BS: Scientific misconceptions.

Subject: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 11:07 AM

It is called knowledge for a reason. You have to know.

It would be a better world if everyone was scientifically literate.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 02:33 PM

"I learned that effective communication starts with the understanding that there is MY point of view, (my truth), and someone else's point of view (his truth). Rarely is there one absolute truth, so people who believe that they speak THE truth are very silencing of others. When we realize and recognize that we can see things only from our own perspective, we can share our views in a nonthreatening way. Statements of opinion are always more constructive in the first person "I" form. The ability to listen is as important as the ability to speak. Miscommunication is always a two way street." 
― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and t

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 02:37 PM

Poor Sheryl!!..What's worse, is she learned how to type!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 02:39 PM

Scientists are also guilty of this misuse, of course. I got a bit irritated a day or two back by a radio program which is about statistics (Called "More or Less") referring to 'the birthday paradox' in which it only needs 23 people in a group for the chances of two sharing a birthday. NO! NOT A PARADOX! Unexpected, yes. Paradoxical, no.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 02:40 PM

Typo! ... sharing a birthday to exceed 50%

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 02:50 PM

Could you have overlooked Shery's second last sentence, gfs:)

Here is another one for you:

We can't be lovers because we both have mustaches. But since you're a lady, and I'm a gentleman, I'll shave mine off."  Jarod Kintz, Love quotes for the ages. Specifically ages 18-81.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 07:08 PM

"Science is a bit like the joke about the drunk who is looking under a lamppost for a key that he has lost on the other side of the street, because that's where the light is. It has no other choice." ― Noam Chomsky

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 08:53 PM

A well-meaning link, but, like when you read something about yourself in the paper, total bollocks. The bit about survival of the fittest is a giveaway. The writer understands nothing about evolutionary theory. Enough to stop me reading all the rest of it. Cynical junk.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 02:52 AM

Ed T: "We can't be lovers because we both have mustaches. But since you're a lady, and I'm a gentleman, I'll shave mine off."

...and even agree to pretend to have PMS!!

Ed T.: (Sheryl's Second to the last sentence).."The ability to listen is as important as the ability to speak."

Sure she'd say that....Ask ANY woman!!!...as long as SOMEONE ELSE is doing the listening......"Hey Sheryl!!...I don't play with shit and rub it on my fingers...I don't sniff shit and stuff it in my nose...I don't eat shit...nor am I going to cram it in my ears!!!...in copious amounts, while you figure out, that while talking, you have to make sense!!"

Ed T.: ""Science is a bit like the joke about the drunk who is looking under a lamppost for a key that he has lost on the other side of the street, because that's where the light is. It has no other choice." ― Noam Chomsky

BRAVO!!!!

Then again if you believe in the light...the pseudo-science-political-activist wannabe buffs get all pissy!! ...Right, Steve????
What's worse, are the politico 'idiot-logic' patriotic revolutionaries who think the state is 'the light' the ONLY light, and the Almighty light!!!
Maybe if they pull their heads out of their asses, 'some' light will dawn on them!... But, alas and alack, they usually replace their heads, into it's parking slot...because they don't know how to make use of the light....TAX IT, LIE TO IT, and PRETEND THAT YOU'RE ON 'THEIR SIDE'!! .....then make a lot of dumb excuses.....and get indignant if someone doesn't take you seriously!!!!!

Grinning...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 03:27 AM

That's done it. goofus has the bit between his teeth now.

A little knowledge is dangerous, but when your knowledge is a misconception to begin with......

For me, the trick is never to put faith in your hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 07:21 AM

"The writer understands nothing about evolutionary theory."

Why do you say that? I don't know Jacqueline Gill personally, but I read her work and she is a massively capable and erudite scientist. I can't see anything wrong with the statement as it is written.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Fergie
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 08:35 AM

NOW I remember why I promised myself never to venture below the BS line.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 09:35 AM

"I will be back in five minutes, if I am not, read this message again."

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: pdq
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 11:24 AM

"Biography:

Annalee Newitz...was the recipient of a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at MIT, and has a Ph.D. in English and American Studies from UC Berkeley."


UC Berkeley grad, lives in San Fraancisco, has no background in science. Perfect NPR guest...

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 12:37 PM

But musicians also misquote science. How about:

"The Dark side of the Moon"?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 12:38 PM

A well-meaning link, but, like when you read something about yourself in the paper, total bollocks. The bit about survival of the fittest is a giveaway. The writer understands nothing about evolutionary theory. Enough to stop me reading all the rest of it. Cynical junk

Perhaps it was just a bit above your head Steve.

Jacqueline Gill
In my work, I take an interdisciplinary approach that combines paleoenvironmental reconstructions, modern field experiments, biogeographic data analysis, and modeling of past landscapes. My goal is to help other ecologists, conservationists, and policy makers better understand how ecosystems have responded to past change, in order to make informed decisions about present and future landscapes.

I have recently begun a position as Assistant Professor of Paleoecology and Plant Ecology at the University of Maine, held jointly with the School of Biology & Ecology and the Climate Change Institute. I'm thrilled to be joining a program with a long history of excellent research in ecology, climate change, and Quaternary studies.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 01:30 PM

Classic example of being impressed by shiny words, although evolutionary theory isn't amongst them. I too wasn't too impressed with the unfortunate phrase "survival of the fittest."

There again, being impressed by a cv rather than their actual work explains Keith's approach to many subjects on these threads. He'll be calling her eminent next....

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,grumpy
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 01:31 PM

Keith A,

Just to prove your stuff and without Googling anything, please give us your own definitions of paleoecology and 'quarternary studies'.

If you can, I'll be pleased to admit that you do know what you're writing about.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 02:33 PM

"Classic example of being impressed by shiny words, although evolutionary theory isn't amongst them."

Are they shiny words? I see a working scientist describing her research. Her work requires a tad more than a passing knowledge of evolutionary theory, like so many others in the earth and biological sciences.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 02:39 PM

I'll bet dollars to donuts that Ms. Gill knows more about the subject than Mr. Shaw. or Mr. pdq. When do you think was the last time either of them were written about by a writer with a Phd. from Berkley?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 03:34 PM

Foreign PhDs don't cut it with me either.

They are very shiny words to Keith in the same way shiny baubles were to ignorant Pacific Islanders when James Cooke parked his boat.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 04:01 PM

One can quibble about her definitions, but they are pretty good. (Ph. D. in Earth Sciences from major American university).

Personally, I am a believer in the theory of multiple working prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 05:43 PM

"Foreign PhDs don't cut it with me either."

Er, why?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 05:44 PM

Musket: "For me, the trick is never to put faith in your hypothesis."

That coming from YOU???

As long as we're there, how about not passing laws and making public policy, about ANYTHING, based on an unproven hypothesis??

Sound familiar??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 07:31 PM

The piece on evolutionary theory is just waffle. A typical piece of half-arsed popular science journalism. Yes, Darwin did not refer to "survival of the fittest" in Origin, in fact, he was extremely dubious about the expression being misused at all to describe his theory. Next, "survival of the fittest", as described by the ignorant writer of the piece, has nothing to do with individuals or species or whatever, but has everything to do with what Darwin might have called heritable traits, or what we might call genes. I'm a bit surprised you did't pick up on that, Stu, to be honest. Oh yes, Wacko. You can have "professors" of this, that or the other, with PhDs in the other, that, or this, and you can hang on their every word, etc. (as indeed you do, even though you don't understand any of their words), but do that at your peril. I know some blokes round my way who play guitars, mandos and fiddles who have never had a minute's training but who understand more about their art than many a professor of music. Lose the sycophancy for once and get real!

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 08:16 PM

Nigel Parsons:But musicians also misquote science. How about:

"The Dark side of the Moon"?

....Ah, but at the end of "Eclipse" you do get the phrase: "there is no dark side of the moon, really. As a matter of fact it's all dark".

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 08:27 PM

Well, David Bowie kinda stretched science a bit with "major tom and scary monsters". But, artists have a special social licence to do so.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 08:28 PM

GUST Musket
Foreign PhDs don't cut it with me either.

Didn't realise you were just as much a Little Englander as Keith.

Einstein University of Zürich.
Bohr University of Copenhagen
Heisenberg University of Munich
Planck University of Munich

None of them a patch on Mr Steve Shaw (schoolmaster retd.)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 12:14 AM

I think if you were to read a little more carefully Mr. Shaw you would find that she was referring to and describing the way law people think of "survival of the fittest" and not giving her own definition.

If you only had the same proficiency in reading the English language as you claim to have in science...

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 01:57 AM

Not interested in Sheryl Sandberg...she may be rich and powerful, but her mentoring by Larry Summers, and close association with him puts her in the category of suspect of being as completely corrupt as he is!!...and as destructive as politically corrupt politicians can get!!
She served with him, under Bill Clinton, and Summers was a driving force behind repealing Glass-Steagall, which....wait....I'll pull this up for ya'......

"Lawrence Henry "Larry" Summers was a primary architect of the modern U.S. financial system, which collapsed in 2008 leaving some 8 million Americans unemployed and destroying some $13 trillion in wealth, according to the GAO. Summers served multiple roles in the U.S. Treasury in the 1990's under President Clinton and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (previously of Goldman-Sachs). In those roles he supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which lead to the creation of "too big to fail" banks, and fought the regulation of derivatives which later played a key role in the financial crisis (see more below). Ultimately he became Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton 1999-2001. He also held the position as President of Harvard 2001-2006 during the administration of George W. Bush, a position he left after a no-confidence vote by the staff and after losing some $2 billion in Harvard endowment funds to a derivatives deal gone bad."

So she can take her 'relative truths' and shove them up hers.....crooks and cons LOVE the 'spinning room' with raps like hers! She lives at the heart of the political corruption of this country, and has damaged people globally!!
I'm not impressed.....but I am surprised (a little), that you keep pushing her....but then one man's truth is another man's 'talking point'...and she is part of the corruption machine!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 02:50 AM

There used to be a joke about people not understanding irony.

Ah well.

(I suppose, considering mine was joint awarded between a British and German university, who commissioned the research, I too have a foreign PhD.

You may wish to read it in context of Jack trying to impress Steve with her credentials for my throwaway comment.

A bit of a bugger when you have to explain how you take the piss.

