You Don't Understand...

[Yerda]

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.

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...

Out of curiosity, and without having trawled through the 12 pages of thread so far, did someone previously tell you that scientists don't make assumption and don't interpret their findings?

 

[metis]

But what the survey makes very clear is that the proportion of scientists who lack belief is far greater than that in the general population.

And those who do have a religious bent of one type or another typically aren't very orthodox.

 

[nPeace]

Out of curiosity, and without having trawled through the 12 pages of thread so far, did someone previously tell you that scientists don't make assumption and don't interpret their findings?

Because of RF's rules, I cannot quote all the posts where persons either 1) refuse to directly or clearly answer the question when asked, or 2) put together a strawman to suggest that the question I asked has a different interpretation to what I asked, therefore making it impossible for them to answer.
Also, yes, I have been told that scientists do not assume or interpret, and when I show that they do, they weave the strawman and accuse me of meaning something else other than assume or interpret... i.e. make up something off the top of the head without reason - not meaning, in the sense of form a hypothesis to test... if you understand what I mean.

 

[Jose Fly]

In my experience, many religious people who don't understand science think that science is just another religion, with a body of facts that must not be questioned, etc. And then when they see that science doesn't work the same way a religion works, they assume that science must be broken, because if a religion acted that way, the religion would be broken. They don't seem able to grasp that science is a completely different way of looking at the world.

That's exactly it. People like @nPeace live in a very religious world that operates very differently than science. So as you note, when they see science not behaving like religion, it confuses and frustrates them.

And thus we get threads like this, where nPeace thinks he's making some sort of point, but won't say what it is no matter how many times he's asked. And eventually the thread ends up where it is now, with nPeace only responding to a couple of the people who post to him and ignoring everyone else.

It's extremely predictable and repetitive.

 

[Yerda]

Because of RF's rules, I cannot quote all the posts where persons either 1) refuse to directly or clearly answer the question when asked, or 2) put together a strawman to suggest that the question I asked has a different interpretation to what I asked, therefore making it impossible for them to answer.
Also, yes, I have been told that scientists do not assume or interpret, and when I show that they do, they weave the strawman and accuse me of meaning something else other than assume or interpret... i.e. make up something off the top of the head without reason - not meaning, in the sense of form a hypothesis to test... if you understand what I mean.

As far as I can tell all scientific theories come with assumptions and all observations only make sense in light of interpretation.

 

[nPeace]

As far as I can tell all scientific theories come with assumptions and all observations only make sense in light of interpretation.

Yes, but they want to claim that to assume, does not mean thinking something is the case, just because they base that assumption on what they study.

For example, this statement does not count as correct,
According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years, during an early period in the age of mammals. Because this record is so complete, paleontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together to illustrate continuous evolution. Source

because as far as they are concerned, the interpretation of the data was based on examining evidence.

I mean, who denied that they did not examine evidence. Isn't that what we all do, when we reach our conclusions... even if we reached that conclusion on an assumption?

I can find a billion of examples like this, but assume is a bad word, to these persons... just because it means "suppose to be the case, without proof"... though they say they are no proofs in science.

Everyone knows there is a difference between proof and evidence... I mean, right, but they think only religious people don't have evidence, so their assumptions fit that definition perfectly, but scientists are let of the hook, because they have evidence.
See how twisted?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Did you say the paper counters the referenced article in the OP?
I did not see that. I understand that it supports the article, while making an observation suggesting an additional possible idea... which is unknown.

It has recently been found that iridescence, a taxonomically widespread form of animal coloration defined by a change in hue with viewing angle, can act as a highly effective form of camouflage. However, little is known about whether iridescence can confer a survival benefit to prey postdetection and, if so, which optical properties of iridescent prey are important for this putative protective function

The team had previously discovered that iridescence can act as a highly efficient form of camouflage, but whether such striking forms of structural coloration could also protect prey post-detection, and if so, what optical properties were important for this effect, remained unknown until now.

So, because prey may be - little is known about that - able to detect the beetle, doesn't rule out that the beetles use the color as camouflage.
That's not a counter argument. It's additional research in understanding more... or better, about the recent discovery.
Looks like your luck ran out.

You know there are underlying assumptions to Christian belief don't you? They may vary with sect and some groups have more or less than others.

 

[osgart]

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.

Scientists use philosophy. They make assumptions and interpretations. However they'll always try to come up with valid tests for those interpretations, and assumptions.

Science can be dead wrong, and for long periods of time, but where they are right there are great, powerful successes, and a lot of useful applications.

I would not compare science to religion though. Religion has a lot of untestable convictions, assumptions, and interpretations. Religion is much more difficult to test and not very open to amendment.

Science can become dogmatic and exist on an esoteric island where it is never challenged by opposition. That's why they say science progresses one funeral at a time.

Popular science promoters do a lot of philosophy in claiming to answer ultimate questions they just don't call it philosophy. I think this kind of popularity only distracts from the endeavour.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, but they want to claim that to assume, does not mean thinking something is the case, just because they base that assumption on what they study.

For example, this statement does not count as correct,
According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years, during an early period in the age of mammals. Because this record is so complete, paleontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together to illustrate continuous evolution. Source

because as far as they are concerned, the interpretation of the data was based on examining evidence.

I mean, who denied that they did not examine evidence. Isn't that what we all do, when we reach our conclusions... even if we reached that conclusion on an assumption?

I can find a billion of examples like this, but assume is a bad word, to these persons... just because it means "suppose to be the case, without proof"... though they say they are no proofs in science.

Everyone knows there is a difference between proof and evidence... I mean, right, but they think only religious people don't have evidence, so their assumptions fit that definition perfectly, but scientists are let of the hook, because they have evidence.
See how twisted?

