A point of consensus

Did you know that there are only three "natural clocks" that indicate the Earth is billions of years old, and that the other 99% (that scientists conveniently ignore) all indicate that our planet is no more than 12,000 years old?

Just one of the astounding "facts" you would have learned from listening to this morning's D. James Kennedy broadcast...

*sigh*

Flipping through the channels last Sunday, I saw Salvador Cordova on the same channel where, on last pass, I saw the Rev D.James Kennedy. Yep, it sure isn't about religion!

"...that the other 99% (that scientists conveniently ignore) all indicate that our planet is no more than 12,000 years old?"

Can you provide some of these "natural clocks"? Carbon dating is a pretty exact science. In the atmosphere there are a certain % different isotopes of carbon. Life pulls carbon out of the atmosphere as it grows. When it is formed the % of different isotopes are the same as the atmosphere. Over time they decay into other isotopes at a constant rate. By looking at the new % of different isotopes you can work backwards to the age. This is how atomic clocks that are accurate to less then 1 second over millions of years work, but different with elements.

Like all scientific theories there are exceptions that current theory can not account for, if it could it would be a scientific law.

Now I am not a scientist so I may have a few details wrong. Can you provide a "natural clock" that is the same mountains of evidences as carbon dating?

I would also like to point out that when scientists are presented with new facts they readily change their opinion if there is sufficient proof. A recent example of this (sorry I can't find the link right now) is that scientists found that the strong nuclear force is about one millionth of a percent weaker then they thought. Some could argue that the physical constants are as close to a god as an atheist gets. Many theories from quantum mechanics to astrophysics will be changed because of this discovery. But scientists are not fighting it and saying the others where wrong. Nor are the going to jump on it as fact before a few independent tests are done to confirm it.

PZ maybe you could do a blog entry on how scientists change their mind on thing easily when presented with new data.

Joe, carbon dating is only reliable 50,000 years or so back. Of course, this is the case for very good reasons. For good radiometric readings on older stuff we need isotopes with longer halflives. This, of course, doesn't touch the general meaning of your argument.

Martin

Indeed, 50k years still outdates pretty much all the YECs. (Speaking of: 12000? Did he just take the usual 6000 and double it for no reason?)

I always hear the argument "scientists ignore the evidence that does not support their argument". I have yet for a young earther or IDer to ever actually supply a single example the 99% of evidence that scientists ignore. If there is so much of it I look forward to a very long rebuttal that enumerates all of it.

Joshua, I guess when they are just making things up as you go along you can change facts on the fly to make your new augment work. I guess it helps when the government is controlled by the Ministry of Truth.

Reading the post reminded me of how valuable the Randi Million dollar prize is. It seperates immediately true frauds (who wont go near it) from deluded people (who fail).
Could one set up somethign similar for science? The challege to creationists and anti-evolutionists would be you had to provide enough evidence to convice a panel of top researchers in the field.
This would be a win win situation. If they won't try it is because they know they are lying. If they do go for it the juudgement would be published and stand as to why they were full of shit.

Beck links to Coral Ridge's page on the "homosexual agenda," which is about what you'd expect: Christians are oppressed (not disagreed-with, but oppressed) when their kids are taught not to gay-bait in school, when prison chaplains aren't allowed to gay-bait a literally captive audience, when gay-baiters on campus are told to piss off, when the media offers anti-gay-baiting views, when homosexuals receive any legal recognition of their relationships, when gay parents maintain their parental rights, when corporations offer domestic partner benefits, when public officials react towards homnosexuals in any manner besides jumping on chairs and shrieking, etc.

It's a lie, of course. In real life, have you ever met a homosexual who, as a homosexual, had some sociopolitical agenda besides not being required to lie about themselves, and being left the hell alone?

In contrast, the Christian agenda--these Christians, at least--is: We want to micromanage every last bit of your life, whether you believe in our religion or not. Your sex life in particular--not just the gender of who you sleep with, but their legal status and contraceptives and what sex acts (well, act; just the one, and don't get cute with positions--God can see you) you'll be limited to. We'll tell you how to spend your money (give it to us) and how to spend all your free time (with us--you don't really want a life of your own, do you?). We'll tell you what movies and TV to watch, what books to read, who to marry, how to raise your kids, what to wear, where to live, who to vote for, and did I mention where to send your money? And as shown above, we'll lie to you--for your own good, of course--about anything that might contradict our positions, and if you try to confirm what we say, we'll make you out to be the bad guy.

And we want public tax money, so that every American, whether Atheist, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or not-crazy Christian, will be forced to to subsidize our agenda.

Can someone explain to me why the homosexual agenda is scarier than the Religious Right's?

"Could one set up somethign similar for science? The challege to creationists and anti-evolutionists would be you had to provide enough evidence to convice a panel of top researchers in the field."

Like the SENS Challenge it was to prove that trying to cure aging is not so unscientific that it is unworthy of debate.

ha ha... what exactly is an "asshat"? That creates an interesting mental picture for sure.

Joe and others - Hey, I will be posting an article on my blog in about a week (after my next article) on radiometric dating and those "clocks" mentioned. If you have a few minutes check it out next week and leave a comment. Maybe I can feild a few questions as well.

Thanks.
z.

I think tacitus' remark is tongue in cheek.

For dating there is Uranium to Lead decay (two kinds) and Potassium to Argon decay (among others, but I don't know about them) which point to an old earth. You can also use sedimentary buildup to determin that the Earth is much older than thousands of years, which is why geologists had adbandoned the idea of a young Earth long ago.

The trick is that the YE folks tend to just rattle off a huge list of discredited or just inane arguments and it's near impossible to know why all of them are false.

Joe, the "99%" is just a figment of D. James Kennedy's deranged imagination (the figure was a direct quote from today's "Truths That Transform" broadcast which you can probably listen to if you go to his Coral Ridge Ministry website).

Sadly, the natural clocks Kennedy is referring to are all the same old, long-debunked things like "the existence of short term comets" (the Oort Cloud is just a myth you know), "lack of dust on the Moon", "concentration of salt in seawater", "population of the Earth", etc. etc. All rather pathetic but still treated as solid evidence by people like Kennedy. I suspect he will be trotting out some of these in tomorrow's radio broadcast.

