“Splitting hairs,” to native English speakers, means making unnecessary and unwarranted distinctions. It is a term typically used to express contempt.
No, I’m not doing any details.
I’m pointing out very broad differences in reasoning that help laypeople to distinguish between real science and pseudoscience by asking a straightforward question: is it evidence-based or rhetoric-based?
Hypothesis testing is done in the humanities too:
Hypothesis testing is done in the humanities too:
You see John, this shows your unfamiliarity with the humanities, that should not be taken to mean that it supports everything you’ve said so far (“much in common” not a one-to-one correspondence):
Expertise and How to Detect It
Peer Review and Biblical Studies Scholarship
Distinguished Editor of Lancet Medical Journal: Much of Peer-Reviewed Content is Bogus
Prof. Emeritus Larry W. Hurtado:
I understand that there is now a certain concern in at least some fields in the Sciences about falsification of data, and inadequate peer-reviewing, which has allowed articles to be published that have been shown later to rest on phantom data or rigged results. I suspect that part of the problem in peer-reviewing articles based on experimental data is that one would really need to try to replicate the experiment to test the claims, and that would be difficult to do in many cases. (Reviewers are themselves engaged in their own set of experiments on other questions, and couldn’t easily gear up for some other one.) There are other factors, perhaps: e.g., peer-reviewing typically isn’t remunerated, but is done as part of one’s participation in the field. So, there may be a temptation to give a “light touch” and not spend the time required really to test things, e.g., re-running the statistics, etc. But in Humanities fields, typically, the data are there and available: A body of relevant texts, or images, or inscriptions, etc. So what is involved usually is assessing how adequately and cogently the data are addressed, and also how adequately the author has engaged prior scholarship (e.g., giving adequate reasons why previous views are likely faulty).
Dr. Michael S. Heiser:
I’m not saying that humanities journals never publish anything they shouldn’t. I’m saying that, if you think the above headline justifies snubbing what the peer-review process produces in humanities field, you just don’t understand the fields or the problem.
Well, Brian, if you had looked more carefully, you might have noticed that I didn’t write that–the software correctly (and obviously) attributed that passage to an actual Biblical scholar, @AllenWitmerMiller. He wrote that in the context of correcting my previous agreement with you! 
MercerJohn MercerMolecular Biologist
BrianLopez
Well, Brian, if you had looked more carefully, you might have noticed that I didn’t write that–the software correctly (and obviously) attributed that passage to an actual Biblical scholar, @AllenWitmerMiller. He wrote that in the context of correcting my previous agreement with you!
John, I understood perfectly well, I did notice that. I clicked on it and I read. So why are you amused?What’s the point of being amused if I understood? What Allen said is “much in common”, not that it’s a one-to-one correspondence with your practice in science. You are the one who rather misunderstood how it may correspond or not.
In the humanities, we dont make hypotheses in the same way. It’s true that in an MA thesis, you must start with some understanding (in the Introduction) of the subject matter, and your assessment of the textual data (or whatever else) might shift as you conclude the thesis. That is nowhere exactly the same as what you so beautifully pointed out above.
Prof. Emeritus Larry W. Hurtado:
I understand that there is now a certain concern in at least some fields in the Sciences about falsification of data, and inadequate peer-reviewing, which has allowed articles to be published that have been shown later to rest on phantom data or rigged results. I suspect that part of the problem in peer-reviewing articles based on experimental data is that one would really need to try to replicate the experiment to test the claims, and that would be difficult to do in many cases. (Reviewers are themselves engaged in their own set of experiments on other questions, and couldn’t easily gear up for some other one.) There are other factors, perhaps: e.g., peer-reviewing typically isn’t remunerated, but is done as part of one’s participation in the field. So, there may be a temptation to give a “light touch” and not spend the time required really to test things, e.g., re-running the statistics, etc. But in Humanities fields, typically, the data are there and available: A body of relevant texts, or images, or inscriptions, etc. So what is involved usually is assessing how adequately and cogently the data are addressed, and also how adequately the author has engaged prior scholarship (e.g., giving adequate reasons why previous views are likely faulty).
