Re: Science be damned!

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:09:23 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx>:

Well, Gerard? No response?

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:46:52 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Gerard
<markgerardcat@xxxxxxx>:

Let's add a bit of snipped context. You said:

" I'm merely saying that scientists are abusing their
fields."

Bob said:

"What field of science are you trained in, where did you get
your training (and what level did you achieve) and how long
have you worked in that field?"

That's not a pertinent question.

Yes, I'm afraid it is. To be competent to judge whether
"scientists are abusing their fields" you must be competent
in science *and* in the particular field in question; even
trained and experienced scientists aren't competent to judge
another's work in a different field, although they can judge
whether the other is following the rules of science.

It would have value if indeed I
stated that every scientist was corrupt.

Nope; you have it exactly backward. One need not be a
competent scientist to judge corruption, which isn't related
to a particular field but to ethics. And one needn't be a
scientist to understand ethics.

There are many many worthy
scientists who know their limitations, their parameters of study.

Without competence in the field in question you have no way
to judge this, since you know neither the limitations nor
the parameters.

But
there are many others who cross those parameters to serve a dishonest
agenda. That's those who concocted the thousands of distortions in the
evidence. And it is those to whom I am addressing. The ones who
attribute life's development to something undemonstrable, when in
fact, they are scientists and must demonstate.

They have done so. The fact that you fail to recognize the
demonstration speaks to your lack of competence in the field
in question. Do you consider yourself capable of determining
whether an electrical engineer has used valid design
techniques in your flat-screen TV, or whether a surgeon has
used the best medical techniques while doing the bowel
resection required by so much sitting in front of that TV
and eating multiple bags of greasy potato chips? No? Then
why do you consider yourself competent to judge whether a
scientist has properly demonstrated support for a
hypothesis, when you understand neither the hypothesis nor
the process used to test it? Everything isn't lab
experiments with flashing lights and frizzy-haired,
wild-eyed individuals screaming "Eureka!"

They state that random
mutations are a mechanism behind evolution but cannot in any way
demonstrate that mutations are indeed "random" and not ordered.

Perhaps you'd care to define "random" and show why the
observed mutations don't qualify? Those who've analyzed the
data have done so, and have come to the conclusion you
question.

<snip the rest; no profit in further comment>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science be damned!
    ... Well, Gerard? ... " I'm merely saying that scientists are abusing their ... To be competent to judge whether ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science be damned!
    ... " I'm merely saying that scientists are abusing their ... To be competent to judge whether ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Dover Sham
    ... it is incomprehensible to me that Judge Jones of the Kitzmiller ... You will need to produce some evidence of bias. ... > the evidence was about whether ID was science or not? ... they go to real scientists, publish in the journals, etc. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • OT: And the award goes to....
    ... decision - coming from a Lutheran Republican judge appointed by George ... and brazenly assert that scientists were baffled at the evolutionary ... they would repeat the quarter-baked argument that evolution can't ... were originally "creation science" arguments, ...
    (misc.fitness.weights)
  • Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures
    ... PBS documentary covering the 2005 Dover trial. ... Why, again, didn't they present it to the judge at the ... ban on Intelligent Design Theory in public schools. ... scientists, We Hit PAYDIRT!! ...
    (talk.origins)