Non-conspiratorial scientific claim evaluation

[sandy_mcd]

Here's an article on how to spot some bad science http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/s ... c_argument Unless you believe in a vast scientific conspiracy to withhold and misrepresent the truth, it is worth a quick scan.

(1) Any argument based on the premise that professional scientists have overlooked an elementary flaw in their theory is almost certainly incorrect.
(2) Any assertion that anti-evolutionists cannot get a fair hearing because the scientific community conspires to suppress their views can be dismissed out of hand.
(3) Any argument based on the premise of major conceptual holes in evolutionary theory should be rejected.
(4) Any assertion to the effect that scholars from fields other than biology are better placed to see the flaws in evolution than are biologists themselves should be disregarded.

Actually, I am sure that 2 is not completely true. I would guess most scientists consider it a waste of time to deal with anti-evolutionists.

[Stu]

Well not sure about a "vast scientific conspiracy to withhold and misrepresent the truth"..... wait hang on, according to this there might very well be a "vast scientific Darwinian clique that try oppose anything in opposition to it" though.

Mimivirus discoverer doubts Darwin, banned from publication in France

Controversial and outspoken, Raoult last year published a popular science book that flat-out declares that Darwin’s theory of evolution is wrong. And he was temporarily banned from publishing in a dozen leading microbiology journals in 2006. Scientists at Raoult’s lab say they wouldn’t want to work anywhere else. Yet Raoult is also known for his enmities and his disdain for those who disagree with him.

A search for the truth? Hmm no, it seems group-think, enforcers (NCSE) and intimidation rule the day.

[jlay]

I would guess most scientists consider it a waste of time to deal with anti-evolutionists.

you might as well flush everything you said down the toilet.

The term anti-evolutionists is also prejudicial and shows just what kind of anti-creationist bias we are dealing with.


What this sounds like
AHHHHHH. (monks singing) All bow down to the infallibity of evolutionary science. Hail science, full of facts.......

[Reactionary]

(3) Any argument based on the premise of major conceptual holes in evolutionary theory should be rejected.

A good example of free-thinking at work.

(4) Any assertion to the effect that scholars from fields other than biology are better placed to see the flaws in evolution than are biologists themselves should be disregarded.

Why, are scholars from fields other than biology less intelligent or what?
Don't tell me that evolution, a random process, is so complex that a non-biologist can't grasp it?

Anyway, shame that the same rule isn't being applied vice versa. Namely, when certain intellectuals from the field of natural sciences stray into the areas of philosophy and theology, trying to disprove God, they often end up embarrassing themselves.

[MarcusOfLycia]

(4) Any assertion to the effect that scholars from fields other than biology are better placed to see the flaws in evolution than are biologists themselves should be disregarded.

Is this the advice that Dawkin's was (not) following when he tried to be an expert in Theology and Philosophy?

EDIT:

Oh wow. Sorry for stealing your post, Reactionary! I didn't even see you wrote that until I had finished mine!

[sandy_mcd]

Well not sure about a "vast scientific conspiracy to withhold and misrepresent the truth"..... wait hang on, according to this there might very well be a "vast scientific Darwinian clique that try oppose anything in opposition to it" though.

Mimivirus discoverer doubts Darwin, banned from publication in France

Controversial and outspoken, Raoult last year published a popular science book that flat-out declares that Darwin’s theory of evolution is wrong. And he was temporarily banned from publishing in a dozen leading microbiology journals in 2006. Scientists at Raoult’s lab say they wouldn’t want to work anywhere else. Yet Raoult is also known for his enmities and his disdain for those who disagree with him.

A search for the truth? Hmm no, it seems group-think, enforcers (NCSE) and intimidation rule the day.

Recommendation: Take a step back and look at the whole picture. Then evaluate the above comment in light of the other sections quoted below.

First of all, where was this profile published? In Science, possibly one of the two most prestigious (along with Nature ) science journals in existence. Is this consistent with intimidation?

Some quotes from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6072/1033.full:

But today, at 59, he's the most productive and influential microbiologist in France, leading a team of 200 scientists and students at the University of Aix-Marseille, here in the city where he came of age.