No, I merely pointed out that:
I didn’t say that there was any one-to-one correspondence, now, did I?
Its not the same John, so no there is no Hypothesis testing It’s not what you thought. That’s the point. Again, read Dr. Hurtado, but same thing all over scholarship where evidence must be interpreted and so scholars call those “views” and “viewpoints”, not hypotheses or theories, and there is no hypothesis testing. Give it up John. What Allen referred, I know very well, it’s about not rehashing past scholarship without reviewing the data from scratch. That’s still not hypothesis testing
I’m very confident that there is, just as I’m confident that “hypothesis” should not be capitalized (that is truly splitting hairs). Biblical study even has a nearly perfect analogy to fossils in the form of source texts that are hypothesized by scholars to exist based on their analyses of existing documents. Discovery of new ones tends to support some hypotheses and blow others to smithereens.
Predicting the strata in which particular fossils will be found, then looking for them, is pure hypothesis testing, as is predicting the existence and date of a source document, then looking for it.
So gathering evidence (you didn’t know or have before testing) to reject or support a hypothesis isn’t how science works?
In science education, students learn about already existing evidence for long tested ideas. In this case evidence is known and learned, not so in the actual practice of science where puzzles are constantly popping up and evidence is continuously gathered to support or reject explanations for these puzzles.
You said that “evidence must be known” and “must be learned” but that is not true. Evidence is data that supports or rejects a hypothesis. Scientists collect raw data, arrange and analyze it to see if it lends support to a hypothesis. If a hypothesis survives long periods of testing, it finds its way into textbooks or other science education materials. Later on, students or laypeople who access these sci-edu materials learn about the hypothesis and its supporting evidence.
In summary, you can’t know or learn about evidence for something until you collect it. Creationists and ID proponents typically don’t collect evidence for their hypotheses and they ignore existing evidence that contradicts their position.
MercerJohn MercerMolecular Biologist
BrianLopez
I’m very confident that there is, just as I’m confident that “hypothesis” should not be capitalized (that is truly splitting hairs). Biblical study even has a nearly perfect analogy to fossils in the form of source texts that are hypothesized by scholars to exist based on their analyses of existing documents. Discovery of new ones tends to support some hypotheses and blow others to smithereens.
Predicting the strata in which particular fossils will be found, then looking for them, is pure hypothesis testing, as is predicting the existence and date of a source document, then looking for it.
No because your example of discovering source texts are not hypothesized by scholars the way you are inferring. “Hypothesize” and “hypothesis” may be used in archaeology, but it’s not used the way you suppose and it’s not what Allen was referring to. Therefore, you are way off. The bulk of humanities never use “hypothesize” or “hypothesis”, and rarely is the supposed evidence by each genuine scholar/proponent so bedrock as you portray it is in science. Why do you think that genuine scholars have multiple views on the evidence? Scholars who believe one thing hope that they may find a text that may confirm their expectation, but that text is not genetic, it is text that must still be interpreted and debated! I have read (9-10 years ago?), the debate between Greek grammarians Dr. Chrys C. Caragounis and Dr. Buist Fanning, where they debated the evidence on Greek verbal “Time and Aspect”. Dr. Fanning criticized Dr. Caragounis’s grammar for misrepresenting verbal aspects. Dr. Caragounis is an expert in Greek from ancient Greek Linear B to modern Greek. Dr. Fanning is a real NT Professor of Greek at Dallas. Well, they both appealed to evidence but still so starkly disagreed on how to interpret it. This happens with texts all the time, where this or that is evidence for a particular view, but remains hotly debated among genuine scholars! Therefore, your talk about hypotheses and evidence in science is not so similar to textual studies and history where evidence does not necessarily distinguish between pseudo-scholars and genuine scholars:
Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications (Counterpoints)
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints)
Four Views on Hell (Counterpoints)
Four Views on the Apostle Paul (Counterpoints)
Four Views on the Historical Adam (Counterpoints)
Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Counterpoints)
Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Counterpoints)
Understanding Four Views on Baptism (Counterpoints)
split hairs (Collins)
PHRASE
If you say that someone is splitting hairs, you mean that they are making unnecessary distinctions between things when the differences between them are so small they are not important.