Tsk

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 04:21 AM

Shiny words?
I read about a young highly qualified Professor actively engaged in cutting edge research that is pushing forward the frontiers of our knowledge in that field.

I think it highly unlikely that an ex-school teacher, like Steve or me, could possibly know more about it than her.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,The Worshipful Musket VD &bar
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 05:29 AM

Don't let your lack of self esteem have you thinking that all people in a profession are at a level.

There's a huge difference between the sports teacher we had who took an unhealthy interest in us when showering and the physics teacher who opened my young mind to the potential of knowledge and the power of applying it.

My credentials include hard sums and pocket calculators but be buggered if I am any good with the chalk at the dartboard. Likewise, the piece of paper says engineering physics but the chair is in service improvement.

Steve has every right to pick up on a debatable comment in his sphere of knowledge and dismiss anything emanating from it.

You just can't help yourself, sneering at anyone who questions your stance or approach.

Sorry nobody here is eminent. You can always drool at her potted cv and assume no bugger else has one. Even if the subject she was commenting on isn't in her credentials. TC.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 05:40 AM

But I did not sneer.
Sneering is what arrogant, egotists do.

Like Steve sneering at the knowledge of a mere professor engaged in original research at the highest level, and you sneering at me.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:04 AM

" I'm a bit surprised you did't pick up on that, Stu, to be honest."

But she is talking about genes, albeit the effects of mutation rather than mutation itself.

I'm guessing this is difficult to sum up in a couple of paragraphs for a general readership, but I still see nothing wrong with either. They're discussing the flow of information and the agents that affect that flow. Mutations resulting in different alleles (variations of a gene, eye colour for instance) are not adaptive, but might confer an advantage on an animal carrying that mutation; equally they might not make any difference or be a disadvantage. Of course they touch upon sexual selection as being another driver of evolution, and there are others of course but for a laypeople this might all get a bit confusing.

All they're saying is "survival of the fittest" is not how evolution works; it should be "survival of the best adapted".

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:37 AM

No.
Arrogant egotist describes a person who sneers at people they imagine themselves superior to.
Your suggestion is just random playground name-calling.
Forgettable.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:52 AM

I'm getting confused. Was the Worshipful Musket the real one or somebody taking the piss out of him?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Howard Jones
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:54 AM

Whilst she's correct on matters like the popular misunderstanding of "survival of the fittest" I think she's wrong about words like "theory" or "proof" being scientific words which the public misuses. These are ordinary words with ordinary meanings in everyday speech, however scientists use them an a technical and more specific sense. The same applies to all activities, professional and otherwise, because specialists need more specific language and need to make finer distinctions than non-specialists.

For me, the words "file" or "saw" are sufficient, whereas they actually cover a range of tools. A plumber or a carpenter needs to distinguish between the different sorts and uses more precise language to describe them. To a plumber, the phrase "round bastard" means a file - to me it means a plumber :)

The problem she quotes about the public misunderstanding scientists' use of 'proof' is a classic example of the misuse of jargon. The onus should be on the specialist to present their ideas in non-specialist language, rather than on the public to learn the specialists' jargon (and it is when they attempt to do this that the other misunderstandings and misuses arise that she also complains about). The fault lies not with the public but with the scientists for failing to use non-technical language in a debate with non-specialists.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:59 AM

The pieces on "proof" and "theory" were by male physicists.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 09:44 AM

Musket.

Steve's credentials are considerably less. Steve misread what she said and criticized her base on that and has Stu has pointed out. Steve was overreaching in the substance of his argument. Yet he sneers in spite of all that.

You, on the other hand, are simply stirring shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 10:53 AM

" Scientific misconceptions" pale next to many cultural misconceptions.

"There used to be a joke about people not understanding irony."

"A bit of a bugger when you have to explain how you take the piss."


I have commented before about various Brits inability to realize how their banter & 'irony' often fails to translate in print form in an international forum. Even the phrase "taking the piss" is only superficially understood by many. I NEVER heard it used until a few years into Mudcat. The same with "a bit of a bugger". (there seem to be infinite uses of bugger in English banter. One wonders...)
If you are not aware of how YOUR slang, cant and colloquialisms can obscure your point, you will often be misunderstood. If your reaction to being misunderstood is to characterize 'them' as slow, dull, humorless and generally lacking in comprehension, you will forever be frustrated in these discussions.
It is NOT a universal thing to punctuate all debates with cleverly phrased insults designed to show your wit & erudition.

...but, I forget... "Bill doesn't get the point"

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 11:19 AM

"A bit of a bugger when you have to explain how you take the piss."

I would suggest a smidgeon more sophistication (or lack of, whatever) in thee's piss-taking. You tories can never carry it of with any degree of panaché or utter lack of class; must come of being so aspirational or something.


"I have commented before about various Brits inability to realize how their banter & 'irony' often fails to translate in print form in an international forum."

Various? That'll be all of us kind sir! If thou can't speak the lingo or understand owt then best leave alone me old mucker. This is not that American English but yer actual English wot is spoke reet proper by us over here. Bostin!


"It is NOT a universal thing to punctuate all debates with cleverly phrased insults designed to show your wit & erudition."

Bollocks to that!

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 11:29 AM

I understand that survival of the fittest means those organisms which inherit adaptions that facilitate their continuence. this may amount to an increase in size and strength etc, or a loss of function, eg a blind fish in a cave may do better that a sighted fish in that environment. does the phrase not equate to "...preservation of favoured races"?
when " survival of the fittest" was first expressed [post Darwin?] was that the meaning then.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 12:02 PM

Stu, just because you are a Tory, don't assume we socialists are...

Jack. Stop being perceptive, it doesn't become you.

Moderators, stop deleting my posts please. At the very least, show me where I am wrong in my appraisal of Keith. You can't can you? At the very least, keep the other bits in.

pete. "Favoured" infers a God concept to do the favouring. Now you are being silly....

Who's next?

Ah yes. Snail. I answered your question in the latest post to get deleted. If you must have an answer, take it up with the censors.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 12:09 PM

"Stu, just because you are a Tory, don't assume we socialists are..."

My toryism fling was over 30 years ago. I'm scarred for life. Jesus. The thought of it brings me out in a hot itchy rash.


"does the phrase not equate to "...preservation of favoured races"?"

No it doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 01:02 PM

Ooh.. Bloody hell..   You and Richard Bridge......

My conscience is clear, never voted Tory in my life. Mind you, I do consider myself a floating voter. Nice to be one of the few percent with actual power, even if it is just to keep the bastards on their toes.

I have never aspired to anything. My Mum wanted a girl, my Dad if truth be known, wanted a new wheelbarrow. I tried a different track. Got my head down, worked my balls off and the BMW fairy eventually granted me some wishes. Panache and class I leave to those who try too hard. A pressed dinner jacket* and a smile, that's all you need.

Survival of the drinkiest.

* Never buy one with a stripe down the leg. You will be confused with those bores who tell you they used to be in the paras. No class whatsoever and if you want to get on, avoid the buggers like the plague. Tell them you won the Tag Heuer Monaco in a game of cards, I guarantee they will be impressed. Then move on, they won't be offended.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 01:57 PM

Let's see if I've got this right. If Musket was being ironic, then that means he does rate foreign PhDs so he was supporting Jack and taking the piss out of Steve. Unexpected but encouraging.

If the Worshiful Musket is, in fact, he then "You just can't help yourself, sneering at anyone who questions your stance or approach." has an irony that even Bill should be able to get.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 05:00 PM

(And, if everyone knew when to use Were after If... we'd have fewer Pedant Alerts.)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 05:07 PM

ah, but is bill being American ironic !
musket," preservation of favoured races " is I seem to remember the end of the title of darwins "...origin...."
I suppose he may have been referring to God. he did apparently include a reference to a creator in one run of origins...... and later wrote that he regretted doing so.
thankyou stu, for your helpful answer [that might be irony!]
why I thought there might be equation is that races [organisms?] favoured by being fitted best for their continuence onward, would therefore survive by being better able/less hindered to perpetuate progeny.
yes, I know i'm saying the same thing in two different ways, but that is the point I am suggesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 05:40 PM

From: Rob Naylor - PM
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 08:16 PM
Nigel Parsons:But musicians also misquote science. How about:

"The Dark side of the Moon"?

....Ah, but at the end of "Eclipse" you do get the phrase: "there is no dark side of the moon, really. As a matter of fact it's all dark".
So they compound their error. "It's all dark"?
Surely, being roughly the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it should get the same (or more) sunlight per square meter as the Earth. (I say more because it doesn't have much atmosphere to reflect the sunlight).
Also, being smaller that the earth, the amount of reflected "Earthlight" it receives should be greater than the equivalent amount of Moonlight received by the Earth.
Of course, the 'side' of the Moon farthest from the Sun will appear dark as it is illuminated only by starlight (and occasionally Earthlight). But as the Moon also revolves (except relative to the Earth) the side facing the Sun changes.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Troubadour.
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 05:57 PM

"Didn't realise you were just as much a Little Englander as Keith.

Einstein University of Zürich.
Bohr University of Copenhagen
Heisenberg University of Munich
Planck University of Munich"

Easy enough to produce the best known names of scientists (all European).

Do you feel as sanguine about the qualifications of a PhD from an unknown bogus university selling degrees and diplomas for cash, most of which with the odd exception of a BA(Calcutta) or two, come from degree mills in the USA?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 06:15 PM

Troubadour, to turn your logic around on you, may I point out that, for better or for worse, Steve Shaw is on Britain. That does not make every Brit Steve Shaw.


UC Berkley is as good as any university in the world. There are degree mills in the U.S.A. But Berkley is not one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 06:46 PM

"Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody." 
― Mark Twain

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 06:47 PM

Troubadour
Do you feel as sanguine about the qualifications of a PhD from an unknown bogus university selling degrees and diplomas for cash, most of which with the odd exception of a BA(Calcutta) or two, come from degree mills in the USA?

No but that isn't what Musket said. He said "foreign" without any qualification. It turns out he was being ironic to support Jack by taking the piss out of Steve so it doesn't really matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:00 PM

"UC Berkley is as good as any university in the world."

