Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Scientist Resigns as Stem-Cell Creation Method Is Discredited

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    Okay. I see you weren't able to back your assertion that, "common accusations of those who object to the science evolution and cosmology describe these sciences as 'scientism,'". The paragraph you cited does not support that assertion at all. What the paragraph you cited describes is a conference of scientists and theologians who were actively looking for ways to form a new religion based on science, with, perhaps, the theory of evolution playing a part as a source for that new religion. The article does not assert that the theory of evolution itself is "scientism". I knew you wouldn't be able to back your assertion, which is why I asked you to support it. You have a terrible habit of making bald assertions like that.
    It is a direct quote from AIG describing science as scientism when referring to the conference. The fact stands. Added is the thread on Jorge, and the quote by pancreasman.



    What exactly do you think my argument is?
    Trying to make an illusive vague definition of scientism. The issue of the thread is good and bad science and the accusations of those who attack evolution and cosmology misusing science, and making accusations that do not reflect the reality of science. I am arguing that science is consistent and reliable and reasonably detached from metaphysical issues regardless.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-30-2014, 11:26 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      It is a direct quote from AIG describing science as scientism when referring to the conference. The fact stands.
      You have some of the worse reading comprehension of anyone I think I've ever met in my life. Your direct quote from AIG does not describe science as scientism, nor does it describe evolution as scientism. If you doubt my own reading comprehension on this quote, I suggest we create a thread with a poll on it to decide who is reading the paragraph correctly.

      Added is the thread on Jorge, and the quote by pancreasman.
      I don't give a crap what you think Jorge thinks is suspicious. The word "suspicious" used in the article I had previously linked to by John R. Shook was referring to the debate between Philosophical Naturalists. People who have absolutely no problem whatsoever with evolution or cosmology. Also, I have no idea what you're trying to prove with your Pancreasman quote.

      Your reading comprehension was an issue on the Canaanite Psalms thread too were you seemed totally incapable of understanding your own citations. For instance, I tried to get you to explain your implication that a sentence you quoted referred to the 13th century BC, when it quite clearly referred to the period between the destruction of Judah and the Persian and then Hellenistic periods (approx 587 BC - 332 BC). I know you saw my post because you offered a vague reply to it. When I pushed you on the subject again to get a specific answer to the very straightforward question, you ignored me. Unfortunately, this is par for the course in discussions with you.

      Trying to make an illusive vague definition of scientism.
      Shame on you. You're being very dishonest shunyadragon. I offered you two links on the definition of scientism I was using. One from Merriam Webster, and one from Wikipedia. Then I offered you a definition from a professor of philosophy and an instructor of science education who is a very diligent secular humanist activist, who openly holds to and advocates scientism himself. I have been neither illusive nor vague, and you know it.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        You have some of the worse reading comprehension of anyone I think I've ever met in my life. Your direct quote from AIG does not describe science as scientism, nor does it describe evolution as scientism. If you doubt my own reading comprehension on this quote, I suggest we create a thread with a poll on it to decide who is reading the paragraph correctly.
        Let the others speak if they wish, but the quote was clear and unambiguous. pancreasman agreed with me concerning the common misuse of scientism.



        I don't give a crap what you think Jorge thinks is suspicious. The word "suspicious" used in the article I had previously linked to by John R. Shook was referring to the debate between Philosophical Naturalists. People who have absolutely no problem whatsoever with evolution or cosmology. Also, I have no idea what you're trying to prove with your Pancreasman quote.
        The problem is the people who have problems with evolution and cosmology. The use of the word suspicious is ambiguous, misleading and non scientific in they way he used it and I believe I am justify having a problem with how he used it.


        Your reading comprehension was an issue on the Canaanite Psalms thread too were you seemed totally incapable of understanding your own citations. For instance, I tried to get you to explain your implication that a sentence you quoted referred to the 13th century BC, when it quite clearly referred to the period between the destruction of Judah and the Persian and then Hellenistic periods (approx 587 BC - 332 BC). I know you saw my post because you offered a vague reply to it. When I pushed you on the subject again to get a specific answer to the very straightforward question, you ignored me. Unfortunately, this is par for the course in discussions with you.
        Not the topic of the thread. I will respond to the Canaanite thread after I read the books.



        Shame on you. You're being very dishonest shunyadragon. I offered you two links on the definition of scientism I was using. One from Merriam Webster, and one from Wikipedia. Then I offered you a definition from a professor of philosophy and an instructor of science education who is a very diligent secular humanist activist, who openly holds to and advocates scientism himself. I have been neither illusive nor vague, and you know it.
        pancreasman agreed with me concerning the common misuse of scientism by Creationists. I disagree with the professor of philosophy and an instructor of science education and gave my reasons why. I believe the ambiguous definition of 'scientism' makes it subject to abuse.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-30-2014, 04:48 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Let the others speak if they wish, but the quote was clear and unambiguous.
          I thought that's what you'd say. I remember we did this once before on the old forum, and things didn't turn out so well for you.

          The link to the poll can be found at this location: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-Comprehension

          pancreasman agreed with me concerning the common misuse of scientism.
          We'll ask pancreasman what he thinks about the discussion when/if he gets back.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            By agnostic I mean those who aren't sure whether or not that there is a God. I don't know why that would be any messier as a category than would theists or atheists.


