A Dangerous Proposition

[Arete]

I had said, "The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence, not initially as fact."

 

Ok, sure - given a literal interpretation of Genesis thoroughly contradicts observed, empirical data, it can be rejected as a valid scientific hypothesis. Done.

 

Edit: To make it clear, this certainly not to say the science and religion are incompatible - far greater scientists than I have publicly reconciled their faith with science - e.g. Francis Collins and Francisco Ayala. However they do tend to not be literalists.

 

I would hardly classify the pope as Christian (of course, that's mere opinion).

 

Heard it here first folks, the head of the Catholic church is not a Christian.

 

 

There's very much, and richer data, that supersedes empirical data, as valid as those data often are.

 

Not in science. You don't get to ignore observations in favor of your pet hypothesis, or the one that supports you ideology, or personal prejudices.

 

 

But nature herself always supersedes science.

 

Citation needed.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Arete

[EdEarl]

@B.J.J

Why Genesis? Why not creation of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhism, or another of the 4000-5000 religions on Earth?

[arc]

 

Well, I for one will live 120 years.

 

I didn't name "whatever," nor the 2 things mentioned as the fundamental thing that is very dangerous about modern science.

 

Science-in-fact, involves several observers agreeing on (a) method(s) of observation (that might later be modified or extended, if all agree), intending to arrive at a useful and reliable answer to a relevant question about a material problem or goal, based on the agreed method(s). Unfortunately, modern science unconditionally (for the most part) precludes certain viable variables and sets of data into every testing environment and station of observation.

 

 

Modern medicine should be based on good nutrition. The lion's share of research should be concentrated in discovery of nutritional values of foods, variations of diet, and inclinations of mind-teaching-appetite and appetite-teaching-mind.

 

Modern medicine should not be based on drugs and treatments.

 

And your alternative would be? . . . . .

 

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/faith-healing-religious-freedom-vs-child-protection/

 

"In 1997 a six-year-old boy in Oregon died from a necrotic bowel due to a hernia that could easily have been treated. The pathologist’s first reaction was “Not again!” He and his associate had compiled evidence of 18 children who had died over the last 10 years from curable diseases in a Followers of Christ congregation of 1,200 people. That worked out to 26 times the usual infant mortality rate. And it wasn’t just children: followers’ wives were dying in childbirth at 900 times the usual rate. One died of a type of infection that hadn’t killed anyone in America since 1910.

Nothing could be done about it, because Oregon had one of the strongest religious shield laws in the country. It protected parents from allegations of religious intolerance and gave them the right to withhold medical care for their children. In fact, the shield had just been beefed up: a new law to increase the punishment for murder by spousal or child abuse specifically prohibited prosecution for manslaughter if the person responsible was acting on religious beliefs.

A TV reporter named Mark Hass was told that there had been a cluster of preventable deaths among the Followers of Christ in Oregon City. He looked into it, but there were no criminal complaints, no police investigations, and the county DA was uninterested. When his investigation seemed to have reached a dead end, someone suggested he visit the local cemetery. He counted the graves of 78 children. He launched America’s first major series of TV reports on faith-healing abuse on KATU in Portland."

 

 

"There is a way that seems right to a [person], but in the end it leads to death." --an ancient proverb

 

I hardly make fun of science. Rather I refute where there is error, being more prominent where science is "modern."

The irony is killing me. . . . . . .

[Velocity_Boy]

Science uses one basis of judgment--information deemed as evidence by a single method, science (self). This proposition is quite dangerous. Science essentially puts all of your eggs in one basket.

 

 

I don't understand your reasoning at all.

 

Single method?

 

Hardly.

 

Take for example, the ways in which we determine the age of fossils or stones or pottery shards or cliff dwellings or bones.

 

Last I checked, there were over four-dozen different methodologies of radiometric dating.

 

If you Google "methods of radiometric dating" you will see this. Prepare to be amazed.

 

We also cannot forget the very powerful method of peer-review which we use all the time in science. This gives colleagues the chance of debunking or refuting ANY claim made by another scientist.

