Science is close-minded

[InfiniteNow]

HydrogenBond,

 

You've shown repeatedly through your posts here and elsewhere how poorly and inaccurate your understanding of evolution is. To be frank, your comments are not to be taken seriously on this topic.

[Thunderbird]

No, they don't. Only stupid people who don't understand the true nature of science do this. Try again. :eek:

 

 

 

 

Only if they are dogmatic, and lack a proper understanding of the nature of science.

 

 

 

Again, only the stupid ones. Don't let yourself be part of that group. :D

 

HydrogenBond,

 

You've shown repeatedly through your posts here and elsewhere how poorly and inaccurate your understanding of evolution is. To be frank, your comments are not to be taken seriously on this topic.

 

When a person such as yourself, group people into factions as one of the “stupid ones” especially when your referring to hydro a person that is attempting to think for himself, instead of just parroting outdated information, exemplifies what the thread is about. Hydro knows very well what the current evidence is. He also recognizes where theoretical models of evolution may need revision

[InfiniteNow]

When a person such as yourself, group people into factions as one of the “stupid ones” especially when your referring to hydro a person that is attempting to think for himself, instead of just parroting outdated information, exemplifies what the thread is about. Hydro knows very well what the current evidence is. He also recognizes where theoretical models of evolution may need revision

 

That's all well and good, thunderbird, but having witnessed his posts here and on other sites for years, I'm speaking from experience when I say he is wrong in his representations of evolution over 90% of the time, and his comments on the subject are not to be taken seriously by anyone who wishes to understand the process.

 

 

I suppose I'm just being closed minded though. :D

 

<or, correct... :eek: >

[freeztar]

He also recognizes where theoretical models of evolution may need revision

 

Well, we should let Hydro speak to that, but that is off-topic for this discussion. I suggest further evolution discussion should move to "Evolution is Fact" or one of the other multitudes of evolution threads on these forums. If evolution science is used to demonstrate how science is closed-minded or open-minded, then that's fine for this thread.

 

TB, I do agree with you about grouping people as stupid and implying that any member here be thrown into such a group. :D

 

Let's stick with ideas and discussions rather than people and groups. :eek:

[Thunderbird]

This is a perfect example of questioning the assumed aspects of evolution, “random mutation” as an advantages, opposed to a disadvantages. To me, and to many thinking others, including scientist, this is serving as hypothetical filler until we have a better explanation of the drivers of evolutionary change.

 

In his own words....

 

 

 

Re: Evolution is Fact

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

 

I believe in directed evolution with a goal in mind. Consider the opposing thumb that some higher animals like apes have. This didn't come into full functional or elaborate use until later. It was a prototype feature that offered a future payoff. Or another way to look at it is, what functional use would this have given the first mutant recipients that allowed them to change the entire gene pool? If it popped up spontaneously, the first one recipient had to also be top big dog, with this vulnerable dangle thing.

 

it logically started out only semi-functional or useless, since it requires muscles, nerves and brain wiring. Its full hidden advantage would not happen until the future. Apes did not sequently evolve mating rights based on thumb wars, yet carrying this over was pivotal to humans. One may say the first thumbed ape picked up a stick and could win mating battles. But this assumes an advanced state of it being functional, immediately

 

 

 

 

Some assume theory is just about the black and white of fact or fiction.

The core of theoretical research is about collecting more information, this represents the dynamical aspect of theory. Information that can produces more insights.

 

Its not just about the facts, this is the easy part, but the generation of new information.

[freeztar]

This is a perfect example of...

 

...leading the thread further off-topic. :naughty:

[Thunderbird]

Originally posted by Thunderbird

However….. If the people are ignorant of science its not just the public to blame as just to dumb to understand, but the lack sensitivity toward the public by the scientific community to take responsibility that science is a public trust not an elite class in itself. This attitude is being amplified on this forum more and more lately.

 

Originally posted by Freezstar; Please give an example of where this attitude you speak of can be seen in posts here.

 

 

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

This is a perfect example of...

 

 

 

 

The question was asked by you, I am giving the example your ask for.

[freeztar]

Why didn't you initially state that then?

If you're going to answer a question that was asked several posts ago (or in a different thread), it's a good idea to establish context. As it is now, your answer seems to come from left-field.

 

Nonetheless, I think I see what you're saying: the scientific community excludes the general public through elitism. Is this correct?

[Thunderbird]

Why didn't you initially state that then?

If you're going to answer a question that was asked several posts ago (or in a different thread), it's a good idea to establish context. As it is now, your answer seems to come from left-field.

 

Nonetheless, I think I see what you're saying: the scientific community excludes the general public through elitism. Is this correct?

 

My point is that theory is a model that is utilized to gather information, its made to evolve. When a person says "Evolution is a fact" it can be understood that life does evolve, yes, but also is misleading in the fact that the theory of evolution is always a work in progress.

Not everyone understands this fact of scientific modeling. This is clear from the title of that thread. They believe that science is about the facts, rather than information. I constantly question the facts, and yes my reasoning of how I assemble information also. I may learn something tomorrow that may cause me to revise my way of interpretation.