I agree, but I think you mean to write Berkeley.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:03 PM

Nigel Parsons: ....Ah, but at the end of "Eclipse" you do get the phrase: "there is no dark side of the moon, really. As a matter of fact it's all dark".
So they compound their error. "It's all dark"?
Surely, being roughly the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it should get the same (or more) sunlight per square meter as the Earth. (I say more because it doesn't have much atmosphere to reflect the sunlight).
Also, being smaller that the earth, the amount of reflected "Earthlight" it receives should be greater than the equivalent amount of Moonlight received by the Earth.
Of course, the 'side' of the Moon farthest from the Sun will appear dark as it is illuminated only by starlight (and occasionally Earthlight). But as the Moon also revolves (except relative to the Earth) the side facing the Sun changes.

Grandmother to suck eggs! My first degree (since people are bandying qualifications about on this thread) is in Astrophysics to I'm perfectly aware of all that. In fact, the full comment at the end of "Eclipse" was: "There is no dark side in the moon, really. As a matter of fact, it's all dark. The only thing that makes it look light is the sun." But you can't hear the final sentence! It was one of the answers solicited by the band from people hanging around the studio who were given various questions on flash cards to which they were asked to give spontaneous answers. This one was from the Abbey Road Studios doorman Jerry O'Driscoll and IMO in its full version shows a very reasonable level of knowledge from a "lay" person giving an off-the-cuff answer to an unexpected question.

Being VERY pedantic, the full comment would have been more accurate if it had been: "There is no dark side in the moon, really. As a matter of fact, it's all dark. The only thing that makes it look light is the sun, and a bit of reflected light from the earth, but since that originated as sunlight anyway, we can still accurately say that the only thing that makes it look light is the sun"

But this really is stretching the original point . As someone above put it "artistic license is allowed" in these situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:07 PM

Half of the moon is lit all the time, with the exception of a lunar eclipse when the moon passes through the earth's shadow.

Reflcctive power is measured in "albedo" or brightness. An albedo of 100% would mean that the object in question reflects all of the light that hits it. Like, say, a mirror (although, strictly speaking, even a mirror doesn't reflect all of the light).

The earth has an albedo of about 39%.

The moon has an albedo of about 7%. But as one can see, even at a mere 7%, the moon appears to be pretty bright.

A lot depends on the material that is doing the reflecting. For example, on earth, the oceans reflect less than 10% of the light that hits them, whereas snow reflects a good 90%. The darker areas of a planet also absorb more heat, hence the environmentalists' concern over loosing snow fields, glaciers, and such. With diminishing snow fields, the earth absorbs more of the sun's heat. Vicious circle.

Don't buy waterfront property. When the polar caps melt, the map of the world (land areas) will change--diminish--radically.

No matter what Rush Limbaugh says....

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:46 PM

Pete from seven stars link: I understand that survival of the fittest means those organisms which inherit adaptions that facilitate their continuence. this may amount to an increase in size and strength etc, or a loss of function, eg a blind fish in a cave may do better that a sighted fish in that environment. does the phrase not equate to "...preservation of favoured races"?

Here we go again, with Pete slyly implying the old creationist chestnut "Darwin was a racist".

Was Darwin racist? Well, by 21st century standards, possibly yes. But by the standards of his own age, much less so than most, including the vast majority of devout christians.

He was banned from Captain Fitzroy's Mess on the Beagle for arguing that slavery was racist and unjust. Fitzroy argued strongly that slavery and racism were both justified by the scriptures, and therefore "holy". Fitzroy's views were much more representative of the period than were Darwin's.

The friend at college who taught Darwin taxidermy was black, and he also made great friends with the Fuegan on the beagle, Jeremy Button. He also points out that the rebelling slaves he encountered in Brazil were "mentally and tactically as capable as the greatest of Roman generals".

Darwin's family ( he was connected to the Wedgewoods and Wilberforces) put a great deal of money and effort into abolition of slavery, and his writings at the time show clearly that he agreed with this.

The "quote-mining" that creationists use, such as his comment that "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." fail to see the full context of his point. Such quotes are produced as evidence of Darwin's *approval* of the situation, whereas he's actually just describing *objectively* what to him seems an inevitable outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 08:03 PM

Nothing passes me by, Wackers, never fear. Let's just say that she has to endure guilt by association, thanks to the cretin who wrote the piece. As for this survival of the fittest malarkey, Darwin, had he been alive today, would be turning in his grave. Natural selection has nothing to do with the survival of species or of individuals, nor of that vague category "the fittest", but everything to do with the non-random survival of heritable traits (as Darwin would have recognised it). It is all about differential survival of traits within species, not between species or between individuals. It's depressing (though, in a way, delicious, as ever) to see the likes of ignorami like Wacko and Keith pontificating about such things when, in fact, they haven't a clue what they'e on about. Howard's post is a star. It behoves scientists to find good ways of communicating with non-scientists, not, as in the case of the the pompous author of Wacko's silly piece, to diss the public for committing the grievous sin of not understanding jargon.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 08:08 PM

"they're" and not "the the" innit. Can't get the bloody staff.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 08:30 PM

...may I point out that, for better or for worse, Steve Shaw is on Britain. That does not make every Brit Steve Shaw.

Translator's note please... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 09:33 PM

""So two scientists walk into a bar. The first says"Can I get a H 2 O?", and drinks it down. The second says "Can I get a H 2 O too?", drinks it down, and dies""

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 11:33 PM

Pshaw,

How in the fuck would you know what it "behooves" a scientist? Did you see it over the "Berlin Wall in Newton's brain" you were hallucinating about?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 01:19 AM

Yeah, I er..... what was it again snail?

Just in case, bollocks to you anyway.

Wonderful reference to BA Calcutta somewhere up in the posts. Just to be pedantic, the sleuth hound journalist was called BA Calcutta (failed) if I recall my Perishers correctly. Ironically, he was followed round by a bitch who's catchphrase was "Hello Sailor!"

The inter connectivity of things proves that beer can often still be in your system the next morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 05:02 AM

Keith pontificating about such things

I have not pontificated at all.
I just suggested that the professor might know as much about her field of research as you do Steve.
On what grounds do you judge her a "cretin" please?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 06:17 AM

If you don't understand what you are talking about, Musket, how do you expect anyone esle to?

I see Steve Shaw still hasn't grasped that Survival of the Fittest was quoted to debunk it.

If I were you Mrrzy, I wouldn't try to be too clever for my own good.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 06:56 AM

"why I thought there might be equation is that races [organisms?] favoured by being fitted best for their continuence onward, would therefore survive by being better able/less hindered to perpetuate progeny. yes, I know i'm saying the same thing in two different ways, but that is the point I am suggesting."

Jesus H. Christ.


"A pressed dinner jacket* ...

* Never buy one with a stripe down the leg."

Huh?

I haven't worn dinner jacket for over thirty years. Not my sort of social; the sort of alpha males you get at those dos are so laughable and full of shite it makes me wince.

"BMW fairy eventually granted me some wishes.."

Ugh. Give me a Morris traveller or a camper van. Or a bus service at night and on Sundays.

"Tell them you won the Tag Heuer Monaco in a game of cards"

Is this something to do with horse racing?


"It behoves scientists to find good ways of communicating with non-scientists..."

Too true. This is a real issue and there is a problem with science communication, but it's worth understanding why this situation exists. For starters, funding has been cut too the quick and many researchers, especially PhD candidates and post docs have to fight hard to get funding for their work, let alone out reach.

Secondly, dumbing down is not the answer for any number of reasons. Howard is correct that the general usage of a word like 'theory' is different to the more technical definition that a scientists has in mind when they use term; however the general usage is still wrong in many cases and this should be made clear. The press has a part in this, as Paxman demonstrated earlier in the week when Prof. Alice attempted to correct him on his misunderstanding of the term only for her to be interrupted by Paxo mid-sentence.

I can't speak for other disciplines but in palaeontology there is a heck of a lot of outreach that goes on at a local level. This isn't the flash TV kind but showing the public and especially kids actual scientific research and answering the myriad of questions asked about our work and it's a vital part of getting folk engaged with what we do and why it is relevant to their everyday lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 07:31 AM

Such dinners are where funding for post docs take place. I'd get mine pressed if you are that concerned Stu.

My youngest is looking at post doc but at the same time, being lured towards interviews with companies carrying out the sharp end of what he has been researching for his PhD. The world has moved on and not in the best direction since I was involved. My chair (visiting, not staff) is in healthcare and even that is feeling the pinch.

The discussions over dumbing down and getting messages across are poignant in this field. The evidence points to large regional centres of excellence for complicated medical work and the politics point to accessible care. Both aspirational, both with merit. Completely different structures needed to satisfy. Anybody wishing to say the evidence base must always trump ignorance needs to take my place addressing large public meetings with hostile press and genuinely frightened members of the public, and try saying the evidence trumps their wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 07:58 AM

As Musket pointed out. There is some politics and propaganda involved in some of those misconceptions, but I think most stem from lazy reporting and fiction writing.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 09:06 AM

I worked with an organization with about 200 science Phds for many years. I respect all for their excellence in their individual field of study.

An observation was that while most were intently focused on their research field, many (while not all) seemed to have deficiencies (possibly from a lack of interest) in knowledge on broader fields. Most notable areas tgat seemed to puzzle them were changing social and political issues and norms ( which often defy traditional logic).

Taking this into consideration, I would not hire any of them to do concrete work in my home, choosing a professiinal in that field. Nor would I look to a vicar to explain any field of science.

This is why it seems odd to me that many look to scientists (Phds) to provide a clear viewpoint (professional or otherwise) on a "religious belief". Why would one expect their viewpoint in this area to be superior týo many others in society? Given a choice, I would choose a philosopher to provide a more logical viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 09:34 AM

"Such dinners are where funding for post docs take place. I'd get mine pressed if you are that concerned Stu."

I'm not really too concerned. I'm a fat, middle-aged bloke whose been lucky to get as far as even starting my PhD; I can't see me going for tenure and I might give the post doc route a miss altogether. Lots to think about if I ever succeed.

"Anybody wishing to say the evidence base must always trump ignorance needs to take my place addressing large public meetings with hostile press and genuinely frightened members of the public, and try saying the evidence trumps their wishes."

