What is "Bad" Science?

[dybmh]

I already gave examples of conclusions

Where?

I'll do a search of your posts in this thread. Stand by:

... ... ... ...

#25
#26
#28
#32
#39
#42
#47
#52
#53
#55
#58

... ... ... ...

OK! I brought "Temple Tel Arad" as an example of new evidence which YOU are ignoring in post # 44. I'm replying to post #53 where you;re claiming you already provided the conclusions coming from Tel Arad archaeology. That means your conclusions would be in either #47, #52.

Post #47: No conclusions from Tel Arad archaeology given.

Actually the archeological conclusions concerning the Temple Tel Arad are not controversial as to it was a temple built around 950 BCE, but the religious conclusions made by some without evidence are not scientifically justified, base on the evidence, There are questions as to whether it was a Canaanite or Hebrew temple or both. I believe it was a Canaanite temple originally.

Post #52: No conclusions from Tel Arad archaeology given.

This is not an example of what I asked for. See post #47.

Divergence? In academic archeology simply considers the evidence of the ancient Phoenician/Canaanite/Ugarit, texts to later Hebrew compilations of the Pentateuch. This changes over time with new discoveries,

Again religious considerations and bias does represent a controversial interpretations of the results, but over time science prevails in science,

Post #53: Still No conclusions from Tel Arad archaeology given.

I already gave examples of conclusions of archeological results are subject to change with new discoveries, and the problems will unfortunately remain with religious bias in the interpretation of the evidence. The lack of Hebrew text and other specific evidence makes it difficult to differentiate Canaanites/Phoenicians and Hebrews before 800-600 BCE since Hebrews were basically Canaanites

^^ Here you seem completely ignorant of what the Temple is or what it means. ^^

But Shunya, I've shown you. I've given you articles. You ignore them. Because it doesn't fit within your dogma.

You're a perfect example of someone conducting faulty research.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, Post 47....

I'm replying to post #42.

Anyway. It's a great example. Perhaps you're avoiding considering it fairly.

You need to document this. As stated I consider archeological discoveries and research subject to change,and avoid religious interpretations of the results.

What I saw in your own posts and in many academic research papers is simply this:

The researcher is neglecting the CONTENT of the Pentateuch. It's not new information. They're ignoring OLD information. In my conversations with you, however, you don't know the Pentateuch or Judaism, so, when I bring YOU information it is new for you. And... you ignore it.

Judaism would be a religious perspective that could and does at times bias the interpretation of archeology.

I do not ignore anything, but you have to present the evidence based on archeological evidence,

What would you propose that I do not know the Pentateuch? It is a compilation of texts made after 600 BCE without provenance or known authorship. Itis not remotely a historically accurate record, There are assumptions made concerning archeological sited like Tel Arad based on the Pentateuch that are not confirmed by the evidence of the temple site itself,

It's because you're Bahai, isn't it? The information I bring conflicts with your religion?

No

 

[shunyadragon]

Where?

I'll do a search of your posts in this thread. Stand by:

... ... ... ...

#25
#26
#28
#32
#39
#42
#47
#52
#53
#55
#58

... ... ... ...

OK! I brought "Temple Tel Arad" as an example of new evidence which YOU are ignoring in post # 44. I'm replying to post #53 where you;re claiming you already provided the conclusions coming from Tel Arad archaeology. That means your conclusions would be in either #47, #52.

Post #47: No conclusions from Tel Arad archaeology given.



Post #52: No conclusions from Tel Arad archaeology given.



Post #53: Still No conclusions from Tel Arad archaeology given.



^^ Here you seem completely ignorant of what the Temple is or what it means. ^^

But Shunya, I've shown you. I've given you articles. You ignore them. Because it doesn't fit within your dogma.

You're a perfect example of someone conducting faulty research.

You have to be more specific on your accusations.

Actually the archeological conclusions concerning the Temple Tel Arad are not controversial as to it was a temple built around 950 BCE,

Please be specific as to what archeological evidence I did not include. I do not believe there was any evidence at the site to confirm it was a Hebrew Temple and not a Canaanite temple..

The following demonstrates religious assumption concerning Tel Arad.

Tel Arad - Madain Project (en)

Tel Arad (Hebrew: תל ערד‬) is an archaeological tel, or mound, located west of the Dead Sea, about 10 kilometres (6 miles) west of the modern Israel/Palestine city of Arad in an area surrounded by mountain ridges which is known as the Arad Plain.

madainproject.com

Judean Temple
Tel-Arad sported a complete temple, apparently Judean, located in the north-western corner of the fortress , included all of the features of Solomon’s temple. The temple was in use from the 9th to the end of the 8th century BCE, i.e. concurrent with the Temple in Jerusalem. This is one of the few temples remaining from Biblical times. The temple in Arad was built according to the plan of the Tabernacle (illustration) described in the Bible and consisted of three parts: the inner courtyard, the temple and the Holy of Holies.

