You Don't Understand...

[nPeace]

What?

#1 Assumptions in science...

Spoiler: Assumptions of Scientists

Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.

Should this article be rewritten, and corrected? Are the wrong words used here?
I understand that it was previously believed, and assumed that the bright color patterns of beetles were a warning signal to predators, but this belief was debunked.
I think you don't understand what an assumption in science is.

As the first ecologist to examine the colour patterns of live leaf beetles in relation to their host plants, Dr Tan contextualised the colour patterns of beetles to their natural habitats, which allowed her to challenge the prevailing theory among coleopterists -- scientists who study beetles -- that the bright colours of leaf beetles developed as a deterrent signal to predators. These colourful markings were assumed to be a warning to predators against eating the beetles, which are able to secrete poisonous chemicals in self-defence. However, this idea was based on earlier studies, which focused on using museum collections of beetle specimens for their analyses. While this method affords researchers a large number of samples, the discolouration of deceased specimens made accurate colour analysis of the beetles impossible. Furthermore, such methodology also fails to take into account the colouration of each beetle's natural environment.

Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators,

So question.
Did the scientists Dr. Tan challenged, make assumptions?
It's a simple answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. However, if you want to prolong this with the usual yapping around the obvious, I created this thread with that expectation. So, I got time.

What?

#2 Interpretations in science...

Spoiler: Interpretations of Scientists

Experiments
In a series of experiments (in 1891, 1893 and 1895) on the action of light on the coloration of flatfish, Cunningham directed light upon the lower sides of flatfishes by means of a glass-bottomed tank placed over a mirror. He discovered that light causes the production of pigments on the lower sides of flatfishes, and gave his results a Lamarckian interpretation. Other scientists interpreted his results differently. George Romanes wrote approvingly of Cunningham's interpretation, but the geneticist William Bateson was not convinced that the cause of the increase in pigmentation was from the illumination. Thomas Hunt Morgan criticized the experiments and did not believe the results were evidence for Lamarckism.

Should this article be rewritten, and corrected? Are the wrong words used here?
I understand that data, or results can be an indication of more than one conclusion. As long as there is circumstantial evidence, scientists do come up with diferent interpretations... and as seen from the previous reference, assumptions can be ran away with, especially when other factors are dismissed; not considered; etc.
I think you don't understand what an interpretation in science is. Either that, or you are feigning ignorance, becase you think I am stupid.

So, question...
Do scientists have different interpretations for the results of an experiment, or study?
Again, it's a simple answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. However, if you want to prolong this with the usual yapping around the obvious...

What?

#3 Speculations in sciences...
First... a breather.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What?

#1 Assumptions in science...

Spoiler: Assumptions of Scientists

Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.

Should this article be rewritten, and corrected? Are the wrong words used here?
I understand that it was previously believed, and assumed that the bright color patterns of beetles were a warning signal to predators, but this belief was debunked.
I think you don't understand what an assumption in science is.

As the first ecologist to examine the colour patterns of live leaf beetles in relation to their host plants, Dr Tan contextualised the colour patterns of beetles to their natural habitats, which allowed her to challenge the prevailing theory among coleopterists -- scientists who study beetles -- that the bright colours of leaf beetles developed as a deterrent signal to predators. These colourful markings were assumed to be a warning to predators against eating the beetles, which are able to secrete poisonous chemicals in self-defence. However, this idea was based on earlier studies, which focused on using museum collections of beetle specimens for their analyses. While this method affords researchers a large number of samples, the discolouration of deceased specimens made accurate colour analysis of the beetles impossible. Furthermore, such methodology also fails to take into account the colouration of each beetle's natural environment.

Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators,

So question.
Did the scientists Dr. Tan challenged, make assumptions?
It's a simple answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. However, if you want to prolong this with the usual yapping around the obvious, I created this thread with that expectation. So, I got time.

What?

#2 Interpretations in science...