Shine on - makes conference presentations look like a walk in the park.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 11:14 AM

Rob Naylor:
Grandmother to suck eggs! My first degree (since people are bandying qualifications about on this thread) is in Astrophysics to I'm perfectly aware of all that. In fact, the full comment at the end of "Eclipse" was: "There is no dark side in the moon, really. As a matter of fact, it's all dark. The only thing that makes it look light is the sun." But you can't hear the final sentence! It was one of the answers solicited by the band from people hanging around the studio who were given various questions on flash cards to which they were asked to give spontaneous answers. This one was from the Abbey Road Studios doorman Jerry O'Driscoll and IMO in its full version shows a very reasonable level of knowledge from a "lay" person giving an off-the-cuff answer to an unexpected question.

Being VERY pedantic, the full comment would have been more accurate if it had been: "There is no dark side in the moon, really. As a matter of fact, it's all dark. The only thing that makes it look light is the sun, and a bit of reflected light from the earth, but since that originated as sunlight anyway, we can still accurately say that the only thing that makes it look light is the sun"
Thank you for that 'clarification', and i'm glad to see that you have an astrophysics degree to (although I can't see what the 'to' relates to).
Unfortunately I didn't benefit from higher education, so my descriptions & understandings may seem simplistic.

I take it from your description that (excluding a small amount of light pollution) the earth should also be considered as being 'dark'.
I shall have to be careful not to trip over when walking about in daylight!
Does 'dark' equate to non-luminescent in the lingo af astrophysicists? If so then presumably 'light' means illuminated other than by external sources.

I think I need a new dictionary.

But thanks for the 'illumination'.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 11:26 AM

"To" is a typo. "So" is what he meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 12:20 PM

Science is the religion of guessing..and religion is the art of pretending.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 01:00 PM

And irrationality is the art of Goofus...

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 01:01 PM

I'll take that as a compliment..after all, you ARE the expert at irrationality!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: frogprince
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 01:28 PM

"Science is the religion of guessing..."

I challenge anyone to say more convoluted things, all of which are totally wrong, in as few words as that.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 02:06 PM

"As for this survival of the fittest malarkey, Darwin, had he been alive today, would be turning in his grave. Natural selection has nothing to do with the survival of species or of individuals, nor of that vague category "the fittest", but everything to do with the non-random survival of heritable traits (as Darwin would have recognised it). It is all about differential survival of traits within species, not between species or between individuals."

Thank you, Steve, for the above. Though I suspect there will be issues with the terms random vs. non-random. How alleles sort out during meiosis is a far cry from how alleles sort out within a population. I still remember the epiphany when it finally dawned that mutation is within an individual and evolution within a population. Then came survival of the lucky... being the most fit only goes so far. Otherwise, there'd still be vegetation on Antarctica.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 02:08 PM

His brevity of words is applaudable. Not often you can weigh someone up as having the Goofus gene in so few words. Sadly for us, we have a few volumes of the bugger to go at.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 02:28 PM

With, of course, the assertion of the possibility of there being a "Goofus gene being a scientific misconception.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 02:47 PM

Ed T your quandary regarding truth is a universal one. The word I have come to describe this and advance the multiplicities of truth is Perspectivism. By weighing the cause and history of one person's truth with everyone else within the hive mind focuses and enlarges ever more greater truth. It is a subject unto itself.



Scientific misconceptions can be failed hypothesis, failed reasoning or simply forgetting to convert to metric.
Being right is still not a final perfect conclusion since one may not see how it can still be wrong somewhere within a complex evolving system. I have many examples of this I will not include here.
Being right for the wrong reasons is pretty damn good since none of us are omniscient.

In my book a misconception might just be the best we can do.

It seems to me that our known universe does not even reveal itself as a complete perfect conception. As products of our universe why should we be different.

The best you can hope for are some humble cohesive grams of facts we can add to the weight atop the shoulders of all those who have come before us.




What is genius? It is billions of things but sometimes it is just not ignoring the obvious.
Einstein saw the obvious fact that light relative to its speed exists it a different time scale to those who stand next to a clock.

I say there was a second big bang after the first in which all the opposite Energies, spins vectors and unknowns canceled each other out leaving behind our present light and dark matters which no longer interact beyond gravity. Its obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 02:51 PM

rob.....you totally misread my posts. I thought I suggested reasonably clearly that I thought "races" had a much more general meaning in the title of darwins book.
I was aware of some of your misapplied application but I think I learned a bit extra, thanks.
but since you raised that quote.....who do you think the civilised are, and who the savage ?. I seem to recall mention of the caucasion and the negro ! I,m sure you have the full context and can tell me if I am mistaken.
of course, if Darwin did regard the negro as less evolved, he was racist, though such a view might be consistent with his theory.
is that what he "objectively" believed?
I think it was gould who said that there had always been racism but with Darwin ,it increased by order of magnitude [not an exact quote]

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 03:03 PM

"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."

Frank Herbert - Dune

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 08:01 PM

As Musket pointed out. There is some politics and propaganda involved in some of those misconceptions, but I think most stem from lazy reporting and fiction writing.

Unfortunately, Wackers dear fellow (or fellowess - who's to know?), once again, as we English northerners tend to put it, you have shat in your own bed. Lazy reporting and fiction-writing is the precise description of the commentator's arrogant and ignorant verbiage in your original link. It's really sad that you can't see it. Not surprising, you being you, but still really sad.

As for your earlier "Pshaw" post, once again I should like to request a translator's note. Damned if I know what you're on about. Thank Christ you're not a scientist. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 12:01 AM

Froggy: "I challenge anyone to say more convoluted things, all of which are totally wrong, in as few words as that."

I challenge you to think my statement through...and you will see that it is dead on!

GfS

P.S....Start with a hypothesis....an educated....ummm ..'guess'.....and test all the 'possibilities'...and maybe one comes out right...so you can eliminate 'guessing' in that area.....etc. etc. etc....
Just think it through......

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 01:11 AM

To conduct scientific research:

- Make observations
- Create a hypothesis
- Plan and carry out an experiment to test the hypothesis
- Assess the outcomes of the experiment
- Refuse or accept the hypothesis

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 01:18 AM

A hypothesis is considerably more than an "educated guess."

That might be the layman's approach, but to a scientist, one needs to have justifiable reasons for one's "educated guess" if it is to be taken seriously by other scientists.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 09:23 AM

"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." ― Niels Bohr

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 09:23 AM

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" 
― Albert Einstein

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 09:26 AM

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but 'That's funny..." ― Isaac Asimov

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 10:39 AM

More misconceptions- Blame the poets!

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Troubadour.
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 10:51 AM

"UC Berkley is as good as any university in the world. There are degree mills in the U.S.A. But Berkley is not one of them."

I made no comment on the merit or otherwise of U.C. Berkeley, or on the various ladies whose names were mentioned.

My post was in response to the comment I quoted (just so that anybody capable of reading would know what I was talking about), which you apparently didn't notice.

My point was that, with certain notable exceptions, foreign qualifications are often suspect and occasionally bogus.

It is quite often the case that people with high sounding letters after their names will pontificate upon subjects outwith their field, and outwith their knowledge.

One doesn't have to be a "little Englander" to require more than letters after a name, before giving credence to apparently "expert" utterances.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 12:22 PM

Sorry Troubie,

I thought that your post had some relation to the original topic.

Please pardon me for not recognizing your aside.



Pshaw, Because I am not a scientist, I don't claim to be a scientist or to represent science. Nor do I claim to be able to psychoanalyze the long dead. Between you and I that make one of us. Doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 12:48 PM

The word "expert" comes from two Latin words.

"Ex," meaning "has-been" and "spurt," meaning a little drip under pressure.

--A Nonny Mouse.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 02:39 PM

Ed T. said "Given a choice, I would choose a philosopher to provide a more logical viewpoint."

Always available.. seldom called.

The trouble is, we don't provide short, pithy 'answers'. About 1/4 of the way thru the introductory paragraphs, folks eyes glaze over and they make some excuse to creep away.
"I think my cat's on fire." has the ring.....

But we DO have fairly short, pithy remarks on what is NOT a logical viewpoint.. ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 05:03 PM

Slightly more than half the moon is illuminated as it has a diameter considerably smaller than the diameter of the sun's photosphere, but at considerable distance from it.
Statistically will this tiny amount be equal to the shading caused by eclipses?
Just wondered.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 07:11 PM

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." " - Albert Einstein"

"A hypothesis is considerably more than an "educated guess."

...and after researching a matter, if the hypothesis doesn't prove out correct....it's time to try another hypothesis....or ....'guess again'...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 07:33 PM

An interesting perspective on Einstein, science and religion from the New Republic:

On Einstein, Science and Religion  

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 07:59 AM

GUEST,Troubadour
My point was that, with certain notable exceptions, foreign qualifications are often suspect and occasionally bogus.

Possibly true, Troubadour, but irrelevant. What Musket said was "Foreign PhDs don't cut it with me either.". Not U.S.A PhDs. Not "degree mills". No "notable exceptions". Foreign! All of them. It turns out he was being ironic in order to take the piss out of his erstwhile friend Steve Shaw.

One doesn't have to be a "little Englander" to require more than letters after a name, before giving credence to apparently "expert" utterances.

I quite agree. It is worth digging a little deeper. Annalee Newitz does, indeed have a PhD from University of California, Berkeley and has also worked as a research fellow at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She appears to have a long and distinguished career as a journalist specialising in the cultural impact of science and technology.

Steve Shaw thinks she is a cretin.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 08:38 AM

I thought that the article said some important things. Semantics play a role in science and definitions are important to convey empirical pursuits. Science is about discovery, not platitudes. The only scientific data that is credible has to be ascertained by scientific consensus, which is subject to change when later information is gained.

That said, I have met some pretty ignorant PHD's in my time. Many from seminaries
and religious institutions.

Neils Bohr said that those who think they understand quantum physics, don't understand quantum physics. The point of that statement is that whether you hold a PHD or not, it is important to truly assess the information that you are given and be open enough to decide that it was wrong if proved otherwise. To me that's the constructive use of science.