 

And make no mistake: many religious folks, for example, I have heard accuse us in the sciences of being akin to some evil, good-old-boy network who always sticks up for our views and findings that continue to all but disprove the likelihood of a personal god.

 

What they don't get is that it is the DREAM of ANY scientist to be able to make his mark by being able to empirically refute a well-known Theory. Or any sort of finding that is offered in a PR journal or paper. This is so much better in career terms than just following the flock or the conventional wisdom of the day, is it not?

 

I cannot think of any other arena that holds its findings and theories up to as much open-faced and vulnerable attacks or refutations than the arena of Science. And religion is notorious for NOT holding their own proclamations up to the same amount of inspection and levels that they demand of science. It should be a two way street, but it is far from that.

[B. John Jones]

No secondary source is considered evidence in of itself - especially if it contradicts empirical data, Bible, Koran, Torah etc included.

 

All the human figures in the Koran, the Torah, etc. are dead to this very day; but not the prominent human figure of Scripture. [ . . . also @ EdEarl]

 

If Rome could have put down the testimony of this little church of about 3,000 Christian men, they certainly would have. They did everything any human power could, to put it down--to the point of massacre. Rome knew very well how to crucify, correctly. The fact is, truth prevails. Christ was physically raised from the dead, and ascended, physically, to the right hand of God, visibly to his followers. The Bible, along with the testimony of countless churches, who have carried along from generation to generation, this same testimony, is not a secondary source. You're in a very risky mode of business.

Edited June 10, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Daecon]

Do you have any honest interest in scientific discussion or are you just on a science site to proselytize?

[Arete]

 

The Bible, along with the testimony of countless churches, who have carried along from generation to generation, this same testimony, is not a secondary source. You're in a very risky mode of business.

 

 

Could you point me to the passage that contains the p values?

[EdEarl]

 

All the human figures in the Koran, the Torah, etc. are dead to this very day; but not the prominent human figure of Scripture. [ . . . also @ EdEarl]

 

If Rome could have put down the testimony of this little church of about 3,000 Christian men, they certainly would have. They did everything any human power could, to put it down--to the point of massacre. Rome knew very well how to crucify, correctly. The fact is, truth prevails. Christ was physically raised from the dead, and ascended, physically, to the right hand of God, visibly to his followers. The Bible, along with the testimony of countless churches, who have carried along from generation to generation, this same testimony, is not a secondary source. You're in a very risky mode of business.

Most of the world, being not Christian, think your beliefs are mistaken; in other words, a conses thinks you are mistaken. Science goes with consensus and wants to avoid mistakes. You have nothing to offer science.

[B. John Jones]

 

I don't understand your reasoning at all.

 

Single method?

 

Hardly.

 

Take for example, the ways in which we determine the age of fossils or stones or pottery shards or cliff dwellings or bones.

 

Last I checked, there were over four-dozen different methodologies of radiometric dating.

 

Each of these methods stems from one scientific method, which is highly useful, except that it excludes as evidence, in a calculated and blanket way, every item that is deemed "not scientific," by science. I would accept excluding certain data by agreement of the several concurrent observers in tests on case-by-case bases, but modern science instead, intentionally excludes, blankly--without consideration, the Scripture. I'm not demanding acceptance of Scripture as fact. I'm appealing for admission of Scripture as evidence, at least on a case-by-case basis. But your only answer is that it's not scientific, which is the point of this thread. Science is its own god. You have one basis--science. This is reckless, because science measures one thing, matter (and its motions). It cannot measure what takes place with the human component that is aware, having sensation. It can measure how human flesh and bone decay, how impulses and electrical signals react and interact in living beings, but it cannot measure what takes place with human conscience, human sensation, human emotion, human choice, human thought, human awareness--the soul--after physical death. And everyone here knows very well, none will ever resolve death by science. And in any case, physical death is merely the first death. The church that exalts Jesus of Nazareth, will never taste the second death.

 

If you Google "methods of radiometric dating" you will see this. Prepare to be amazed.