Spoiler: Interpretations of Scientists

Experiments
In a series of experiments (in 1891, 1893 and 1895) on the action of light on the coloration of flatfish, Cunningham directed light upon the lower sides of flatfishes by means of a glass-bottomed tank placed over a mirror. He discovered that light causes the production of pigments on the lower sides of flatfishes, and gave his results a Lamarckian interpretation. Other scientists interpreted his results differently. George Romanes wrote approvingly of Cunningham's interpretation, but the geneticist William Bateson was not convinced that the cause of the increase in pigmentation was from the illumination. Thomas Hunt Morgan criticized the experiments and did not believe the results were evidence for Lamarckism.

Should this article be rewritten, and corrected? Are the wrong words used here?
I understand that data, or results can be an indication of more than one conclusion. As long as there is circumstantial evidence, scientists do come up with diferent interpretations... and as seen from the previous reference, assumptions can be ran away with, especially when other factors are dismissed; not considered; etc.
I think you don't understand what an interpretation in science is. Either that, or you are feigning ignorance, becase you think I am stupid.

So, question...
Do scientists have different interpretations for the results of an experiment, or study?
Again, it's a simple answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. However, if you want to prolong this with the usual yapping around the obvious...

What?

#3 Speculations in sciences...
First... a breather.

So one scientist thinks another is mistaken about something. That is fairly common. There are very famous examples of them getting very hot about it, too when feelings get hurt; but assumptions are acceptable in Science provided that you specify what your assumptions are. If you hide your assumptions or fail to identify them then that is a mistake. What Dr. Tan has done is to identify an assumption that has gone unnoticed.

Why? Logical constructs in philosophy work on an if--then form. If this then that. Your assumptions are part of the 'If this'. Logic is actually course that people study, but its all about if--then. If this is true then that is true. With a logical argument you take things people agree about and then build on it. "If Barnaby is a liar then we cannot trust him." True or false? True. "If Barnaby is a liar then we can trust him." True or false. False. This is the bare bottom on which all of the reasoning is built in formal debates. In a nasty argument environment such as politics people will hide their assumptions or dress them up; but that is not acceptable for scientific work. If you hide your assumptions in scientific work and are caught by your peers you will lose reputation and money.

 

[nPeace]

So one scientist thinks another is mistaken about something. That is fairly common. There are very famous examples of them getting very hot about it, too when feelings get hurt; but assumptions are acceptable in Science provided that you specify what your assumptions are. If you hide your assumptions or fail to identify them then that is a mistake. What Dr. Tan has done is to identify an assumption that has gone unnoticed.

Thank you.

 

[Kenny]

What?

#1 Assumptions in science...

Spoiler: Assumptions of Scientists

Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.

Should this article be rewritten, and corrected? Are the wrong words used here?
I understand that it was previously believed, and assumed that the bright color patterns of beetles were a warning signal to predators, but this belief was debunked.
I think you don't understand what an assumption in science is.

As the first ecologist to examine the colour patterns of live leaf beetles in relation to their host plants, Dr Tan contextualised the colour patterns of beetles to their natural habitats, which allowed her to challenge the prevailing theory among coleopterists -- scientists who study beetles -- that the bright colours of leaf beetles developed as a deterrent signal to predators. These colourful markings were assumed to be a warning to predators against eating the beetles, which are able to secrete poisonous chemicals in self-defence. However, this idea was based on earlier studies, which focused on using museum collections of beetle specimens for their analyses. While this method affords researchers a large number of samples, the discolouration of deceased specimens made accurate colour analysis of the beetles impossible. Furthermore, such methodology also fails to take into account the colouration of each beetle's natural environment.

Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators,

So question.
Did the scientists Dr. Tan challenged, make assumptions?
It's a simple answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. However, if you want to prolong this with the usual yapping around the obvious, I created this thread with that expectation. So, I got time.

What?

#2 Interpretations in science...

