Are Scientists Lying about Evolution?

[Brickjectivity]

No one has ever seen a Higgs boson.

What point are you making relevant to the accusation that scientists are lying about evolution? Of course you can't directly see a Higgs boson. That's why its so hard to prove if there is one.

 

[Zosimus]

We have only your word for all of that.
You might be nothing more than a less than successful Turing test.
We've more evidence for gravity waves & the Higgs boson than we do for you.

I could easily send you a picture whereas no one could send you a picture of a Higgs boson.

 

[Skwim]

It's simple enough for your toaster to understand. Ignorance of a falsehood is no excuse.

And it's exactly remarks like this that make my toaster a far better debater than yourself.

.

 

[Zosimus]

What point are you making relevant to the accusation that scientists are lying about evolution? Of course you can't directly see a Higgs boson. That's why its so hard to prove if there is one.

This whole thread is part of a false dichotomy. The assumption of the thread is that:

EITHER scientists are lying
OR neo-Darwinism is true.

There is a third option, and I am here to present it.

Science is so flawed that anything science claims should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.

The first point is that if you believe in science... then you shouldn't believe in science. Articles such as this one demonstrate that most published research findings are false.

Second, science is logically flawed. The problem of induction has never been solved and the common work arounds (Bayesian statistics, antirealism, pragmatism, etc.) are not even mentioned around here much less debated on their merits.

Third, pessmistic induction is fatal to science. Even if we assume that induction is true and works, a simple look at the history of science shows that the vast number of scientific theories derived over the year are and were demonstrably wrong. Therefore, induction argues that the vast majority of current scientific theories are also wrong.

Finally, the vast majority of so-called scientific "findings" presented herein (as support for the idea that neo-Darwinism is true) don't provide any kind of statistical validity measurements of any kind. Plus, even if someone did provide those figures, he or she probably wouldn't be able to explain what the numbers meant much less respond to criticism of the numbers and their meaning.

The Higgs boson is a case in point. Most people here will likely claim that science has found the Higgs boson. Has it? How do they know? Well, they know because they saw it in the news. Did they look at the source for these claims? No. What was the p-value for the study? They have no idea. What does the p-value mean? They have no idea. Are p-values a good way to determine whether a study is true, false or otherwise? They have no idea. But they're convinced that whatever their university professor taught them about science must be true.

 

[Revoltingest]

I could easily send you a picture whereas no one could send you a picture of a Higgs boson.

Of course, I could send you a picture of me....

I'm the one with my back turned.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Of course, I could send you a picture of me....

I'm the one with my back turned.

Revoltingest is an android: confirmed!

 

[Revoltingest]

Revoltingest is an android: confirmed!

I wish!

 

[leibowde84]

Oh, I understand publishing very, very well.

What is publication bias?

"Publication bias occurs when results of published studies are systematically different from results of unpublished studies.

"In general, studies with statistically significant or positive results are more likely to be published than those with nonsignificant or negative results.

"Convincing evidence from recent high-quality empirical studies has confirmed the existence of outcome-reporting bias. Outcome-reporting bias occurs when “positive” outcomes are more likely to be reported than “negative” outcomes in studies with multiple outcomes. Therefore, in contrast to publication bias due to the nonpublication of whole studies, outcome-reporting bias due to selective reporting of outcomes by authors in published studies has been referred to as “within-study publication bias.”15 Furthermore, negative results being misinterpreted and reported as positive results in published clinical trials is also prevalent.

"One study found that many researchers may have results from multiple studies that could be publishable, and they usually focused on 'wonderful results' and had no time for 'negative results.' We know that the preparation of manuscripts for journal publication is a time-consuming process. To a certain extent, experienced researchers may be able to predict what results are more likely to be accepted for publication in high-impact journals. Such results may typically be statistically significant, or considered important or positive."

---------------------------------------
Thus, we can easily conclude that should 5 groups look at the same data, and 4 groups come up with negative results whereas one group comes up with wonderful, positive, p-hacked results, the published study will be substantially different from the research into the matter.