 

I already trust that these are useful. I'm already amazed by the rich detail of science, and have been since 1998, at least.

 

We also cannot forget the very powerful method of peer-review which we use all the time in science. This gives colleagues the chance of debunking or refuting ANY claim made by another scientist.

 

Key phrase: by another scientist. Scientists determine who qualifies as scientist. Ken Ham calls himself, as others call him, a "creationist." I call him a struggling scientist who believes the Bible. I'm an enthusiast in science because I've discovered some things about practical technologies that are extremely fascinating by reading and studying scientific works, such as some books on the features of the electric guitar (pickups and electromagnetic transmission of sound), Audel Practical Electricity, college texts (Biology and Physics [as an accounting major]), computer science texts (minor), almost 2 decades of deliberate browsing the internet in these areas, as well as nutrition, the heavens, and even the first parts of Darwin's Origin of Species (these first parts not objected to). But again, all these studies pale in light of life, in light of what took place leading up to, during and following the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at Calvary.

 

And make no mistake: many religious folks, for example, I have heard accuse us in the sciences of being akin to some evil, good-old-boy network who always sticks up for our views and findings that continue to all but disprove the likelihood of a personal god.

 

What they don't get is that it is the DREAM of ANY scientist to be able to make his mark by being able to empirically refute a well-known Theory. Or any sort of finding that is offered in a PR journal or paper. This is so much better in career terms than just following the flock or the conventional wisdom of the day, is it not?

 

This to me is senseless. What's the point in "making a mark," if you're just going to die? What's the point in refuting just any kind of "finding" offered in a PR journal or paper? Career? That's it? Not very pleasant. Not comparable to the rich life I'm living. Heck, by science, and I'm not a scientist, I've discovered how to baffle people who can't guess that I'm beyond 27 years of age, and I'm now teetering to 41. Macro and micro-nutrition, molecular modeling, biological processes and systems are worth far more to me than a paycheck or renown. I have proven to the people who know me, that Christ is truth when he says that in order to enter his kingdom, "you must become as a little child." I make sure I get younger and younger, because getting older, is inevitable.

 

I cannot think of any other arena that holds its findings and theories up to as much open-faced and vulnerable attacks or refutations than the arena of Science.

 

That's strange. And you haven't given the Scripture, nor the living Christ the same extent of consideration as you have the biological systems of rats and viruses to find cures for disease.

 

And religion is notorious for NOT holding their own proclamations up to the same amount of inspection and levels that they demand of science. It should be a two way street, but it is far from that.

 

It was Ken Ham who challenged Bill Nye, not vice-versa. Of course, Ham is Christian, not religious.

Edited June 10, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Daecon]

"Ham is Christian, not religious."

 

Care to elaborate on what you're trying to mean?

Edited June 10, 2016 by Daecon

[B. John Jones]

"Religion," is about doing things to appeal to, or to serve an abstract god, or "God." Being Christian is knowing the living Son of God Jesus Christ, and knowing God as Father, and knowing God the Holy Spirit, and living in fellowship with God and his children.

Edited June 10, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Daecon]

Sounds like being religious to me.

[John Cuthber]

 

Well, I for one will live 120 years.

 

 

I don't want to "pick," or choose who/what is right or wrong. I want science practiced correctly, without undue bias. Modern science is very useful, and very prone to error, as are media, the Christian church, economies of scale, etc. The society in general needs help. I and my neighbors, next door, and overseas need help. Quantum mechanics engineers and technicians will always maintain margins of error. I would improve electronics by concentrating on perfecting acoustics, with music as a nearly perfect reference, a sound basis being Bose technologies. The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence, not initially as fact. Where there are conflicts of resolution between this text and contemporary science, there ought to be dialogue with people of the young earth creation view, whether they're disciplined in science or not, if they're willing to continue in dialogue, and the dialogue should not be aborted. People of the creation view should have opportunity to defend Gen chapter 1, using other passages of Scripture as well as observations of nature.

 

 

 

Modern medicine should not be based on drugs and treatments.

Given "Modern medicine should not be based on drugs and treatments." I doubt this bit

"Well, I for one will live 120 years."

