Big Scientists Pick Big Science's Big...

Big Scientists Pick Big Science's Biggest Mistakes

There are 88 comments on the Discover story from Nov 23, 2010, titled Big Scientists Pick Big Science's Biggest Mistakes. In it, Discover reports that:

Earlier this week Richard H. Thaler posted a question to selected Edge contributors, asking them for their favorite examples of wrong scientific theories that were held for long periods of time.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Discover.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#84 Dec 1, 2010
LGK wrote:
Kong
We don't have a religious right in the UK. Would you like to revise your answer to include the rest of the world. ID is not an American Project, it's a fact of nature & nature also exists in the UK.
ID is a baseless claim and will remain so until they ever come up with a theory.

By the way, there IS a religious right in the UK. Like the US, helped in no small part by the 9/11 incident, there are now approximately 50 creationist schools (note I said creationist, not general religious schools like most of them are) across the UK, as noted in Channel 4's 'Dispatches' program on creationism around 2 years ago. Blair encouraged (and still does) the creation of more 'faith' schools (possibly a misguided attempt to promote multiculturalism, I fear it would have the opposite effect). A new ID (lack of) "think tank" has sprung up in Scotland, and we have the laughably named "Truth In Science" organisation led by YEC nutcase Andy McIntosh. TIS was responsible for sending a bunch of ID "information" packs to many public schools across the country. These packs contained the DVD 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life'(produced by a religious apologetics company) and the packs had the address of the DI in Seattle as their source. And as also noted in 'Dispatches' the fundies over here receive legal support from American creationists.



It's also pertinent to note that as we in the UK do NOT have separation of church and state like the US, the fundies over here make no distinction between ID and creationism, as they don't need to worry about the same legal inconveniences that the American fundies do. Given this, one has to wonder why LGK even bothers to keep up the pretense that ID and creationism are not one and the same.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#85 Dec 1, 2010
LGK wrote:
Kong
I digress but you made me chuckle by calling project blue beam paranoid lunacy. Some say paranoid means "in full possession of all the facts" Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they ain't out to get you - it most likey means they are!
That's for a laugh by the way, it's not a theory of ID.
What is a "theory" of ID?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#86 Dec 1, 2010
LGK wrote:
Noodly James
I detect an error in your thinking; please correct me if I'm wrong.
You think there's something out there called "Science" & it can be defined. You think if there is a definition, it (defn) would be a scientific statement. I'm afraid it won't be. It will be a philosphical claim. This means science as separate from non-science is a fiction.
Now, if I wanted to fool people this is how I'd do it: Create a fiction e.g. an entity called "Science." Arbitrarily annoint the entity Sole Begator of Truth. Box knowledge statements into science & non-science thus effortlessly dispensing with all inconvenient truth. Just call stuff non-science & you blind people from any truth it might contain. Demonise it even, you never know how clever your opponents are. Why risk engaging them with logic when mere labels will do?
Like I said, I might be wrong but given deception is the oldest trick in the book, I suspect it's been played on you. The issue is, could it be true that design exists in nature? It's not, is it science or whatever label. Who cares? Is it true or not - is what you need to worry about.
You know, there are companies that can train you to put labels on pill bottles, or assemble consumer goods, or other menial tasks for moderate wages.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#87 Dec 1, 2010
LGK wrote:
Kong
We don't have a religious right in the UK. Would you like to revise your answer to include the rest of the world. ID is not an American Project, it's a fact of nature & nature also exists in the UK.
Intellegent design is "A fact of Nature"?

Please expand upon that.

WITH evidence, please.

“Shaggin' Wagon.”

Level 1

Since: Apr 09

Springfield, MA

#88 Dec 2, 2010
LGK wrote:
Kong
If ET landed tomorrow I wouldn't be praying to him. You need to shake-off the hang-up ID is a search for God. It's no more of that than evolutionism is a search for Satan.
I accept that God believers are more likely to prefer ID than non-believers. But the cold reality is that truth of any theory is independent of motives of it's students.
ID is a search for intelligent causes, not intelligent agencies. Christians & Atheists can think what they like, the truth or falsity of ID is independent of the both of them.
I am a Christian & don't believe in God because of a scientific theory. Theories come & go, I'd never worship a god conjured up by them!
So let's get back to the search for intelligence, project Blue Beam or not.
In order to even be a hypothesis there must be some sort of evidence to BEGIN with PRIOR to the conclusion.

In order to be a real THEORY ID would require REAL evidence (such as a designer or something such as a hornblatt being created with no obvious relation to anything on earth) not inferred evidence. ADDITIONALLY it requires a mechanism. ID has no such mechanism. Simply stating "there is an intelligent designer" is not a mechanism. HOW did your designer do anything?

You claim to be a christian who doesn't accept theories (By this you mean scientific theories). This implies that you do not accept facts. Yet you jump all over the one thing with NO evidence and, worse still, proven false on innumerable claims (religion). I don't care if you are religious but don't equate your religion with facts as though it has the upper hand.

As you are a christian and arguing for ID I assume that you are a fundamentalist christian. The bible is full of claims but thin on facts where it counts. It is one thing to have evidence of egypt. It is entirely another to claim that there is proof of golems, zombies, and dragons.(all in the bible)

“Shaggin' Wagon.”

Level 1

Since: Apr 09

Springfield, MA

#89 Dec 2, 2010
@LGK

No religious right in England? Really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#90 Dec 2, 2010
Noodly James wrote:
@LGK
No religious right in England? Really?
Which only furthers my suspicions that LGK is not from the UK, and someone we have seen before. Could be wrong, but we know he's a fibber.
Nemesis

Oakland, CA

#91 Feb 27, 2013
Creationism is NOT a scientific theory. Creationists who claim such have no science background and clearly don't understand what a scientific theory is. Creationism is neither testable nor falsifiable, clear requirements for a scientific theory. Evolution meets these criteria and creationists 'scientists are a joke. Just look at the list of Creation scientists in Answersingenesis and you will see how pathetic they are: many 'scientists' are actually economists, psychologists and all manner of irrelevant professions. The majority of 'scientists' are lab techs with either AA degrees or Bachelor degrees. The few 'scientists' claiming to hold a doctorate have never published in a peer reviewed journal and they rarely list the university from which they obtained their doctorate. Oh , for reference I received my BS from Cal in Biochemistry and my Masters from Cal in Genetics. One reason I dislike creationists so much is that they have engaged in name calling with me, I've received the occasional threat of violence and once I received a death threat ( ip was traced. Scum bag was shut down) oh, and when Creationists have had their day in court, latest was Dover PA, they were caught committing perjury. Doesn't stop there. Judge ruled against them and he received death threats to such an extent that he had to have 24 hour guard from the FBI. Creationists have engaged in physical violence and in some cases murdered evolutionists. Creationists are violent, psychotic people who think scientific ignorance is a virtue.

Oh, in so far as creationist 'claims' supporting their fairy tale. Bring me on: thermodynamics, polonium halos, all of them. I've smashed them all before and I will be happy to do so again.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min IB DaMann 74,683
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 10 min replaytime 112
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 25 min replaytime 161,944
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 1 hr Nemesis 285
News The Odds of Evolution Are Zero 3 hr Science 2
News 300,000 year-old "early Homo sapiens" sparks de... 3 hr Science 24
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) 6 hr Will 499
More from around the web