Some text scraps aere found at the site identified as Paleo Hebrew, but what is described as Paleo-Hebrew ts just variations of Paleo-Canaanite used in the Levant and not necessarily Hebrew.

 

[Jimmy]

I do believe spirituality has the answers to things like how we got here and where we’re going more than science does but I don’t think religion should play dirty.

 

[dybmh]

Actually the archeological conclusions concerning the Temple Tel Arad are not controversial as to it was a temple built around 950 BCE,

What are those conclusions? You don't seem to know what they are.

Please be specific as to what archeological evidence I did not include.

Not yet. You claim to know the conclusions. You say they're not controversial. But you don't seem to know what they are.

It's important, imo, for you to acknowledge and accept your ignorance on this. I've shared with you the conclusions, but, you've always ignored them. I think it's because you're Bahai, and the archaeological evidence conflicts with you religion.

Bahaism is about certainty. Once a person is certain, they stop looking for anything else. You are certain in your opinions about Judaism and our scripture. That's why anything I say which is not in your mental box ( framing ) is immediately flushed into a black-hole in your mind.

Judean Temple
Tel-Arad sported a complete temple, apparently Judean, located in the north-western corner of the fortress , included all of the features of Solomon’s temple. The temple was in use from the 9th to the end of the 8th century BCE, i.e. concurrent with the Temple in Jerusalem. This is one of the few temples remaining from Biblical times. The temple in Arad was built according to the plan of the Tabernacle (illustration) described in the Bible and consisted of three parts: the inner courtyard, the temple and the Holy of Holies.

Perfect. Everything you need is there.

What is/are the conclusion(s) you are drawing from this?

 

[Quintessence]

As someone who wasn't tagged but holds a post-graduate degree in sciences and was once a career scientist, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this thread or that I am supposed to contribute to it. Deceptive practices in use by "religious people?" Huh? So, people like me along with a bunch of the other colleagues I worked with back when and still have contact with today? I don't understand why "religious people" (as if those are all the same somehow, or aren't also scientists themselves at times) is needed as some qualifier here. It doesn't matter what "type" of person is conducting the research when assessing the soundness of its methodology and conclusions. I do not understand what we are supposed to be doing here. An example would be helpful? Who are these "religious people" specifically and what are they saying?

 

[dybmh]

You need to document this.

I did. Are you blind?

 

[shunyadragon]

I did. Are you blind?

No, you did not

 

[shunyadragon]

What are those conclusions? You don't seem to know what they are.

The conclusion that it was a Hebrew Temple based on Solomon's Temple

Not yet. You claim to know the conclusions. You say they're not controversial. But you don't seem to know what they are.

Care, I do not claim to "know" as compared to those who base their conclusion based on religious assumptions. I simply accept the Temple was built in !950 BCE.

It's important, imo, for you to acknowledge and accept your ignorance on this. I've shared with you the conclusions, but, you've always ignored them. I think it's because you're Bahai, and the archaeological evidence conflicts with you religion.

The archeological evidence either way does not conflict with my religion.

Bahaism is about certainty. Once a person is certain, they stop looking for anything else. You are certain in your opinions about Judaism and our scripture. That's why anything I say which is not in your mental box ( framing ) is immediately flushed into a black-hole in your mind.

Insults and intentional ignorance of the Baha'i Faith do not help your argument.

Perfect. Everything you need is there.

What is/are the conclusion(s) you are drawing from this?

Religious assumptions based on the Pentateuch without provenance to interpret the archeological evidence.

 

[dybmh]

The conclusion that it was a Hebrew Temple based on Solomon's Temple

good....

I simply accept the Temple was built in !950 BCE.

good!

Did the religion which was being practiced in that temple magically poof into existence in 950 BCE?

 

[shunyadragon]

I question the basis fo believing that the Tel Arad was a Hebrew Temple initially, and that the Solomon Temple ever existed,

Solomon's Temple - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Previously, many scholars accepted the biblical narrative of the First Temple's construction by Solomon as authentic. During the 1980s, skeptical approaches to the biblical text as well as the archaeological record led some scholars to doubt whether there was any Temple in Jerusalem constructed as early as the 10th century BCE.[4] Some scholars have suggested that the original structure built by Solomon was relatively modest, and was later rebuilt on a larger scale.[5] No direct evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple has been found.[6][7] Due to the extreme religious and political sensitivity of the site, no recent archaeological excavations have been conducted on the Temple Mount. Nineteenth and early-twentieth century excavations around the Temple Mount did not identify "even a trace" of the complex.[8] The House of Yahweh ostracon, dated to the 6th century BCE, may refer to the First Temple.[9][10] Two 21st century findings from the Israelite period in present-day Israel have been found bearing resemblance to Solomon's Temple as it is described in the Hebrew Bible: a shrine model from the early half of the 10th century BCE in Khirbet Qeiyafa; and the Tel Motza temple, dated to the 9th century BCE and located in the neighbourhood of Motza within West Jerusalem.[11][4] The biblical description of Solomon's Temple has also been observed to share similarities with several Syro-Hittite temples of the same period discovered in modern-day Syria and Turkey, such as those in Ain Dara and Tell Tayinat.[12][13] Following Jewish return from exile, Solomon's Temple was replaced with the Second Temple.