[freeztar]

My point is that theory is a model that is utilized to gather information, its made to evolve.

 

Indeed. As I so often state: Science is amenable to change.

 

When a person says "Evolution is a fact" it can be understood that life does evolve, yes, but also is misleading in the fact that the theory of evolution is always a work in progress.

 

I must admit that I was taken aback when I first saw the thread for the same reasons you mention. I seem to recall that this point was clarified early on in that thread though. (I'll have to go back and look at it)

[REASON]

My point is that theory is a model that is utilized to gather information, its made to evolve. When a person says "Evolution is a fact" it can be understood that life does evolve, yes, but also is misleading in the fact that the theory of evolution is always a work in progress.

 

I'm not sure that I agree that the statement is misleading. While the details will continue to be refined, the fact of evolution remains. The point of the statement is to counter those who reject evolution in its entirety, not just established facts and theories that are a part of the overall process.

 

I do believe you understand that gathering information in support of a theory involves more than just ponderance, speculation, and metaphor. These may lead to important research, but to stop at such is what becomes misleading, particularly when countering established theory. I believe this is essentially what INow is pointing out in his criticism of HB.

 

But again, protecting the integrity of an established theory that is supported by empirical evidence over hypothetical interpretations should not be misconstrued as being closed-minded or elitist.

 

Let's see some data.

[Thunderbird]

Why didn't you initially state that then?

If you're going to answer a question that was asked several posts ago (or in a different thread), it's a good idea to establish context. As it is now, your answer seems to come from left-field.

 

Just as a clarifier, and a point of order. My post's of today were directed primarily at Infinitnow's and hydro's post.

 

 

Your question at the beginning of the thread only became a secondary concern after you said today's post was off topic, it is your thread to define the topic, unless however you have breached it earlier yourself. Therefore there was no need for me to "initially state" anything about an earlier post since I wasn't directly address it. the context was implied from the start.

[Thunderbird]

Freeztar, You're not still sore over the "f*** you too" thing are you?

[freeztar]

Just as a clarifier, and a point of order. My post's of today were directed primarily at Infinitnow's and hydro's post.

 

I realize that.

Do you realize how your post was initially off-topic? You quickly brought it back into context though, which is fine. I didn't mean to single you out or anything. I've just seen it happen too many times where one off-topic post turns into pages of off-topic posts. I was just trying to avoid such a scenario. :naughty:

[Thunderbird]

I'm not sure that I agree that the statement is misleading. While the details will continue to be refined, the fact of evolution remains. The point of the statement is to counter those who reject evolution in its entirety, not just established facts and theories that are a part of the overall process.

There is no serious debate in science if evolution takes place. the work in progress is about the mechanisms involved. Evolutionary biologist do not work to advance arguments to defend evolution against creationist, they are working to advance science. Do you get my drift.

 

I do believe you understand that gathering information in support of a theory involves more than just ponderance, speculation, and metaphor. These may lead to important research, but to stop at such is what becomes misleading, particularly when countering established theory. I believe this is essentially what INow is pointing out in his criticism of HB.

The term "established theory" means a working model that scientist utilize in the past to further an understanding of natural process, that is all. If you start defending it as anything more than that you will be trapped by it. Natural process will always be more complex than the models used to describe them.

Never forget that fact.

 

But again, protecting the integrity of an established theory that is supported by empirical evidence over hypothetical interpretations should not be misconstrued as being closed-minded or elitist.

 

Let's see some data.

 

Our views of science are fundamentally at odds then. In my view attacking the integrity of established theory with a hypothesis based on new data is good science, as opposed to you're view that protecting the integrity of a model against a group who's views are of 0 importance in science.

Where you and differ is you think attacking an evolutionary models is going to break it. I think attacking it will make it evolve into something better.

 

You are going to have to be specific about “data” you just cannot say show me data. When there hasn't been any specific claim that calls for data.

[freeztar]

Freeztar, You're not still sore over the "f*** you too" thing are you?

 

Nope. :naughty:

[freeztar]

There is no serious debate in science if evolution takes place. the work in progress is about the mechanisms involved. Evolutionary biologist do not work to advance arguments to defend evolution against creationist, they are working to advance science. Do you get my drift.

 

Indeed, but the advancement of the science automatically builds a defense against creationists. It's a by-product of the science.

 

Natural process will always be more complex than the models use to describe them.

Never forget that fact.

Indeed.

Our views of science are fundamentally at odds then.

 

I get the impression that both of your views are aligned, but somewhere that linkage is getting lost in translation.

 

In my view attacking the integrity of established theory with a hypothesis based on new data is good science, as opposed to you're view that protecting the integrity of a model against a group who's views are of 0 importance in science.

 

They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

You are going to have to be specific about “data” you just cannot say show me data. When there hasn't been any specific claim that calls for data.

 

Again, a communication breakdown I think. Reason wasn't asking *you* to supply data, TB. He was saying in general that when people attack challenge an established theory, they need to show the data in support of their challenge. I'm sure you'd agree.