If I have questions about the conclusions of a paper in astrophysics, are you suggesting that I can get answers from the interpretation of a dog walker or molecular biologist that are equally as sound and informed as those of the cosmologists that did the study?
Are the interpretations of the Bible by John Smith, a recent Christian and Primitive Baptist from Albuquerque, New Mexico going to be as sound and similar as Mary's, a lifelong Catholic from Detroit, Aarne Sarr, a Christian biblical scholar from Estonia that has spent 40 years studying the Bible or Nigel I. Jones from England who has been a Jehovah's Witness for 10 years? Wouldn't their interpretations be based on their backgrounds, the ideology of their respective religions and personal level of education? Do you think that an expert (the scholar) with greater access to material and extensive education and study is going to be the least knowledgeable of the fictional group of people in my question?
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 accountthe 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.
Did they reach a conclusion based on knowledge they already had? Yes.
Did they just make a random guess they pulled out of their butt? No.
Why is it that anti-science people always hear scientists say "assumption" in the sense of the first definition and always interpret it to mean the second?
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 accountthe 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...
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.
Are you trying to claim that new discoveries using science invalidate all previous assumptions, invalidate all scientific assumptions and conclusions or that there is a context that an expert would be aware of and would adjust their interpretations on accordingly?
I am just trying to understand what it is you are intending here and understand what it is that you think that you have done.
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?
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
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
It appears you are attempting to equate scientific assumptions to how that term is used by the general public. Those are two different and not equal definitions.
Can you provide evidence that scientists are using assumption to mean baseless speculation all the time?
I haven't seen any straw man arguments for you to not respond to. Can you point out any so that I may know them for what they are?
Do you have any more recent examples? Can you provide evidence that the use of the word "belief" in the context was intended to convey a view without a basis of evidence? It seems that the finding of fossils would be evidence to show it is not being used to convey a baseless belief on speculation or faith that something is there without evidence.
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.
Perhaps it is that you misunderstand the meaning of straw man arguments and confuse them with questions for you to answer to help clarify your position.
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 accountthe 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...
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 read the article on the beetle coloration. The word assumption is wrongly given there. The word that should have been used is "hypothesis based on existing evidence". Assumption in lay person language usually means a belief without evidence. No such thing is accepted in science. In fact the best way to do science is to identify hidden untested assumptions and then test them to see if they are in fact evidence based or not. The article notes that the previous hypothesis on coloration had evidence in it's support. So it cannot be called an assumption. The authors created a counter hypothesis and provided some evidence in their support. It's far from clear if that is enough to overturn the previous hypothesis. Further work needs to be done on this front.
Scientists often call such a hypotheses by the word assumption, but it is actually not. It is poor wording from the perspective of the scientists. The language skills of most graduate students are not great and it's not something we care overmuch while reporting research.
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.
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.
Part of the scientific method is the creation of falsifiable hypotheses. These hypotheses may be sustained over time, increasing their truth value, but they can also be falsified.
You could call these hypotheses assumptions, but I think this would be inaccurate. In science, these "assumptions" are made for the purposes of being tested and peer-reviewed, which I think is probably the opposite of assuming that they are true.
To me, an "assumption" has the connotation of a failure of inference, essentially asserting that which one does not have evidence for. Justified claims are not assumptions, but they should still be tested and peer-reviewed because they might be wrong, which is what we see here.
Yes, and these competing interpretations set forward their own hypotheses for further testing, that way we can empirically show which interpretation is more likely to be correct. This means that scientific consensus eventually forms in proportion to the evidence.
I think I should point out that science is always developing, and just because it does not have concrete answers on everything it is investigating, that does not mean that science is just based on assumption or subjective interpretation.
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.
I think a claim is only dismissed (or should only be dismissed) if it is unfalsifiable. Even if it is falsifiable, but testing it is outside of the scope of our current technology, it will often be "put on the backburner" of scientific thought until we can test it. This is what we did with black holes and now we have a picture of one.
There are some hypotheses of a Creator of the universe that might one day be testable. A simulated universe following mathematical monism might unearth evidence of a programmer. CTMU might create a working Theory of Everything that can directly demonstrate the truth of panpsychism. And so on.
These claims are not wholly dismissed by science, but they merely have yet to provide any compelling evidence yet, and so they aren't accepted. There are still scientists to this day who continue to investigate paranormal claims, even if none of them have provided enough evidence for the existence of the paranormal.
I don't know of any evidence that has been refuted or what that even means.
I am responding under the assumption that you posted in error and meant claims of evidence instead of evidence and are not attempting to build the basis of a straw man argument. Or were you talking about subjective evidence that cannot be verified outside of the person claiming the evidence and what it means?
My comment was that claims of (about) evidence have been refuted. Perhaps you missed that. I do not know of any claim of the existence of a deity, designer, god or God or poly versions that have ever been supported unambiguously by physical evidence. Are you claiming to have that evidence or do you expect to find it when you read up?
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?
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
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
I am confused. It appears here that the group whose hypothesis was eventually confirmed by the greater weight of evidence got accepted. What is problematic here?