Don’t split hairs. You know what I’m getting at.
There is no “unwarranted”. Words are not tied to dictionaries, either. Even if a word is used outside its dictionary entry, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t carry the meaning it acquired in the context (i.e., usage) it used. So, even here, I should not need to appeal to a dictionary.
Michael, this is part of what I meant to say, which you said yourself: “In science education, students learn about already existing evidence for long tested ideas. In this case evidence is known and learned…”
Still, thanks to John, yourself, and others for exposing the nuances of knowledge, data, hypotheses, and evidence in the scientific realm.
Once again @Mercer , there is no “unwarranted” in the original meaning of splitting hairs. Splitting hairs means combing hair and delicately separating hair strands. There is no backdrop of “unwarranted” meaning into the usage of splitting hairs anywhere!
Origin : 17th Century, British English - This expression came about because in the Middle Ages and earlier it was thought that a single human hair was so thin and so fine that it would be a waste of time to try to split it. Therefore this concept became associated with any similar futile efforts.
Genuine scholars dispute available evidence all the time, but of course not about literally everything. But, there are seldom hypotheses and evidence is not so bedrock as John portrayed it:
This is an example of Greek grammarian Dr. Chrys C. Caragounis responding to Greek NT Professor at Dallas Dr. Buist Fanning. They both appealed to evidence in the Greek corpora, but they still disagreed on so much on the verbal aspects of Greek grammar. This happens quite often, where different genuine scholars dispute available evidence that purportedly prove one’s view.
This happens between Historian Tim O’neil against Dr. Richard Carrier (who is a proponent of Jesus Mythicism); they hotly disputed the “Jesus” references in Flavius Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews. They both appealed to evidence, but that evidence must be interpreted. You dont go out and hypothesize and find things!
If that is what you meant to say, then you should know that we can’t learn evidence, but learn about evidence. When we learn about evidence for an idea, then we can know and probably understand the evidence for that idea.
Michael_OkokoNigerian Catholic Agnostic
BrianLopez
If that is what you meant to say, then you should know that we can’t learn evidence, but learn about evidence. When we learn about evidence for an idea, then we can know and probably understand that evidence for that idea .
Yes, this is what I should have said about science then: “learn about evidence.” Because I was not even responding to John. I was exclaiming a made-up, ad-hoc proverb, but then my explanation about what I meant was dissected, corrected, and adjusted. That’s not what I meant. If I would have directly contradicted John in science, then fine, I would not have responded the way I did. But that’s not what happened.
This is where it all began. Brian, I can now see why John entered this discussion with you. Your response was not relevant to his response to Valerie, because she ignores a lot of evidence for evolution she has known and learned about.
Belchy knows (but I don’t know if he understands) the evidence for evolution, but he ignores it just like Valerie. I think what you should have said was that “one can have the knowledge (including the evidence for evolution) of Belchy, for example, and [ignore it], and therefore arrive at ID conclusions”.
Yes and no. Yes, you are right and I accept your adjustment, that I should have typed : "I think what you should have said was that “one can have the knowledge (including the evidence for evolution) of Belchy, for example, and [ignore it], and therefore arrive at ID conclusions”
Fine.
That’s not the point, once more.
The point is this:
John Mercer:
I’m not sure how that constitutes a response to my pointing out that evidence is the key, not knowledge. Can you explain what you are trying to convey with that?
But I was not responding to him! How many times do I have to repeat that my comment was superficial, not meant to be accurate!
Last Time @Michael_Okoko
BrianLopezIndependent Christian Researcher (and IT Technician)
My original comment:
I was not responding to John nor did I mean to directly go against Valerie.