He is one of the most unsophisticated creationists around but, unfortunately, he is the head of one of the most influential fundamentalist ministries in the USA, which is why he needs to taken seriously even though his science is a joke. (Ever heard his "Gospel in the Stars" series?)

Joe, for a little more info on arguements relating to the age of the earth, you may want to check here. It also discusses several of the creationist "clocks" and why they are not considered to be serious problems.

That tacitus I am listening now.

Since the discussion has turned to "clocks", I thought I would post this here as well as at the Beck/Bushwell site. It gives an example of how young earth creationists deal with the evidence involving a specific case of dates and time.

D. James Kennedy makes ridiculous claims on a regular basis. One of my favorites is his claim that nothing in archeology contradicts the Bible, by which, he means that nothing in archeology contradicts a 6000 year old Earth chronology. Specifically, Kennedy has said "The most recent and continuing testimony of archaeology, like all such testimony that has gone before, is definitely and uniformly favorable to the Scripture at its face value, rather than to the Scripture as reconstructed by critics."

After hearing this repeated on his "Truths that Transform" broadcast, I emailed his organization to ask about a few dates, and I received the following answers from a "Reverend Steve".

When did Noah's Flood occurred? 2305 BC (based on the Bible).

When where the Great Pyramids built? 2500 BC (according to archeology).

Houston, we have a problem. According to the dates given to me by Coral Ridge, the Great Pyramids came first. But obviously, they couldn't have been built before the Flood, because if the Great Pyramids came first, they would be buried many miles down in Flood sediments. So, archeology clearly contradicts the Bible as D. James reads it. (And just as obviously, there is no evidence of world-wide flood in the archeology record, but I was trying to take things one point at time with Rev. Steve).

After receiving these dates, I innocently asked Rev. Steve, "Does this mean that the Great Pyramids were built before the Flood"? Now, he changed his tune and said that he would date the Great Pyramids as being "post-flood". "But wait a minute", I asked, "How can they be post-flood when nothing in archeology contradicts the Bible?"

At this point I was told that "I (Rev. Steve) have been in the Kingdom long enough to realize that when the Bible and "science so-called" clash, it is the Word of God that is trustworthy", and "I am concerned that you do not succumb to the wisdom of men rather than the clear teaching of Scripture."

So there you have it. D. James clearly said that the "wisdom of men", in the form of archeology, does not contradict the Bible. But the Bible says that there was a global flood in 2305 BC and archeology says that the Great Pyramids were built in 2500 BC, and of course, there were several dynastys in Eygyt before the Pyramids were built. However, when someone points out that archeology does indeed contradict the Bible, Coral Ridge Ministries is not about to correct or modify D. James absurd statements. Instead, it's back to attacking "science so called".

When I then suggested to Rev. Steve that "perhaps the human wisdom that should not be succumbed to here is the wisdom of Dr. Kennedy", I received no reply.

No doubt Kennedy's "99% of all clocks" is as valid as his statements about archeology.

Another easy example. Isn't Chinese culture about 7000 years old? I am not a historian either so I may be wrong on this, but isn't there directly written history for 7000 years in China? Did God make up 1000 years of history of a culture that Christians would not encounter for 1000s of years just to "test their faith" or some other silly reason?

I wish I had time to get a formal education in every field I find interesting! Hopefully I will live long enough to satisfy my curiosity.

Such seething, vicious hatred of D. James Kennedy and Christians in general. No wonder you liked it, PZ.

He is a pompous airhead. And a demented fuckwit.

Care to defend him Jason?

Oh wait. You think the world is only 6,000 years old and created in 6 days.

I forgot. Nevermind.

Your daddy is still letting you down, eh Jinx?

Hey Jinxy, you're still evading my question. I'll repeat it: "Do you believe, word for word, in the literal accuracy of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments?" Yes or no, please, and don't weasel out with "I already answered that question here".

I assume it's futile to ask you why you don't allow comments at your "PZ-Myers-Is-The-Antichrist" blog.

Oh wait. You think the world is only 6,000 years old and created in 6 days.

Is this true, Jinx? Is this what you believe?

I think you forget ... 12,000 years is not a long time, it is a very, very, very long time, more than 378,432,000,000 seconds! Plenty of time to do ... to do almost anything.

Such seething, vicious hatred of D. James Kennedy and Christians in general. No wonder you liked it, PZ.

Can you only attack PZ and not actually defend Kennedy, Jinx?

Jason:

"Such seething, vicious hatred of D. James Kennedy and Christians in general. No wonder you liked it, PZ."

Actually, I read it as seething, vicious hatred of open stupidity and defiant ignorance, two things that should be fought by intelligent people. But I guess it's only natural for a xenophobic mentality such as the false "war on christianity" to have revulsion at anything resembling criticism of its public activities.

Would love Jason's take of Senator George "Makaka" Allen.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/08/senator_george.html

Would love Jason's take of Senator George "Makaka" Allen.

*SIGH*. I predict Jason's response would be to attack the person who said negative things about Allen, then to hastily dredge up a bogus analogy of a 'liberal' doing the same thing, with accusations that we approve of it when a liberal does it. This would quickly be followed by Jason's disappearance for two days.

- Mommy, mommy, there is a troll, see!?
- Shh. Don't talk to him. Troll grows when talked to.
- But he is so *ugly*, mommy!
- That is what a troll is.
- And he makes so mean and *stupid* noises.
- That is what a troll does.
- But why is he here, mommy?
- Troll likes certain places - nobody knows why since nobody gets how a troll thinks. This troll likes to be around Pharyngula park.
- I don't like trolls, mommy!!!
- Nobody does.

If Jason disagrees with the regular posters of this blog, perhaps he can explain why, if the Pyramids were built around 2500 BC, about two centuries before the Flood, in 2300 BC, the Pyramids show no evidence of being submerged in saltwater? Or does he know how to reconcile Chinese historical records, which record events back to about 2300 BC (at the start of the legendary Xia Dynasty) with a literal intrepretation of the Bible, even though Chinese historical documents made no mention of a flood destroying civilization, or having a man from the West being the ancestor of the Chinese race?

I think you forget ... 12,000 years is not a long time, it is a very, very, very long time, more than 378,432,000,000 seconds! Plenty of time to do ... to do almost anything.