It's also easy to find junk science and some of it is manufactured by PHD's.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 09:43 AM

""A visitor to Niels Bohr's country cottage, noticing a horseshoe hanging on the wall, teasing the eminent scientist about this ancient superstition. "Can it be true that you, of all people, believe it will bring you luck?'
'Of course not,' replied Bohr, 'but I understand it brings you luck whether you believe it or not.'" 
— Niels Bohr
As described in Clifton Fadiman (ed.), André Bernard (ed.), Bartlett's Book of Anecdotes

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 09:56 AM

""The existence of life must be considered as an elementary fact that can not be explained, but must be taken as a starting point in biology, in a similar way as the quantum of action, which appears as an irrational element from the point of view of classical mechanical physics, taken together with the existence of elementary particles, forms the foundation of atomic physics. The asserted impossibility of a physical or chemical explanation of the function peculiar to life would in this sense be analogous to the insufficiency of the mechanical analysis for the understanding of the stability of atoms. ""
— Niels Bohr
'Light and Life', Nature, 1933

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 12:23 PM

Stringsinger: "Neils Bohr said that those who think they understand quantum physics, don't understand quantum physics. The point of that statement is that whether you hold a PHD or not, it is important to truly assess the information that you are given and be open enough to decide that it was wrong if proved otherwise. To me that's the constructive use of science."

In other words...they're still guessing!

(BTW, Stringsinger, Hello!..Nice to see you posting...)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 12:36 PM

GfS has an odd definition of 'guess'. Not even like a dartboard- if one posits a dartboard as being a body of information, that makes the dart a guess. But no. He seems to believe that science consists of guesses being unrelated to any actual information whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 12:39 PM

""Truth is something that we can attempt to doubt, and then perhaps, after much exertion, discover that part of the doubt is not justified. ""
— Niels Bohr, Quoted in Bill Becker, 'Pioneer of the Atom', New York Times Sunday Magazine 

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 01:03 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: pdq - PM
Date: 18 Jun 14 - 11:24 AM

"Biography:

Annalee Newitz...was the recipient of a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at MIT, and has a Ph.D. in English and American Studies from UC Berkeley."


UC Berkeley grad, lives in San Fraancisco, has no background in science. Perfect NPR guest...


I don't understand the criticism. Ms Newitz is not a scientist. She's a journalist. It's not her job to be an expert, but to gather information from experts.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 01:09 PM

I wouldn't really think it objectionable to refer to a hypothesis as an "educated guess", if

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Rumncoke
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 03:41 PM

I just wish that the idea that injecting or altering DNA will instantly alter the size, appearance and/or behaviour of an organism could be forbidden as a plot in books, films or whatever.

It just doesn't work like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 04:10 PM

Rumncoke: ".....idea that injecting or altering DNA will instantly alter the size, appearance and/or behaviour of an organism could be forbidden as a plot in books, films or whatever.
It just doesn't work like that."

It only works that way in politics!.....(Speaking of fiction...)



frogprince: "I wouldn't really think it objectionable to refer to a hypothesis as an "educated guess", if"

I think it's perfectly logical...'educated', as if the homework has been done, enough to 'Guess'..as in 'try it out'.


Ebbie: "GfS has an odd definition of 'guess'. Not even like a dartboard- if one posits a dartboard as being a body of information, that makes the dart a guess. But no. He seems to believe that science consists of guesses being unrelated to any actual information whatever."

SEE ABOVE.


Ed T: "Truth is something that we can attempt to doubt, and then perhaps, after much exertion, discover that part of the doubt is not justified."

...considering we knew what the truth was all along....

and then there's this..

......considering we knew what the truth was all along....especially when what has been done to 'politics' and 'religion'....after all, they filter most the answers and concepts.....even steer you what questions to ask, while discouraging others...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 05:03 PM

You almost got what I suspect was the "truth" quote meaning, gfs.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 08:38 PM

Well, popular science can be a great communicator, but, in this case, the writer was talking utter bollocks. The person quoted in the piece must be squirming. And, Snailie, do try to not be overly-clever: if you're really going to use fancy words such as "erstwhile", then you really should know what they mean first. Or, be like me: let your speech be yea yea, nay nay...

And dearest Wacko, yet another post from you that meaneth nothing at all. Are you overdosing on tramadol, by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 09:09 PM

Almost????....I think I took it a step further...without over stepping...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 09:54 PM

Nuts; I posted at 1:09, had to depart immediately afterward, and just discovered that most of my post had evaporated; I suspect that I blew the code for ending the italics. I really don't have the heart to reconstruct it all, so make of things as you will.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 10:00 PM

I will say though, that I don't see any justification for referring to the scientific process as "the religion of" anything. That ain't confusing apples with oranges, that's confusing apples with penguins.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:01 AM

frogprince
Nuts; I posted at 1:09, had to depart immediately afterward, and just discovered that most of my post had evaporated; I suspect that I blew the code for ending the italics.

Yes you did but your message was hiding there in the page source -

I wouldn't really think it objectionable to refer to a hypothesis as an "educated guess", if all parties involved realize that that is said within the context of the whole scientific process, the "guess" being stated in testable/disprovable terms and in fact subjected to experiment and review. But commitment to a process that has long proven itself viable and useful in dealing with real-life material matters is not "religion".

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:13 AM

Spooky. I mention the foreign one, and Snail says in answer to something else "I wouldn't really think it objectionable to refer to a hypothesis as an "educated guess",

This is what I wrote back in the mists of time;

"Eine Hypothese ist eine fundierte Schätzung."

Basically the same.

(I am not fluent in German, especially not grammatically and had assistance writing the German script.)

But as Snail says, I don't have faith in foreign PhDs.....

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:22 AM

Just looked up "erstwhile". yes, that's what I meant.

it has been a while since your comment was clarified so time to take it out of context again.

Don't tell me, tell Troubador. He was the one who dragged it up again. I know it was clarified. You were taking the piss out of Steve.

I even have a foreign PhD......

Don't tell Troubador. He thinks they're rubbish.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:44 AM

Musket
Spooky. I mention the foreign one, and Snail says in answer to something else "I wouldn't really think it objectionable to refer to a hypothesis as an "educated guess",

No I didn't. Read frogprince's posts of 22 Jun 14 - 01:09 PM and 22 Jun 14 - 09:54 PM then re-read mine of 23 Jun 14 - 06:01 AM.

Pay attention at the back.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:27 PM

I am not aware than any recent correspondent has been "taking the piss" out of me. I think most people around here know that that is a less than sensible ploy. And you clearly do not know what "erstwhile" means. It's a lovely word, but what a travesty it is when a tit such as yourself misuses it. Get a better dictionary, or, better, become better read. Better better better! Remember that from one of Paul's songs on Sgt Pepper?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:46 PM

Snail: "But commitment to a process that has long proven itself viable and useful in dealing with real-life material matters is not "religion".

Actually, you're wrong...(just think, Mudcat history..I'm coming to Muskrat's and Froggie's defense....'Religion' technically means 'Way of life'...and therefore "Science is 'the way of life' (or 'Religion'), is quite accurate.....I think we covered the 'guessing' part....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 07:16 PM

Steve Shaw
I am not aware than any recent correspondent has been "taking the piss" out of me.

There are probably quite a lot of things you aren't aware of.

GfS
Snail: "But commitment to a process that has long proven itself viable and useful in dealing with real-life material matters is not "religion".

Not me who said that.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 07:41 PM

Easy to say, Gastropodus insensibilitissimus, but not quite so easy to back up. Tell me: why ARE you so bitter and so prone to stalking?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 09:41 PM

Too alkaline.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 01:49 AM

Sprinkling them with salt usually helps.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 02:25 AM

Snail:
"GfS
Snail: "But commitment to a process that has long proven itself viable and useful in dealing with real-life material matters is not "religion".

Not me who said that.""

Huh?

From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:01 AM

" .....But commitment to a process that has long proven itself viable and useful in dealing with real-life material matters is not "religion".


See what happens when you try to mix political stances to accommodate one's politics....??...or is it:

Roses are red
Violets are blue,
I'm a schizophrenic
..and so am I.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 02:31 AM

Your own memory doesn't serve you well either Goofus. Remember? It goes...

Roses are red
I am just larking
About on my keyboard
And Goofus is barking

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 05:58 AM

Good Grief! Am I really responding to Goofus?

I've already had to explain this to Musket. Read my post to him at 23 Jun 14 - 06:44 AM.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 06:03 AM

Steve Shaw
why ARE you so bitter and so prone to stalking?

Bitter? Not at all. Stalking? Well, maybe. Perhaps it's because you're such an easy target.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 05:21 PM

Hey, Guest from Non-Coherency; when that appeared in the Gastropod's post, he made it quite plain that he was quoting me.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 07:38 PM

Heheh. Hands up all those who think that Snailie ever scores on this oh-so-easy target. Shut up, Wacko. I wasn't asking you.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 07:58 PM

You asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 08:03 PM

Jesus, you found Snailie's Facebook fan club page. B*ast*ard! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 Jun 14 - 08:24 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Jun 14 - 04:51 AM

Roses are redish,
Violets are blueish
If it wasn't for Christmas
We'd all be jewish :)


Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Some poems rhyme,
Others don't

Rose's are red
Violet's are blue.
Sue doesn't wear them,
That's why I'm with Sue.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Jun 14 - 01:17 PM

Steve Shaw
I am not aware than any recent correspondent has been "taking the piss" out of me.

There are probably quite a lot of things you aren't aware of.


Such as the definition "erstwhile" and how to read anything more complicated than a MacDonalds menu.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 25 Jun 14 - 08:07 PM

"Don't tell Troubador. He thinks they're rubbish."

Would you kindly refrain from attributing to me, words that I didn't say?

I made it very clear that the mere possession of a degree doesn't of itself suffice to prove expertise in any subject other than that to which the degree relates.

And your spelling could improve also.

My moniker is quite clearly displayed.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jun 14 - 09:12 PM

Well, do give us your own definition of "erstwhile", Wacko. And do try to do something about your apostrophes while you're at it. I've told you before not to try to pick me up on my use of English, Wackers. For your own good, do be told, darling.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 12:18 AM

Oh No!..The 'scientific ones have taken over the thread....and even consistent with the topic...'Scientific misconceptions.'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 12:27 AM

Snail: "Good Grief! Am I really responding to Goofus?"

"No Doc, there's no physical signs of life.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 05:01 PM

Troubadour
I made it very clear that the mere possession of a degree doesn't of itself suffice to prove expertise in any subject other than that to which the degree relates.

Previously from Troubadour
My point was that, with certain notable exceptions, foreign qualifications are often suspect and occasionally bogus.

I wish you'd make up your mind.

