Chicken Bones Suggest Polynesians Found Americas Before Columbus

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Dangit. Did I forget to search wikipedia again? I don't know what's gotten into me.

Actually, now I'm curious. I wonder if wikipedia even lists the criticism of carbon dating.

The Carbon dating entry doesn't, though it does list a fine array of "authoritative" references. The Absolute dating entry has a small paragraph on the problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_dating

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

[On faith in science:
I suppose it helps to define ones terms. The definitions of the term faith are varied indeed as a simple google query for "define:faith" will show. They range from narrow, specifically-religious definitions such as: "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny" to more broad definitions such as "complete confidence in a person or plan" or "belief in the truth of an idea". I will agree that scientists don't exercise faith if one uses the narrow religious definition of the term; however, I believe an argument can indeed be made when using a broader definition of the term. My operative definition of the term is generally "a belief in something that I can't prove or that I don't know for certainty". Is it logical to believe the earth is 250M years old? Absolutely. Is there credible data to support this belief? Yes. Does this data-backed, logical, supported belief make more sense than any other available theory, supernatural or otherwise? Yes. Does anyone know for certainty? Not unless they were around 250M years ago. To me, that is faith.

If you weren't intending to analogize between scientific hypotheses or theories and religioius faith, I don't know what point you were trying to make in bringing faith into this.

The extent and certainty of scentific "belief" that the earth is 250 million years old begins and ends with the objectively verifiable evidence and whatever uncertainties may exist with respect to that evidence. The concepts are fused. No scientist has a stake in the issue except insofar as what hypothesis or theory may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. No scientist claims to know for certain. They would gladly be persuaded that the earth is 6,000 years old or 250 billion years old if the best available evidence and reason so suggested. When they tell you they estimate it to be x years old they will add all kinds of provisos and caveats because that for them is truth, and the kind of truth that is their currency. They don't assume or even believe in anything that can't be hypothesized or theorized form objective evidence and reason. So I don't understand how you arrive at the conclusion that this constitutes any kind of faith whatsoever, under the first, second, third, whatever Websers' definition of faith.

I have read that it takes faith to believe in reason, to believe that things are as your senses perceive them to be, and that things are supposed to make sense. That's an arguably profound point, but it's not the one you have made and it's not usually the point religious poeple try to make when they say scientists engage in faith.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The extent and certainty of scentific "belief" that the earth is 250 million years old begins and ends with the objectively verifiable evidence and whatever uncertainties may exist with respect to that evidence. The concepts are fused. No scientist has a stake in the issue except insofar as what hypothesis or theory may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. No scientist claims to know for certain. They would gladly be persuaded that the earth is 6,000 years old or 250 billion years old if the best available evidence and reason so suggested. When they tell you they estimate it to be x years old they will add all kinds of provisos and caveats because that for them is truth, and the kind of truth that is their currency. They don't assume or even believe in anything that can't be hypothesized or theorized form objective evidence and reason. So I don't understand how you arrive at the conclusion that this constitutes any kind of faith whatsoever, under the first, second, third, whatever Websers' definition of faith.

I have read that it takes faith to believe in reason, to believe that things are as your senses perceive them to be, and that things are supposed to make sense. That's an arguably profound point, but it's not the one you have made and it's not usually the point religious poeple try to make when they say scientists engage in faith.

This discussion goes round and round.

However, taking your second point first, I agree that it takes a certain leap of faith to use reason alone or primarily.

And anytime you start with Cartesian "dualism" language of "objective" evidence you could start an entire discussion thread, as objective dualism should be dead. Then we devolve into the discussion of external versus internal usw.

The truth is, even scientists in various disciplines can become enamored with hypotheses and "Principles" without examining the holes therein. The Documentary Hypothesis is just one example. Newtonian physics as opposed to Einsteinian physics.

I'll find the quote from a book I'm reading, which takes a scientific approach but is critical how scientists are slow to dissemble favorite theories. It's not the same as faith, but scientists do acquire their pet theories which they are slow to reject once adopted.

Nothing is really that external or subjective, all of it is really internal and perception.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

No scientist has a stake in the issue except insofar as what hypothesis or theory may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.

That is poppycock and you know it. How can you make this sort of statement in the same argument where you accuse BFM of lsoing all credibility simply becasue he analogizes to faith? If this is true, why don't they all agree on all scientific issues?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

That is poppycock and you know it. How can you make this sort of statement in the same argument where you accuse BFM of lsoing all credibility simply becasue he analogizes to faith? If this is true, why don't they all agree on all scientific issues?

I'm speaking of a single hypthethical scientist. Hypotheses and even theories are not the holy grail. Yes, of course, there is disagreement about what the evidence says. Uncertainty and dialogue are inherent in the process. That still doesn't mean any one scientist is exercising "faith" in his position. However, there can be and often is broad consensus on theories such as, say, evolution and gravity. But that's not faith. It's just a product of the quantum of the evidence.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm speaking of a single hypthethical scientist. Hypotheses and even theories are not the holy grail. Yes, of course, there is disagreement about what the evidence says. Uncertainty and dialogue are inherent in the process. That still doesn't mean any one scientist is exercising "faith" in his position. However, there can be and often is broad consensus on theories such as, say, evolution and gravity. But that's not faith. It's just a product of the quantum of the evidence.