Referencing the Solomon's Temple to identify the Tel Arad as Jewish Temple is a religious belief without objective evidence for the existence of the Solomon's Temple.

 

[shunyadragon]

Just like in science we need evidence of this. If you have one example in 10,000 then it is not a very significant problem even though you can point to it as a stand alone data point and not assess it to the 9999 contrary data points.

Science does not depend on one in10000 data points. In basic sciences data point are often what is available as the time of the research and discovery, and increase overtime with more data points with new discoveries and redundant research. In applied sciences data points represent the representative sample used in research and most often repeated of over time,

Well there have to be evidence. The scientific method is very clear about its ethics, and if there are researchers or facilities foing bad science then it tells us something about them, not the method. But there has to be evidence.

True

 

[shunyadragon]

good....



good!

Did the religion which was being practiced in that temple magically poof into existence in 950 BCE?

No, it was a Canaanite city since the 3rd millennium BCE

 

[Argentbear]

As someone who wasn't tagged but holds a post-graduate degree in sciences and was once a career scientist, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this thread or that I am supposed to contribute to it. Deceptive practices in use by "religious people?" Huh? So, people like me along with a bunch of the other colleagues I worked with back when and still have contact with today? I don't understand why "religious people" (as if those are all the same somehow, or aren't also scientists themselves at times) is needed as some qualifier here. It doesn't matter what "type" of person is conducting the research when assessing the soundness of its methodology and conclusions. I do not understand what we are supposed to be doing here. An example would be helpful? Who are these "religious people" specifically and what are they saying?

An example: There are some conservative Christians who produce fake research and junk science that is used to attack LGBT people. Paul Cameron, the founder of the Family Research Institute. in the early 80's Cameron was a psychology professor at the University of Nebraska. He produced his infamous ISIS study making all sorts of claims about homosexuals, Homosexuals' are 4000 times as likely to have a STD. Homosexuals are 20 times more likely than heterosexuals to molest children, and the like. It was discovered that he fabricated the data (what a surprise) he lost his job and lost his accreditation. Other famous Cameron studies was his obituary study where he showed that homosexuals have a life expectancy of 42 years. His "research" is used by countless right wing groups and presented as facts.

 

[dybmh]

No, it was a Canaanite city since the 3rd millennium BCE

Does the temple have anything Canaanite in it? What does the excavation report show?

 

[dybmh]

I question the basis fo believing that the Tel Arad was a Hebrew Temple initially,

That's because you don't know Judaism, don't know our scripture, and don't have the excavation report from Temple Tel Arad.

 

[Ebionite]

Do you have access to the full transcript or at least an unedited version of the video?

No, I don't.

 

[dybmh]

Previously, many scholars accepted the biblical narrative of the First Temple's construction by Solomon as authentic. During the 1980s, skeptical approaches to the biblical text as well as the archaeological record led some scholars to doubt whether there was any Temple in Jerusalem constructed as early as the 10th century BCE.[4] Some scholars have suggested that the original structure built by Solomon was relatively modest, and was later rebuilt on a larger scale.[5] No direct evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple has been found.[6][7] Due to the extreme religious and political sensitivity of the site, no recent archaeological excavations have been conducted on the Temple Mount. Nineteenth and early-twentieth century excavations around the Temple Mount did not identify "even a trace" of the complex.[8] The House of Yahweh ostracon, dated to the 6th century BCE, may refer to the First Temple.[9][10] Two 21st century findings from the Israelite period in present-day Israel have been found bearing resemblance to Solomon's Temple as it is described in the Hebrew Bible: a shrine model from the early half of the 10th century BCE in Khirbet Qeiyafa; and the Tel Motza temple, dated to the 9th century BCE and located in the neighbourhood of Motza within West Jerusalem.[11][4] The biblical description of Solomon's Temple has also been observed to share similarities with several Syro-Hittite temples of the same period discovered in modern-day Syria and Turkey, such as those in Ain Dara and Tell Tayinat.[12][13] Following Jewish return from exile, Solomon's Temple was replaced with the Second Temple.

This has nothing to do with Temple Tel Arad.

 

[Ebionite]

he's telling the truth!

Bull****. The scientific method is the opposite of an unsupported claim.

 

[shunyadragon]

This has nothing to do with Temple Tel Arad.

Everything, because the claim it was a Hebrew Temple is based on the claim it was based on the Solomon temple, which there is no evidence it ever existed,

The Hebrews were a Canaanite tribe, and their religion was predominately Canaanite before 600 BCE.