He is being intimidated and the truth suppressed?

Yet Raoult is also known for his enmities and his disdain for those who disagree with him. “People don't like to talk about him because he has a lot of influence. He can make life hard for you,” says one of several French researchers contacted by Science who would only talk about Raoult if they could remain anonymous.

And he is the one being suppressed and intimidated?

“For foreign students, Raoult's lab is a springboard [to a career],” says microbiologist Patricia Renesto of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, who spent several years in Raoult's lab and admires him. “The flip side is that he controls everything. He can behave odiously,” she adds. “Raoult has that fatherly family spirit, which some people don't understand,” Brouqui says.

Springboard to a career? Shouldn't association with him have the opposite effect?

Raoult's entire opus appears to be written in big numbers. A recent PubMed search showed him as an author on more than 1400 papers, including the description of more than 60 new bacterial species and one new bacterial genus, which Drancourt named Raoultella.

I can understand one paper slipping through the NCSE blockade, but 1400?

But some scientists grumble that manuscripts out of Raoult's lab often contain errors, for instance, as a result of unchecked genetic sequences.

Indeed, problems in a paper about a mouse model for typhus got his lab in hot water in 2006. A reviewer for Infection and Immunity, a journal published by the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), discovered that four figures in a revised manuscript were identical to figures in the original manuscript, even though they were supposed to describe a different experiment.

In letters to ASM, made available by Raoult, second author Christian Capo and last author Jean-Louis Mège, a group leader, accepted “full responsibility” for the problem, which they said involved only two figures. Capo, in his letter, wrote that he had made an innocent mistake; Mège wrote that Capo had subsequently failed to show the revised manuscript to other authors, who were on vacation, before resubmitting it. But after consulting its ethics panel, ASM banned all five authors, including Raoult, from publishing in its journals for a year. “We are not entirely comfortable with the explanation provided,” ASM officials wrote to M—ge. “Misrepresentation of data … is an affront to the ethical conduct of scientific inquiry.”

A different view than implied by Uncommon Descent.

Capo and Mège accepted the decision, but Raoult wrote ASM that he wasn't at fault and that the “collective punishment” was “very unfair.” He appealed the ban, also on behalf of two other co-authors, but lost. Furious, he resigned from the editorial board of two other ASM journals, canceled his membership in the American Academy of Microbiology, ASM's honorific leadership group, and banned his lab from submitting to ASM journals, in which he had published more than 230 studies. His name has been on only two ASM journal papers since, both published in 2010.

Who's banning whom?

Still, the affair does not appear to have dented Raoult's career. From 2013 onward, he will head a new government-funded academic medical center of excellence that will combine the expertise of various research and medical agencies in infectious and tropical diseases in Marseille.

More failures by the NCSE and its minions.

And then there is his popular science book Dépasser Darwin (Beyond Darwin). “Darwin was a priest,” Raoult says, claiming that the image of the tree of life that Darwin proposed is inspired from the Bible. “It also is too simplistic.” Raoult questions several other tenets of modern evolutionary theory, including the importance of natural selection. He says recent discoveries in genetics show how frequently genes are exchanged not just between different microbial species but also between microbes and complex organisms, for instance, in the human gut. That means de novo creation of entirely new species is possible, Raoult argues, and Darwin's branching tree of life should be replaced by a network of interconnected species.

“It's dangerous to say those things,” says Moreira, who worries that Raoult is providing creationist groups with ammunition. “He goes a bit too far,” says Eugene Koonin, an evolutionary biologist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information in Bethesda. “Darwin's theory is relevant but is incomplete. It does not apply to the evolution of microorganisms.”

Hmmm, does Moreira have a point?



Compare the Summary at Uncommon Descent with the actual article. Is the Summary an accurate representation?

[sandy_mcd]

Why, are scholars from fields other than biology less intelligent or what?

Or what. Not less intelligent; usually less knowledgable in the field.