Yes in 12,000 years agriculture went from its very basic begining to the industrial machine it is now. Amazing.

So, what you're saying, Reverend, is that it's going to be about 12,000 years before Jason can answer my question?

So, what you're saying, Reverend, is that it's going to be about 12,000 years before Jason can answer my question?

That's the low end estimate.

Jason:

I don't 'hate' D. James Kennedy. But I find his message hateful. I have in my possession little newsletters from his Coral Ridge ministry that are sent off to various churches, mostly fundamentalist outfits. According to these, the reason that people like me accept the fact of evolution is that we want to have the freedom to be sexually promiscuous and to deny the American way of life!

As a Christian, and an American, I find that offensive. What makes it doubly infuriating is that the rest of the newsletter is filled not just with ad hominem attacks, but with the same old discredited arguments, quotes taken out of context and out-and-out lies you find in almost every YEC document. What kind of Christian is it, Jason, that spreads this kind of nonsense? What kind of person would defend it?

Angrily...Scott

Joe wrote:
Joe wrote:

"Another easy example. Isn't Chinese culture about 7000 years old? I am not a historian either so I may be wrong on this, but isn't there directly written history for 7000 years in China?"

I was skeptical about Joe's claim, but when I looked I found more than one recent source suggesting that the origin of Chinese characters can be traced back more than 6,000 BP. I had no idea! Here's one such source, from this year:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-03/22/content_4333001.htm

So I think I was wrong: Joe really has a good argument here. Good on you, Joe!

Silly people. God just made the artifacts look older than 6000 years to test us! That dating stuff is all bogus, as soon as it makes anything look older than 6000 years. Everybody knows that.

Yes, and the reason the Egyptian pyramids don't show evidence of being submerged in saltwater is because the Egyptians cleaned all the sediment and salt off them, presumably with the help of Jewish slaves.

The reason Chinese culture appears to go back further than 6,000 years is because the Chinese hate Christianity.

This is so easy!

If the earth was essentially submerged during the great flood...
where did all the water go?

Kevin Beck writes

I'll start and end by pointing out that scientists don't deal in "proving" anything.

As a scientist, I beg to differ. I've seen this weird "objection" to creationist poppycock before and I think it's a stupid confusing response. It's true that scientists don't care about "proving" that life on earth evolved in the same way that a mathematical argument is "proved."

But scientists do "prove" things all the time and if you doubt this, just go to PubMed and type in the words "prove" or "proof."

Bottom line: there are better ways to make it clear that creationists are lying scummy shitheads than to take them to task for the alleged "error" of implying that scientists prove anything.

George Cauldron wrote:
The reason Chinese culture appears to go back further than 6,000 years is because the Chinese hate Christianity.
Well, there is indeed genuine animosity towards Christianity in various periods of Chinese history... Some of the Confucian courtesans and Buddhist monks thought of the Nestorian missionaries as filthy foreign rivals. And there were many who despised the Jesuit missionaries, who were thought of as violent drunkards, especially since rival sects often fought fierce gunbattles with no regard for bystanders.

GWW:

I've got no problem with that, as long we don't make the leap from 'proof' to 'Truth'. We don't prove things so much as we attempt to exhaust other possible explanations, then provisionally accept statements as 'proved.' The difference matters. Creationists deal in dogma. Science (as a whole) does not. And I think one valid way to undercut the effectiveness of creationists is to point out how their notions of 'proof' (or, even more popularly, 'evidences') are at odds with science as it is practiced.....Scott

I've got no problem with that, as long we don't make the leap from 'proof' to 'Truth'.

Ah, yes, the technique of capitalizing words so that you can then deny that their generally-accepted definition has anything to do with the way you're using it.

The Christian Agenda, we need to start using that. At the very very charitable least, it's no more bullshit than the Homosexual Agenda.

Muslims are not short on miracles either. Here are a few examples;

http://www.faithfreedom.info/gallery/miracle

(In my best 'Trix rabbit voice'):

Silly Caledonian! I capitalize 'Truth' to distinguish the object of certain non-falsifiable claims from the sort of factual statements that science can speak to. I can't help it if some folks here habitually conflate the two.

You can, if you want, deny that the former has anything to do with reality. But that's the mirror image of the way a lot of creationist reason, as in, "Truth can not contradict truth, therefore evolution must be false", or some similar screed. Either way, it sounds like a trick in the manner you described and I don't think it's a particular good argument.

(Which is fine, because I don't like Trix that much anyway. I'm a kookoo for Cocoa Puffs man myself!)

Peace....SH

Silly Caledonian! I capitalize 'Truth' to distinguish the object of certain non-falsifiable claims from the sort of factual statements that science can speak to. I can't help it if some folks here habitually conflate the two.

Science doesn't need to address those claims - logic alone is sufficient to refute them. They're filtered from consideration long before they would reach the level of scientific inquiry.

Jason spewed...
"Such seething, vicious hatred of D. James Kennedy and Christians in general. No wonder you liked it, PZ."

Either defend Kennedy's statements or shut the fuck up you deminited, christo shit head! As for myself, utter disgust fits better than seething, vicious hatred. The reason behind my intense disgust for most christians? You are living, breathing, spewing example, Jason. You and your ilk are one of the primary reasons I left the faith long ago, never to return. Nice work building up the "kingdom" there Jason. I wonder how many others you and your kind have driven from christo-insanity? I'm sure jebus would be real proud of you if he were not dead as a stump.

You and your ilk are one of the primary reasons I left the faith long ago, never to return.

The words "good riddance" come to mind.

Lessee here. Not only does Jason have a blog devoted entirely to bashing PZ, but his primary verbal shitheap includes posts condemning the entire Democratic party and roundly labeling pro-choice people "lovers of death." Yet he complains of what he perceives as a "seething, vicious hatred [project much, buddy?] of D. James Kennedy and Christianity in general." That this flagrant hypocrite also misrepresents stem-cell research, loves Malkin and Coulter, and thinks Terri Schiavo was "murdered" is almost an afterthought.

What an embarassment of a blog. No wonder he doesn't disclose his full name.

And I think one valid way to undercut the effectiveness of creationists is to point out how their notions of 'proof' (or, even more popularly, 'evidences') are at odds with science as it is practiced.....Scott

You can think whatever you want. I am just informing you of the FACT that scientists prove things all the time, by their own admission, so be very careful when making this argument.