I don't disagree, but your rhetorical excess destroys your persusasive success.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

If you weren't intending to analogize between scientific hypotheses or theories and religioius faith, I don't know what point you were trying to make in bringing faith into this.

The extent and certainty of scentific "belief" that the earth is 250 million years old begins and ends with the objectively verifiable evidence and whatever uncertainties may exist with respect to that evidence. The concepts are fused. No scientist has a stake in the issue except insofar as what hypothesis or theory may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. No scientist claims to know for certain. They would gladly be persuaded that the earth is 6,000 years old or 250 billion years old if the best available evidence and reason so suggested. When they tell you they estimate it to be x years old they will add all kinds of provisos and caveats because that for them is truth, and the kind of truth that is their currency. They don't assume or even believe in anything that can't be hypothesized or theorized form objective evidence and reason. So I don't understand how you arrive at the conclusion that this constitutes any kind of faith whatsoever, under the first, second, third, whatever Websers' definition of faith.

I have read that it takes faith to believe in reason, to believe that things are as your senses perceive them to be, and that things are supposed to make sense. That's an arguably profound point, but it's not the one you have made and it's not usually the point religious poeple try to make when they say scientists engage in faith.

This was my point:

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

The bottom line is that scientists rely on faith just like other people do. Only with scientists it's not faith in supernatural stuff - it's faith in their framework: faith in theories, hypotheses, logic, and their own judgement.

I explicitly stated that the faith scientists exercise is faith in their own judgement - I called it "faith in their framework" (hypotheses, logic, theories) for lack of a better term. To state it in your words: "faith to believe in reason, to believe that things are as your senses perceive them to be, and that things are supposed to make sense". That was the point I was trying to make. Did you read the words I wrote and consider them at face value or did you apply a biased lens, assume that I fit some sterotype you cling to, and discard what I said?

Would you expect any scientist who has observed phenomena with their own senses - who has had other people repeat the observation - to discard the collected data simply because there wasn't a complete explanation for such data? I don't believe you would. I think you would expect the scientist to construct the best possible explanation based upon that data and then continue to gather more data. If that is so, then why do you expect a person of religious faith to discard the things they've observed with their own senses - observations that millions and millions of others have repeated - observations that humankind has repeated throughout recorded history? Simply because you didn't experience them?

In my Physics 6750 course at the University of Utah (yes, friend - that's a graduate level physics course and I can supply the transcript to prove it so stick that in your bag of stereotypes) we made observations (i.e. measurements) on the speed and polarity of light. Does science know everything there is to know about light? Not by a long shot. Are there things that are unexplained and currently unanswerable? Absolutely. Otherwise, Professor Gellermann would be out of a job. Do I give up and deny the existence of light simply because I have questions I can't answer? No - I proceed with my observations, measurements, and questions because I have faith in the framework - faith in my own brain and ability to reason.

I have also made observations (i.e. measurements) on a different substance (let's call it "God" for lack of a better term). Do I know everything there is to know about that substance? Not by a long shot. Are there things that are unexplained and currently unanswerable? Absolutely. Should I deny the existence of God simply because I have questions I can't answer? I can no more deny the observations I have made on God than I can deny the observations I have made on light.

Should I accept the data that my eye and brain provide me without accepting the data that my heart and soul provide as well? It seems that to do that would require more faith than I have - more faith in one particular kind of data over another. In that respect, I consider the scientist that completely discards an entire class of data and method of measurement to have more faith than the religious person. Ironic, isn't it?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

If you weren't intending to analogize between scientific hypotheses or theories and religioius faith, I don't know what point you were trying to make in bringing faith into this.

The extent and certainty of scentific "belief" that the earth is 250 million years old begins and ends with the objectively verifiable evidence and whatever uncertainties may exist with respect to that evidence. The concepts are fused. No scientist has a stake in the issue except insofar as what hypothesis or theory may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. No scientist claims to know for certain. They would gladly be persuaded that the earth is 6,000 years old or 250 billion years old if the best available evidence and reason so suggested. When they tell you they estimate it to be x years old they will add all kinds of provisos and caveats because that for them is truth, and the kind of truth that is their currency. They don't assume or even believe in anything that can't be hypothesized or theorized form objective evidence and reason. So I don't understand how you arrive at the conclusion that this constitutes any kind of faith whatsoever, under the first, second, third, whatever Websers' definition of faith.

I have read that it takes faith to believe in reason, to believe that things are as your senses perceive them to be, and that things are supposed to make sense. That's an arguably profound point, but it's not the one you have made and it's not usually the point religious poeple try to make when they say scientists engage in faith.

It is faith in it's most basic form simply because there is no such thing as objective evidence and reason; faith: "confidence or trust in a person or thing"

The scientists with reason in tow is the 'person', the so called objective evidence is the 'thing' ... it's a simple equation and very logical.

Ergo the scientist effectively is God, ascended to his station through the discipline of method honed in academic settings, wherein he/she/it determines the relative definition and value of evidence.