Spoiler: Interpretations of Scientists

Experiments
In a series of experiments (in 1891, 1893 and 1895) on the action of light on the coloration of flatfish, Cunningham directed light upon the lower sides of flatfishes by means of a glass-bottomed tank placed over a mirror. He discovered that light causes the production of pigments on the lower sides of flatfishes, and gave his results a Lamarckian interpretation. Other scientists interpreted his results differently. George Romanes wrote approvingly of Cunningham's interpretation, but the geneticist William Bateson was not convinced that the cause of the increase in pigmentation was from the illumination. Thomas Hunt Morgan criticized the experiments and did not believe the results were evidence for Lamarckism.

Should this article be rewritten, and corrected? Are the wrong words used here?
I understand that data, or results can be an indication of more than one conclusion. As long as there is circumstantial evidence, scientists do come up with diferent interpretations... and as seen from the previous reference, assumptions can be ran away with, especially when other factors are dismissed; not considered; etc.
I think you don't understand what an interpretation in science is. Either that, or you are feigning ignorance, becase you think I am stupid.

So, question...
Do scientists have different interpretations for the results of an experiment, or study?
Again, it's a simple answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. However, if you want to prolong this with the usual yapping around the obvious...

What?

#3 Speculations in sciences...
First... a breather.

I think you are providing valid points. As a matter of fact, that is the point I make about looking at this world... scientists say it was chance but I think they are looking at the evidence that I see and interpreting it wrong.

God has given everything purpose.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What?

#1 Assumptions in science...

Spoiler: Assumptions of Scientists

Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.

Should this article be rewritten, and corrected? Are the wrong words used here?
I understand that it was previously believed, and assumed that the bright color patterns of beetles were a warning signal to predators, but this belief was debunked.
I think you don't understand what an assumption in science is.

As the first ecologist to examine the colour patterns of live leaf beetles in relation to their host plants, Dr Tan contextualised the colour patterns of beetles to their natural habitats, which allowed her to challenge the prevailing theory among coleopterists -- scientists who study beetles -- that the bright colours of leaf beetles developed as a deterrent signal to predators. These colourful markings were assumed to be a warning to predators against eating the beetles, which are able to secrete poisonous chemicals in self-defence. However, this idea was based on earlier studies, which focused on using museum collections of beetle specimens for their analyses. While this method affords researchers a large number of samples, the discolouration of deceased specimens made accurate colour analysis of the beetles impossible. Furthermore, such methodology also fails to take into account the colouration of each beetle's natural environment.

Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators,

So question.
Did the scientists Dr. Tan challenged, make assumptions?
It's a simple answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. However, if you want to prolong this with the usual yapping around the obvious, I created this thread with that expectation. So, I got time.

What?

#2 Interpretations in science...

Spoiler: Interpretations of Scientists

Experiments
In a series of experiments (in 1891, 1893 and 1895) on the action of light on the coloration of flatfish, Cunningham directed light upon the lower sides of flatfishes by means of a glass-bottomed tank placed over a mirror. He discovered that light causes the production of pigments on the lower sides of flatfishes, and gave his results a Lamarckian interpretation. Other scientists interpreted his results differently. George Romanes wrote approvingly of Cunningham's interpretation, but the geneticist William Bateson was not convinced that the cause of the increase in pigmentation was from the illumination. Thomas Hunt Morgan criticized the experiments and did not believe the results were evidence for Lamarckism.

Should this article be rewritten, and corrected? Are the wrong words used here?
I understand that data, or results can be an indication of more than one conclusion. As long as there is circumstantial evidence, scientists do come up with diferent interpretations... and as seen from the previous reference, assumptions can be ran away with, especially when other factors are dismissed; not considered; etc.
I think you don't understand what an interpretation in science is. Either that, or you are feigning ignorance, becase you think I am stupid.

So, question...
Do scientists have different interpretations for the results of an experiment, or study?
Again, it's a simple answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. However, if you want to prolong this with the usual yapping around the obvious...

What?

