|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Misrepresentation of Theory as Proven Fact | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In Message 27 Sumer claims to present some evidence that scientists are presenting theory as a proven fact.
This is my response to those "tidbits" of evidence:
Sumer writes: Apparently, the University of Wisconsin have already determined that their theory was the actual origin of life.
Origin of Life on Earth "How did life arise on Earth? the chemical-biological theory" "The Chemical-Biological Theory: Life on Earth originated from non-living chemicals; all life on Earth is related. Evidence: 1. Urey-Miller experiment 2. Oparin’s experiment" I went to the link and poked around. It has a list of 50 lectures with notes for the lectures for the course Botany 100 -- Survey of Botany -- Biological literacy course for non-biology majors What you have listed is one such set of notes for one such lecture. What is missing from your listing is the manner in which the lines are nested, and of course the actual (text\transcript) of the actual physical lecture ... and you have condensed parts of it improperly implying connection that is not there. Actual quotes from the site: Why does life occur on Earth and not elsewhere in our solar system (as far as we know)?
Water. How do we know anything about the origin of life on Earth?
The scientific method. How did life arise on Earth?
The chemical-biological theory. Music: Journey “Signs of Life” Nowhere do I see the words "proven" or "true\truth" -- what do I see are the words "as far as we know" right there at the top THAT YOU OMITTED. And that last line quoted is also omitted in your list -- that should be a clue that these are notes and not the complete package eh? What I do see are notes for a discussion about the possibilities, the theories, the evidence we have for those theories, and I note that they list them as THEORIES not FACT. She is PRESENTING the theory in the lecture, NOT claiming it is true. Now we'll skip down over the TWENTY MORE lines you ALSO omitted to THESE OMITTED LINES:
Application of the scientific method:
In science:
"The role of skepticism" "A body of well-tested ideas that explains many phenomena is called a scientific theory." But not called a fact eh? Then she discusses "The Chemical-Biological Theory:"including the evidence that supports the theory, showing how it is a scientific theory -- but still doesn't call it a fact. Of course you could contact the professor and ask her directly what she says in the lecture, but that might be too much like real information instead of innuendo based on surmise based on preconceptions and supported by gratuitous misrepresentations. Spring Semester Botany 100Instructor: Dr. Linda Graham (http://www.botany.wisc.edu/cryptogams/graham.html) Email: lkgraham (at) wisc (dot) edu (no spam) Sumer writes: Here is another indoctrinating schoolhttp://www.epcc.edu/ftp/Homes/krimkus/precamb2.htm "Chemical Evidence," "Protobionts," "Self Replication." El Paso Community College
Degree Programs Department Directory Seems that's a major source for "indoctrinating" students alright ... it looks like a perfectly fine community college but not a major source of education in science. There is no biology department, this course is in geology and I had to google search the site for {precambrian} to find it:http://www.epcc.edu/ftp/Homes/krimkus/precambrian.html And clicking on {LECTURE NOTES} takes me to your link, while clicking on {BACK TO TOPICS} takes me to "Course Topics" of which ONE is "Precambrian Geology" -- under "Geol 1302 Topics" Quotes from the NOTES:
You are once again using {NOTES} in place of the {text\transcript} of a lecture, NOTES that are full of qualifications like "could" and "probably" and then gives this other alternative .... yeah, that's a claim that theory is fact. Again you can contact the teacher of the course for verification:Karl Rimkus, B.S. Geology, UTEP, M.Ed., UTEP E-mail: rimkus (at) ix (dot) netcom (dot) com (no spam) He's on the part time staff. Sumer writes: Here is another indoctrinating course (SFSU)Origin of Life "These building blocks were used to generate the protiens, nucleic acids, and organic phosphates necessary for life."; "amino acids to proteins" Again with the lecture NOTES ... and again what you omitted is more telling than what you quoted.