Anyway, shame that the same rule isn't being applied vice versa. Namely, when certain intellectuals from the field of natural sciences stray into the areas of philosophy and theology, trying to disprove God, they often end up embarrassing themselves.

Oh wow. Sorry for stealing your post, Reactionary! I didn't even see you wrote that until I had finished mine!

These are both excellent points. The sword cuts both ways. But many people seem to think it is one-sided. But they don't agree on which way it cuts.

PS Of course it doesn't mean an outsider can't be right (cf. bacteria cause stomach ulcers -> 2005 Nobel Prize), it just means it is a lot less probable.

[MarcusOfLycia]

These are both excellent points. The sword cuts both ways. But many people seem to think it is one-sided. But they don't agree on which way it cuts.

PS Of course it doesn't mean an outsider can't be right (cf. bacteria cause stomach ulcers -> 2005 Nobel Prize), it just means it is a lot less probable.

It is possible, however, for one to have knowledge of Theology, Philosophy, -and- Science. And it is certainly possible for someone with more understanding of more areas to make better overall conclusions than someone very narrowly focused on one thing. In those cases, it is the connection of many diverse ideas into something large and cohesive that is powerful.

[Stu]

Compare the Summary at Uncommon Descent with the actual article. Is the Summary an accurate representation?

Indeed, it seems UD might've got it wrong; though the summary is courtesy of Science and not Uncommon Descent (see below). Thanks, will look into it further.

Sound and Fury in the Microbiology Lab
At 59, Didier Raoult is the most productive and influential microbiologist in France, leading a team of 200 scientists and students at the University of Aix-Marseille. He has discovered or co-discovered dozens of new bacteria, and in 2003, he stunned colleagues with a virus of record size, dubbed Mimivirus, the first member of a family that sheds an intriguing new light on the evolution of viruses and the tree of life. Controversial and outspoken, Raoult last year published a popular science book that flat-out declares that Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong. And he was temporarily banned from publishing in a dozen leading microbiology journals in 2006. Scientists at Raoult's lab say they wouldn't want to work anywhere else. Yet Raoult is also known for his enmities and his disdain for those who disagree with him.

[Stu]

Here's an article on how to spot some bad science http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/s ... c_argument Unless you believe in a vast scientific conspiracy to withhold and misrepresent the truth, it is worth a quick scan.(1) Any argument based on the premise that professional scientists have overlooked an elementary flaw in their theory is almost certainly incorrect.

Sure, and this also cut's both ways

(2) Any assertion that anti-evolutionists cannot get a fair hearing because the scientific community conspires to suppress their views can be dismissed out of hand.

Sorry, this is just factually incorrect.

Evidence Revealed in California Science Center Lawsuit Shows Intolerance and Efforts to Suppress Intelligent Design (paying $110,00 settlement)

and of course Richard Sternberg's case.

and just outright fear not to be seen in the company of those involved with anything related to Intelligent Design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPAFCpuCsvw

(3) Any argument based on the premise of major conceptual holes in evolutionary theory should be rejected.

This is just beyond belief
Seriously, is this for real?

1. The obvious one -- a pretty darn major hole is the Epigenome? Where exactly does the formation of the Epigenome fit into evolution?
2. Junk DNA has recently been debunked and held up as proof of evolution for over 30 years (some still do) by it's greatest proponents such as Dawkins.

Dogma gone insane. Surely you recognise that more than ever before in history neo-Darwinism is now being questioned.
So it seems The Church of Darwin has Commandments to too, the first being, "Thou shalt not question the validity of Evolution Theory.

And lastly when you say Evolutionary Theory, I assume you mean Phyletic Gradualism, in which case the argument for

Punctuated Equilibrium, and
The Public Goods Hypothesis

should be rejected without question?

I'm sorry but I actually was taking this seriously and then I hit number point number 3. Wow, just wow.

(4) Any assertion to the effect that scholars from fields other than biology are better placed to see the flaws in evolution than are biologists themselves should be disregarded.

Well that's true to a limited extent.
Define scholar?

What of Stephen Meyer, the man who penned Signature in the Cell?
What of the biology scholars who dispute neo-Darwinism?

