The corrosive falsehood is the claim that both sides are interpreting the same evidence.
Critical scientific thinking includes evaluating the evidence. You didn’t do that in this case. Have you done so in any case?
Why do you find that idea so offensive?
It seems irrational.
Why don’t you ask @swamidass what he thinks of that statement?
Do you honestly believe that everyone who has examined the same evidence you have must agree with you totally on what it means?
That sounds way more like the fruit of an ideological mindset than on one intent on testing hypotheses, and doing contual refinement based upon demonstrated error or insufficiency --a pretty good description of what doing science means.
The idea would be wonderful if it were true.
The reality is that it’s objectively false and easily demonstrated to be false in this very forum on most days. The truth is that your side ignores most of the evidence and produces virtually none of it.
No. Why would you try to falsely attribute such a belief to me?
Why are you claiming that both sides are examining the same evidence when you know it isn’t true, and you singlehandedly disproved it again today?
Why would pointing out your false claim sound that way?
I do not believe the different sides of the debate are working from the same pool of evidence. I’m not talking about random people here, but the leaders of the movements. One of the big things that convinced me that common descent was the legitimate finding of science (as you also agree @Guy_Coe) was the fact that all the creationists I read didn’t even explain the most important evidence for it. Just short discussions with biologists at UCI made that clear.
Also, at the same time, I remember reading Behe, noting that he affirmed common descent. Theologically engaged scientist that I was, I just didn’t get what the point of the argument could be if the common descent of man was true (Adam matters, abiogenesis, not so much).
Even now, I don’t see a pattern of “dealing with the same evidence but interpreting it differently.” That is just my opinion though. I would also insist that there are exceptions to this general observation.
3 Likes
Do you find a consistent pattern of outright dishonesty, for example, among those who critique science on the points like I made above today?
The dishonesty (and I suspect a massive amount of self-deception) occurs when doing mere textual analysis, yet falsely claiming to be analyzing evidence.
Your critique was based on hearsay, not evidence.
This is overblown.
This might be accurate.
It depends on the person, but usually I do not think it is dishonesty.
In your case, for example, it looks more like defensiveness. Which, honestly, is a very rational response to having everyone pile on to you (they hopefully will stop). @Agauger, also, I do not believe is dishonest, and we are expressing our honest disagreements with each other. In most cases, I imagine it is very hard to be a scientist working for an advocacy organization purveying a non-mainstream position in science. In these cases, the easiest past forward is to just ignore the relevant information against ones position. Is this dishonest? probably not, because I don’t think most of the ignoring is happening on a conscious level. Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful thing.
Of course, there are even honest YECs. I point to Todd Woods. We don’t have to agree in the end to be honest. He does the hard work of understanding the positions with which he disagrees, and is upfront about their strength.
1 Like
Still waiting for your calculations and evidence there was not enough time for evolution to occur.
If you can’t support the claim and wish to retract, please do so.
1 Like
But they also know to go to the primary literature to do that thinking. In this case @Guy_Coe I think it would have been better to upfront say you didn’t have access to the actual paper. I didn’t either and so I had to ask somebody for it. It is generally advisable to do that before making anything but the most tentative comments.
@John_Harshman @Mercer It might be beneficial to ask people if they have access to a journal article when you ask them to go to primary literature. I know for many non-scientists, and even scientists like me at small institutions who have limited access to journals, it can be a significant barrier. You can’t always assume someone is not utilizing primarily literature because they are hiding something. That is often why people engage with popular/news summaries. You can’t blame people for poor science news summaries or over-hyped titles.
1 Like
How does defensiveness exclude dishonesty?
I’m just one person.
But at some point, some of the ignoring very clearly is.
I agree. I find it fascinating, especially as a product of evolution.
Todd Wood is very honest, particularly about the evidence.
1 Like
Jordan, I simply asked somebody for it too. 
I agree.
But I didn’t ask Guy to go to the primary literature. I’m asking him to stop making the false claim that both sides are examining the same evidence.
There was no significant barrier in this case. I did not use institutional access.
Have I written anything to suggest that I have assumed that?
One can blame them for conflating those with evidence. Guy even called that “the paper.”
But here is @Guy_Coe’s original post:
Notice that he’s not saying “There simply isn’t enough time, and I have the calculations to prove it.” You should be feel free to push back or ignore, but since he didn’t really seem to claim that he’d done calculations I don’t see that he needs to retract anything.
When pressed to provide details he did give:
That seems like a starting point for addressing his “timing” question. As somewhat of an outside observer, I’m curious about the best evidence for how long it would take for abiogenesis, do you all have any good resources for that?
2 Likes
But he is conflating the summary with the science and making that claim without examining any of the cited evidence.
It seems like an evasive attempt to shift the evidentiary burden because he hasn’t bothered to examine the evidence.
Well, to be fair, most people will assume that summary article in something called ScienceDaily would be an accurate place to start from. Rarely do non-scientists go to primarily literature. You might say that @Guy_Coe should know better, but I just wanted to point out, as someone that teaches a lot of non-majors science courses, that it is a common assumption by those outside of science.
1 Like
He is also a non-scientist who might respond well to a non combative explanation.
We all make more progress when we dispassionately explain as far as people can go. You can’t make people go farther than they are ready. Give people time. Over and over, I see @T_aquaticus do this well. I’ve heard from even ID that they learn from his engagement and want to hear more from him. That is a good approach.
Especially for regulars here that have a history of changing their mind (like @Guy_Coe, but not e.g. @scd) give some benefit of the doubt. Biology is really complex. It takes time to understand. Few people will give up their position till they do actually understand. So explain and educate.
1 Like
But to be fair, someone who explicitly claims that both sides are examining the same evidence is not representative of most people and should be looking for actual evidence himself.
And @Guy_Coe also is not a scientist. Most of us in this conversation are and we need to help others along.
You are being far to literal @mercer. I think he was repeating what others have said, and I wonder if he knows it will push your buttons. He isn’t really in a position to assess the veracity of that claim, and I doubt it is a hill he is going to die on. You are going to get statements like that from people when they feel backed into a corner.
If you (or any of us) want to see progress, you have to disarm people. Learning happens best when it isn’t an us vs. them affair. It works best when we are on the same side, and it helps that in this case we really are. I’m sure that @Guy_Coe is not slavishly devoted to ID. He is just explaining how he sees it as an engaged-non-expert in the public. If you can’t win him over, you can’t really win any one over. We need a better tactic than combativeness.
And, to be clear, I actually agree with you @Mercer on the substance. That, however, is beside the point. No need to make enemies where you could make a friend.
1 Like
Yes, and as I pointed out to him, he needs to be up front with whether he is talking about the primarily literature or not.
The frustration to me is that we’re now at almost 80 posts and I still haven’t seen any evidence from either side as to what a likely amount of time needed would be, and I truly would be interested to know. I don’t care who has the burden of proof. @T_aquaticus gave:
My assumption was that we were talking about there not being enough to for abiogenesis, is that correct? Or are we just looking at a general argument about the amount of time from first living organism to humans? I’m a bit confused about @T_aquaticus’s argument here.
1 Like
I think the topic changed with @Guy_Coe’s post, and then we are not thinking about abiogenesis, right?
Maybe. It’s hard to see that he would, given his claims about the evidence.
If he isn’t in a position to assess the veracity of such a huge claim, he shouldn’t be making it.
And ‘both sides are examining the same evidence’ is quite a potent weapon.
So disarm him. Show us how it’s done.