The modern creationist peddler, by the way, has no problem with the idea that scientists can't "prove" anything in the philosophical sense of the word. They love that -- you can watch Hannah Maxson bend over backwords to work that argument up and down as deeply as it goes. The argument fits right in with their postmodern view of science as "just another point of view." This view is only non-absurd, however, in the context of "big theories". In the context of the little things -- which is 99.9% of science -- scientists test and prove things all the time. Every damn day.

This is why it's ineffective to quibble about the definition of the term 'proof' or 'truth.' As you suggest, the key issue is one of utility and practicality. The theory that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor is "proved" to the satisfaction of almost every scientist on earth -- certainly there are no sincere experts in biology who have expressed a substantial objection to this positition *as a practical matter.*

Likewise, scientists have proven that animals reproduce. And pass on their genetic information using mostly DNA. And the information is passed in imperfectly. And that is a source of variation on which natural selection acts.

That shit is PROVEN. To claim otherwise is to simply the creationist's own game: confuse rhetoric with substance for the purpose of kicking up dust. Screw that shit.

The words "good riddance" come to mind.

Another vacuous mean-spirited post from Bres, the world's greatest hypocrite.

BTW: The second half of Kennedy's sermon (you can't really call it anything else) was broadcast this morning. Regarding the 99% of "natural processes" that supposedly proved a young Earth, he rattled through a few. Here are three that show the sheer inanity of his arguments:

1) Io has active volcanos - such a small moon should have cooled down long ago if it really was millions of years old.

2) With the abundance of radioactive elements in the Earth's crust that decay (in part) into helium, there should be much more helium in Earth's atmosphere if the planet was much more than a few thousand years old.

3) If the solar system is billions of years old then there should be no more comets since they are relatively short-lived.

Honestly, it would take 30 seconds on Google to find out what's wrong with all of these arguments. But the problem is that he is preaching, not teaching, and thus his audience will uncritically lap it all up. (go to http://truthsthattransform.org if you want to hear it for yourself).

Caledonian:

There you go, conflating again. Non-falsifiables are never 'refuted'; they're only provisionally rejected for various reasons, some (as you suggest) logically valid, some not. We don't exclude the possibility of an untestable claim being true either in science of philosophy; we exclude the claim from being considered, but only in science. In any case, we never prove such claims 'false'. At best, we can only demonstrate that the claim is incoherent or without meaning.

GWW:

Reproduction, heredity, selection etc. are of course all demonstrable facts about populations. Sure. But they are not 'Truths' of the kind that animate the religious. You may think that such things are vacuous and not worthy of consideration. Many potential supporters of evolution feel differently and are put off by any suggestion that the 'truth claims' in science are either equivalent to or (merciful Minerva!) superior to the 'Truth' claims of religion. We are more effective advocates for evolutionary biology when we sidestep that complication, IMO.

Finally, to one and all, I'm recommending a strategy for engagement, not telling anyone what to believe. I ask for clemency if anyone received a different impression.

Peace...Scott

Reproduction, heredity, selection etc. are of course all demonstrable facts about populations. Sure. But they are not 'Truths' of the kind that animate the religious.

Screech. Goalpost moved. I stopped reading.

kemibe:
"What an embarassment of a blog."
It also contains quotes from PZ that have been outright reworded.

He is a *lying* flagrant hypocrite.

Oh, very pithy, Robert. Hey, put me in another one of your little Crayola drawings, ok? Please?

There you go, conflating again. Non-falsifiables are never 'refuted'; they're only provisionally rejected for various reasons, some (as you suggest) logically valid, some not.

Ooh boy, do you have problems. Let's review, shall we?

1) Multiple statements in a language can be logically equivalent.

2) We determine if two statements are logically equivalent by examining their consequences. If the consequences of statement A are all also consequences of statement B, and vice versa, we say A and B are equivalent.

3) A non-falsifiable hypothesis cannot imply consequences that contradict any possible observation. If there were possible observations that could contradict that hypothesis, it wouldn't be non-falsifiable.

4) The consequences of a non-falsifiable hypothesis are thus identical to the null statement, and it and the null statement are logically equivalent.

You lose, Hatfield. Go directly to Jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

One thing about Robert is that he's very consistent: He's careful to never support his ad hominems with focused criticism. He calls neuroscience Ph.D. candidate Sam Harris "a choleric scold who is not a scientist, but plays one on the internet," but doesn't attempt to refute any of Sam's arguments; he merely posts a throwaway comment he left at Truthdig and muses over whether it will pass muster with the mods there. (Boasting of his own inane comments left hither and thither seems to constitute the bulk of his activities.) Earlier, he called PZ "an academician of no consequence," but didn't elaborate (and whether Robert approves of PZ or not, I think his words and opinions are just slightly more influential these days than Robert's own). I must be in good company, because in response to my Kennedy rant, Robert commented that I "suffer from a distinct lack of intellectual acumen," but -- get this -- didn't elaborate.

I guess in some people's minds, recycling instances of one's own hollow name-calling is sufficient inspiration to start a blog.

The words "good riddance" come to mind

If you sir are a Christian then you have seriously dropped the ball.

Robert O'Brien do you have anything of substance to say EVER! Ed Brayton was right about you. To say Harris doesn't make any factual arguments is to put your hwead in the sand or your ass whichever is of your choosing. To say others are intellectually vacous when you take empty commentary to a new level on each and every blog you frequent is blantant hypocrisy.

Rebut what he says or sit down and be quiet.

I generally do not waste my time rebutting unfounded assertions

That should read I don't waste my time rebutting any assertions. Instead I waste my time making pointless commentary on issues of which I clearly have nothing to add.

so... all you're doing here is trying to get folks to go to your blog?

I see.

you've advertised now.

done?

Sh*t or get off the pot, as they say. If you have something intelligent to add rather than witless one-liners, everybody here is apparently all ears.

c'mon let's hear some of it rather than your "oh, you're so wrong" commentary.

humor us with your musings, Plato.

"Such as?"

Fair enough.

jason blogs:
"PZ sez: "Embryonic stem cell research is superior to adult stem cell research (even though the former hasn't resulted in any treatments or cures and the latter has produced several dozen - but I'll just conveniently ignore the facts)."" http://pzmyersexposed.blogspot.com/2006/07/pz-sez-embryonic-stem-cell-r…

And links to:
"DarkSyde is on the stem cell story, and he uses Neurotopia's summary of the biology.

