Now, About That Flawed Science?

Your inability to understand what the Cardiff University found makes it easy to see why you have problems with the "scientific method."

Quote:

if these methods lead them to arrive at these flawed conclusions about evolution and global warming, then they will lead them to flawed conclusions in respects to the human body.

I was dubious whether you actually believed in the absurdity expressed in these words, but you in fact confirmed them. You said that the "method" that both geologists and physicians use is the scientific method, and as you point out in the above post, you believe that a geological conclusion drawn from the scientific method will have the same truth value as a medical conclusion drawn from the scientific method. And you confirmed it a third time:

Does it not involve observation?

Of course it does. But observation of what? That's what you are tellingly silent about. You seem to think that since they both involve observation, they can't be that different. You might want to look up the definition of a geologist and the definition of a doctor... you might find that what they respectively observe is quite different. I asked you how the diagnosis of lymphoma was similar to the diagnosis of tectonic plate movement, and the best you were able to do was that they both involve observation. Going to the bathroom also involves observation. Does that mean that the validity of going to the bathroom is also called into the question since it involves "the same" process as diagnosing lymphoma and tectonic plate movement?

Again, I don't blame you from refusing to get any more specific than this, because your argument won't work (to the extent that it works even on the most generalized level, which is not a very far extent.) It is what allows you to believe you are making a profound rhetorical point when you say:

Mindonfire wrote:

What we are stating is that if One does not or can not trust science and the theory of evolution or global warming, then how can you trust your doctor and his prescriptions. All of them arrive at their conclusions using basically the same methods.

For the sake of maintaining your seemingly grandiose but in fact vacuous point, you have to conveniently ignore the fact that doctors are trained in matters of the human body while geologists are trained in observing the earth. (Details, details.) You express wonder at why, when it comes to matters concerning the human body, we trust the judgment of people who have spent their lives studying the human body over people who have spent their lives observing the earth. As I said, you don't have to take my word for it. If you really want to know why, ask a geologist to treat you next time you have a heart attack. You'll quickly find out why it might have been better to trust the physician.

Once again there is no major difference between the two.

a geologist cannot treat a heart attack because he was not trained to be familiar with the human body.

If the conclusions of one area of science is overly flawed then the conclusions of all areas of science will be overly flawed.

Shapeless,
The validity of a claim in geology is based on the same system that is used to test the validity of a claim in any science, the hypothesis is tested and retested. When the testing first starts out it is questioned by others. As the testing continues it is either supported or ultimately rejected. Perhaps you are not aware of the arguments of those opposing evolution and global warming. They argue that there is no evidence or that there is not enough evidence. It is a repudiation of the scientific method. When questioned they can present no study or current testing to support their claims. It is all based on a negative assessment of how science reached its conclusions.

Yet when it comes to medical information, they are as uninformed in that area but are happy to believe what science has found without making the same argument of the evidence not being overwhelming. Even in those areas where the testing hasn't been as extensive.

Mindon has asked a fair question. If as a thinking person you feel that that peer reviewed research arrived at by the scientific method isn't valid in one area why do you accept it in others? I think the answer is obvious. Can you answer it?

The validity of a claim in geology is based on the same system that is used to test the validity of a claim in any science, the hypothesis is tested and retested.

If as a thinking person you feel that that peer reviewed research arrived at by the scientific method isn't valid in one area why do you accept it in others? I think the answer is obvious. Can you answer it?

parados wrote:

The validity of a claim in geology is based on the same system that is used to test the validity of a claim in any science, the hypothesis is tested and retested.

An excellent point. Validity is ascertained in the testing. So unless you or Mindonfire are saying that geological tests are the same as medical tests--and as Mindonfire pointed out, geologists and doctors look at different data--your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Thus:

Quote:

If as a thinking person you feel that that peer reviewed research arrived at by the scientific method isn't valid in one area why do you accept it in others? I think the answer is obvious. Can you answer it?

You're right, the answer is obvious. Since geology and medical science are different fields, what geologists have to say about rocks has no bearing on what doctors have to say about swollen lymph nodes. Despite the fact that paleobiologists were wrong about the Brontosaurus being a distinct species, my doctor was still miraculously right about the medicine he prescribed for my allergies. Was he just lucky? Or maybe it's that I can trust one without having to trust the other because I recognize that their data have no correlation. I also recognize that it is fruitless to talk about trusting either geology or medical science without talking about the geologists and doctors involved. As a thinking person, I know it is foolish (let alone dangerous) to base my level of trust indiscriminately on "medical science" rather than on specific doctors. This is another fact of reality that your and Mindonfire's purely rhetorical model can't account for.

Can I get an answer to my question now? Do you trust the conclusions that consuming drugs while pregnant will endanger a fetus, or that the common cold is not caused by cold weather, or that breathing carbon monoxide is harmful?

In my judgment, no, it is not.

Mindonfire, why not answer my question now? Do you trust the conclusions that consuming drugs while pregnant will endanger a fetus, or that the common cold is not caused by cold weather, or that breathing carbon monoxide is harmful? You've evaded the question several times--which, I suppose, is answer enough.

What we are stating is that if One does not or can not trust science and the theory of evolution or global warming, then how can you trust your doctor and his prescriptions. All of them arrive at their conclusions using basically the same methods.

In spite of what you wrote earlier, then, it sounds like you are willing to trust conclusions that are drawn from "observation," as you put it in your summary of the scientific method on page 1. It makes me wonder how you would answer your own question:

Quote:

What we are stating is that if One does not or can not trust science and the theory of evolution or global warming, then how can you trust your doctor and his prescriptions. All of them arrive at their conclusions using basically the same methods.

You seemed not to accept my answer about why I'm willing to trust one without the other; I'd be greatly interested to see how differently you justify your trust in the above conclusions.