            I don't know why this would be confusing unless you don't think that any agnostics or atheists ever turn to philosophy for answers that science is ill-equipped to provide such as the aforementioned "whys." Science is tremendously successful at answering how something happens but really stinks at answering why which religion does a much better job at supplying answers for.
            In an attempt at clarity perhaps instead of saying that science explains the hows whereas religion and philosophy explains the whys I should have said while science describes the universe and everything that it contains it does not explain them. That is where religion and philosophy steps in.

            Hope this helps.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              In an attempt at clarity perhaps instead of saying that science explains the hows whereas religion and philosophy explains the whys I should have said while science describes the universe and everything that it contains it does not explain them. That is where religion and philosophy steps in.

              Hope this helps.
              I think most of us got your point.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                I thought that's what you'd say. I remember we did this once before on the old forum, and things didn't turn out so well for you.

                The link to the poll can be found at this location: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-Comprehension



                We'll ask pancreasman what he thinks about the discussion when/if he gets back.
                I quoted him accurately.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Another reference to peer review in this case showed up in the latest Science News magaziner. Here it says:

                  The STAP cell saga exposed possible weaknesses in scientific publishing and peer review. The journal Nature, where the STAP papers appeared, contended that peer reviewers could not have spotted the papers' fatal flaws. In September, however, copies of reviews from Nature revealed that peer reviewers had grave concerns over the work and didn't recommend it for publication. One reviewer called the STAP cell method a "magical" approach that wasn't supported by experimental evidence.
                  This is kind of disturbing. So the papers were peer reviewed, the peers doing the reviews didn't buy it, but Nature decided to go ahead and publish anyway. Then why did they bother having it reviewed at all?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    It is a direct quote from AIG describing science as scientism when referring to the conference.
                    But the description of the conference was supposedly, in the view of the AIG author, not merely describing science but an overreaching approach, eg, intending to use evolutionary theory as a rich source for the basis of a new religion, an approach discussed by a theologian. Now it may also be the case that this author considers all evolutionary theory to be an example of scientism (I believe Jorge may hold such a view), but you cannot demonstrate this on the basis of this paragraph. The nature of this conference, at least as understood and described by the AIG author, confounds the issue and does not allow your conclusion.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by phank View Post
                      Another reference to peer review in this case showed up in the latest Science News magaziner. Here it says:



                      This is kind of disturbing. So the papers were peer reviewed, the peers doing the reviews didn't buy it, but Nature decided to go ahead and publish anyway. Then why did they bother having it reviewed at all?
                      Yes, it is disturbing, but science survives such foolishness.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by phank View Post
                        Another reference to peer review in this case showed up in the latest Science News magaziner. Here it says:



                        This is kind of disturbing. So the papers were peer reviewed, the peers doing the reviews didn't buy it, but Nature decided to go ahead and publish anyway. Then why did they bother having it reviewed at all?
                        Another example of journal editors not doing their job, or at least not doing it well. Sometimes authors may successfully argue their case to an editor to get him to disregard negative peer-review comments or at least to send an article out for additional review by other peers, but this should have been mentioned if that were the case.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          Another example of journal editors not doing their job, or at least not doing it well. Sometimes authors may successfully argue their case to an editor to get him to disregard negative peer-review comments or at least to send an article out for additional review by other peers, but this should have been mentioned if that were the case.
                          The reviewers did not attempt to replicate the results, they simply doubted the described methodology could produce them. However, a more detailed investigation in Japan found that the papers photoshopped the images and plagiarized some of the text. I suppose Nature is correct in saying THAT fraud couldn't have been detected simply by reviewing the papers, since it would require external knowledge not available to them.

                          And a couple of the co-authors continue to insist that while STAP cells are nowhere near as easy to make as the paper claimed, it is still possible to do so using a revised protocol they released in September. I don't know if this revision has been effective.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by phank View Post
                            The reviewers did not attempt to replicate the results, they simply doubted the described methodology could produce them. However, a more detailed investigation in Japan found that the papers photoshopped the images and plagiarized some of the text. I suppose Nature is correct in saying THAT fraud couldn't have been detected simply by reviewing the papers, since it would require external knowledge not available to them.

                            And a couple of the co-authors continue to insist that while STAP cells are nowhere near as easy to make as the paper claimed, it is still possible to do so using a revised protocol they released in September. I don't know if this revision has been effective.
                            Peer reviewers are not expected to replicate results, although they may try to do so in a subsequent paper, provided they acquire the necessary funding.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              Peer reviewers are not expected to replicate results, although they may try to do so in a subsequent paper, provided they acquire the necessary funding.
                              Then do you see Nature as equivocating here, saying the reviewers could not be expected to detect the outright fraud, and therefore their doubts about the process itself didn't disqualify the papers?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by phank View Post
                                Then do you see Nature as equivocating here, saying the reviewers could not be expected to detect the outright fraud, and therefore their doubts about the process itself didn't disqualify the papers?
                                Don't know. I have not read their statement, but a journal editor equivocating certainly would not surprise me!
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, 09-25-2022, 05:59 AM
                                4 responses
                                14 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 09-24-2022, 12:17 PM
                                1 response
                                14 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-21-2022, 12:31 PM
                                1 response
                                12 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-19-2022, 08:29 PM
                                0 responses
                                10 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-16-2022, 10:14 AM
                                0 responses
                                13 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X