a safe guard against isolationed but carried thought. So that just because someone finds a way to make a somewhat cohesive picture does not mean that you've made the correct picture.

Ah, but just as the pharmaceuticals are developed by scientists and engineers employed by corporations, the FDA employs more scientists and engineers to evaluate the product. The theory is that since the FDA does not stand to profit from a drug, it can impartially evaluate its safety. In other words, the FDA is one example of peer review.

Exactly. But the FDA has to authority to say "this is harmful. don't sell it."

Further, the majority of scientific investigation is done under the auspices of universities, government agencies, and some nonprofits. These institutions tradiitonally lack the motive for profit, unlike corporations with shareholder interests and expectations. While there is some science being done in corporations, it tends to be more at the developmental level and strictly focused, rather than pure research. Browsing through articles in Science ,Nature ,Scientific American , etc. indicate where the scientific research for the article took place.

My argument is not WHERE science is being done. But I disagree that universities, government and non profits are lacking in motive for profit. Universities sell what they find for large profits. Governments sell what they find too, check out NASA's site, they have a section where you can take what they've developed/discovered and license it for a large profit to NASA (as well as other gov. agencies do the same). I'd like to know of a good non profit science center that does not sell its discoveries for a profit to stay in business to continue on.

Yes, but the FDA is seeking to protect the public from potentially unsafe foods and drugs. Scientific understanding is not consumed in the same fashion with the same potential for immediate consequence as harmful food or snake oil cures. Wrong as it was, nobody died from ether theory.

Tell that to the Aboriginee's in Australia.
Scientific understanding IS consumed by the populace.


By my count, you get the last word on this.
Next question?

Thanks.

[Icarus]

The trouble with the FDA is that it is not independent. It has been forbidden (by Congress) to say anything at all about tobacco or anything that is called a "nutritional supplement."
This is a good point. I interpreted Icarus's statements about the FDA in more of an idealistic sense: the pharmaceutical companies develop a drug, it gets evaluated by a (theoretically) impartial agency which either validates or dismisses the claims of effectiveness made by its manufacturer. In the context of data interpretation being biased, it's not that the FDA has no bias, but that the FDA's bias is (allegedly) free from the profit motives of the corporation. While I was typing my reply to Icarus I kept thinking "Vioxx... should I mention the Vioxx?"

Regards,
mrmufin

I'm sure you'll read my response above this post, but yes you are right, in that I am proposing the idealistic sense. yes there will be mistakes et al. But still in the FDA's defense vioxx and splenda withheld information from the FDA. And it is a bit unfair to pick out a few missteps from such an agency that does a heck of a job of keeping the other 99% of bad products off the shelves. Not that my scientific FDA version would not have its missteps.

Either way it was the FDA who corrected itself on these mentioned issues.

[mrmufin]

In short, when scientific data interpretations are wrong, the corrections are usually made by other scientists .

What I am proposing is more authoritative. How well do you think American drug companies would listen to peer review or critiques without the FDA?

If an idealistic model of the FDA is used (scientists, engineers, technicians develop pharmaceuticals at a company and submit resultant product to the FDA where more scientists, engineers, and technicians evaluate the effectivity and safety claims) then the initial (alleged) problem of "scientific ideology" interfering with data interpretation goes unresolved since both the pharmaceutical companies and the FDA are using scientists to interpret data.

Peer review and rebuttal carry no weight.

Interesting, since (a few paragraphs down) you agree that the idealistic model of the FDA is peer review.

The scientist is still able to market her ideologies without recourse. In order for the public to know the difference is to have a "final" authority to tell us the the "best understanding is...".

If I want the best understanding of the impact of octane on my car's ignition timing, I'll turn to shop manuals, factory support personnel, and perhaps even to the system's principal engineers, if I'm persistent enough. If I want the best understanding of Shakespeare, I'll turn to literary scholars and historians who may have dedicated significant portions of their lives to the study of Shakespeare. If I want the best understanding of the mechanical and biological behavior of the universe, I'll turn to physicists and biologists, not philosophers, theologians, scholars of Shakespeare, or automotive engineers. I submit that understanding the mechanical and biological aspects of the universe is inherently nonideological.

I accept the limitations of scientific pursuit. Whether the light from stars requires a medium in order to reach the Earth or it can traverse a strong vacuum does not tell us if we should or should not be kind to our neighbors. At the end of the day, nature itself can falsify our current understanding of the mechanical and biological aspects of the universe. As Jose points out, scientists strive to be accurate in order to avoid being demonstrated as fools. Quickly falsified theories probably don't look good on a scientist's resume.

"Review by critical thinkers prior to public consumption" is peer review. When you pick up an issue of a scientific journal, the articles have already been reviewed by persons who are probably far more qualified than you or I to comment on the interpretation and implications of the data. If you're looking for a philosophical or moral interpretation of scientific data, ask a philosopher, not a scientist. ...