You didn't object to Jack the Sailor calling you Troubie.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 05:07 PM

I know I should leave this alone but it's like itching a scratch or picking a scab. Somehow you just can't stop.

Steve, I owe you an apology. I had assumed from your first post to this thread that you had hit the "Survival of the Fittest" line and read no further, basing your "bollocks" and "cretin" on what you assumed was said rather than what was actually said. I didn't bother to study your subsequent posts thoroughly. I was wrong. I have rediscovered your second post of 18 Jun 14 - 07:31 PM.

The piece on evolutionary theory is just waffle. A typical piece of half-arsed popular science journalism.

A good Shavian start.

Yes, Darwin did not refer to "survival of the fittest" in Origin, in fact, he was extremely dubious about the expression being misused at all to describe his theory.

That's pretty much what the article said so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Next, "survival of the fittest", as described by the ignorant writer of the piece, has nothing to do with individuals or species or whatever, but has everything to do with what Darwin might have called heritable traits, or what we might call genes.

WHAAAT???!!!

There is so much wrong with that sentence that it is difficult to know were to start.

I'll start at the end. No, heritable traits are not the same thing as genes. I suggest you go and read up on the difference between phenotype and genotype.

Back to the beginning. Since you have (quite rightly, in my opinion and that of the writer of the article) brushed aside "survival of the fittest" as fairly meaningless why do you go on to discuss what it "has nothing to do with"?

In the middle. If what you are actually talking about is natural selection, then, yes, it has absolutely everything to do with individuals and species. It is driven by the reproductive success, relative to other members of its species, of an individual organism. If its physical characteristics, derived from its genome, lead to it producing more offspring than its rivals, then its genetic inheritance becomes more widespread in the population.

It is alarming that someone as steeped in Darwin and Dawkins as you has totally failed to grasp this.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 08:08 PM

Dear chap, get your self up to date. There is nothing wrong with that sentence. Natural selection does not operate at species nor even at individual level, but on characteristics which can be selected for (surprise, surprise). You appear, sadly, to be sharing the delusions of the petes and the fascists of this world who seek to usurp Darwin's notions for their own causes. Your supposed point about phenotype and genotype is so removed from what we're talking about here as to make one suspect (along with all the other evidence) that you simply like to bandy words and haven't really got a clue as to what you're talking about.

As for this piece of almost impenetrable prose:

If what you are actually talking about is natural selection, then, yes, it has absolutely everything to do with individuals and species. It is driven by the reproductive success, relative to other members of its species, of an individual organism. If its physical characteristics, derived from its genome, lead to it producing more offspring than its rivals, then its genetic inheritance becomes more widespread in the population.

Natural selection operates on heritable traits, not individuals or species, whether you like it or not. Darwin was at pains to point this out. Yes, differential "reproductive success" [sic] is worth discussing, but your last statement is meaningless gibberish. Do look things up before you post. You're not Wacko, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 08:10 PM

yourself innit

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 05:39 AM

Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection.

Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species", Penguin Classics, p115

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 10:20 AM

Steve,

It seems that whenever you read something you don't understand, you say it it "bollocks" and accuse the writer of ignorance. I am going to assume that you have the ability to look up "erstwhile" yourself and take your blathering as proof of your belligerent benightedness.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 10:31 AM

B. Aliteracy there...

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 10:33 AM

I thought I had posted some time earlier... but it seems to have gone into the ether...

Darwin's work was done in the first part of the 19th century... the work of Watson & Crick came 100 years later... Darwin understood that heredity was the crux of the matter, but also knew that the mechanism was still unknown as to how traits were passed down through generations.

I still remember the epiphany when it finally dawned that evolution occurs within populations, and survival of the fittest can actually mean survival of the lucky. Otherwise, Antarctica would still be vegetated... except for that pesky continental drift.

A species can be wonderfully adapted to its environment, only to have the environment change... without inheritable traits that can adapt to the changed environment or the ability to leave, that formerly well adapted (ie. fittest) species is in trouble.

The geologic record shows periods of mass extinction... indicating changes so vast that very few organisms could cope and leave descendents.

The value of Darwin's work is that additional information from a variety of disparate fields supports his premise and helps refine the theory... which he fully hoped would happen - more information and understanding would improve upon his early work.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 11:00 AM

The more widely the seeds are spread, the more likely vestiges will survive?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 11:31 AM

"The more widely the seeds are spread, the more likely vestiges will survive?"

consider the ginko tree... the last representative species still extant, found in a remote location and then transplanted around the world.

I prefer to think of evolution as the history of populations... it's really the study of what has happened in the past, because the present is still murky and the future has yet to unfold. History could not predict events like the rise of fascism or communism... but you can look through the historic record and trace the events that did result in those events. Just as life is what happens while you're making other plans... so is history and evolution.

We understand the basics of plate tectonics, but still can't pinpoint an eruption. Or predict which orbiting body will intersect our orbit until it actually happens and someone discovers it. When you deal with endangered species, it becomes very clear that extinction isn't all that hard to achieve... it's reversing the trend that's difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 01:10 PM

Speaking of plate tectonics, late this morning I was subjected to wildly extreme ultra low frequency booms that lasted about five or six seconds. It was related to but was different than thunder. I have never experienced anything like it before. It was intense.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 01:50 PM

Donuel...

reminds me of the day that the hubby was sitting in class - big auditorium- when the fixtures started to sway and the plastic (fortunately) light panels fell to the floor. The professor goes, "What the hell was that?!?"

It was a geology class and the professor was a leading expert in plate techtonics.... :D ... he figured it out soon enough, the epicenter was a few miles north, but it still makes for a good story. And even relatively stable areas have their little surprises.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 02:41 PM

I decided to check out Google for hits on scientific method and Wiki does an intersting job...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

one major annoyance for me over the years has been the overuse of "testimonials", first person accounts of their thoughts but with little or no background provided to help you determine the validity of their statements. I tried to put some kind of order to what I would read in Organic Gardening back in the 1970's and found all kinds of contradictory information.

It turned out that without any background information regarding the geographic area, climate and soil types there was no way to determine what factors were involved that would influence their results. There are very good reasons why seed packets come with information regarding growing zones... what they often leave off are the other requirements for strong growth, such as soil pH, mineral content and tilth.

It is not enough to say we tried to grow this variety of tomato, did this, that, and the other thing and here is what happened. You have to provide the background information.. what kind of soil type, the elevation of the land, degree days (how many days at the needed temperature) and rainfall are just some of the info that is needed to make reasonable assumptions.

The point being... testimonials are only good for a single situation and can not be relied upon to provide useful information for other situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 02:14 PM

The more widely the seeds are spread, the more likely vestiges will survive?

Therefore, "widespreadness" (if it wasn't a word before, it is now) is just another element of "fitness"!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 02:33 PM

Random thoughts:

Fitness could be a big factor of spreading seeds widely, but not necessarily the only one-especially for survival over the long term, in a rapidly changing world.

A good question is what would define "fit", and fit for what?

When circumstances change rapidly, more than before, would some of the previous definitions of being "fit"change with it? Specialization for survival for one situation could be seen as a benefit one day, and be a hinderance the next, with a new playing field.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 02:40 PM

Would it be fair to speculate that bacteria is more "fit" for long term survival than humans (certainly as to ability to adapt)? If so, should we change our view and see bacteria as a higher life form than humans? While that does not make sense, condidering it can help frame the meaning of the word fit, and if it is a useful criteria.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 06:26 PM

Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection.

Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species", Penguin Classics, p115

What a shame that poor old Charles Darwin has the likes of you and Adolf around to misinterpret him. The whole point of the passage you quote is that it is the variation, mentioned in the first line, that is selected for. Not the individual or the species or the race or whatever you neo-Darwinists wish to tendentiously insert. You are seriously struggling, pete-like, with this stuff. Why don't you toddle off now and do a bit of revision?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 06:32 PM

It seems that whenever you read something you don't understand, you say it it "bollocks" and accuse the writer of ignorance. I am going to assume that you have the ability to look up "erstwhile" yourself and take your blathering as proof of your belligerent benightedness.

An amusing aside, this, from Wackeroo, if nothing else. Perhaps this clown will finally apprise us as to what he thinks "erstwhile" actually means. Anyone think he'll look it up first? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:35 PM

erstwhile
ˈəːstwʌɪl/
adjective
adjective: erstwhile

    1.
    former.
    "the erstwhile president of the company"
    synonyms:        former, old, past, one-time, sometime, as was, ex-, late, then; More
    previous, prior, foregoing;
    formalquondam;
    archaicwhilom
    "written in memory of the composer's erstwhile teacher"
    antonyms:        present, future

adverb
archaic
adverb: erstwhile

    1.
    formerly.
    "Mary Anderson, erstwhile the queen of America's stage"

Simple really!

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 07:00 AM

Steve Shaw
What a shame that poor old Charles Darwin has the likes of you and Adolf around to misinterpret him

Don't do that Steve, there's a good chap. It only serves to draw attention to your complete failure to put forward any sort of coherent scientific case.

I am not sure how I can be accused of misrepresenting Darwin by quoting him verbatim. You seem to have some trouble understanding what he said. Perhaps some highlights would help -

Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:37 PM

Troubadour

I am confident that you could put that in front of Mr. Shaw five times and he still would not glean the meaning of the word. He is fortunate that in human civilization culling is less common that in herd animals, for example, wild jackasses, creatures Mr. Shaw no doubt has an affinity for.

If you listen carefully, you will find that the English wild jackass does not say "Hee Haw." He says "Steve Shaw."

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:40 PM

It's Jackarse, not Jackass.

Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 04:36 PM

seems steve has been missing my contributions, judging by his attempts to insult his fellow believers, whose doctrine is not close enough to his own, by comparing them to me.
did I understand that he is not neo Darwinist!?
as I understand it; Darwin thought that natural selection was a sufficient mechanism for pond scum to ponderous professors evolution.
as that would not now seem to be not the case, the added ingredient,... added since, is mutations, very occasionally, throwing up something to move the process forward, this ,I thought is neo Darwinism.
by all means correct me if I have this wrong. I realize that this is not a complete picture of the idea.
in the mean time, I must admit , that it is quite amusing watching a bunch of scientists who all believe evolution is true, squabbling about how it is supposed to have happened!