I just don't understand the other side's argument. Adult stem cells are not a substitute for embryonic stem cells, at least not yet. The anti-stem cell research crowd wants to claim that we don't need ES cells, that AS cells will do everything we need, but they don't think it through. If we want to make AS cells that are functionally equivalent to ES cells, we need to understand ES cells--but they want to deny us the ability to look at ES cells. Furthermore, if we could convert an AS cell line to totipotency what we'd have is...millions of cells we could replicate in the lab, each of which has the potential to become a human being. We'd go from a few "snowflakes" to a blizzard. Then what?"

"Two things:

My Ph.D. didn't cost any money at all: in fact, I was paid to receive it. I worked for 5 years as a TA and on a genetics training grant, which covered all of my expenses and let me live on the princely sum of something less than $10K/year.

The question of the value of embryonic stem cells is settled. Catherine Verfaillie, a Very Big Name in adult stem cell research, insists that both ES and AS cell research should be funded. She's been saying this for years.

Posted by: PZ Myers [TypeKey Profile Page] | July 19, 2006 05:17 PM"
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/more_stem_cell_talk.php

So Jason fabricated PZ's "comment".

Isn't it cute how Robert the troll keeps Jason the troll company?

Not really. The people who typically post here are not the sort of people I am looking to have milling about my blog.

fascinating bit of hypocrisy there, Plato.

so, in answer to queries as to your position, you post a link to your blog, then proceed to tell us that nobody here is worthy to comment on your response on said blog.

fascinating.

tell us more, professor.

oh, and wtf are you doing here again?

uh, you said "The people who typically post here are not the sort of people I am looking to have milling about my blog"

that sure sounds like they aren't welcome, aside from whatever opinion you may have formed, for reasons you seemingly refuse to share with us louts.

why are you hanging around with us louts here, again?

The people who typically post here are not the sort of people I am looking to have milling about my blog

Oh you mean the educated logical types? You seek out who then?

And you have never rebuted any assertions.

Ed Brayton is correct about you.

well, uh, why don't you get to it then?

You said over on the 'Thumb you were gonna hand my *ss to me, and i even made a thread for you to do so over at ATBC, but you were too chicken to participate there.

c'mon, professor! get to the head knockin' already!

We tire of your endless foreplay (heck, it ain't even got that far yet), and I'm still curious about your melding of statistics and theology.

so get to it or kindly STFU.

oh yeah, that really told 'em there, professor!

Youch!

all you gave us was a definition, and you backed your contentions not at all.

handed my ass to me?

laughable.

you really are a joke, aren't you?

I guess you maintain a blog simply as a way to list viewpoints without having to expound on them.

funny, but just about everybody who posts here or on PT is more than happy to detail their thoughts, and occasionally even provide evidence.

Is that why you're here? to learn how to do that?

it's quite simple really. fist, you make a contention - I see you already grasp that part.

then, you either STFU or you back that contention with some evidence.

evidence? do you need me to define that fer ya... no wait, you have a dictionary, that's right.

so, still waiting...

will you saying something that has a point, or will you continue to regale us with witless one-liners?

ball's in your court, genius.

You lack the native intelligence to know either way.

I'm red your blue, so back to the schoolyard we go. Wasn't it just you who was commenting on junior high type insults.

Repeating something ad nauseam does not make it true, sorry

Your right, repeating it doesn't. Your post that he obliterated for it's utter and complete stupidity does. And your continued pointless posts here seem to endorse his view.

To knock some heads, naturally.

Your a parody. but my goodness you are funny. Toejam, ass back on a silver platter. Classic grade school stuff.

Speaking of grade school, JimC, you must have missed the week they went over contractions.

Obrien: master of the witless one-liner.

still waiting... professor.

I have yet to see any sign of intelligence in your species.

throw some meat on the table already!

how long can you keep us all in suspense?

I was wondering how long it would take you to jump on some grammar.

Now how about laying a rebuttal to something out here. I guess name calling while insulting others for name calling is enough huh?

"Non-falsifiables are never 'refuted'; they're only provisionally rejected for various reasons, some (as you suggest) logically valid, some not. We don't exclude the possibility of an untestable claim being true either in science of philosophy; we exclude the claim from being considered, but only in science. In any case, we never prove such claims 'false'. At best, we can only demonstrate that the claim is incoherent or without meaning."

I think this is nicely stated.

"1) Multiple statements in a language can be logically equivalent.

2) We determine if two statements are logically equivalent by examining their consequences. If the consequences of statement A are all also consequences of statement B, and vice versa, we say A and B are equivalent.

3) A non-falsifiable hypothesis cannot imply consequences that contradict any possible observation. If there were possible observations that could contradict that hypothesis, it wouldn't be non-falsifiable.

4) The consequences of a non-falsifiable hypothesis are thus identical to the null statement, and it and the null statement are logically equivalent."

This is a nice proof, and the idea of equivalency here new to me. It seems "without meaning" and "null statement" is the same thing.

The null statement is false in a closed world assumption. "The closed world assumption is the presumption that what is not currently known to be true is false." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_world_assumption )

But we use powerful formal theories so we have gödel incompleteness, we haven't explored everything, we haven't a consolidated single formal theory. "The open world assumption or OWA assumes that its knowledge of the world is incomplete. If something cannot be proved to be true, then it doesn't automatically become false. ... The open world assumption is closely related to the monotonic nature of first-order logic: adding new information never falsifies a previous conclusion. " ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_World_Assumption )

So I tend to agree with Scott here.

Robert:

"I keep him company because I asked you to back up your claim?"

No. I meant that he is a troll, you are a troll, and you commented on the same thread.

"Anyway, I don't know how they do things in the land of the longships, but here in the U.S. we are allowed to paraphrase."

I don't know which country you think I currently live in, but we both know it doesn't matter, you troll you. BTW, you are very stupid if you think were are many longships used today, that they were used in only one nation, and that the nation borders where the same when as now.

"It is difficult to tell from your clumsy quotations exactly who is saying what, so I can't comment as to whether I think Jason's paraphrase is accurate."