#3 Speculations in sciences...
First... a breather.

The first study does not overturn warning coloration and camouflage is not some new conclusion in general. It is using new data to indicate that bright colors are not always for warning. Sometimes they are camouflage when the coloration matches the host plant.

The second series is 130 years old and no one would expect it to be interpreted in a modern light.

Based on what you are trying to do, I don't think you understand interpretation or assumption in science

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think you are providing valid points. As a matter of fact, that is the point I make about looking at this world... scientists say it was chance but I think they are looking at the evidence that I see and interpreting it wrong.

God has given everything purpose.

I don't agree that scientists claim that everything that exists is by chance. It is just that there is no evidence to conclude the actions of a guiding hand. To date, all claims of evidence for such guidance have been refuted.

 

[Kenny]

I don't agree that scientists claim that everything that exists is by chance. It is just that there is no evidence to conclude the actions of a guiding hand. To date, all claims of evidence for such guidance have been refuted.

not refuted but rather have just given their perspective and thoughts like the scientists but I don't want to take away from @nPeace OP... let's follow his lead and post.

 

[nPeace]

For those scientists who would fight tooth and nail to deny, or not admit the fact that scientists do make assumptions... often, which are often wrong, and those are reported in journals, with words similar to... ""it was widely assumed / believed..." "scientists believed / assumed...", the OP does not respond to strawman arguments.

Either scientists make assumptions, or they don't. Either they have different interpretations or they don't.
It's as simple as that.

If you do not think scientists make assumptions, which are at times wrong, and scientists have different interpretations, then you don't understand science, and have no understanding of what an interpretation and assumption is, in science.

If any scientists thinks that science prior to the year 2000 lacked scientific methods, then they do not understand what science is.

Plutonism - Wikipedia
Plutonists strongly disputed the neptunist view that rocks had formed by processes that no longer operated, instead supporting Hutton's theory. A key issue of the debate revolved around the neptunist belief that basalt was sedimentary, and some fossils had been found in it. Against this, Hutton's supporter John Playfair (1748-1819) argued that this rock contained no fossils as it had formed from molten magma, and it had been found cutting through other rocks in volcanic dykes. The arguments continued into the early 19th century, and eventually the plutonist views on the origin of rocks prevailed in the wake of the work of Charles Lyell in the 1830s, who incorporated this theory into Uniformitarianism. However, geologists regard sedimentary rocks such as limestone as having resulted from processes like those described by the neptunists.

Following the Historical Development, we read of two prevailing theories - Plutonism, and Neptunism, where scientists argued and opposed each other's views / beliefs. Both sides had evidence to support their views.

Reading up on the Plutonist and Neptunist Schism, we read of the war that continued between these scientists.
There were many opposing views, with one view holding stronger than the other, due to "to a larger degree of individuals within the university and scientific community being influenced by", not data, but scientists.
They all had evidence. They all pointed to what the results indicated to them.
Another "theory" gained favor with the scientific community as the "current best explanation".

Should the article be rewritten? Were wrong words used - beliefs, views, argued...?
Aren't scientists men, or do some think they are infallible gods?

Spoiler: When Scientist Believe

Archaeological excavations in the Qafzeh Cave in the mountain found human remains, whose estimated age is 100,000 years old. The human skeletons were associated with red ochre which was found only alongside the bones, suggesting that the burials were symbolic in nature. Previous to this discovery, scientists believed that human symbolic reasoning evolved much later, about 50,000 years ago.

Carcinisation is believed to have occurred independently in at least five groups of decapod crustaceans:
King crabs, which most scientists believe evolved from hermit crab ancestors First appearance: Late Cenozoic

Emission theory of vision – the belief that vision is caused by rays emanating from the eyes was superseded by the intro-mission approach and more complex theories of vision

The moon is much older than some scientists believe, a research team now reports.

