Are Scientists Lying about Evolution?

[Zosimus]

I didn't write an argument, I asked a question - hence the question mark at the end. I'm not going to step out the reasoning that lead to the conclusion that you're being rude, I'll leave that for you to reflect upon.

Because I have no hair on my tongue.

 

[Zosimus]

Do you think that paleontologists with Phds are unaware of this sort of thing?
Tom

The purpose of science is to get funded and to get published. It doesn't matter what the Ph.D.s know. Their purpose is to make as sensational a find as possible, to p-hack it until it seems statistically significant, and to get it published. These people neither know nor care about the truth.

 

[Zosimus]

Alright so we have established that those creatures who live closest to the seafloor are more likely to be fossilised. That's cool. That is logical.

However that does not address my objections to your two assertions.

All right. Let's make a few assumptions and see where logic leads us. Let's suppose that this species of fish has exactly 10 fossils that science will eventually find. Since a disproportionate number of these fossils will have been made from fish swimming deeply in shallow waters, can we not assume that, by chance, scientists are more likely to find one of those fossils first. Can we not?

Then scientists will draw conclusions based on that fossil, conclusions that may not be accurate.

If that is true, we should see a number of follow-up stories saying something like "fossil sheds new light on" or "new fossil surprises scientists"
For example, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossils-shed-new-light-on-human-gorilla-split/
This article basically says that what was concluded from previous fossils may be wrong. I can find hundreds of these types of stories all over the web. There must be thousands more that will never be published.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/t-rex-fossils-surprise-she-was-ovulating.html?_r=0

"Among its rock-hard fossils, the scientists had already isolated soft tissues, including blood vessels and cells lining them -- a most improbable discovery after 70 million years."

I'd say so! In fact, it might cause a skeptic to be skeptical about whether the fossil really is 70 million years old.

You see, I'm of the opinion that every time a story comes up that surprises, baffles, or modifies what was thought before, that's de facto proof that what was thought before was wrong. That means that scientists routinely make assumptions and inferences that will be discarded or modified in the future.

 

[Zosimus]

Alright so we have established that those creatures who live closest to the seafloor are more likely to be fossilised. That's cool. That is logical.

However that does not address my objections to your two assertions.

All right. Let's make a few assumptions and see where logic leads us. Let's suppose that this species of fish has exactly 10 fossils that science will eventually find. Since a disproportionate number of these fossils will have been made from fish swimming deeply in shallow waters, we can assume that, by chance, scientists are more likely to find one of those fossils first. Can we not?

Then scientists will draw conclusions based on that fossil, conclusions that may not be accurate.

If that is true, we should see a number of follow-up stories saying something like "fossil sheds new light on" or "new fossil surprises scientists"
For example, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossils-shed-new-light-on-human-gorilla-split/
This article basically says that what was concluded from previous fossils may be wrong. I can find hundreds of these types of stories all over the web. There must be thousands more that will never be published.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/t-rex-fossils-surprise-she-was-ovulating.html?_r=0

"Among its rock-hard fossils, the scientists had already isolated soft tissues, including blood vessels and cells lining them -- a most improbable discovery after 70 million years."

I'd say so! In fact, it might cause a skeptic to be skeptical about whether the fossil really is 70 million years old.

You see, I'm of the opinion that every time a story comes up that surprises, baffles, or modifies what was thought before, that's de facto proof that what was thought before was wrong. That means that scientists routinely make assumptions and inferences that will be discarded or modified in the future.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You see, I'm of the opinion that every time a story comes up that surprises, baffles, or modifies what was thought before, that's de facto proof that what was thought before was wrong. That means that scientists routinely make assumptions and inferences that will be discarded or modified in the future.

Assumptions and inferences aren't dirty laundry. Making assumptions is part of research provided a researcher states their assumptions. If they don't then other scientists will tear apart their work and embarrass them. For example Prof Higgs took a lot of flak for his theory about the Higgs Boson, but everybody knew what his assumptions were. He retained his honor as a scientist even though many thought he research was going nowhere. When his school of thought turned out to be correct then his work was better rewarded, but he was getting paid before that happened. He was getting paid to do research, and research doesn't always result in the things people want to hear -- such as a young Earth.

 

[Acim]

What, do you suppose, is the likelihood that hundreds of thousands of evolutionary scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to lie about evolution without, however, even one of them ever breaking ranks to expose the conspiracy?

Just askin' 'cause someone told me the other day that scientists were lying about evolution, and I want to see if anyone else believes that.

The second assertion, or reason for asking the question, doesn't necessarily follow from the question.

Which kind of helps explain the type of deception at work.

