Tcg wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 9:38 am
Inquirer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:22 am
Tcg wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 4:54 am
Inquirer wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 4:50 pm
Tcg wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 7:19 am
.
The Piltdown Man is often presented as a reason to mistrust science, but are there any scientists today who don't accept that it was a fraud?
Are there any creationists today who still accept the human footprint claim and if so, what does that say about science's ability to correct and reject false claims compared to the creationist approach?
There's no reason to mistrust science but there may be reasons to mistrust scientists interpretations.
Right, we shouldn't trust the interpretations of the evidence related to Piltdown Man that led, and quite quickly by the way, to the understanding that Piltdown Man was a fake. On the other hand, we should trust the interpretations of the creationists who determined that what may not have been footprints at all, the same which may have been modified, prove that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Sure, that makes perfect since. Mistrust the interpretations that match reality.
Tcg
Coelacanth fossils were once
interpreted as evidence of an extinction event 66 MYA in the cretaceous period. Then in the 1930s they caught some swimming in the ocean. Moral? what's interpreted as reality today by some might not be interpreted as reality tomorrow. For all we know there might be trilobites crawling around somewhere!
So, you expect that somewhere down the line, footprints that aren't human will be shown to be human and we'll know that Fred actually did drive a brontosaurus at his job at the quarry?
I thought you wanted to discuss science and evidence and the interpretation thereof, clearly you do not.
Tcg wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 9:38 am
The query isn't about trilobites but rather footprints in the Paluxy riverbed. Well, that and some creationists claiming that some of them are human. Do you expect reality to change at some point?
Critiquing some creationists for claiming there were human footprints is all well and good, but it does not serve as a general claim that all creationists do not trust science. You are attempting to use specific claims to support a general claim, this is a classic error of reasoning on philosophy.
You could have focused on the claim itself and the evidence for/against it but you did not, you intentionally expanded to scope to discredit creationists and creationism, if you want to discuss that broader subject I'm happy to go there with you.
You say "it isn't about trilobites but rather footprints in the Pauly riverbed" but that's not true, your posts are also about creationism and science.
Reality varies from individual to individual, all knowledge is subjective, we cannot experience objectivity only subjectivity, any claims about objective reality are based wholly on subjective opinions.
Whether you approve of me saying this or not doesn't really matter, I regard it as a truth, as axiomatic.
People often misunderstand, that these kinds of discussions about science and evidence and interpretation are based on these things.
Science does not encompass "reality" at all, those who claim otherwise are the ones who don't understand science.
I've studied this for decades, I studied theoretical physics a rather foundational branch of science, so let me ask you, anyone here who claim to know about reality - is spacetime
really curved?