Spinosaurus is known to have eaten fish, and most scientists believe that it hunted both terrestrial and aquatic prey. Evidence suggests that it was highly semiaquatic, and lived both on land and in water much like modern crocodilians do

Some scientists believed that modern ungulates were descended from an evolutionary grade of mammals known as the condylarths
These animals had unusual triangular teeth very similar to those of primitive cetaceans. This is why scientists long believed that cetaceans evolved from a form of mesonychid. Today, many scientists believe cetaceans evolved from the same stock that gave rise to hippopotamuses.

 

[nPeace]

not refuted but rather have just given their perspective and thoughts like the scientists but I don't want to take away from @nPeace OP... let's follow his lead and post.

Thanks Ken.
I just addressed that. Hopefully, it was clear.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, question...
Do scientists have different interpretations for the results of an experiment, or study?

Of course. Therefore?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

not refuted but rather have just given their perspective and thoughts like the scientists but I don't want to take away from @nPeace OP... let's follow his lead and post.

I do not know of any claim of guidance that has held up nor seen any evidence offered that would support such claims, so refuted is the applicable description.

I think this is a good example of scientific interpretation. Where there is no evidence to support a claim, that claim can be dismissed as conjecture from a scientific perspective.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks Ken.
I just addressed that. Hopefully, it was clear.

Where was this addressed?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course. Therefore?

Scientific arguments over details of theory, experiment or observation has often been exploded into an erroneous view that theory is somehow wrong.

This seems to be the case being attempted with what interpretation and assumption mean too.

The odd thing is that no interpretation refuting the science is ever offered. Only the attempt to damage existing understanding and conclusion in science. As if doing that causes everything to fall apart and personal belief becomes the default explanation.

 

[nPeace]

I think you are providing valid points. As a matter of fact, that is the point I make about looking at this world... scientists say it was chance but I think they are looking at the evidence that I see and interpreting it wrong.

God has given everything purpose.

I like the words used in the article... Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators.
...this idea was based on earlier studies, which focused on using museum collections of beetle specimens for their analyses. While this method affords researchers a large number of samples, the discolouration of deceased specimens made accurate colour analysis of the beetles impossible. Furthermore, such methodology also fails to take into account the colouration of each beetle's natural environment.

I think that's telling.
Using limited, evidence; focusing on one aspect; ignoring or not taking into consideration other factors... All these make assumptions easy, and wrong interpretations and conclusions.

I like the words chosen to describe these, in this video.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I like the words used in the article... Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators.
...this idea was based on earlier studies, which focused on using museum collections of beetle specimens for their analyses. While this method affords researchers a large number of samples, the discolouration of deceased specimens made accurate colour analysis of the beetles impossible. Furthermore, such methodology also fails to take into account the colouration of each beetle's natural environment.

I think that's telling.
Using limited, evidence; focusing on one aspect; ignoring or not taking into consideration other factors... All these make assumptions easy, and wrong interpretations and conclusions.

I like the words chosen to describe these, in this video.

What is it telling you? What is your interpretation?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I like the words used in the article... Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators.
...this idea was based on earlier studies, which focused on using museum collections of beetle specimens for their analyses. While this method affords researchers a large number of samples, the discolouration of deceased specimens made accurate colour analysis of the beetles impossible. Furthermore, such methodology also fails to take into account the colouration of each beetle's natural environment.

I think that's telling.
Using limited, evidence; focusing on one aspect; ignoring or not taking into consideration other factors... All these make assumptions easy, and wrong interpretations and conclusions.

I like the words chosen to describe these, in this video.

How do you know that other factors were not considered in previous studies? Maybe they were recognized, but based on the availability of study material the conclusions were offered under the outlined conditions. Experts would know these things.

Previous studies would not have offered conclusions they did not have the evidence to support.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I like the words used in the article... Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators.
...this idea was based on earlier studies, which focused on using museum collections of beetle specimens for their analyses. While this method affords researchers a large number of samples, the discolouration of deceased specimens made accurate colour analysis of the beetles impossible. Furthermore, such methodology also fails to take into account the colouration of each beetle's natural environment.