Key Points
Again the words used include qualifications -- "probably" and "generated either by abiotic synthesis or ..." But the kicker is the opening line at the top of the notes:
Introduction Continuing the discussion started on Wednesday, we examine some of probable steps in the origin of life on earth. SOME PROBABLE STEPS Have you no shame? Again it is possible to contact the teacher to ask her directly:
Dr. Lisa White, Professor of Geology email: lwhite (at) sfsu (dot) edu (no spam) Sumer writes: And here is Dr. Stanley Miller himself explains how it ACTUALLY happenedJust a moment... "The trick is these things were done in lagoons and sea shores rather than in the open ocean... This is a news article reporting on work by Miller and others. Other quotes from the NEWS article are:
Researchers at UCSD now report they have managed to recreate certain conditions thought to exist on primitive Earth about 4 billion years ago, conditions that would have led to reactions resulting in cytosine and uracil. The chemical route employed was the reaction of a cyanoacetaldehyde--a compound that would have been created by lightning on the primitive Earth--and a concentrated urea solution, such as might have been found in an evaporating lagoon or in pools on drying beaches. When the chemicals were heated, the reaction created high yields of cytosine, from which uracil could then be formed by a simple reaction with water called hydrolysis. "With this experiment, you don't have to scurry around to look for alternatives to these bases in the first genetic material, if you use the right conditions, " said Stanley Miller, ... "Thought to exist ... " "... as might have been found ..." " ... if you use the right conditions ... " Still not claiming it as FACT even in a news article that is not a direct {comment\report\transcript\text} from Dr. Miller. Now either you are intentionally misrepresenting this material or you haven't really read it and just copied and pasted it from some creatortionista website that culled another gullible mark. Without checking it.
Sumer writes: All these examples show that the people involved portray the theory in question as something that actually occurred. Actually just the opposite is presented when you look at the whole picture. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you copied it from some site you THOUGHT was trustworthy. Your argument is NOT supported by any of this "evidence" -- rather it is REFUTED by it when looked at directly. For shame --- That's an impressive amount of misrepresentation there.
Sumer writes: ... I really noticed is the ability to bend the truth. Specifically:I said "think" Unfortunately, quite a few of them think that their theories are proven facts. Ah now comes the equivocation eh? After listing those teachers that were "indoctrinating" students unmercifully with theory presented as fact, something that "actually occurred", it turns out they were only "thinking" it, they never mentioned it to anyone, least of all the poor students ... Well, if they are only "thinking" it and not "indoctrinating" anyone with theory falsely portrayed as fact you argument amounts to a waste of bandwidth based on conjecture and your own bias. But I think you are confusing {thinking that their theories are proven facts} with {not completely sure, but thinking their theory is probably correct} -- a different kettle of fish. Enjoy.Is it Science Forum Thanks Edited by Admin, : Shorten long URL, improve formatting, fix spelling. Edited by RAZD, : added =Sumer to qs boxes - link to the message in question is at the top we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
thank you (and ned)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gary Inactive Member |
I might have this wrong, I'm kind of confused by this thread. What is wrong with calling a body of ideas that are supported by scientific evidence a scientific theory? Do you want them to call it a fact? If so, why? If scientists started calling their theories facts, either science would lose its ability to change according to evidence, or the definition of the word "fact" would simply change in the eyes of scientists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2542 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
you'll want to look at a different thread to understand where this came from.
http://EvC Forum: mihkel4397: Fred Hoyle's calculation of probability of abiogenesis -->EvC Forum: mihkel4397: Fred Hoyle's calculation of probability of abiogenesisit is either sumer or mihkel4397 who is misrepresenting the scientists and what they call their theories. basically, one of those two in that thread was lambasting scientists for portraying their theories as "fact". all razd was trying to show was that these scientists, the same blamed for calling theory fact, do not, in fact, call their theories fact. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
sumer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As pointed out by kuresu it was Sumer's assertion that this is evaluating.
His claim was on the lines of teachers indoctrinating students with theory presented as proven fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gary Inactive Member |
I think I see what is going on now. Thanks, RAZD and kuresu.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
If we're gonna declare anything a fact, its going to be Young Earth Creation Science. The evidence fits that model to a tee!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024