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 07:34 PM

You're getting old, Snailie. You seem to think that brainless verbatim quotes with bits in tendentious red can make a case. Why, anyone can do that. Dear boy, that is no substitute for proper argument. The point here is that you haven't adequate brain-power to interpret the passages you quote with sufficient clarity. It really is quite simple, and a re-reading of your quoted passage, this time with the intent of comprehending it properly, will tell you that natural selection operates on heritable traits. Natural selection operates on heritable traits. Natural selection operates on heritable traits.

Not on individuals and not on races and not on species. Individuals and species and the bloody planet may well be impacted, tangentially, by that operation, but natural selection hasn't got those goals. Only ignorant neo-Darwinists and fascists think that. It operates purely on heritable traits. The rest may well follow, and, of course, it does. But if we're talking about how natural selection operates, it pays to focus and get to the nitty-gritty, not just argue for the sake of it cos Steve sez one thing, you big kid, yeah?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 07:41 PM

You're a very silly fellow, Wackers. If by now you haven't discerned that you, of all people, should refrain from picking me up on the use of English, then you're cruisin' fer a bruisin', old chap. I shall have to put myself on red alert enery time you post in case (what do I mean, "in case"? Bwahahahaha!) you commit a faux-pas or six that I can gleefully go to town on. Alternatively (or, as you ignorant yanks like to say, alternately), I could just sit here and eat these crisps. Yum.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 07:44 PM

Enery? Would that be 'Enery Cooper or 'Enery the Eighth I am I am? Or might I have meant "every"?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Jun 14 - 10:09 AM

the bloody planet may well be impacted, tangentially, by that operation, but natural selection hasn't got those goals.

Please note that natural selection HAS NO GOALS at all, for good or ill. It just happens, and the effects are not responses to "goals".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 06:22 AM

Steve Shaw previously -
Next, "survival of the fittest", as described by the ignorant writer of the piece, has nothing to do with individuals or species or whatever,

In his definition of Natural Selection, Darwin uses the word "individual" three times and "species" twice. Just in case you hadn't noticed, the main title of his book is "The Origin of Species". He has a rather flowery writing style so it can be difficult to extract the kernel of what he is saying. I think this about does it - "will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving". You seem to have terrible trouble understanding that so perhaps this will help -

But natural selection doesn't choose genes directly, it chooses the effects that genes have on bodies, technically called phenotypic effects.
Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker" Penguin Books p60

Steve Shaw
make a case?

natural selection operates on heritable traits. Natural selection operates on heritable traits. Natural selection operates on heritable traits.

I don't think taking an unsupported statement and saying it three times constitutes making a case. All that was missing was "Because I say so!" on the end. You never make a case. For all I know, you may have a valid case but you positively refuse to present it. A few days ago, I quoted Darwin's own definition of Natural Selection without comment. On the strength of that you have linked me with "Adolf" called me a fascist and implied that I am a racist. That isn't the best way to bring people over to your point of view.

Most bizarrely, you have called me a neo-Darwinist. I think I'll come back to that separately.

(Thanks for picking up on "goals", DaveO. Saved me the trouble.)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: sciencegeek
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 07:21 AM

"in the mean time, I must admit , that it is quite amusing watching a bunch of scientists who all believe evolution is true, squabbling about how it is supposed to have happened!"

and in the statement above we have a classic example of scientific misconceptions. he couldn't have done better to demonstrate why we need to a much better job educating people as just what science and scientific method is about...

1. the bickering on a mudcat thread IS NOT scientific debate or peer review.

2. unlike dogma, the writings of an individual in the past are a reflection of the current understanding and available information of that time... and a scientist like Darwin fully expected, and indeed hoped, that others would take up the study and expand upon it. The Origin of Species was intended to posit an explanation for what he had observed in nature and find answers. Darwin was painfully aware of his ignorance regarding how heredity works, but he was sure that better understanding would support his basic premise... and it does. The entire genome study supports his theory of evolution.

3. science includes peer review, and Darwin really only had one peer in his lifetime... Alfred Wallace, who had also traveled widely and made close observations of the natural world around him. They both were in close agreement. Those who opposed him did so on theological grounds, not scientific ones...

4. today you can have sample of your DNA sent out to a lab and have it examined to determine, in general terms, your ancestry. A co-worker and his wife had this done recently. This "full blooded" Sicilian includes Germanic and Scandinavian ancestry. You can even look to see if any Neanderthal genes are present. Our increased understanding of genetic material makes this possible. It also supports the theory of evolution, it is the missing information/understanding that Darwin was looking for, but could not find.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Stu
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 07:22 AM

"as I understand it; Darwin thought that natural selection was a sufficient mechanism for pond scum to ponderous professors evolution."

Then you don't understand it.


"Natural selection operates on heritable traits."

Well . . . this is oversimplifying the argument made in the original article. Natural selection is not a single process, as Dave says it does not have "goals" and it is erroneous to say so, as it is mindless and mechanistic but not random either.

Genes are passed on as the result of natural selection, it doesn't operate on them directly. Variation, reproductive bias and the transmission of heritable traits are all processes involved in natural selection; it is not a single process but a combination of these processes.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 09:59 AM

Neo-Darwinism.

Right. Steve seems to think it's the root of all evil. I wasn't all that familiar with the term so I did some Googling. Its meanng seems to have drifted a bit over the last 120 years or so but this will do for a start -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism

If you've got an hour and twelve minutes to spare there's this - Neo-Darwinism Lecture by Richard Dawkins. Moderately tedious history of the progress of thought on Evolution but it has some interesting points. For instance at around 42 minutes Dawkins says, in a discussion on the brightness or dullness of guppies in the absence or presence of predation -

Natural selection favours those individuals who in this distribution are a bit more brightly coloured than the others.

Staring at 56 mins 37 secs there is a sequence which does seem to support Steve's point of view. During it he says -

Since the whole point about neo-Darwinism is that it is changes in frequencies of something, you've got to look for something that can be said to have a frequency at all.

I'm a little confused, or perhaps Steve is.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 11:13 AM

frequency... how often, in a population of individuals, will a particular allele occur.

In very basic terms - an allele is a specific form of a gene that brings about ( or at least can bring about) a trait in the individual - though you may also have alleles that do nothing other than exist so there is nothing to select for or against. The most common examples are for eye color or blood type... and it is mutations that alter alleles that provide variations in gene types.

If an allele provides a trait that is advantageous... either because it helps an individual to survive or win a mate & produce more offspring, then that allele has the opportunity to increase in frequency in a population.   Over time, the makeup of the population will change to reflect the selection of alleles in the population. Given enough time, the individuals in that population will differ from their earlier ancestors enough to regarded as a "new" species or subspecies. Much like history... it reflects the changes over time.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 12:41 PM

Yes, sciencegeek, that's pretty much my understanding although "an allele provides a trait" covers rather a lot of ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 01:38 PM

"Darwin thought that natural selection was a sufficient mechanism for pond scum to ponderous professors evolution."

There is proof right here on this thread. Isn't a close genetic relationship to pond scum the only explanation for Steve Shaw's posts? It is obvious that when cornered by his intellectual betters he does not revert to his reptile brain as many humans do. He skips right back to pond scum.

Jackarse... good one Flintlock.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 01:42 PM

"although "an allele provides a trait" covers rather a lot of ground"

yet another issue relating to misconceptions... there is no one single answer that reveals all...

even 42 is but a partial answer... LOL

if you want to appreciate the complexity of life, then look at the Krebs cycle.... as the mind boggles... :)

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 03:18 PM

Pete, before you ridicule other people, you might want to put the thesaurus down. "Ponderous" is an adjective, not a verb. Mutations are how species can change, not an "added ingredient". And what is "neo-Darwinism"?   I've never heard the term before, and my spell-checker doesn't believe it exists. Probably coined by incognicenti to belittle people or concepts they aren't equipped to understand, and aren't open to trying.
Which brings me to...
He says there aren't any remaining...

They also teach math, and history, and [shockhorror] English in schools, along with science. Might explain a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 06:31 PM

jeri...it was steve who first used "neo Darwinism" and I ventured that I thought it meant mutations added to the natural selection that Darwin thought sufficient for molecules to man evolution. Darwin knew nothing of mutations, I presume , so that being the added ingredient, added subsequent to darwins idea.ie , I presume mutations as the agent of change was not on his radar.
i'm sorry if you thought I was ridiculing. perhaps you need to lighten up a bit. maybe scientists of Darwinian persuasion take themselves too seriously.
sciencegeek. here is the problem. you talk so scientifically, but I fail to see how tracing your human ancestry even back to neandertals equates to pond scum to profs evolution evidenced as true. you would have to go back to something pre-human to validate that idea.
that is not as far as Wallace went, I believe. and Darwin charged him with possibly killing off their "baby". Wallace at least knew humans were vastly superior to any other creature.
and I fully realize mudcat evolutionists infighting is not peer review, but as a layman it is faintly amusing to witness.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Stu in the electron cloud
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 06:42 PM

"and I fully realize mudcat evolutionists infighting is not peer review, but as a layman it is faintly amusing to witness."

I guess that's like when you're a kid and all the adults are laughing at a rude joke you don't understand but laugh along with anyway in the hope you look like you understand what's going on.

Also, you're not a layman Pete. You're a creationist that doesn't understand the basic arguments and can't be arsed to find out anything about the subject he's pontificating on.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: sciencegeek
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 08:01 PM

pete... believe it not, the thread is about scientific misconceptions... not evolution per se... that's your hangup and one that seems to be immune to logic. scientific method applies to ALL sciences... it's what makes them sciences and not exercises in fantasy or speculation.

and the reason I may speak like a scientist is because I am trained in the sciences and work in the environmental field that relies heavily on science and technology.

as for your obsession with pond scum... since life evolved eons ago and plate techtonics have shaped and reshaped the planet's surface any number of times, there is limited evidence left. therefore, we have to use indirect means to figure things out. this is a slow process and full of gaps in our knowledge... but... and it's a big but.... just because I don't know the names or location of my many times removed ancestors of a thousand years ago, does not mean they didn't exist. it only means that that information has been lost.

genetic material is the key to the transmission of traits from one generation to the next and that key to understanding evolution. it happened - get over it

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 Jul 14 - 08:23 PM

"in the mean time, I must admit , that it is quite amusing watching a bunch of scientists who all believe evolution is true, squabbling about how it is supposed to have happened!"

