Throwing science under the bus

[Vex]

ElfLord:

Close is relative. Horseshoes pretty darn close counts, hand-grenades not so much. C-14 dating pretty darn close, cars not so much. The earth is rounder and smoother than a basketball, but still not perfectly round or smooth(it is slightly pear shaped, and we do have mountains) pretty darn close though. We still generally say that the earth is round like a ball, as opposed to being flat or even circular.

In math the average of 3 and 5 is 4. But 4 is not represented in either 3 or 5. In C-14 dating it is an average concentration that is measured. So there is inherent variation. It is still close enough that you will still be required in school to know how to calculate the decay rates of various radioactive elements.

I don't know how many times I have to say it. The earth is not pear shaped. It's a spheroid if anything. For better example and to drive home the point:

compared to:

Earth oblateness is a function of rotation along the polar axis. You will not get a seemingly random 'bulge' in the lower hemisphere but a 'bulge' along the equator./derailment

[back on topic]The issue with variances is that it's completely dependent upon the initial conditions of uncertainty. For instance if you have a PeRT system of dating and if your rate or initial amount has a high variance you'll get compounded variances that are unacceptable to an engineer. Six standard deviations of variance is ideal, but honestly it's rarely if ever going to happen. As such marginalization of the uncertainty based only on scale of measurement is a fallacy and can prove erroneousness to dismiss large variances based solely on such thoughts (which I shall endeavor to illustrate below).

Take for instance a new ship building technique which lines the keel of a large ship with single length stringers along the entire length of the ship (this is not actually practiced unless the length of the ship is no larger than 40 ft, and even then rarely done). If for instance the length of the ship is 300m and based on the acceptable percentage of variance stated within this thread; a +/- 2% of the stringer length would be acceptable, the issue is however that that 2% variance is unacceptable for the construction of this ship. You would in all actuality end up with a stringer 306m or 294m in length. Such difference in length is unacceptable as a station could occupy the difference between the two./rant end

[wenglund]

Give him a break Wade... he may be a scientist but he's also a Mormon which gives him a genetically inbreed over inflated persecution complex.

Assuming your stereotype of semlogo and other Mormons is correct (how could it not be?), wouldn't my giving semlogo a break be non-scientific (purely emotional), and may thus be perceived as an affront to sacred science? If so, then what's a guy to do?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

I don't know how many times I have to say it. The earth is not pear shaped. It's a spheroid if anything. For better example and to drive home the point:

compared to:

Earth oblateness is a function of rotation along the polar axis. You will not get a seemingly random 'bulge' in the lower hemisphere but a 'bulge' along the equator./derailment

[back on topic]The issue with variances is that it's completely dependent upon the initial conditions of uncertainty. For instance if you have a PeRT system of dating and if your rate or initial amount has a high variance you'll get compounded variances that are unacceptable to an engineer. Six standard deviations of variance is ideal, but honestly it's rarely if ever going to happen. As such marginalization of the uncertainty based only on scale of measurement is a fallacy and can prove erroneousness to dismiss large variances based solely on such thoughts (which I shall endeavor to illustrate below).

Take for instance a new ship building technique which lines the keel of a large ship with single length stringers along the entire length of the ship (this is not actually practiced unless the length of the ship is no larger than 40 ft, and even then rarely done). If for instance the length of the ship is 300m and based on the acceptable percentage of variance stated within this thread; a +/- 2% of the stringer length would be acceptable, the issue is however that that 2% variance is unacceptable for the construction of this ship. You would in all actuality end up with a stringer 306m or 294m in length. Such difference in length is unacceptable as a station could occupy the difference between the two./rant end

Tight tolerances are indeed important in engineering. Not so much in estimating the age of things. It really doesn't matter if some ancient skull is 100 years older or younger.

[semlogo]

Give him a break Wade... he may be a scientist but he's also a Mormon which gives him a genetically inbreed over inflated persecution complex.

I'm not a scientist. Also, I don't have a persecution complex. That is also a trait of my more fundamentalist brothers and sisters, who seem to view any deviation from their script as an attack on their own sainted mothers.

[thesometimesaint]

vex:

I did not say it was pear shaped. I said it was slightly pear shaped, and here is my source for actual observations.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/earth_worldbook.html

Earth's bulge also makes the circumference of Earth larger around the equator than around the poles. The circumference around the equator is 24,901.55 miles (40,075.16 kilometers), but around the poles it is only 24,859.82 miles (40,008.00 kilometers). The circumference is actually greatest just south of the equator, so Earth is slightly pear-shaped. Earth also has mountains and valleys, but these features are tiny compared to the total size of Earth, so the planet appears smooth from space.