 

 

Re. "The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence, not initially as fact. Where there are conflicts of resolution between this text and contemporary science, there ought to be dialogue with people of the young earth creation view, whether they're disciplined in science or not, if they're willing to continue in dialogue, and the dialogue should not be aborted. People of the creation view should have opportunity to defend Gen chapter 1, using other passages of Scripture as well as observations of nature."

That's what happened.

And, in the end, Genesis was found to be unreliable so it was thrown out.

"I don't want to "pick," or choose who/what is right or wrong. "

Yes you do.

You keep picking Genesis; and you keep trying to pick it, even though it is known to be wrong.

 

Why waste time going over it all again?

[B. John Jones]

Given "Modern medicine should not be based on drugs and treatments." I doubt this bit

"Well, I for one will live 120 years."

 

 

Re. "The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence, not initially as fact. Where there are conflicts of resolution between this text and contemporary science, there ought to be dialogue with people of the young earth creation view, whether they're disciplined in science or not, if they're willing to continue in dialogue, and the dialogue should not be aborted. People of the creation view should have opportunity to defend Gen chapter 1, using other passages of Scripture as well as observations of nature."

That's what happened.

And, in the end, Genesis was found to be unreliable so it was thrown out.

"I don't want to "pick," or choose who/what is right or wrong. "

Yes you do.

You keep picking Genesis; and you keep trying to pick it, even though it is known to be wrong.

 

Why waste time going over it all again?

 

You defy the living God. I've recommended Genesis chapter 1 as one basis to discuss creation. On the same basis I now charge that--I, one member of the Christian church, will refute every charge of unreliability of Judeo-Christian Scripture, or of that Scripture being wrong, by the terms I originally recommended be extended to all people genuinely interested in science--if you even have the guts, and the community here even has any courage at all to continue this dialogue and not censor it because I maintain this view.

Sounds like being religious to me.

 

That's because you haven't allowed yourself to know God. You think of him as a religious "concept."

Edited June 10, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Strange]

Unfortunately, modern science unconditionally (for the most part) precludes certain viable variables and sets of data into every testing environment and station of observation.

 

 

What variables and data are excluded?

 

I want science practiced correctly, without undue bias.

 

What specific bias is present in science.

The scientific method should consider Genesis chapter one as evidence, not initially as fact. Where there are conflicts of resolution between this text and contemporary science

 

1. Should Tenchikaibyaku and every other creation story also be considered as evidence? (After all, you want to avoid bias)

2. If we consider "Genesis is correct" as a hypothesis, then the scientific method is to compare that hypothesis with evidence in the real world. There does not appear to be any evidence to support the hypothesis.

The lion's share of research should be concentrated in discovery of nutritional values of foods, variations of diet, and inclinations of mind-teaching-appetite and appetite-teaching-mind.

 

I thought the lion's share of research was supposed to be spent on the Kindle?

Nutrition is important - particularly for the large proportion of the world's population who are suffering from malnutrition. But it is not a general cure for disease.

Modern medicine should not be based on drugs and treatments.

 

 

Even when they work?

[studiot]

I seem to be lacking an answer to my straightforward post 18 ?

 

[B. John Jones]

Let's be clear about technical matters.

 

JBJ, you started this thread with two wrongs and a right.

 

A right because I and the technical world, and indeed most of the non technical, agree with you that it is dangerous to rely solely on one assessment.

 

Wrong on two counts because in your ignorance you accuse the technical world of following a single assessment creed.

 

I will allow that you do not actual understand technical matters but before I enlighten you, perhaps you would be so good as to answer this question.

 

Suppose you were in a hospital, suffering a life threatening condition, and about to receive a life saving treatment.

 

Would you think it right and proper that the dosage to be administered received an independent check before you received it?

 

"Independent check," as in, tested for safety, or as in a check written for payment? In either case, yes. In the second instance, no amount of years of research, or malfeasance or waste in business, justifies charging an individual or a larger economy, tens of thousands%, or even 1000%, of what it costs or should cost, today, to produce the treatment.

