What We Thought

[Subduction Zone]

It wasn’t my intent to apply that tactic narrowly, to apply it to interpretations of discoveries of only human evolution…. but that is how my post came across.

Well, off the top of my head, I would use the example of Piltdown Man.
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
“Although there were doubts about its authenticity virtually from the beginning, the remains were still broadly accepted for many years.” Over 40, to be exact. But then, it was corrected…so, hurray!

But until that time came in 1953, it was considered “proof” by many. Especially British scientists of the time.

Somewhat similar with Nebraska Man?

Piltdown man was "widely accepted" if you mean in Britain and a bit in the US. It was not widely accepted in the rest of Europe. And Nebraska man was never accepted by any large group of scientists. It is popular only because of an ancient newspaper or magazine article about it. That is not a scientific source. The article was where the picture was drawn and all scientists of that time appear to have objected to that. The use of Nebraska Man is a creationist strawman argument and should be avoid at all costs.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Okay, I understand.


I've not seen any examples of scientists referring to either as an absolute certainty or their interpretation as having been proven. Do you have any?

Question:
Do you accept any concept that you feel hasn’t been proven?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, facts cannot be refuted. However, interpretations of those facts / evidence can.

You do not know what a fact is. By the standard of calling anything a "fact" then human evolution is a fact.

By the way, have you found a scientific theory that has been refuted yet? There are a few.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Question:
Do you accept any concept that you feel hasn’t been proven?

In what sense are you using the word "proven"? It has more than one meaning. Do you mean as in the legal sense? Or in the mathematical sense?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The use of Nebraska Man is a creationist strawman argument and should be avoid at all costs.

OK, got it. I won’t use that as an example again. (I put a question mark there, because I wasn’t sure of it’s acceptance.)

Thanks.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You do not know what a fact is.

You, sir, are too presumptuous. Among other adjectives.

 

[Jose Fly]

Question:
Do you accept any concept that you feel hasn’t been proven?

First, I'll take that as an indication that you don't have any examples of what you claimed. Unless you have something new to offer, I'll consider the matter settled.

To answer your question....of course I do. In fact, I'd say the vast majority of what I accept as true does not meet the standard of "proven".

There seems to be this pervasive and unshakable misconception among creationists that scientists and people who value science only deal in "proof" and only accept things that have been "proven". I can't tell you how many threads and posts I've seen from folks like me to folks like you practically screaming...."science doesn't operate on proof", "things in science are not proven", "science doesn't work that way". Yet no matter what, creationists keep repeating the same error.

I'm still not sure what to chalk that up to. It could simply be that the concept is beyond creationists' ability to grasp. Creationists could be trolling us. It could be a defense mechanism employed to ensure no actual scientific understanding breaches the walls of their faith. It could be a mix of all of those, or it could be something else entirely.

Whatever it is, it's stunningly bizarre to watch at times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You, sir, are too presumptuous.

No, the post that I responded to demonstrated that. Is gravity a fact?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There seems to be this pervasive and unshakable misconception among creationists that scientists and people who value science only deal in "proof" and only accept things that have been "proven".

That’s not the issue, at all! It’s the perception given by scientists, and the way evidence is presented, that is taken by the average layperson, ie., many posters right here on this forum, to mean “absolute certainties.”

That is misleading.

 

[Jose Fly]

That’s not the issue, at all! It’s the perception given by scientists, and the way evidence is presented, that is taken by the average layperson, ie., many posters right here on this forum, to mean “absolute certainties.”

That is misleading.

You know, I've seen this complaint from creationists before, but each time I ask for a specific I don't get much in response. Of the few alleged cases presented, they don't seem to ever be what the creationist claimed.

I recall one case where a creationist complained about textbooks presenting the origin of life as being a settled fact. When I pressed him for specific examples, he linked to a textbook that described everything as a "hypothesis". So I pointed that out and asked how that constitutes "presenting as a settled fact"; he actually said it was "implied". Apparently "it's a hypothesis" = "implied fact"?

So again, if you're going to complain about scientists doing things, you should probably start with specific examples, instead of either expecting folks to just take your word for it, or waiting for someone to ask.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s not the issue, at all! It’s the perception given by scientists, and the way evidence is presented, that is taken by the average layperson, ie., many posters right here on this forum, to mean “absolute certainties.”

That is misleading.