I highly doubt it is an intentional engagement by all hundreds of thousands to conspire to lie about evolution. So, addressing that question in the way I think it is being asked (not sure though), I would say .1% chance.

But the kind of 'lies' that science allows itself to firmly rest upon, which philosophers would never let slide on by as not needing great scrutiny, is why the so called conspiracy wouldn't really need active engagement for such a thing to occur. IOW, scientists are likely unaware of the lie being told, and not so hung up on ontological truths. I honestly don't think overwhelming majority of scientists are concerned with ontological considerations, nor have I come to expect that from (so called) science. Creationist types are hung up on ontological considerations, but I feel they are less aware of lies being told through their favored paradigm.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If you have never studied X, what makes you competent enough to infer that X is a lie?

Ciao

- viole

Who said that man and carrots having a common ancestor is a lie? Certainly not me.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I give up. I think I'll go talk to my toaster.


.

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

 

[Revoltingest]

Assumptions and inferences aren't dirty laundry. Making assumptions is part of research provided a researcher states their assumptions. If they don't then other scientists will tear apart their work and embarrass them. For example Prof Higgs took a lot of flak for his theory about the Higgs Boson, but everybody knew what his assumptions were. He retained his honor as a scientist even though many thought he research was going nowhere. When his school of thought turned out to be correct then his work was better rewarded, but he was getting paid before that happened. He was getting paid to do research, and research doesn't always result in the things people want to hear -- such as a young Earth.

I don't think you can prevent bashing by science detractors by pointing out how the system works.
Because there will always be imperfect human practitioners of the method, & because accepted
scientific thought will always change, it will never fit their demand of perfection. But they've no
better alternative.

 

[Zosimus]

Assumptions and inferences aren't dirty laundry. Making assumptions is part of research provided a researcher states their assumptions. If they don't then other scientists will tear apart their work and embarrass them. For example Prof Higgs took a lot of flak for his theory about the Higgs Boson, but everybody knew what his assumptions were. He retained his honor as a scientist even though many thought he research was going nowhere. When his school of thought turned out to be correct then his work was better rewarded, but he was getting paid before that happened. He was getting paid to do research, and research doesn't always result in the things people want to hear -- such as a young Earth.

I think you're jumping the gun. There is no reason to believe that Higgs bosons exist.

 

[Zosimus]

I don't think you can prevent bashing by science detractors by pointing out how the system works.
Because there will always be imperfect human practitioners of the method, & because accepted
scientific thought will always change, it will never fit their demand of perfection. But they've no
better alternative.

Prove it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Prove it.

You've saved me the work by having already done it for me.

 

[Zosimus]

You've saved me the work by having already done it for me.

It? What's it?

Where I come from "done it" usually refers to something sexual.

Did you mean to say "done so?" If so, I dispute the claim.

Rationalism is superior to empiricism. So don't say I have no better method until you are able to destroy rationalism without using rational arguments.

 

[Revoltingest]

It? What's it?
Where I come from "done it" usually refers to something sexual.

By saying "usually", you acknowledge other possible meanings.
Context would guide the careful reader away from thoughts of
boinking, & towards a more appropriate inference.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think you're jumping the gun. There is no reason to believe that Higgs bosons exist.

'No reason' is an incorrect description. Getting back to the topic, Higgs is taken seriously for his honesty and perseverance, presenting his assumptions as assumptions and for smartly working. That continues to be the case, and despite strong statistical evidence for Higgs Boson anyone may criticize his assumptions. A lot of scientists would like very much for his assumptions to be proven wrong, and they work on alternatives. Thus development moves forward, building upon previous success until there is a systemic disruption.

 

[Zosimus]

By saying "usually", you acknowledge other possible meanings.
Context would guide the careful reader away from thoughts of
boinking, & towards a more appropriate inference.

Well, I did consider the possibility that "it" might refer to homework or housework. However, I discarded these possibilities.

 

[Zosimus]

'No reason' is an incorrect description. Getting back to the topic, Higgs is taken seriously for his honesty and perseverance, presenting his assumptions as assumptions and for smartly working. That continues to be the case, and despite strong statistical evidence for Higgs Boson anyone may criticize his assumptions. A lot of scientists would like very much for his assumptions to be proven wrong, and they work on alternatives. Thus development moves forward, building upon previous success until there is a systemic disruption.

No one has ever seen a Higgs boson.

 

[Revoltingest]

No one has ever seen a Higgs boson.

No one here has ever seen you.

 

[Zosimus]

No one here has ever seen you.

Untrue. I have seen myself, and there are two other people in this room who can view me at this very moment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Untrue. I have seen myself, and there are two other people in this room who can view me at this very moment.

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.