Hi, pete.I trust you're staying well and that things are going good.

In response to the statement of yours I quoted, I agree, but for different reasons. When we look at the work of the Austrian(?) monk, Gregor Mendel, we see a man who kept good notes and was able to determine that there were dominant and recessive traits at work in the pea plants(?) he studied. How they worked he didn't understand. What the heck caused a trait? Fast forward to Watson, Crick and Wilkins, and they too were thoroughly befuddled trying to see how the structure of DNA could be, given that certain conditions had to be met, mostly to do with bonding of atomic structures (things that bond the way they do because conditions are right for them to do so, and that they have to do). That was back in the early 1950s. They received a Nobel for that work. http://www.dnaftb.org/19

Now we fast-forward once again to the Human Genome Project. It utilized computational power from volunteers all over the planet. A tremendous and very exciting exploration that determined so much about humans as we are today. It changed much of our thinking and understanding and understanding about our thinking. The following is one of the better and easier essays to understand. (I read The Double Helix when I was in my late teens or early twenties. I felt much like Woody Allen who said 'I took a speed reading course and read War and Peace in 17 minutes. It's about Russia.')

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/human-genome-project-results.htm

Science as a discipline is not unified, and it gets less and less unified the more we know. Science is not one big discipline, but it is at once more than the sum of its parts.

Disparate observations lead to some great discoveries. One of the stories that stayed with me for forty years has to do with sickle cell anemia and malaria. It was an observation that the mapped areas of Africa these dudes were looking at (I think they were epidemiologists, so maybe dudes is a bit flippant :-)). Anyway, someone noticed that the shaded areas mapping both where malaria was was almost exactly matched by the shaded area where sickle cell anemia was prevalent. SCA (sickle cell anemia) comes in two main varieties: one kills people before the age of five or earlier, and the other seems to let people live much longer than that. Anyway, mosquitoes were killing people all over the place by infecting folks with bad stuff. The thinking back then was that the lower oxygen content of the blood stream in people with SCA was causing fewer and less serious cases of malaria. Then finally it was determined that this was what was at work:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428123931.htm

In short, scientists went up and down blind alleys, went off on false trails, wandered in areas that led nowhere in their studies, but with free exchange of information finally they got it figured out. IMO, that is the beauty of science, and it's also what makes me laugh about it. Takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'.

This is part one of a two-part letter to you because I don't want to bore the real scientists on the site. And I don't remember where the hell I was going with this. Too much aluminium in my diet :-) Also, I tried with hot links but the post wouldn't take (tried four times), so they gotta come the way they have.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 01:18 AM

Guest#: "In short, scientists went up and down blind alleys, went off on false trails, wandered in areas that led nowhere in their studies, but with free exchange of information finally they got it figured out. IMO, that is the beauty of science, and it's also what makes me laugh about it."

Like I said earlier in the thread.... "Science is the religion of guessing, and religion is the art of pretending"....still holds up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 01:53 AM

Flintlock ? Yeah, ok, maybe.

Here, Steve. Who are the fellow believers pete refers to? Have you been joining religious clubs behind my back? The emeritus messiah with Gnomish attributes may have something to say about that.

Anyway, I'm off to get the popcorn and cola. Goofus has weighed in. Should be fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Musket
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 05:29 AM

That should read Messiah Emeritus...

Tsk.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 09:03 AM

"Like I said earlier in the thread.... "Science is the religion of guessing, and religion is the art of pretending"....still holds up!

GfS "

not hardly... your statement makes as much sense as saying the hammer is the chisel of pounding.... you still don't get it.

There is no and never has been a deity of science and any "faith" involved is no more or less than the assumption that since the sun rose this morning as it has for the past 4 billion years, we can pretty safely assume that it will tomorrow. And that assumption will be changed if better information arrives to indicate that something else will happen... Religion is blind faith in something that can't be tested for verity.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 10:02 AM

Pete said:

Darwin knew nothing of mutations, I presume , so that being the added ingredient, added subsequent to darwins idea.ie , I presume mutations as the agent of change was not on his radar.

While Darwin did not say "mutations", he spoke at many points
of "changes" being inherited and "selected for". So, while he did not put forth that word, what is a mutation but an inheritable change?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 10:28 AM

Some religions, note science is not one of them:)

Taoism: Shit happens. 
Hinduism: This shit happened before. 
Confucianism: Confucius says, "Shit happens". 
Buddhism: If shit happens it isn't really shit. 
Zen: What is the sound of shit happening? 
Islam: If shit happens, it is the Will of Allah. 
Jehovah's witness: Knock, knock. "Shit happens." 
Atheism: There is no shit. 
Agnosticism: I don't know whether shit happens. 
Protestantism: Shit won't happen if I work harder. 
Catholicism: If shit happens, I deserved it. 
Judaism: Why does this shit always happen to us?

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 03:00 PM

Sciencegeek: "There is no and never has been a deity of science and any "faith" involved is no more or less than the assumption that since the sun rose this morning as it has for the past 4 billion years, we can pretty safely assume that it will tomorrow."

You COMPLETELY MISSED what I said, or misinterpreted it!

OH..By the way......"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."---Albert Einstein

Methinks I'm a LOT closer than you!!


Musket: "Goofus has weighed in. Should be fun."

Of course...that's what happens when SANITY meets with ideologically driven opinions, that are mistaken for scientific facts!!

The ideologue nincompoops often get annoyed, if they have to THINK too hard, beyond their propaganda!....Just take a look around!!!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 03:15 PM

"Science is the religion of guessing, and religion is the art of pretending" "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

WTF???? the two statements say two completely different things... what could possibly be sane about comparing apples to oranges with no effort to put them into an understandable context??? the only thing they share are the words science and relgion... wow earth shaking

why not just print out a million letters and say that in them is a work by Shakespeare. If the letters do not form words and sentences, then it's just a million letters printed out.

what you have just done is equate blithering with sanity... well, it just doesn't fly... not in my universe. You live in a very strange place of fantasy and delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 04:27 PM

I think the operational word is "from."

"Guest from Sanity."

As in "no longer there."

I no longer waste my time and energy trying to argue with this egotistical and incoherent non-entity. I get more incisive and intelligent commentaries and opinions from my neighbor's yappie little Yorkshire terrier.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 04:34 PM

hi #, no idea who you are but best to you too. thankyou for a constructive post, though it seems I will have to wait for part 2 to get at what you are saying.
it has been a long standing disagreement between me and evolutionists, that I draw a distinction between operational science, and origins science which is not observable in the here and now.
you can of course examine data relating to the past , but the worldview of the scientist will colour his interpretation....as gfs says "ideologically driven".
sciencegeek,...whether you can trace your forbears back a thousand generations [how long ago would that be?] says nothing about validating your bacteria to biologist belief. still less about the very beginnings of the evolutionary story. imo it is a faith position. or as you say "fantasy and speculation"
I don't need to be a scientist to know that you are a long way short of evidence.
not everyone, and not just the lesser educated believes Darwinism...neo or not. .... maybe you need to get over it yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 05:14 PM

Pete, I know you don't want to hear this, but it's true. The fact of evolution has been long know—and used—by farmers, animal breeders, and such, and the mechanism was thoroughly analyzed by a
Christian monk.

Read the following article:   CLICKY

Two things you need to take on board:

1. Evolution is an established and demonstrated fact.

2. If it makes you more comfortable to think in these terms, then evolution is the way God did it. And still does it.

Mendel proved that by demonstrating it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 05:18 PM

Firth: "I no longer waste my time and energy trying to argue with this egotistical and incoherent non-entity. I get more incisive and intelligent commentaries and opinions from my neighbor's yappie little Yorkshire terrier."

For one, you always lose...and secondly,.."I get more incisive and intelligent commentaries and opinions from my neighbor's yappie little Yorkshire terrier."....We hold these truths to be self evident!!!

Oh well...have fun...thought the thread needed a boost!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 05:22 PM

Firth: "Pete, I know you don't want to hear this, but it's true. The fact of evolution has been long know—and used—by farmers, animal breeders, and such, and the mechanism was thoroughly analyzed by a
Christian monk."

A-hemmm...you mean a 'Catholic' monk....

BTW, is LOVE a chemical re-action??....(I know I'm asking the wrong person...but....WTF!??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 05:25 PM

Hey...as long as we're at it...Is intelligence a unseen, non-existing re-action??

GfS

P.S....and is it 'evolving??

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 05:37 PM

sciencegeek, there's nothing surprising about Scandinavian and Germanic traces in the genome of a Sicilian - it would be surprising if there weren't, as it was one of the places where the Normans who couldn't get into the British Isles invaded and settled.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: sciencegeek
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 06:33 PM

Penny S... yes, I know about the history of the area... and that's why it works as an example... you have historic documents along with archaeological evidence to corroborate the genetic evidence. They work together to help fill out the picture of our past.   

If you only know about Sicily from movies like the Godfather, you would assume that they are all like stereotypical southern Italians. Only by delving deeper do you get a more accurate understanding. Though, of course, their next door neighbors in Sicily might not have quite the same makeup. It just reminded me of a story my mom told about a young patient at the dental office she worked at who had been given a hard time by his teacher when they did a report on their family backgrounds. She accused him of making it up when he wrote that he was part Chinese. The teacher later got a visit from his rather upset Eurasian mother. Hopefully she learned her lesson not to assume.

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 06:34 PM

Another point, Goofus, where you either lie or simply don't understand. I don't always lose. The fact is, you don't like the plain truth, so you simply deny it. Your loss.

By the way, I thought Catholics were Christian. You're telling my that Gregor Mendel was a Catholic, but he was not a Christian? Explain, if you please, how THAT works.

See how it is, folks? "Arf! Arf! Arf! Arf! Arf! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!"

About which time he tries to bite my ankle, and I lean down, pick him up, and throw him back over the hedge, making sure he lands in the rhododendron bush so he doesn't get hurt and it will take him at least an hour to figure out how to get out of it.

But I think it's in his genes. He can't help it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 06:39 PM

Firth: "See how it is, folks? "Arf! Arf! Arf! Arf! Arf! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!"


Need I say more???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Scientific misconceptions.
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jul 14 - 06:43 PM

Trying to find his way out of the rhododendron bush.

Don Firth