Scientists Are Never Political?

[seer]

Theories explain facts, such as the fact that new species have been appearing regularly in the fossil record over hundreds of millions of years. Young Earth Creationism, by its nature, cannot begin to explain that fact, hence cannot be considered a theory, let alone credible.

If your tangent into YECism had no connection with Collins statement, perhaps it would have been wiser not to introduce it.

Do try to stop biting your butt.

Did you follow the discussion between me and Sam? My point about creationism was a hyperbole used to highlight his faulty reasoning.

[Juvenal]

Did you follow the discussion between me and Sam? My point about creationism was a hyperbole used to highlight his faulty reasoning.

Yes, I did, which makes exactly one of us. Frankly, you're not bright enough to understand you'll never be able to spot anyone else's faulty reasoning.

You're a guy in a hole offering to throw up a rope to let someone else climb down.

[seer]

Yes, I did, which makes exactly one of us. Frankly, you're not bright enough to understand you'll never be able to spot anyone else's faulty reasoning.

You're a guy in a hole offering to throw up a rope to let someone else climb down.

Perhaps you can tell us how a theory can be both implausible and credible as Sam claimed? If not we can assume that you are just talking out your butt again...

[Juvenal]

Perhaps you can tell us how a theory can be both implausible and credible as Sam claimed? If not we can assume that you are just talking out your butt again...

Drawing a 7 to fill an inside straight to make your rent with three 7's showing on the table is credible, theoretically, but not plausible. But any Friday night you'd like to put it to the test, let me know, because as a math professor I feel a religious obligation to separate optimists from their optimism.

[seer]

Drawing a 7 to fill an inside straight to make your rent with three 7's showing on the table is credible, theoretically, but not plausible. But any Friday night you'd like to put it to the test, let me know, because as a math professor I feel a religious obligation to separate optimists from their optimism.

Really, so you are going to suggest Collins' claim that the lab leak theory was credible but not plausible? Than was his point, or conclusion? Weak. So you do you believe the lab leak theory was not plausible?

[whag]

This had to do with the fact that Francis Collins said the lab leak theory was in fact credible? Do try and keep up...

But YEC isn’t theory, so the comparison fails. You need a parallel example not one that claims 4B years can be confused with 10K years or Grand Canyon is proof of a worldwide flood.

[seer]

But YEC isn’t theory, so the comparison fails. You need a parallel example not one that claims 4B years can be confused with 10K years or Grand Canyon is proof of a worldwide flood.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Perhaps you can tell us how a theory can be both implausible and credible as Sam claimed? If not we can assume that you are just talking out your butt again...

Sam never wrote that:

a theory can be both implausible and credible

He gave examples of something that may be credible and something that may be plausible

[CivilDiscourse]

Sam never wrote that:

a theory can be both implausible and credible

He gave examples of something that may be credible and something that may be plausible

He never wrote the exact words, but he did give an example of a theory being credible and implausible.

"WIV labs accidentally leaked a virus" is a credible theory, in that it has basis in reasonable facts (e.g., WIV worked on coronaviruses, had potential safety issues, etc.) but was made implausible early on through fact-finding and has only become more implausible as evidence accumulated."

[rogue06]

But YEC isn’t theory, so the comparison fails. You need a parallel example not one that claims 4B years can be confused with 10K years or Grand Canyon is proof of a worldwide flood.

I guess YEC can be considered a theory. Just not one with much if any actual support. Maybe better labeled a hypothesis.

[Ronson]

I guess YEC can be considered a theory. Just not one with much if any actual support. Maybe better labeled a hypothesis.

I would call it a belief in search of evidence.

[oxmixmudd]

I guess YEC can be considered a theory. Just not one with much if any actual support. Maybe better labeled a hypothesis.

It has no valid scientific designation. It is an idea proven to be inconsistent with the physical evidence and the known laws of physics at nearly every turn.

I think it very important to recognize that truth, even if as some sort of exercise of faith or conscience one chooses to believe it is ultimately in some as yet undiscoverable way true.



 

[oxmixmudd]

He never wrote the exact words, but he did give an example of a theory being credible and implausible.

"WIV labs accidentally leaked a virus" is a credible theory, in that it has basis in reasonable facts (e.g., WIV worked on coronaviruses, had potential safety issues, etc.) but was made implausible early on through fact-finding and has only become more implausible as evidence accumulated."

The element of time is what defines it was never both. IOW, it was never both at the same time. It was a credible theory until fact finding showed it to be implausible is another rendering of the same thought. 

[seer]

The element of time is what defines it was never both. IOW, it was never both at the same time

Nonsense, Collins claim about it being a credible theory is RECENT! But the point of this thread is that these scientists rejected the lab leak theory before they had any idea if that was correct or not. When men like Collins believed it was credible AT THE TIME. In other words when the Lancet letter came out they did not know, nor was it a conspiracy theory.

The Lancet letter (also referred to as Calisher et al. 2020) was a statement made in support of scientists and medical professionals in China fighting the outbreak of COVID-19, and condemning theories suggesting that the virus does not have a natural origin, which it referred to as "conspiracy theories".^[1][2] The letter was published in The Lancet on February 19, 2020, and signed by 27 prominent scientists, gaining a further 20,000 signatures in a Change.org petition.^[3][4]The letter generated significant controversy over the alleged conflicts of interest of its authors, and the chilling effect it had on scientists proposing that the COVID-19 lab leak theory be investigated.^[5][6][7]

[CivilDiscourse]

The element of time is what defines it was never both. IOW, it was never both at the same time

"is credible" is a current state. "was credible" would be what you are describing. Look at what he said.


Now, if Sam comes back and says that I have misinterpreted what he said, and he was not saying it could be credible and implausible at the same time, I will stand corrected.

However, following the conversation, he is making a clear point that 'credible' and 'plausible' have distinct meanings and cannot be conflated. That leaves only 2 possibilities, one is that they are different points on a spectrum, and the other is that they are two traits that can be held at the same time. Based on how he described them, it is clear to me that he means they are a distinct set of traits that have some overlap.

That an item must be credible to be plausible, but it does not have to be plausible to be credible. And the above was an example of something that is credible, but not plausible.

In the case of a Venn Diagram, his description would be "credible" as a large circle, and "plausible" being a smaller circle entirely contained within the circle labeled "Credible"