Accordingly, publication, far from reducing the problem, is prone to exacerbate it.

Your conclusion here doesn't follow logically what you have stated. Publication obviously doesn't fix any problems with bias completely, and publication bias is an example of how, sometimes, bias can still present itself. But, the publication of scientific theories obviously curbs the likelihood of bias, as it makes it possible for other scientific studies to be done in order to challenge claims made in publications.

Remember, nowhere in your cited writing does it say that negative results are NEVER published. It merely says that there is SOMETIMES a LIKELIHOOD that positive results will be published MORE than negative results. You are merely adding in claims here, as you did with the LIKELIHOOD that we will find alien life elsewhere in the universe. SOME scientists merely made the claim that with new technologies and the vastness of the universe, it is LIKELY that we will find some kind of alien life in the near future. You dishonestly changed their claim to fit your argument by saying that they claimed that with new technologies we WILL find INTELLIGENT life elsewhere in the universe VERY SOON.

 

[leibowde84]

No, it wouldn't. Apparently, you don't understand what I mean. So let me try to explain it as clearly as possible.

Most dead animals do not form fossils. Therefore, any fossil that forms is unusual. It's atypical. It's rare. It's an aberration. It's an anomaly–an oddity–a peculiarity, even. It's a quirk of nature. It's an irregularity. It's an incongruity with what we expect to happen–an inconsistency, if you will. It's a deviation–a freak of nature.

My thesaurus is exhausted. I'll have to end the post now.

It is true that most animals do not form fossils. This, obviously, doesn't mean that in order to form a fossil an animal must be an aberration or be a special distinct member of its species to form a fossil. Most animals don't form fossils because the external circumstances for fossilization are specific and tough to meet. It shouldn't lead any reasonable person to believe that only aberrations of a species would be fossilized, implying that internal conditions of an animal are what determines whether an animal will be fossilized. That's nuts.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This whole thread is part of a false dichotomy. The assumption of the thread is that:

EITHER scientists are lying
OR neo-Darwinism is true.

Science has been slandered by Ken Ham and various groups visiting churches, and those groups preach that Satan is behind the theory of evolution, that Evolution is anti-Christian, that it opposes all that is right and good. That is a lie. The same thing happens in Mosques and various other places that want to hold onto presumptions rather than making observations. So this thread is about opposing a lynch mob that wants to ignore, refund and anesthetize scientific research.

Science is so flawed that anything science claims should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.

The first point is that if you believe in science... then you shouldn't believe in science. Articles such as this one demonstrate that most published research findings are false.

Second, science is logically flawed. The problem of induction has never been solved and the common work arounds (Bayesian statistics, antirealism, pragmatism, etc.) are not even mentioned around here much less debated on their merits.

Third, pessmistic induction is fatal to science. Even if we assume that induction is true and works, a simple look at the history of science shows that the vast number of scientific theories derived over the year are and were demonstrably wrong. Therefore, induction argues that the vast majority of current scientific theories are also wrong.

That is not science. Science means you study what exists, and you hypothesize when the evidence suggests it. A theory is a hypothesis that survives many attempts to disprove it, many experiments. Gravity is an example of a theory in Science. It is not an evil thing, but because it isn't a gospel tune on the radio ministers have used it to scare people and secure their own positions.

Finally, the vast majority of so-called scientific "findings" presented herein (as support for the idea that neo-Darwinism is true) don't provide any kind of statistical validity measurements of any kind. Plus, even if someone did provide those figures, he or she probably wouldn't be able to explain what the numbers meant much less respond to criticism of the numbers and their meaning.

The Higgs boson is a case in point. Most people here will likely claim that science has found the Higgs boson. Has it? How do they know? Well, they know because they saw it in the news. Did they look at the source for these claims? No. What was the p-value for the study? They have no idea. What does the p-value mean? They have no idea. Are p-values a good way to determine whether a study is true, false or otherwise? They have no idea. But they're convinced that whatever their university professor taught them about science must be true.