And obviously you are too stupid to follow the links I provided. The next step in your trolling is to claim I never backed up my claim, even if I did it *twice*, quotes and links. Can't read, can't follow links - oh, don't tell me, can't count?

"My comment was not meant as a defense of Kennedy. Rather, it was directed at your unintelligent, frothing-at-the-mouth criticisms of Christianity in general."

The problem with this, Robert, is that I didn't write anything I couldn't and didn't back up. Not only do you continue to make assertions about the ignorance of others, you don't even try to support them. I realize your goal is to inflame, not inform, but you won't even be able to fulfill the role of gadfly until you at least take a token stab at forming a cogent argument. You're dealing here with people who place a high premium on ecidence and reason; they're not going to be cowed by malignantly blind horseshit.

"Oh, and you should have left the word 'asshat' back in junior high."

And, I suppose, should have graduated by now to more refined insults such as "the most fetid shit that was ever shat." I'll stick with my brand of potty talk, Robby boy, and you can have yours.

yes, both apathetic and pathetic apply equally to your prose and analysis, Robert.

done knockin our heads around yet?

oh, wait you haven't even started yet.

*snore*

So I tend to agree with Scott here.

Then you don't understand the arguments that have been made. Non-falsifiable statements are necessarily made about things and properties that do not exist. Logic causes us to reject them as useful additions to our understanding -- absolutely nothing is gained through their inclusion, and absolutely nothing is lost through their exclusion.

Here's my 'get out of jail' card, Caledonian:

The consequences, real or otherwise, of holding a non-falsifiable claim to be true are different from holding a non-falsifiable claim to be false. It has no bearing on whether the claim is either true or false.

SETI is a beautiful example. The claim that there is intelligent life SOMEWHERE else in the universe is non-falsifiable. Where you stand on this claim will affect whether or not you would support funding SETI research, but it has no bearing on the truth of the claim. As Sagan (a SETI advocate) said so pithily, 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' Do you know something that Carl didn't know?

BTW, I think you are on solid ground when you apply the above reasoning to specific religious claims which are falsifiable. As I'm sure you know, when such claims are put to the test, they usually fail, and at that point the religious will typically propose non-falsifiable 'excuses' to explain the failure in order to preserve the original claim. These attempts at 'resurrection' can be dismissed by exactly the logic you propose, because they are ancillary to the central claim falsified.

I think your error is extending that sort of reasoning to universals. One would not conclude that all SETI is non-science because much of it appears to be motivated by a commitment to a non-falsifiable hypothesis, for example. And, even if there are no ET's, the consequence of that search is different than the consequence of no search. In the long run, the dogmatic portrayal of non-falsifiable claims as inherently unreal is just as much of a 'science stopper' as dogmatically proclaiming such claims as eternally off-limits to scientific investigation. I don't regard the two statements as logically equivalent, but their consequences (as you suggest) might well be. Perhaps someone with more knowledge could step in here and discuss which of us, if not both, are 'affirming the consequent' ?

Peace...Scott

'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' Do you know something that Carl didn't know?

Carl was specifically applying that to natural world situations.

aliens are typically thought to be of the natural world; something that can (or could) be observable inherently. It's a natural (no pun intended) assumption based on observation of life on this planet.

there's a big difference.

it's the reason why Science GOs don't fund searches for God.

so your analogy at best is a poor one.

theoretically, you are incorrect in stating that SETI is an unfalsifiable endeavor. given enough time and combined with actual exploration via spacecraft... well you get the idea.

what would give you the idea that witht the same tools at hand, we could ever "find" god? What can you base your assumptions on in the observable world?

balls in your court:

how could you objectively predict the effects of a creator that's only known through mythology?

how could you construct a legitimate test for the effects of such a creator?

see how easy it is to fall into the IDiot's trap?

The consequences, real or otherwise,

Unreal consequences don't exist. I shouldn't even need to point this out.

of holding a non-falsifiable claim to be true are different from holding a non-falsifiable claim to be false.

No, they're not. You're confusing claims which we cannot currently falsify with non-falsifiable claims. The first are within the scope of science; the second are not.

I think your error is extending that sort of reasoning to universals. One would not conclude that all SETI is non-science because much of it appears to be motivated by a commitment to a non-falsifiable hypothesis, for example.

Wrong. SETI is science because it hypothesizes that there may be life with a certain level of technology that is actively broadcasting elsewhere and proposes an experiment which permits us to test this hypothesis for the locations we can observe for specific broadcast energy levels. For every observable location, the hypothesis can indeed be falsified.

If you can't be bothered to learn something about philosophy and logic, perhaps you should consider remaining silent.

"Then you don't understand the arguments that have been made."

I think I do. But I want to see this from the perspective of science and its processes, not from the perspective of logic on a universe of a single formal theory. So it's an open world out there.

"Logic causes us to reject them as useful additions to our understanding"
Agreed. It is a claim without meaning,

if we can prove
a) They aren't consequences of a theory that also has falsifiable predictions.
b) They won't become consequences of a theory that also has falsifiable predictions.
c) They will always remain untestable - if they don't they will be resurrected later.

I think a) is excluded by our implicit definition of non-falsifiable statements. We are considering hypotheses that only gives unfalsifiable consequences at this time.

b) and c) are part of the problem with the open world. Statements may be connected to new theories or their consequences may become testable.

An example could be the claim "There are no multiverses". Until the theory of inflation this was an unconnected and untestable claim. Lambda-CDM is the preferred cosmology today, and it has inflation. Chaotic inflation seems to be the preferred extension ( http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0503/0503195.pdf ; combined with the WMAP ns value), and it gives multiverses.

So the non-falsifiable statement was embedded in a theory that has other falsifiable consequences, and it has now consequences, still untestable, for the meaning of the anthropic principle.

"There are no multiverses" - There are multiverses

And the subscript HTML tag didn't work on the s in "ns value".

a) They aren't consequences of a theory that also has falsifiable predictions.
b) They won't become consequences of a theory that also has falsifiable predictions.
c) They will always remain untestable - if they don't they will be resurrected later.

a) That's not possible.
b) See a).
c) You're confusing things we can test at the present and
things that are testable.

Again, you may want to consider keeping your mouth shut. You won't look so foolish that way.

Ichthyic:
"Carl was specifically applying that to natural world situations."

