I don't think interpret means anything more or less than what it means, but you guys want to make it more than what it is, where science is concerned, and less of what it is where religion or any other study is concerned.
That's all I am saying.
The speculations in science are not absent either, but you guys want to act as though there are none - like science is all about "bang on accurate verifiable testing".
That's a myth that Atheist fill their heads with, and argue about, to sound superior.to religious folk.
Here is your quote...
"There's no opinion, there's no matters of interpretation. There's only strictly logical scientific analysis."
Clear, is it.
You promote it, and yet deny that you do, when it cannot be denied, as though you think the people you argue with don't know anything, so you can just say anything.
When scientists argue for their speculations, are they laughed at; called religious fanatics. Or are they just considered scientists, doing their work?
Neanderthal - Wikipedia
Following Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species,
- Fuhlrott and Schaaffhausen argued the bones represented an ancient modern human form;
- Schaaffhausen, a social Darwinist, believed that humans linearly progressed from savage to civilised, and so concluded that Neanderthals were barbarous cave-dwellers.
- Fuhlrott and Schaaffhausen met opposition namely from the prolific pathologist Rudolf Virchow who argued against defining new species based on only a single find.
- In 1872, Virchow erroneously interpreted Neanderthal characteristics as evidence of senility, disease, and malformation instead of archaicness, which stalled Neanderthal research until the end of the century.
- In 2012, deep scratches on the floor of Gorham's Cave, Gibraltar, were discovered, dated to older than 39,000 years ago, which the discoverers have interpreted as Neanderthal abstract art.
Neanderthals: A History of Interpretation
Mario Crocco - Wikipedia
Mario Crocco is internationally known for having proposed in March 2007, a new taxonomic system that would include the hypothetical microorganism thought to have been detected on Mars by the Viking lander biological experiments in 1976. Though these findings were later deemed inconclusive, some scientists interpret the results as evidence of metabolism, and therefore of life; the major proponents of this position are Gilbert Levin, Rafael Navarro-González, and Ronald Paepe.
The intended effect was to reverse the burden of proof concerning the life issue, but biologists stated that naming a 'species' at this point is inappropriate, as it may lend credibility to the possibility that life has been detected. The proposed rationale was rejected by the scientific community and it remains a Nomen nudum as there is no evidence of organic biomolecules.
I'm saying that scientists are not free of using the same methods religious folk do.
We are both
looking at the same evidence - body of facts, and using reason, and logical scientific analysis". Yes. Not only scientists employ the scientific method. Where it's not possible to prove one conclusion or other, we argue on the reason for the conclusion.
One isn't correct on the basis of which
explanation is most accepted.
Take this extinction debate, for example.
Pleistocene megafauna - Wikipedia
Despite the evidence of interactions between humans and Genyornis, there is not much evidence to indicate that there were significant interactions between humans and other megafaunal species. Many scientists interpret this lack of evidence of interaction as evidence that humans did not cause most megafaunal extinctions in Australia.
Other researchers disagree, and argue that there is sufficient evidence to determine that human activity was the primary cause for many of the megafaunal extinctions. They argue that the lack of evidence of hunting does not indicate that hunting during the Pleistocene was negligible. ... Researchers who believe that human activity was the primary cause of megafaunal extinction in Australia argue that the lack of evidence should not rule out human-megafauna interactions.
Here we have scientists arguing.
Why make it a science vs religion argument, when it's not about that at all, since scientists aren't always religious when they argue against
interpretation, inferences, assumption, speculations, proposals, suppositions, extrapolations, and yes, guesswork - which does exist - of scientists?
That's my point.