[studiot]

 

"Independent check," as in, tested for safety, or as in a check written for payment? In either case, yes. In the second instance, no amount of years of research, or malfeasance or waste in business, justifies charging an individual or a larger economy, tens of thousands%, or even 1000%, of what it costs or should cost, today, to produce the treatment.

 

Firstly an apology. I see I mis-spelled your persona name in post 18. Sorry it should have been BJJ.

 

I meant none of these.

 

The independent check is embedded in scientific and technical processes but there is considerably more to it because it is not always possible.

 

The whole point is the word independent.

Do you understand the significance of this?

[B. John Jones]

""Anecdote," requires brevity."

No it doesn't.

" The Bible is recognized by a huge proportion of the human population"

No, it's less than half- and even if it were that wouldn't be evidence.

 

10% of the human population is a huge proportion. 20% is momentous. Probably more than 30% recognize the Scripture as truth. 100% is perfect.

 

Which percent recognizes the Koran? Or even the Buddha? The Baghavad Gita? (forgive the probable misspelling)

 

""Anecdote," requires the assumption of a fictitious nature"

No it does not.

 

Not strictly by definition. By common use definition, it does: virtually every standard definition of anecdote I've seen implies, or allows (with emphasis on "usually"), that the anecdote is of an amusing nature. The Bible is not intended for amusement. Readers with facetious attitudes mark it as "anecdote."

 

"So Scripture is not anecdote, "

Even if your premises were correct, and they are not, that isn't a logical deduction from them.

So you are still wrong.

 

Uhh, the Bible is not brief. If the Bible is not fictitious, which is the case, and the first premise also holds true, which it does, good logic says that the Bible is not anecdote, because anecdote, by definition is brief, and its content is, at the very least, usually, of an amusing nature.

 

Please learn some logic.

 

Everyone here is logical. Very few visitors here offer logic that's correct. The one that you're criticising is correct.

 

Firstly an apology. I see I mis-spelled your persona name in post 18. Sorry it should have been BJJ.

 

I meant none of these.

 

The independent check is embedded in scientific and technical processes but there is considerably more to it because it is not always possible.

 

The whole point is the word independent.

Do you understand the significance of this?

 

No. What is it?

Edited June 10, 2016 by B. John Jones

[studiot]

 

No. What is it?

 

 

There are two different situations for which a different (scientific) method is appropriate.

Within these two situations many different methods may eixist.

 

So even at the top level of classification there is no one single 'scientific method'.

 

More specifically;

 

In the situation were we are discussing applied science, particularly engineering, we have the idea of the independent check.

When designing or assessing a bridge, an aircraft, a dam or whatever current practice demands that the desing is checked by an independent method and person(s).

So a bridge deck may be designed by one person or team using finite element methods, and checked by another team using energy methods, plastic hinge theory or Klein-Logel charts.

 

At a lower level operations should be carried out in a 'self checking' manner which incorporates and independent check.

A good example of this is the surveying practice known as the rise and fall method which submits surveying calculations to verification by an alternative arithmetical process.

Measure twice, cut once.

 

That was the first situation, the known.

The second one is where fundamental research is undertaken.

 

Here an independent check is sometimes possible ( as in the geological dating examples in another's post) , but often only one system of measurements are possible or available.

Sometimes the actual measurement is a chance observation.

 

In this case efforts may (should) be made not only to repeat the expereiment but also to take further observations in a range of conditions to place the

initial measurement in context and give confidence and credence to it.

 

There is another thread just posted in scientific news here, concerning carbon fixing into the rocks, where this process is just beginning.

 

 

The whole point of this is that mere repetition is (as you rightly said) dangerous.

Verification should be by different (=independent) means.

 

And if there are independent means if follows that there is more than one way.

 

[Strange]

Not strictly by definition. By common use definition, it does: virtually every standard definition of anecdote I've seen implies, or allows (with emphasis on "usually"), that the anecdote is of an amusing nature.

 

 

You have moved the goalposts (a common rhetorical trick). You said they were fictional, now you say there are "amusing".