Again, SJ has no authority to dispell the bad. It only has its readers. It can make comment. But that is about it.

No, articles in peer reviewed journals often go through multiple revisions due to questions raised in the review process. If you actually read some scientific articles, you'll note works cited, predictions made, methodologies used, data capture techniques and limitations, and perhaps some equations. If you question the integrity of the content or suspect that data is being misinterpreted or misrepresented, please, present specific questions regarding specific theories to persons who best understand the theories. Standing on the sidelines proposing authoritarian measures and making sweeping and unsupported assertions about the integrity of the scientific peer review process doesn't make your case any more convincing.

We need a judge agency that has power to say to science that has too much ideological influence "stop. that is not correct. if you want to continue spouting that conclusion, you need to [insert action here]"

Stop! If you want to keep spouting the conclusion that science has some alleged ideological influence on society, you need to demonstrate that some consistent scientific ideology exists and that it is somehow negatively influencing us nonscientists. Yeah, I kinda like how that works! Just because you say we need a judging agency doesn;t mean that we really do need one.

The reason I suggest other critical evaluations like philosophy is that it is a safe guard against isolationed but carried thought. So that just because someone finds a way to make a somewhat cohesive picture does not mean that you've made the correct picture.

And the way science works is by evaluating evidences within the universe for the purpose of acquiring a useful and cohesive understanding of the mechanical and biological functions of the universe. While applications that utilize the acquired scientific understanding of the universe may be productive or counterproductive, benevolent or malicious, the fundamental understanding is amoral. Reality is what reality is, not what you think it ought to be.

Ah, but just as the pharmaceuticals are developed by scientists and engineers employed by corporations, the FDA employs more scientists and engineers to evaluate the product. The theory is that since the FDA does not stand to profit from a drug, it can impartially evaluate its safety. In other words, the FDA is one example of peer review.

Exactly. But the FDA has to authority to say "this is harmful. don't sell it."

Feel free to present examples of scientific understanding which are harmful or articles in peer reviewed journals which you suspect are inherently biased.

Further, the majority of scientific investigation is done under the auspices of universities, government agencies, and some nonprofits. These institutions tradiitonally lack the motive for profit, unlike corporations with shareholder interests and expectations. While there is some science being done in corporations, it tends to be more at the developmental level and strictly focused, rather than pure research. Browsing through articles in Science ,Nature ,Scientific American , etc. indicate where the scientific research for the article took place.

My argument is not WHERE science is being done. But I disagree that universities, government and non profits are lacking in motive for profit. Universities sell what they find for large profits.

Than perhaps you should review chapter 501c3 of the tax code for a better understanding of nonprofit institutional classification.

Governments sell what they find too, check out NASA's site, they have a section where you can take what they've developed/discovered and license it for a large profit to NASA (as well as other gov. agencies do the same). I'd like to know of a good non profit science center that does not sell its discoveries for a profit to stay in business to continue on.

"Nonprofit" classification is not equivalent to "precluded from raising revenue or paying salaries." Nonprofit classification has more to do with restrictions on disbursements of revenues generated in excess of operating costs.

Yes, but the FDA is seeking to protect the public from potentially unsafe foods and drugs. Scientific understanding is not consumed in the same fashion with the same potential for immediate consequence as harmful food or snake oil cures. Wrong as it was, nobody died from ether theory.

Tell that to the Aboriginee's in Australia.

Are you suggesting that aboriginees have died as a result of ether theory? If you want to keep spouting that Aboriginees have suffered as a result of the incorrectness of ether theory, you're going to have to demonstrate that Aboriginees have, in fact, suffered from ether theory. The public must be protected from your biased ideological assertions!

Scientific understanding IS consumed by the populace.

Come on. Even li'l ol' not-so-educated me can distinguish between literal and metaphorical consumption.

By my count, you get the last word on this.

I don't think that science suffers from an inherently biased ideology. As I've stated in previous posts in this topic, poor math skills are much more likely to keep you out of graduate studies in theoretical physics than a particular worldview. The fact that so many persons from an enormous array of religious and philosophical backgrounds have contributed so much to the body and usefulness of scientific understanding is evidence that personal ideology has little bearing on the interpretation of data or usefulness of their theories. Nature itself is the ultimate arbitor of the integrity of any scientific theory.

I do not dispute that some scientists are very open about their worldview, and may use venues which have no peer review process at all in order to present opinions or specific interpretations of data sets in a way which lends credence or validation to their worldview.

I do not expect science to ever be absolute, complete, or final. Nor do I pretend that science exists to make values assessments, or quantify or qualify things like tasty or pretty. I respect the limitations of science but have no desire --nor do I see any need-- for your very draconian sounding oversight board. Science may have historical ties to philosophy, but vastly different methodolgies and test lab.

Next question?

Maybe in a few days, eh? Or if Jose or dangerdan or anyone else wants to interrogat Icarus, step right up.

Enjjoy the holidays!

Regards,
mrmufin