I think that's telling.
Using limited, evidence; focusing on one aspect; ignoring or not taking into consideration other factors... All these make assumptions easy, and wrong interpretations and conclusions.

I like the words chosen to describe these, in this video.

You did look at the studies that do support coloration being used as warning didn't you?

 

[nPeace]

Of course. Therefore?

Thanks. Therefore, that's all I want to hear.
Why are they afraid to admit it?
Is it because they accuse religion of having different interpretations of scripture... using that as a basis to say it is no good?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks. Therefore, that's all I want to hear.
Why are they afraid to admit it?
Is it because they accuse religion of having different interpretations of scripture... using that as a basis to say it is no good?

Afraid to admit what exactly?

People do have different interpretations of scripture. You have a different interpretation than I do. Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have different interpretations of scripture.

What it appears you want to do is to marginalize scientific interpretation as mere speculation and it is not and you have failed in your efforts to make that seem so.

 

[Tiberius]

What?

#1 Assumptions in science...

Spoiler: Assumptions of Scientists

Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head.

Should this article be rewritten, and corrected? Are the wrong words used here?
I understand that it was previously believed, and assumed that the bright color patterns of beetles were a warning signal to predators, but this belief was debunked.
I think you don't understand what an assumption in science is.

As the first ecologist to examine the colour patterns of live leaf beetles in relation to their host plants, Dr Tan contextualised the colour patterns of beetles to their natural habitats, which allowed her to challenge the prevailing theory among coleopterists -- scientists who study beetles -- that the bright colours of leaf beetles developed as a deterrent signal to predators. These colourful markings were assumed to be a warning to predators against eating the beetles, which are able to secrete poisonous chemicals in self-defence. However, this idea was based on earlier studies, which focused on using museum collections of beetle specimens for their analyses. While this method affords researchers a large number of samples, the discolouration of deceased specimens made accurate colour analysis of the beetles impossible. Furthermore, such methodology also fails to take into account the colouration of each beetle's natural environment.

Taken together, the findings of this study "point to a complex suite of factors driving natural selection, such as types of predators and host plant choice, which affect the evolution of colouration in leaf beetles," said Dr Tan. Challenging the assumption that the sole explanation for bright coloration in leaf beetles is meant to ward off predators,

So question.
Did the scientists Dr. Tan challenged, make assumptions?
It's a simple answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. However, if you want to prolong this with the usual yapping around the obvious, I created this thread with that expectation. So, I got time.

What?

#2 Interpretations in science...

Spoiler: Interpretations of Scientists

Experiments
In a series of experiments (in 1891, 1893 and 1895) on the action of light on the coloration of flatfish, Cunningham directed light upon the lower sides of flatfishes by means of a glass-bottomed tank placed over a mirror. He discovered that light causes the production of pigments on the lower sides of flatfishes, and gave his results a Lamarckian interpretation. Other scientists interpreted his results differently. George Romanes wrote approvingly of Cunningham's interpretation, but the geneticist William Bateson was not convinced that the cause of the increase in pigmentation was from the illumination. Thomas Hunt Morgan criticized the experiments and did not believe the results were evidence for Lamarckism.

Should this article be rewritten, and corrected? Are the wrong words used here?
I understand that data, or results can be an indication of more than one conclusion. As long as there is circumstantial evidence, scientists do come up with diferent interpretations... and as seen from the previous reference, assumptions can be ran away with, especially when other factors are dismissed; not considered; etc.
I think you don't understand what an interpretation in science is. Either that, or you are feigning ignorance, becase you think I am stupid.

So, question...
Do scientists have different interpretations for the results of an experiment, or study?
Again, it's a simple answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. However, if you want to prolong this with the usual yapping around the obvious...

What?

#3 Speculations in sciences...
First... a breather.

I thought you started this thread as a way to show that religious people used scientific thinking in order to reach their religious ideas.