 

But, more importantly, you are missing the point. "Anecdotal" evidence, doesn't really have anything to do with anecdotes, in the sense of telling stories (amusing or otherwise). It is a description of the quality of a certain type of evidence.

 

For example, people defend smoking by saying "my grandad smoke 200 cigarettes a day for 70 years and he never had a day's illness". This is anecdotal evidence because it just describes a single case. It may be completely true, and not in the least bit amusing but by itself it is not useful evidence. We know, from large scale studies, that there are a large number of health risks associated with smoking. No single example can overthrow the weight of evidence.

 

Similarly, ancient texts, of whatever source, may provide some information about the past. But, without corroborative evidence, they are not conclusive. For example, it used to be thought that the story of Troy was probably largely mythical (perhaps based on real events at different times and different places). But since then, archeological evidence has been found that is consistent with the story so it is now taken to be largely true.

 

 

 

Everyone here is logical. Very few visitors here offer logic that's correct.

 

Very few people here seem to know what logic is, let alone use it correctly. You have shown little sign of that.

 

When you say "logic that's correct" are you referring to validity or soundness?

[EdEarl]

Science uses one basis of judgment--information deemed as evidence by a single method, science (self). This proposition is quite dangerous. Science essentially puts all of your eggs in one basket.

In other words, scientists are practicing a dangerous art, which is a nice way of saying they are incompetent. To remedy the situation they should follow your advice, and you have a few people who believe like you.

 

Fewer than 1/3 of humanity are Christian. You said Catholics weren't Christian; thus, your beliefs are consistent with some part of protestants, less than 1/10 of humanity. There are about 6 million scientists in the US, and 2 million of them are Christian, which suggests that your beliefs are shared by considerably less than 1/10 of humanity.

 

During the middle ages, people with your religious fervor terrorized the people of Europe by torturing and burning people for little or no reason. You, sir, and people like you are the dangerous ones.

[John Cuthber]

 

10% of the human population is a huge proportion. 20% is momentous. Probably more than 30% recognize the Scripture as truth. 100% is perfect.

 

Which percent recognizes the Koran? Or even the Buddha? The Baghavad Gita? (forgive the probable misspelling)

 

 

Not strictly by definition. By common use definition, it does: virtually every standard definition of anecdote I've seen implies, or allows (with emphasis on "usually"), that the anecdote is of an amusing nature. The Bible is not intended for amusement. Readers with facetious attitudes mark it as "anecdote."

 

 

Uhh, the Bible is not brief. If the Bible is not fictitious, which is the case, and the first premise also holds true, which it does, good logic says that the Bible is not anecdote, because anecdote, by definition is brief, and its content is, at the very least, usually, of an amusing nature.

 

 

Everyone here is logical. Very few visitors here offer logic that's correct. The one that you're criticising is correct.

 

"

10% of the human population is a huge proportion. 20% is momentous. Probably more than 30% recognize the Scripture as truth. 100% is perfect.

Which percent recognizes the Koran? Or even the Buddha? The Baghavad Gita? (forgive the probable misspelling)"

Actually it's a ratehr small fraction- only 1 in 10- but who cares?

As I pointed out, it doesn't matter.

It's a logical fallacy to assume that " a hundred million lemmings can't be wrong"

 

"Not strictly by definition. By common use definition, it does: virtually every standard definition of anecdote I've seen implies, or allows (with emphasis on "usually"), that the anecdote is of an amusing nature. "

Not remotely by definition, and not at all in the context of discussions of what gets called "anecdotal evidence- i.e. evidence that would be thrown out of court as invalid.

Assuming something is true, just because somebody says that somebody said it is a logical fallacy.

 

"The Bible is not intended for amusement. "

Nobody said it was. What we said was that it was anecdotal.

Pretending that we said something, just so that you can attack that false representation is a logical fallacy (commonly called the straw man). It's also forbidden by the Commandments of the Lord: Thou shalt not bear false witness.

 

"Uhh, the Bible is not brief. "

Nobody said it was- and only you raised the issue, and that was on bogus grounds.

