In the infamous creation museum a strategically very shrewd exhibit, where a scientist and a biblical scholar both study the same fossils, is being presented:
The sign says
“different scientists can reach very different conclusions, depending
on their starting assumptions.”
The argumen...
@DanChristensen: In a way I hope that they don't dig up fossils because they are not qualified to do that and would destroy them by accident (or even consciously, who knows...)
It's not clear to me what is meant by them being at "different levels". A definition of those levels would be required to answer whether they are at different levels. Also, the sign seems true, so I wouldn't offer any rebuttal. It's too vague, too, so ultimately useless as a defense of anything. Different scientists indeed reach different conclusions all the time.
@Smig: "the same level": I mean that it is justified to assume that one cannot decide which is true because both could be depending on where you started from. It is not about the verbatim wording of the sign but what is implied by the exhibit: That you basically arrive at the point where you started from.
Not a complete answer, so a comment, but yes, having more assumptions is problematic in itself. A scientific approach is expected to put work into challenging every significant assumption made, try to falsify it, and try to fit the available evidence without using that assumption. If an assumption can be removed while still fitting the evidence, then it should be removed, it's not an arbitrary or neutral choice to still keep assuming it if it's not justified.
I find it laughable how most of the answers talk about what "science" is and they give their altruistic definition. But it doesn't match the real world at all. Real world science starts with not only assumptions but "desired results" also. Scientists need funding, so they have to solicit clients. Clients don't fund for the "science" but to prove a product is harmful or beneficial or even does anything at all. Scientists who don't report the results their client wants end up working at McDonald's. There is very little "real" science in science nowadays and probably always has been that way.
The business about "different assumptions" is a bit of a red herring as well. Assuming only the existence of a Supreme Being (or even assuming specifically that God exists) is not nearly sufficient to lead a scientifically minded person to conclude Creationism. For that you have to assume a whole lot more.
@Dunk I don't think your comment is completely representative of reality, but it does hint on it. I believe this Chesterton inspired book is closer: "Science is a tool or a toy. When it is a tool, the real issue is, whose tool is it and what is it being used for? In our complicated, lop-sided society, science is an expensive tool and is funded by big government and big nusiness. The only time that the common man can use science as a tool or a toy is when he does so as a consumer. Hudge and Gudge are in cahoots with Sludge."
@fredsbend:I agree, it is not that EVERY scientific study is tainted. But it is a case that so many are tainted that one must question the validity of most all studies. All I was really trying to do is point out that even science can't be relied upon to be honest and/or worthy of being the source of information to prove a point because far too often seemingly credible scientific studies have been set up (either consciously or unconsciously) with a goal of proving a desired result.
"In a way I hope that they don't dig up fossils because they are not qualified to do that" Shouldn't you actually be basing that assessment based on, I don't know, their actual qualifications, and not their religious beliefs? Or are you so intolerant as to say that no school should train and issue a degree in archaeological excavation to a person who demonstrates competence, because of that person's religious views? (In which case they are unqualified only because you and those who agree with you denied them the training)
@BenVoigt: You got me, I am indeed very intolerant towards extreme religious views. Nothing good comes out of them.
@BenVoigt: ... and yes, let me be not PC here: I would in general question any qualification of people seriously holding such views in our times, with all the evidence available. They are either indoctrinated, dim or malevolent (or all of the above). Fossils are too precious to be tampered with by persons that are at least intellectually dubious. Or would you give a flat-earther the task of doing the ballistic calculations for the coming Mars expedition? I wouldn't want to be on that rocket...
There is far more evidence (cave paintings, carvings, legends, writings, etc., from ancient cultures around the world) for "ancient astronauts" manipulating life on Earth than the evidence (a few stories, from a small middle-east tribe) for divine Christian creation. Does that then place "ancient astronauts" on a far higher level than divine Christian creation? The single underlying assumption is the same in both cases: "The stories are true."
@vonjd nice strawman. Our are you unaware that while some flat earthers may have also been Christian, that belief finds no support in any JudeoChristian text? You might as well disregard all American biologists because decades ago some espoused the idea that Africans weren't members of the same human species.
What if the basic life elements were created and introduced to our planet by some external force and then left to evolve through the processes of natural selection? Would both positions then be true? Creationism doesn't have to agree with the bible (does it?), which seems to be a common opinion held throughout this page.
Why do the proponents of intolerance and prejudice, whether racial, sexual or religious, always think that they are smarter and more rational than the rest of the world, when clearly they are not? Guess it's just an extension of the same need to feel superior that prompted their prejudice in the first place.
@Dunk Yes, the results of a lone study should not be taken as fact, but when multiple studies from many sources reach the same conclusions we can start to find some assurance in the conclusions. The quote is meant to show that science progresses only as long as there is an obvious purpose for its expected results, not that science (as if it's some kind of thing or person and not an idea) cannot be trusted.
@fredsbend:If all studies come to the same conclusion then I guess there is some confidence. But what about when studies come to differing conclusions? Then we are once again back into the picking and choosing only the studies that support your desired conclusion and dismissing the other studies as being invalid for whatever reason, which there will always be a reason to question the results even for the studies that you agree with. It really is close to impossible to come up with a study that is bullet proof.
@Dunk That's why there's meta analysis. That discipline takes a large volume of studies with contrasting conclusions, normalizes the data, then creates a study about the studies. These kinds of studies show if there is a strong or weak tendency toward one conclusion or the other.
What "starting assumptions" of scientists is it that creationists take issue with in this case? The idea that empiricism is valid? The idea that mathematics works?
Discussion on question by vonjd: Why …
Discussion on question by vonjd: Why …