Perhaps you do not like it when people use the word "fact". You do not seem to understand that the limitations that you want to put on the word would make it useful only for mathematics. In mathematics we can have absolute certainty. That does not exist anywhere else. So if you referred to something as a "fact" and it was not mathematical in nature then by the same standards evolution ,and that includes human evolution is a fact. There is a very very very small chance that it could be sown to be wrong. But a "proven fact" is more than enough for me. One does have to be practical at times.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Perhaps you do not like it when people use the word "fact". You do not seem to understand that the limitations that you want to put on the word would make it useful only for mathematics. In mathematics we can have absolute certainty. That does not exist anywhere else. So if you referred to something as a "fact" and it was not mathematical in nature then by the same standards evolution ,and that includes human evolution is a fact. There is a very very very small chance that it could be sown to be wrong. But a "proven fact" is more than enough for me. One does have to be practical at times.

I hope you’re never on my jury.

 

[YoursTrue]

You know, I've seen this complaint from creationists before, but each time I ask for a specific I don't get much in response. Of the few alleged cases presented, they don't seem to ever be what the creationist claimed.

I recall one case where a creationist complained about textbooks presenting the origin of life as being a settled fact. When I pressed him for specific examples, he linked to a textbook that described everything as a "hypothesis". So I pointed that out and asked how that constitutes "presenting as a settled fact"; he actually said it was "implied". Apparently "it's a hypothesis" = "implied fact"?

So again, if you're going to complain about scientists doing things, you should probably start with specific examples, instead of either expecting folks to just take your word for it, or waiting for someone to ask.

OK, Scientists say there is only approximately a 1% difference between the human and chimpanzee protein-coding genomes. There is a difference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I hope you’re never on my jury.

Really? That sounds like you are guilty. An innocent person would love to have someone that understands evidence on their jury. Only the guilty would need to worry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, Scientists say there is only approximately a 1% difference between the human and chimpanzee protein-coding genomes. There is a difference.

Of course. That is why they are different species.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmm, I did wonder if it was all an elaborate attempt to get scientists to admit to believing things, so that some sort of false equivalence could be asserted, hence the way I phrased my initial response.

The proposition: "Both scientists and religious people believe things, therefore science and religion are equivalent" doesn't bear a moment's examination, obviously.

Sadly it's a common creationist tactic.
Which is why I am always on guard when ambiguous terminology is being used.

A scientist in some pop interview might say something like "in science we know believe that gravity...." and they'll jump on it pretending that by the word "believe" here, the scientist means the same type of belief as a christian when he says "In christianity we believe that Jesus....".

The word "theory" is also often the subject of such an argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Take your pick of any superseded scientific theory. There have been quite a few:
Superseded theories in science - Wikipedia
These were not hypotheses, they were accepted.

Funny how you expose your own misrepresentations.
Those are theories. In science, theories by definition aren't presented as "certainties".
Some theories are so well supported that we can say that "it's as certain as can be".
But it remains theory. And as such ALWAYS remains open for questioning, testing, etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It wasn’t my intent to apply that tactic narrowly, to apply it to interpretations of discoveries of only human evolution…. but that is how my post came across.

Well, off the top of my head, I would use the example of Piltdown Man.
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
“Although there were doubts about its authenticity virtually from the beginning, the remains were still broadly accepted for many years.” Over 40, to be exact. But then, it was corrected…so, hurray!

But until that time came in 1953, it was considered “proof” by many. Especially British scientists of the time.

Somewhat similar with Nebraska Man?

You are asked to give an example of something later shown wrong that was previously accepted as an absolute certainty.

And the quoted example you give starts out with "there were doubts about authenticity virtually from the beginning".

Do you do this on purpose?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Question:
Do you accept any concept that you feel hasn’t been proven?

I don't know about "concepts".

But every single scientific theory that I (and you, and everyone else) accept, hasn't been proven.

This is so because scientific theories are never proven. They can only be supported by evidence or disproven. Never "proven".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That’s not the issue, at all! It’s the perception given by scientists, and the way evidence is presented, that is taken by the average layperson, ie., many posters right here on this forum, to mean “absolute certainties.”

That is misleading.

It seems that the people you speak of, those posters, are creationists who don't even accept the theories that you are claiming are being presented as "absolute certainties". Even though you can apparently not even give a single example.

Which of the science minded folks here are taking scientific theories as "absolute certainties"?
Since you refer to "posters on this forum", surely you can point them out then?