 

"If the Bible is not fictitious, which is the case,"

It doesn't strictly matter if it's fictitious. what matters is if it is correct.

And we know it isn't.

We also know - in some detail - not only that it was made up, but by whom, and when

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

so it is, in fact, fictitious.

 

"and the first premise also holds true, which it does,"

No it doesn't- see the notes above.

 

" good logic says that the Bible is not anecdote, because anecdote, by definition is brief, and its content is, at the very least, usually, of an amusing nature."

Nonsense.

For a start, a collection of anecdotes is anecdotal- no matter how thick a book they make of it.

And you seem to be the only one who thinks that amusement value is relevant to a discussion of the validity of anecdoatl evidence.

 

"Everyone here is logical. "

Nearly- but there's one pretty clear exception

"The one that you're criticising is correct."

I have just pointed out (as others have) a number of logical fallacies in your argument.

Why do you think those are correct?

 

"

Who cares?

As I pointed out, it's a logical fal10% of the human population is a huge proportion. 20% is momentous. Probably more than 30% recognize the Scripture as truth. 100% is perfect.

Which percent recognizes the Koran? Or even the Buddha? The Baghavad Gita? (forgive the probable misspelling)

[B. John Jones]

In other words, scientists are practicing a dangerous art, which is a nice way of saying they are incompetent. To remedy the situation they should follow your advice, and you have a few people who believe like you.

 

Fewer than 1/3 of humanity are Christian. You said Catholics weren't Christian; thus, your beliefs are consistent with some part of protestants, less than 1/10 of humanity. There are about 6 million scientists in the US, and 2 million of them are Christian, which suggests that your beliefs are shared by considerably less than 1/10 of humanity.

 

During the middle ages, people with your religious fervor terrorized the people of Europe by torturing and burning people for little or no reason. You, sir, and people like you are the dangerous ones.

 

Actually I said the pope isn't Christian. The high leadership of the Catholic church are not Christian, in my view. There are plenty of people among that church who are Christian, in my view. John F Kennedy was a remarkable Christian, as are 2 of my primary friends.

 

If 1% of the population are devout Christian this would be consistent with my view. Christ himself said that few people find this narrow path. Believing the Bible doesn't yet even mean your feet are established on this course. You haven't yet walked with God.

 

And it wasn't people who believed the

Bible who slaughtered their subjects, but high leadership whose God was the pope.

 

Indeed, the pope forbade that people read the Bible.

Edited June 10, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Pooya Khodadadi]

 

 

There are two different situations for which a different (scientific) method is appropriate.

Within these two situations many different methods may eixist.

 

So even at the top level of classification there is no one single 'scientific method'.

 

More specifically;

 

In the situation were we are discussing applied science, particularly engineering, we have the idea of the independent check.

When designing or assessing a bridge, an aircraft, a dam or whatever current practice demands that the desing is checked by an independent method and person(s).

So a bridge deck may be designed by one person or team using finite element methods, and checked by another team using energy methods, plastic hinge theory or Klein-Logel charts.

 

At a lower level operations should be carried out in a 'self checking' manner which incorporates and independent check.

A good example of this is the surveying practice known as the rise and fall method which submits surveying calculations to verification by an alternative arithmetical process.

Measure twice, cut once.

 

That was the first situation, the known.

The second one is where fundamental research is undertaken.

 

Here an independent check is sometimes possible ( as in the geological dating examples in another's post) , but often only one system of measurements are possible or available.

Sometimes the actual measurement is a chance observation.

 

In this case efforts may (should) be made not only to repeat the expereiment but also to take further observations in a range of conditions to place the

initial measurement in context and give confidence and credence to it.

 

There is another thread just posted in scientific news here, concerning carbon fixing into the rocks, where this process is just beginning.

 

 

The whole point of this is that mere repetition is (as you rightly said) dangerous.

Verification should be by different (=independent) means.

 

And if there are independent means if follows that there is more than one way.

 

 

 

 

Enjoyed reading your post Studiot... Thank You