Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by SetiAlpha6, Mar 12, 2020.
Can't. I don't agree there's a problem in the first place.
And you've nuked all your credibility.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
You want to avoid that?
How about starting with Common Denominators.
All Common scientific knowledge
All Common mathematics
All Common physics
All Common non-metaphorical definitions
All Common non-mythical history
Well, that would rule out the Church.
And, the point of doing that is what exactly?
You may be somewhat confused as to how the system works, it's not perfect, but it's the best way to go about it. When someone publishes their findings, they indeed want other scientists to poke holes in it, find and weed out the flaws, if any and put the findings to experimentation to see if it works. What do you find wrong with that?
Yes, I agree. Certainly! What a disjointed mess the worldwide Church is!!!
Just my crazy thoughts...
Perhaps instead of each individual trying to win the glory, and money for themselves, as in a war game...
It could be more like a cooperative board game, where everyone works together on the same team, and where they want the best for each other, because the only way they know they can win the game is if they all work together. Because a team is normally stronger than any one individual.
In my opinion, Empirical Science normally works very well, mainly because the data can be tested and repeated. Empirical Science is Great!!!
But it also seems to me, that there can be problems in the more Theoretical Sciences, when/if the approach involves making guesses about the past and even making up stories about what happened in history.
Data can be incomplete, conflicting, etc. and no one was probably even alive then. And also historical events usually cannot be tested or repeated in the same way Empirical Science can be.
What actually happened in reality can also be substantially or completely different than any mathematical model yet proposed. Just because you may have a mathematical model for a thing does not mean that thing ever actually happened. Math is great, but it is not always equivalent to reality.
If theories are ever created in order to support one’s own personal philosophical view or suppress the philosophical view of someone else, I would say that is unethical and is likely unscientific.
I think this has happened historically on both sides, within Science, with both Theism proponents and Atheism proponents.
Point well made...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, don't inoculate kids and no blood transfusions, it's against my belief, and you do want us all to be happy in our new understanding groups.
The peer review process is not a war game or any kind of game, scientists are not trying to win glory. That is indeed a crazy thought.
It it did happen, there were few and far between cases, like hoaxes for example (Piltdown Man) however, it was other scientists scrutinizing those findings from the get go and they eventually weeded out the hoax.
If it were more like a "cooperative board game" as you suggest, then these types of hoaxes or unethical behavior would not get exposed and we would never be able to tell good science from bad. That's why the current system works well.
I agree with you, but as a hard atheist myself, I could support a concerted effort in matters of "common good", rather than selecting matters of contention to begin a conversation.
While I reject the concept of any form of godlike cosmic director, I do recognize that all points of view strife for truth and understanding alike.
I would suggest that rather than find fault with the other side, the players of each side search their own souls and play by the rules of fair-play.
At present there are people of faith doing good scientific research, they are satisfied with and have no trouble with the current peer review system. Have you got any reason the present peer system should change? Perhaps you sholud ask setiAlpha6 why he thinks it should change.
That's what we have now. No one scientist is going to "solve" fusion, or climate change. But by building on the work of others they can (and do) make real progress.
With very few exceptions (say, studies of the universe's origin before Planck time) theoretical sciences are backed up quite well by empirical experimentation, testing and measurement.
Of course they can be. We've run experiments, for example, on what caused the K-T extinction - and we now know, due to empirical measurements, that it was very likely the Chicxulub impactor which nearly destroyed the Earth and radically changed the climate. That's based on being able to radiologically date geologic strata (empirical measurements) and being able to compare the composition of those layers to the composition of the asteroids we have looked at (again, empirical measurements.)
Agreed. But if you have a consistent model - AND you have a dozen empirical measurements that support that model - then it probably happened that way.
No, no, no....I was not intimating that.
This was offered as a general humane attitude of cooperation rather than hostile opposition.
Theism is not science, it has no standing as a body of scientific inquiry.
As I said, I am a hard atheist, but I always try to advocate for peace and good will toward all people.
Educated speculation is part and parcel of science and the scientific method. It was once hypothesised that other stars should have planets orbiting them, just as our Sun does. But we had no way of knowing with any "empirical evidence" to support that idea....until around a couple of decades ago, and now we have found in excess of 3000 extra solar planets.....
It was hypothesised at one time that our solar system was formed from a conglomeration of gas and stellar debris that started undergoing gravitational collapse, but again we had no way of knowing with any certainty...that is until the HST started to do its thing, and we observed many such collapsing accretion disks, at many different stages of formation.
Nothing is perfect, including the scientific method, but it is the overwhelmingly best system we have. And of course while we can observe and judge the many attempts to deride science, due to personal philosophical and religious views, the incidents of scientists participating in such fraud is much rarer.
You may have noticed science does not set out to prove there are no gods. So, where does the '' bad will'' come from? So, again, why does SetiAlpha6 want to change the peer review process?
I haven't a clue, nor do I have "bad will" to anyone. Do you know where all this comes from?
Wonder why you felt the need to mention '' hostile opposition'' and ''goodwill'' in your earlier post #122.
I think goodwill is taken to be already included in the current peer review process.
Is there anything specifically wrong with that general observation?
We are in agreement then? Good....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You asked in your post #125 in referring to ''bad will'' ''Do you know where all this comes from?'', I (in my post #126) pointed you to your own earlier words '' hostile opposition''.
So, I wondered why you would ask me where it came from, when you already knew. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Moderator note: Off-topic posts regarding evolution and abiogenesis and an attempted defence of Creationism have been moved to a separate thread, here:
Ideally, not that much.
Peer review is supposed to evaluate research to decide on such questions as whether the work adheres to accepted standards of investigation, evidence and practice in a given field.
In other words, the process of review is not to take a position on whether the ideas or points of view being put forward in the work are valid, but whether the work conforms to the standards of scholarship accepted in whatever the field of study is.
In practice, reviewers are people and sometimes their biases can prevent them from reviewing work objectively. That is why work is usually sent to several reviewers.
Separate names with a comma.