Science is close-minded

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

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]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

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.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by REASON

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]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

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

Nope.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

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.