At the moment most researchers are relying upon the Standard Model of Physics, which incorporates the Higgs Boson, but there are alternatives being researched as well. The p-value is accessible to anyone who pays attention in their Statistics class, and Statistics is a vital subject. Its important and is not too hard for average students to learn. Evolution is a theory, because it has a lot going for it. Creation is an assertion by paid ministers, often corrupt ministers, that fails when tested. Their fake story keeps failing, so they slander scientists to distract from real problems and stave off the day when they will be fired.

 

[Zosimus]

Your conclusion here doesn't follow logically what you have stated. Publication obviously doesn't fix any problems with bias completely, and publication bias is an example of how, sometimes, bias can still present itself. But, the publication of scientific theories obviously curbs the likelihood of bias, as it makes it possible for other scientific studies to be done in order to challenge claims made in publications.

Remember, nowhere in your cited writing does it say that negative results are NEVER published. It merely says that there is SOMETIMES a LIKELIHOOD that positive results will be published MORE than negative results. You are merely adding in claims here, as you did with the LIKELIHOOD that we will find alien life elsewhere in the universe. SOME scientists merely made the claim that with new technologies and the vastness of the universe, it is LIKELY that we will find some kind of alien life in the near future. You dishonestly changed their claim to fit your argument by saying that they claimed that with new technologies we WILL find INTELLIGENT life elsewhere in the universe VERY SOON.

You're confused. I never said anything about the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. I'm agnostic on that issue.

As for publication bias, papers that show a statistically-significant positive finding are three times more likely to be published than are those with a null finding. So don't say SOMETIMES a LIKELIHOOD than positive results will be published MORE. It's not sometimes. It's consistent.

 

[leibowde84]

You're confused. I never said anything about the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. I'm agnostic on that issue.

As for publication bias, papers that show a statistically-significant positive finding are three times more likely to be published than are those with a null finding. So don't say SOMETIMES a LIKELIHOOD than positive results will be published MORE. It's not sometimes. It's consistent.

What you are saying here still implies a bias "sometimes". It might be consistent, but it isn't constant or a certainty.

 

[Zosimus]

Science has been slandered by Ken Ham and various groups visiting churches, and those groups preach that Satan is behind the theory of evolution, that Evolution is anti-Christian, that it opposes all that is right and good. That is a lie. The same thing happens in Mosques and various other places that want to hold onto presumptions rather than making observations. So this thread is about opposing a lynch mob that wants to ignore, refund and anesthetize scientific research.


That is not science. Science means you study what exists, and you hypothesize when the evidence suggests it. A theory is a hypothesis that survives many attempts to disprove it, many experiments. Gravity is an example of a theory in Science. It is not an evil thing, but because it isn't a gospel tune on the radio ministers have used it to scare people and secure their own positions.


At the moment most researchers are relying upon the Standard Model of Physics, which incorporates the Higgs Boson, but there are alternatives being researched as well. The p-value is accessible to anyone who pays attention in their Statistics class, and Statistics is a vital subject. Its important and is not too hard for average students to learn. Evolution is a theory, because it has a lot going for it. Creation is an assertion by paid ministers, often corrupt ministers, that fails when tested. Their fake story keeps failing, so they slander scientists to distract from real problems and stave off the day when they will be fired.

Odds Are, It's Wrong.

It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation. Statistical tests are supposed to guide scientists in judging whether an experimental result reflects some real effect or is merely a random fluke, but the standard methods mix mutually inconsistent philosophies and offer no meaningful basis for making such decisions. Even when performed correctly, statistical tests are widely misunderstood and frequently misinterpreted. As a result, countless conclusions in the scientific literature are erroneous, and tests of medical dangers or treatments are often contradictory and confusing.