I think you need to read THIS post...

 

[nPeace]

Scientists use philosophy. They make assumptions and interpretations. However they'll always try to come up with valid tests for those interpretations, and assumptions.

I think this highlights what's not being understood.
Either it's not being understood, or it's being over looked.

For one thing, I'm not referring to hypotheses or ideas that can be tested, but 1) assumptions made on the results from testing hypotheses, and 2) assumptions made, about things that can never ever be tested... ever.

For example...
Perhaps these are what you refer to.
Assumptions of science: 5 reasons you should be skeptical
Before I go deeper, let me clarify that being based on assumptions is not a bad thing. In fact, it’s a necessary thing. There is no such thing as knowledge which is not based on assumptions

However, that not exactly what I am referring to. Although, in those 5 assumptions, there are some which cannot ever ever be tested
Here are other examples of what I mean.

Classic but Questionable
Stanley Miller’s experiment in 1953 is often cited as evidence that spontaneous generation could have happened in the past. The validity of his explanation, however, rests on the presumption that the earth’s primordial atmosphere was “reducing.” That means it contained only the smallest amount of free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why?
The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories points out that if much free oxygen was present, ‘none of the amino acids could even be formed, and if by some chance they were, they would decompose quickly.’ How solid was Miller’s presumption about the so-called primitive atmosphere?

The article refers to a paper Miller published two years after his experiment, in which he said...

“These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed. . . . No direct evidence has yet been found.”​

- Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955.​

However, they assume one.
The article also points to what Robert C. Cowen wrote 25 years later...

Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions. The notion that Earth’s primitive atmosphere was rich in methane and ammonia, partly because such a reducing environment was handy for making “prebiotic” chemicals in “primitive Earth” experiments, doesn’t seem to fit what geochemists take to be the facts. The atmosphere wasn’t all that reducing, they say.​

Source - Technology Review April 1981​

Then we have John Horgan quote in Scientific American (1991), according to the article, which refers again to Miller's assumptions regarding the atmosphere being wrong.
It further points out why this assumption is presented as a reality - though it cannot be tested. Quoting Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose

The Earth's primordial or primitive atmosphere is widely believed not to have contained in its early stage significant amounts of oxygen, for the following reasons:

• (1) even contemporary volcanic outgassings contain practically no oxygen;
• (2) both the primary atmosphere of the evolving proto-Earth and the original secondary atmosphere of the Earth must have been free of oxygen for thermodynamic reasons:
• (3) laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution, as accounted for by present models, would be largely inhibited by oxygen [Chapter 4),
• (4) organic compounds that, ...have accumulated on the surface of the Earth in the course of chemical evolution, are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen;

- Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life pages 44, 45​

It is assumed that the early earth's atmosphere was reducing, because unless that was the case, spontaneous generation of life could not have happened.
So it is assume that 1) life originated spontaneously, 2) conditions must have been just right - earth had a reducing atmosphere - for this to have happened. Yet, there is no direct evidence of this.
How will they test these assumptions?

These assumptions are built on, as real foundations to produce theories.
Similar to my second example - the Phylogenetic tree.
inferring the root of an unrooted tree requires some means of identifying ancestry. This is normally done by including an outgroup in the input data so that the root is necessarily between the outgroup and the rest of the taxa in the tree, or by introducing additional assumptions about the relative rates of evolution on each branch, such as an application of the molecular clock hypothesis.

There are all ideas though, aren't they?
However, I hope I clearly explained what assumptions I am referring to.
There are many others.
Feel free to read the remainder of the article.

Science can be dead wrong, and for long periods of time, but where they are right there are great, powerful successes, and a lot of useful applications.

I have no problem with that. Question is, when are they right, and how would we know?

I would not compare science to religion though. Religion has a lot of untestable convictions, assumptions, and interpretations. Religion is much more difficult to test and not very open to amendment.

I'm not comparing the two, but simply showing that it has methods of investigation that are not unscientific or invalid, due to their not being the same.

Science can become dogmatic and exist on an esoteric island where it is never challenged by opposition. That's why they say science progresses one funeral at a time.

Popular science promoters do a lot of philosophy in claiming to answer ultimate questions they just don't call it philosophy. I think this kind of popularity only distracts from the endeavour.

It's no wonder this guy says, Science is an invented tool, not a fundamental aspect of nature. Yet even the majority of scientists are unaware of its limitations.
Wait, What!? I didn't say it... but I agree.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's exactly it. People like @nPeace live in a very religious world that operates very differently than science. So as you note, when they see science not behaving like religion, it confuses and frustrates them.

And thus we get threads like this, where nPeace thinks he's making some sort of point, but won't say what it is no matter how many times he's asked. And eventually the thread ends up where it is now, with nPeace only responding to a couple of the people who post to him and ignoring everyone else.

It's extremely predictable and repetitive.

I don't get that. Why bother making a thread at all if you are not going to respond to the reasonable posts of most of the respondents? I'm guessing that discussion and debate are not the central focus here, but just the false equivalence that any random conclusion by any person is as valid as a scientific conclusion. Or the misrepresentation of assumption to mean guess and that scientific assumptions are somehow secret when they are not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because of RF's rules, I cannot quote all the posts where persons either 1) refuse to directly or clearly answer the question when asked, or 2) put together a strawman to suggest that the question I asked has a different interpretation to what I asked, therefore making it impossible for them to answer.
Also, yes, I have been told that scientists do not assume or interpret, and when I show that they do, they weave the strawman and accuse me of meaning something else other than assume or interpret... i.e. make up something off the top of the head without reason - not meaning, in the sense of form a hypothesis to test... if you understand what I mean.

What straw man do you keep referring to? Where are your examples?