Scott makes a distinction between faith and fact claims earlier. I think you agree on this.

Caledonian:
"You're confusing claims which we cannot currently falsify with non-falsifiable claims. The first are within the scope of science; the second are not."

This is outside my problems with the open world. And I haven't seen an analysis on popperian falsifiability. But the later is exactly why I would appreciate a discussion here.

String theory is currently practically unfalsifiable, since the easiest falsification demands Planck scale energy experiments. If it can't be verified it will perhaps be tentatively abandoned. (Note: its math and theoretical phys is useful, so that wont be abandoned for that, but it may be abandoned in search for more explanatory theories.) It can be resurrected later - but in that case if we get needed experiments to work.

So, outside Popper theory isn't it practical falsifiability which is the real requirement? You say so yourself, I think: "For every observable location, the hypothesis can indeed be falsified." If we don't verify SETI "for the locations we can observe" there is still plenty of room ;-) for ETI's.

Caledonian:
"b) See a)."

That won't work unless you explain why my example of b) doesn't work.

"c) You're confusing things we can test at the present and
things that are testable."

I admit that I haven't a current example of that.

But see my previous post on practical falsifiability meanwhile. It isn't the same argument, but it has similar consequences if it is borne through. Which I don't expect.

Currently I expect c) may be true - what wasn't theoretically falsifiable may become so due to new theory, or new experiments before the theory.

"Again, you may want to consider keeping your mouth shut. You won't look so foolish that way."
I consider ad hominems as signs of a weak argument.

I know how to make experiments and theories explaining them which is why I'm interested in these arguments.

Your effort to shut opponents up instead of answering them is neither philosophy or science, nor logical if knowledge is our goal.

Caledonian:

"a) That's not possible."
I missed this.

Of course it is possible for theories to have both falsifiable and unfalsifiable consequences. See my example of multiverses, or read http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512148 :

"The multiverse is not a theory; it is a consequence of certain theories
(of quantum gravity and cosmology), and the hope is that these theories eventually prove to
be testable in other ways. Every theory makes untestable predictions, but theories should
be judged on the basis of the testable ones."

Of course it is possible for theories to have both falsifiable and unfalsifiable consequences

Having unfalsifiable consequences is utterly indistinguishable from having no unfalsifiable consequences at all.

You really, really don't understand the implications of Many Worlds.

Ichthyic, Torjborn:

Torjborn is doing a better job of analyzing the possibilities on this thread than I am, so I won't comment on his exchange with Caledonian other than I tend to share his caution and admire his attempt to be both thorough and fair. I, too, would like to see an extended discussion of the strengths or weaknesses of the falsifiability principle as applied to different examples.

This interests me because while I feel that falsifiability is the single best criteria of whether something is science, I don't feel it is in itself sufficient. Popper once claimed that aspects of evolutionary theory were not themselves scientific, since they were not falsifiable, then recanted, sort of, when evolutionary biologists protested that of course they were doing science. I think the biologists were right, of course, and that Popper was right to backtrack from his previous claim. If he found it necessary to backtrack, then that suggests to me that his criteria is not sufficient in all circumstances and (frankly) should not be sold as a criteria of what is real or unreal, as some folk here (ahem) seem to have claimed.

In the SETI example I used, I doubt that the SETI enthusisast is going to give up on SETI in their lifetime even if they have absolutely nothing to show for all their listening. Have you ever talked to them? These folk really do have something like a faith in some version of the Drake equation and no amount of listening is ever going to disprove their conviction that there must be intelligent life out there.

At the same time, I don't believe that SETI people aren't doing science. They are doing science, by gathering useful data in the radio spectrum, potentially falsifying specific claims of ETI at THIS frequency, THAT arc-second, etc. But the general claim of SETI doesn't appear to be falsifiable, no matter how many negative instances are reported. The universe is simply too big to rule out all locales, even if we had a thousand Arecibos and a million lifetimes! On the other hand, if one positive instance is adduced, the SETI claim will be verified. If so, it's likely that the verifier would be one already predisposed to accept the non-falsifiable research program....as I said, it's an interesting example.

BTW, Torjborn, I would distinguish SETI from string theory precisely on the point that the former, as a research program, is busy gathering data which supports the null hypothesis. String theorist can't even decide which hypothesis to rule out, or if it is even meaningful to rule anything out.

Scott

Ichthyic wrote:

"what would give you the idea that witht the same tools at hand, we could ever "find" god? What can you base your assumptions on in the observable world?

balls in your court:

how could you objectively predict the effects of a creator that's only known through mythology?

how could you construct a legitimate test for the effects of such a creator?"

You seem to think that I am defending Collins on this thread, when in fact I reject the way he attempts to marshall science in support of his beliefs. I agree the ball's in someone's court, but not mine. You also wrote:

"see how easy it is to fall into the IDiot's trap?"

Since I am neither an IDiot or an IDevotee, but an evolutionary biologist, the question is moot. BTW, I wanted to thank you for your thoughtful post on the other thread about the stresses facing the teaching profession. I did respond to it, though not as much as your post deserved. But I am pressed for time.

Best wishes...

SH

Popper once claimed that aspects of evolutionary theory were not themselves scientific, since they were not falsifiable, then recanted, sort of, when evolutionary biologists protested that of course they were doing science. I think the biologists were right, of course, and that Popper was right to backtrack from his previous claim. If he found it necessary to backtrack, then that suggests to me that his criteria is not sufficient in all circumstances and (frankly) should not be sold as a criteria of what is real or unreal, as some folk here (ahem) seem to have claimed.

Or... that what the biologists were doing was in fact falsifiable.

"Thorough and fair" my foot.

Yes and no. Many aspects of evolutionary theory are not, strictly speaking, falsifiable in that they make claims about the history of life that can never be tested. Gould and Lewontin's famous critique of "the adaptationist programme" in biology (the 'spandrels of San Marcos') speaks to that, for example.

I think their criticism was overblown and politically driven myself; when done right, speculative models can serve as 'thought experiments' that, while not directly testable, can lead to productive lines of research.

As an aside, it does seem to be true that in popularizations many outstanding biologists feel free to speculate to a degree that would never occur in a formal setting, and this contributes to the perception that evolutionary biologists are not really doing science. I think Ruse has said something like that more than once.

