Introducing Matt Mirecal


(The Questioner?) #21

It is just that we are creating things based on current experience, current knowledge, what if you asked someone from 120 years ago to “hypothesize” what this is, and to create an entire car from a piece of tail light. You would get an entirely different set of conclusions, maybe a horse drawn carrige or a kalediscope. (I realize I am stretching with this analogy, but creating something with a limited frame of reference is what I am looking at here)

I just think it is disengenious to create entire skelletons from a single or partial skelleton without stating that this is only a best guess, based on current knowledge and beliefs, and that it is subject to change based on future discoveries.

Too much is considered fact without a disclaimer of limited knowledge.

I think this is a big problem with biology, anthropology, archeology, astronomy … and anything where time beyond say 2500 years is involved. Too much guesswork, vs. facts.

I just want honesty and Science is built on a Jenga like tower of knowledge, one piece of data can bring the whole tower down.

My favorite series from like 30 years ago is “The Day the Universe Changed” it said that you see what your knowledge tell you that you see, and that knowledge will and perspective change when a big enough piece of knowledge is replaced by new theories and data.

I read the rebuttal, and I just want to make sure the theory is truly “bad science” and not rebutted because the Science of today says “This can’t be true because this data doesn’t fit our current accepted views…”

I don’t think anyone here is doing that, it just was a perception that I picked up from the responses.

(Blogging Graduate Student) #22

Who’s doing that? Usually it’s made explicitly clear which parts of a skeleton are based on fossils and which are not. E.g. in this image from wikipedia:

(The Questioner?) #23

You have provided a very compelling and thorough assessment.

Thank you for taking the time to go over the facts.

I have no problem with Faith as long as it is honest, unfortunately science tends to get ahead of itself stating best guesses as facts … or a hypothesis as a theory.

On Faith: Science has yet to define the Soul, or the lifeforce that drives us all, but scientists are, in my experience, typically absolute is stating that a Soul does not exist.

We do not need to kill God to allow Darwin or Kill Darwin so God can exist. The answer is somewhere in between. Most people I meet are firmly in one of the two camps to their own peril. (Hence Sacred Cows… Darwin)

This is in now way an insult I was just interjecting the thought that someone could be wrong and have we looked at it from all angles… nothing more.

(T J Runyon) #24


(T J Runyon) #25

If I have the right ilium is it not reasonable that the left will be a mirror image? I don’t think you understand how we recreate skeletons.

(T J Runyon) #26

I’m also curious about your 2500 year cut off. Why 2500?

(The Questioner?) #27

Single bone, or partial skull… I was dictating, Siri is not yet perfect… my apologies.

(The Questioner?) #28

Written records are scarce beyond that. I just returned from Greece and 500 B.C. seemed to be about the cutoff.

1st hand accounts beyond that are almost non-existent. Lots of allegorical stories and poetry, but very little written records that either help or support scientific claims.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #29

6 posts were split to a new topic: How is Cave Art Dated?

(The Questioner?) #30

No its not the nearly full skeletons that concerns me, but the very partial ones… lots of missing bits.

If you find a hip bone, uou might assume it is symetrical, you might also presuppose that there are legs extending from the ball socket, but how long, and could they be fins and not legs… etc.

Guessing that the left illium looks like the right is an assumption, a good assumption but an assumption. Now lets say someone else’s science references your assumption and makes a third assumption and so on … that is the problem.

You reference someone’s assumption enough and it becomes law.

(Dan Eastwood) #33

Science will never define the soul, that not what science does. Keep in mind that the people you encounter online are not representative of all scientists, or all people. We tend to end up arguing with those we most strongly disagree with. I work with many scientists, from many different religions, and none of them are eager to disprove the human soul.
They might tell you the question cannot be defined in a scientifically meaningful way.

I’m not sure there is an in-between, but science and religion, properly understood, do not contradict each other (IMO).

Understood. That what this forum is about. Welcome to PS. :slight_smile:

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #34

How about the genomes of ancient people?

(The Questioner?) #35

I’ll have a look, I’m just concerned about what we call “Ancient” and what assumptions are made in dating.

Looks like a good read.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #38

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #39

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.