Experts in the math of probability and statistics are well aware of these problems and have for decades expressed concern about them in major journals. Over the years, hundreds of published papers have warned that science’s love affair with statistics has spawned countless illegitimate findings. In fact, if you believe what you read in the scientific literature, you shouldn’t believe what you read in the scientific literature.

------------------------------------------
That's not Christians knocking the system, bub. That's mathematicians.

 

[Zosimus]

What you are saying here still implies a bias "sometimes". It might be consistent, but it isn't constant or a certainty.

The point is simple: Most published research findings are false. In fact, 80 percent of non-randomized studies are later convincingly refuted.

 

[McBell]

In fact, 80 percent of non-randomized studies are later convincingly refuted.

wait...
Are you saying that that is a bad thing?

 

[McBell]

Your response is an example of the antagonism and ridicule many evolution supporters employ toward the increasing numbers of scientists and others raising doubts about the evolution theory.

My response was nothing more than a statement of fact.
One you happen to dislike, so instead of addressing the fact, you try to play the martyr.
Which only makes your position look weak and desperate.

 

[Zosimus]

wait...
Are you saying that that is a bad thing?

No non-randomized study should ever be accepted as proof of anything. That's my point.

And yes, it is bad that 80 percent of non-randomized studies are later convincingly refuted. That means that 20 percent of them, all of which may be wrong, were probably never retested.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation. Statistical tests are supposed to guide scientists in judging whether an experimental result reflects some real effect or is merely a random fluke, but the standard methods mix mutually inconsistent philosophies and offer no meaningful basis for making such decisions. Even when performed correctly, statistical tests are widely misunderstood and frequently misinterpreted. As a result, countless conclusions in the scientific literature are erroneous, and tests of medical dangers or treatments are often contradictory and confusing.

Experts in the math of probability and statistics are well aware of these problems and have for decades expressed concern about them in major journals. Over the years, hundreds of published papers have warned that science’s love affair with statistics has spawned countless illegitimate findings. In fact, if you believe what you read in the scientific literature, you shouldn’t believe what you read in the scientific literature.

I don't discount that, and that usually happens when researchers are developing new tech and don't want other people to be able to reproduce their work. Its important to reform Science and to point out problems, and I recently was taking an online course in R in which the instructors highlighted problems like the one you mention -- incomplete statistical info or papers that leave out the raw data despite using public funds. I think its very important to be critical and to not hide results. There is a tendency to make it difficult for other people to repeat work, which I think is criminal since a lot of corporate funding is mixed with public funding. Anyone should have access to publicly funded work its only fair. There have recently been some very promising and positive developments however. For example researchers have begun moving their papers to public archives for criticism. The first one and a very popular one is arxiv.org. It allows anyone to publish a paper and receive criticism, and it allows anyone to read that paper. Its revolutionary, although there still is the problem of public money mixing in with corporate funded research.

 

[Zosimus]

I don't discount that, and that usually happens when researchers are developing new tech and don't want other people to be able to reproduce their work. Its important to reform Science and to point out problems, and I recently was taking an online course in R in which the instructors highlighted problems like the one you mention -- incomplete statistical info or papers that leave out the raw data despite using public funds. I think its very important to be critical and to not hide results. There is a tendency to make it difficult for other people to repeat work, which I think is criminal since a lot of corporate funding is mixed with public funding. Anyone should have access to publicly funded work its only fair. There have recently been some very promising and positive developments however. For example researchers have begun moving their papers to public archives for criticism. The first one and a very popular one is arxiv.org. It allows anyone to publish a paper and receive criticism, and it allows anyone to read that paper. Its revolutionary, although there still is the problem of public money mixing in with corporate funded research.

Well, until these problems are resolved and I stop getting news stories like this one, you'll have to forgive my skepticism.

 

[Sapiens]

The ones where they simply refer to other hypothesis and theories to make further theories and rely from a thumbs up from the "most prominent" archaeologists, which is practically all of them, doesn't seem like "facts" to me but again an assumption based high probability.

Not "facts" but rather findings "based high probability." That's what science is.