More importantly what of Darwin himself -- he was a religious scholar; should we have discarded his ramblings based on the fact that his academic studies weren't grounded in the field of biology at all?

Actually, I am sure that 2 is not completely true. I would guess most scientists consider it a waste of time to deal with anti-evolutionists.

Really? I mean that's just astounding in it's arrogance and presumptuousness. I thought you were a little more level-headed than that. Truth should not be blindfolded by assumption and "authority".

[Byblos]

(3) Any argument based on the premise of major conceptual holes in evolutionary theory should be rejected.

This is just beyond belief
Seriously, is this for real?

I think it was a momentary lapse of judgment, give her a chance to respond.

[Stu]

I think it was a momentary lapse of judgment, give her a chance to respond.

Well it's one of four key points outlined in the link provided, so one would presume it's a package deal.

[sandy_mcd]

the summary is courtesy of Science and not Uncommon Descent (see below).

You are correct. My mistake.

[sandy_mcd]

(3) Any argument based on the premise of major conceptual holes in evolutionary theory should be rejected.

This is just beyond belief
Seriously, is this for real?

Yes, it is for real. These are not my words. These guidelines are from an article by a mathematician (I had assumed it was a biologist), who listed them under " We will consider four indicators which, when present, should strongly suggest you are dealing with a bad scientific argument." But this certainly represents the attitude of most mainstream scientists as well. It doesn't mean that such arguments are necessarily wrong. It means two things:
a) scientists are pretty confident of the basics of evolution
b) there are a lot bad arguments mad against evolution

So anyone who wants to question evolution and be taken seriously has to do two things:
a) be prepared to fight a long uphill battle
b) have very detailed arguments to counter most of evolutionary theory (which requires understanding of the currently accepted ideas)

I posted these here to see what people thought and show what opposition there is. It is possible to disagree with established science and prevail (see ulcers, Bretz, and my next post).

I think it was a momentary lapse of judgment, give her a chance to respond.

http://www.babynames1000.com/gender.php?y=1966

[Stu]

Yes, it is for real. These are not my words. These guidelines are from an article by a mathematician (I had assumed it was a biologist), who listed them under " We will consider four indicators which, when present, should strongly suggest you are dealing with a bad scientific argument." But this certainly represents the attitude of most mainstream scientists as well. It doesn't mean that such arguments are necessarily wrong. It means two things:
a) scientists are pretty confident of the basics of evolution
b) there are a lot bad arguments mad against evolution

So anyone who wants to question evolution and be taken seriously has to do two things:
a) be prepared to fight a long uphill battle
b) have very detailed arguments to counter most of evolutionary theory (which requires understanding of the currently accepted ideas)

I posted these here to see what people thought and show what opposition there is. It is possible to disagree with established science and prevail (see ulcers, Bretz, and my next post).

Well usually when someone posts an article like that and then backs it up in their own words with

"I would guess most scientists consider it a waste of time to deal with anti-evolutionists."

one is entitled to think that that person agrees to a large extent with what has been posted

Relating to point 3:
1. The obvious one -- a pretty darn major hole is the Epigenome? Where exactly does the formation of the Epigenome fit into evolution?
2. Junk DNA was (and still is by some) held up as proof of evolution for over 30 years by most of it's greatest proponents such as Dawkins. Major sink-hole.
3. All direct observations of the mechanism point to it breaking existing functions rather than creating anything novel.
4. More than ever before is the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis being seriously questioned; with many (naturalists) calling for a Postmodern Theory of evolution.
See more here:

Biological theory: Postmodern evolution?
"The modern synthesis is good at modelling the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest."

When you say Evolutionary Theory, I assume you mean Phyletic Gradualism, in which case the argument for

Punctuated Equilibrium, and
The Public Goods Hypothesis

should be rejected without question?

Relating to point 4:
What of Stephen Meyer, the man who penned Signature in the Cell?

More importantly what of Darwin himself -- he was a religious scholar; should we have discarded his ramblings based on the fact that his academic studies weren't grounded in the field of biology at all?