It's a pity, as this incautious style often makes for a better read: I'm thinking of Desmond Morris's 'The Naked Ape', or Robert Ardrey's 'African Genesis'. Consider this slice from the latter:

"Long ago, perhaps many millions of years ago, a line of killer apes branched off from the non- aggressive primate background. For reasons of environmental necessity, the line adopted the predatory way. For reasons of predatory necessity the line advanced. We learned to stand erect in the first place as a necessity of the hunting life."

Well, maybe. There are other ideas. But whether or not Ardrey is correct, you have to admit it's a hell of a read, gets your juices flowing and, poetic license aside, a reasonable interpretation of the data he had to work with at the time. But, whether one considers this science or no, it seems speculative to the point of not being directly testable. It's the kind of thing that the odious Ken Ham would seize upon, chanting 'Were you there?' and so forth.

For better or worse, Caledonian, despite the actual rigor and testability of the work that gets published in the journals, the field of evolutionary biology carries this imaginative strand in it, and much of this stuff is not, strictly speaking, testable. That's only a crisis if you make falsifiability the only criteria for science. In your case, it appears more acute, in that you appear to be convinced that falsifiability is a criteria for reality itself. That's a heavy burden, brother, but if chastising folks like me helps you carry it, more power to you.

Peace...Scott

Many aspects of evolutionary theory are not, strictly speaking, falsifiable in that they make claims about the history of life that can never be tested.

There's no such thing as a historical explanation that cannot be tested. That *we* cannot *practically* test -- sure. Untestable? No.

You persist in failing to comprehend what 'falsifiability' means. I choose not to waste more time on the subject.

Caledonian writes:

"Having unfalsifiable consequences is utterly indistinguishable from having no unfalsifiable consequences at all."

But he also writes:

"There's no such thing as a historical explanation that cannot be tested. That *we* cannot *practically* test -- sure. Untestable? No."

So, when it suits his rhetorical purpose, he appears to conflate the non-falsifiable with the unreal (denying without evidence the possibility of a real, but non-falsifiable claim), yet on this occasion insists upon the distinction between that which is testable and practically untestable.

Using his logic, there does not appear to be any difference in consequence between making a non-falsifiable claim in and of itself and making a claim which is 'practically' untestable, so why wouldn't I be free to hold these as equivalent statements?

I appeal to the other readers here, particularly Torjborn and Keith Douglas. Please comment: is there some sort of difference of degree here between these two examples, that makes the conflation (on the basis of their consequences) of the non-falsifiable and the unreal compelling, but does not allow us to conflate, on the basis of their consequences, those claims which are impossible to test for logistical reasons with those which are impossible to test for formal reasons?

I think this is a useful departure point, Torjborn, for that conversation on falsifiability.

Curious to hear what others say...Scott

Caledonian:
"Having unfalsifiable consequences is utterly indistinguishable from having no unfalsifiable consequences at all."

That depends on how a non-falsifiable statement is embedded in a theory, as I have exemplified earlier.

"You really, really don't understand the implications of Many Worlds."
How does this claim connect with any earlier claim of yours?

One of the implications of many worlds is as I said that it has implications for the anthropic principle.

"If all the multiverse does is allow for the existence of a region that resembles our own, it adds nothing to our understanding; it is equally sensible to say that our universe is simply like that. Instead, the possible epistemological role of the multiverse is to explain why our observed parameters are natural. In principle, the multiverse picture allows us to predict the probability distribution for these parameters."
( Sean Carroll; http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0512/0512148.pdf )

"Overtly or not, physicists often use the idea of an Open Multiverse when evaluating theories."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29 )

"We believe that the real import of observing that P(F|N) is small (if indeed that is true) would be to strengthen Vilenkin/Linde/Smolin-type hypotheses that multiple universes with varying physical constants may exist. If indeed the universe is governed by naturalistic laws, and if indeed the probability that a universe governed by naturalistic laws can support life is small, then this supports a Vilenkin/Linde/Smolin model of multiple universes over a model that includes only a single universe with a single set of physical constants."
( Ikeda & Jefferys; http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html )

""Thorough and fair" my foot."

You are quoting Scott and then quoting his characterisation of me in your claim. There is no connection between your first quote and your subsequent claim as it regards me. It is a Fallacy of the Consequent, since you seem interested in "philosophy and logic".

Scott:
"This interests me because while I feel that falsifiability is the single best criteria of whether something is science, I don't feel it is in itself sufficient."

That is my feeling too. While as I said earlier I'm not conversant with the analysis of the concept, I belive that Popper observed and/or added an important tool in the tool set of science.

My own experience with circular reasoning and falsifiability was when doing research on a plasma process for materials called reactive sputtering. It is characterised by nonlinearities, usually so strong that the quasi steady state process curve has hysteresis. Earlier models assumed this hysteresis ad hoc, and so explained little.

Our model succeeded in explaining the process by looking at the fundamental material transport in the reaction chamber. Looking back at all the effort spent from others and myself analysing the system, it struck me that the problem was that the adhocs used were mostly circular and nonfalsifiable. So my conclusion is that falsifiability is useful everywhere.

"I would distinguish SETI from string theory precisely on the point that the former, as a research program, is busy gathering data which supports the null hypothesis. String theorist can't even decide which hypothesis to rule out, or if it is even meaningful to rule anything out."

Coming back to the value of falsifiability, a null hypothesis must of course be ascertained. String theory null hypothesis may be everything that deviates from the Standard Model so much that it becomes measurable and falsifiable.

"Please comment: is there some sort of difference of degree here between these two examples, that makes the conflation (on the basis of their consequences) of the non-falsifiable and the unreal compelling, but does not allow us to conflate, on the basis of their consequences, those claims which are impossible to test for logistical reasons with those which are impossible to test for formal reasons?

I think this is a useful departure point, Torjborn, for that conversation on falsifiability."

Indeed. I would value a philosopher of science input.

Meanwhile my thinking is that falsifiability is a sieve for unscientific claims. An isolated claim with only formally nonfalsifiable consequences is not usable (but may be so later of connected with other theory). An isolated claim with only practically nonfalsifiable consequences is tentative and may be discarded later if it seems unpromising.

But usually claims aren't isolated, so the situation is as usual more messy. For example multiverses.