I think a claim is only dismissed (or should only be dismissed) if it is unfalsifiable. Even if it is falsifiable, but testing it is outside of the scope of our current technology, it will often be "put on the backburner" of scientific thought until we can test it. This is what we did with black holes and now we have a picture of one.
There are some hypotheses of a Creator of the universe that might one day be testable. A simulated universe following mathematical monism might unearth evidence of a programmer. CTMU might create a working Theory of Everything that can directly demonstrate the truth of panpsychism. And so on.
These claims are not wholly dismissed by science, but they merely have yet to provide any compelling evidence yet, and so they aren't accepted. There are still scientists to this day who continue to investigate paranormal claims, even if none of them have provided enough evidence for the existence of the paranormal.
I've read this three times and I cannot say that I disagree with you, yet there is something I think I am missing. Claims of the supernatural are unfalsifiable, lacking the evidence for them to test. I'm not clear enough on your examples of some claims with potential to be tested and am unfamiliar with panpsychism in total. At first blush they look to me to remain unfalsifiable as versions of the supernatural. Still, you have given me something to think about.
#1 Assumptions in science... 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?[/SPOILER]
Goodness, not being an entomologist, I have no opinion about the matter being disputed.
But the principles of dispute in science are clear and long established. Arguments should be based on empirical evidence and induction, all relevant facts should be put on the table, and their relationship to any particular conclusion should be clearly set out. Assumptions should be clearly marked as such, and relevant alternative assumptions addressed. Honesty and frankness are implicit in the process.
Which side wins the debate will be decided in the short term by the opinions of the best qualified in that area, and in the long term by what we're still to learn.
Scientific conclusions are not ultimate truths ─ there are none ─ and are not justified by infallible judgments ─ there are none ─ but their justification comes from whether they work or not to satisfy the relevant question, and whether they prove in the short, middle and long term to accurately describe reality.
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 accountthe 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...
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.
That's the point about science, one should always remain critical about what is being claimed.
I think a footnote should be added to correct mistaken claims. Don't want someone else reading it and making the same wrong assumptions.
I've read this three times and I cannot say that I disagree with you, yet there is something I think I am missing. Claims of the supernatural are unfalsifiable, lacking the evidence for them to test. I'm not clear enough on your examples of some claims with potential to be tested and am unfamiliar with panpsychism in total. At first blush they look to me to remain unfalsifiable as versions of the supernatural. Still, you have given me something to think about.
I don't think that the supernatural is necessarily unfalsifiable. If supernatural phenomena exist, then they would be a sub-set of the natural, by definition. The "nature" referred to in the term "supernatural" comes from several centuries ago when that word had yet to be formally defined in science.
This is why the CIA was able to conduct experiments on topics like remote viewing, precognition, and psychokinesis, which are generally considered supernatural phenomena. Scientists have also studied ghost sightings, seances, meditation, the efficacy of prayer, and so on.
It just happens that the supernatural explanations for these phenomena never stand up to serious scrutiny.
Assumptions based on evidence is how it works and how it changes, how you live a good life of 3 to 4 times the lifespan of people just a few hundred years ago. How you can use your computing device to post on RF. All assumptions that have developed and changed scientific thinking and changed the world for the better.
No, who says its no good? There are s good number of scientists who belive in religion, do they say its no good?
What is said is there is no evidence aspects of religion actually exist. They can reconcile with that. Its called faith
I asked based on your comment "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.". Nevermind. I have misunderstood you.
What "claims" are you referring to that were refuted?
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.
I don't think I'm formulating this correctly, we'll see if you can infer my meaning through what I think is a decimation of what you presented:
"If Barnaby intentionally speaks untruth, then he is a liar." True or false? True
"If Barnaby unintentionally speaks untruth, then he is a liar." True or false? False.
"If Barnaby knows his claims are false, then he cannot be trusted." True or false? True.
"If Barnaby does not know his claims are false, then he can be trusted." True or false? False?
(Is this a false negative or just my ineptitude to properly formulate such an argument?)
Edit: Added this section to clarify intent and method.
In this ambiguous scenario, Barnaby is not a ¹liar but cannot or should not be trusted due to naivete.
My intention here, is to reveal the value and importance of having institutions that reward members credentials if they persevere and achieve the standards upheld by its laureates. Even if he's honest, you cannot trust a layman like myself, only consider his position.
¹In that a lie is a statement known to be false and intentionally made to manipulate or trick.
Well, if scientists agrees in conventional and consensual hypothesis, theories, and ideas, they don´t interpret differently and their assumptive approach to the issues are then very much the same,
A bad example of believing blindly in an assumption, is Newtons 350 year old unexplained and assumed gravity and "law of celestial motions" which failed in galactic scales.
And all the scientists did about this contradiction, was to assume and invent yet another occult agency, "dark matter", instead of revising their prime assumption and contradiction according to good scientific method and practice.
And now have the scientists looked for this assumed "dark matter" for about a century and (logically, as its all in the minds of these scientists) they can´t fint it - but STILL they interpret and ascribe all kinds of not understood cosmic observations to this "dark matter".