[ElfLord]

vex:

I did not say it was pear shaped. I said it was slightly pear shaped, and here is my source for actual observations.

http://www.nasa.gov/..._worldbook.html

Earth's bulge also makes the circumference of Earth larger around the equator than around the poles. The circumference around the equator is 24,901.55 miles (40,075.16 kilometers), but around the poles it is only 24,859.82 miles (40,008.00 kilometers). The circumference is actually greatest just south of the equator, so Earth is slightly pear-shaped. Earth also has mountains and valleys, but these features are tiny compared to the total size of Earth, so the planet appears smooth from space.

You are correct TSTS. I had read the same thing. And some people mistake me for a Mormon "fundamentalist".

[ElfLord]

Tight tolerances are indeed important in engineering. Not so much in estimating the age of things. It really doesn't matter if some ancient skull is 100 years older or younger.

It does when archeologists are trying to figure out who fathered who. Of course DNA science has come along to figure that out for us.

[Vex]

Tight tolerances are indeed important in engineering. Not so much in estimating the age of things. It really doesn't matter if some ancient skull is 100 years older or younger.

The problem however is (as has already been pointed out), that such variances skew the data of knowledge such that when other data is presented that contends with the 'established' trend it gets thrown under the bus or downplayed in significance. Statistical relevance aside is there currently any on going experimentation to validate carbon 14 dating by means other than tree rings and the like?

For instance placing a mass of carbon 14 in a sealed vessel and tracking its depletion over time?

[Vex]

vex:

I did not say it was pear shaped. I said it was slightly pear shaped, and here is my source for actual observations.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/earth_worldbook.html

Earth's bulge also makes the circumference of Earth larger around the equator than around the poles. The circumference around the equator is 24,901.55 miles (40,075.16 kilometers), but around the poles it is only 24,859.82 miles (40,008.00 kilometers). The circumference is actually greatest just south of the equator, so Earth is slightly pear-shaped. Earth also has mountains and valleys, but these features are tiny compared to the total size of Earth, so the planet appears smooth from space.

I concede the point, but I put no stock in some of the things NASA says (ps, in case it was lost in the previous post was tongue-in-cheek)

[thesometimesaint]

vex:

I don't know of any such experiments, but that doesn't mean there isn't. It shouldn't too hard to set up such an experiment. However for all but a few of the very short and relatively short lived radio-nucleotides time frames can get very long at least in human terms.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/halflife.htm

[semlogo]

It does when archeologists are trying to figure out who fathered who. Of course DNA science has come along to figure that out for us.

Who fathered it? How would that be sorted out by dating it? As you say, genetics does that job much better.

[thesometimesaint]

ElfLord:

I tend to accept people at face value. If someone says they believe something I have no reason to doubt them. By the same token if some says they don't believe something I have no reason to doubt them. In the end all I really know for a certainty is what I believe.

Fundamentalism of any stripe doesn't play well with me either, but if someone wants to believe it. There isn't much(legally and morally) I can do to stop them from believing it.

[ElfLord]

Who fathered it? How would that be sorted out by dating it? As you say, genetics does that job much better.

Thats what they where originally doing in Egypt. Just recently did they do all the DNA tests on Tuts family and now are having to completely rewrite the Egyptians time lines.

http://www.livescien...nts-100216.html

The problem here is...

King Tutankhamun ruled from 1333 to 1324 B.C., during the period of ancient Egyptian history known as the New Kingdom.

Seeds from Tuts tomb offerings date WAY younger than that! 840 - 850BC

[semlogo]

Thats what they where originally doing in Egypt. Just recently did they do all the DNA tests on Tuts family and now are having to completely rewrite the Egyptians time lines.

http://www.livescien...nts-100216.html

The problem here is...

Seeds from Tuts tomb offerings date WAY younger than that! 840 - 850BC

Right. But are you suggesting that seeds in the tomb had to have been there since it was built?

[Pahoran]

Right. But are you suggesting that seeds in the tomb had to have been there since it was built?

Since tomb robbery was an ongoing practice throughout ancient Egypt, and since the tomb in question was sealed when Tutankhamen was buried in it, if someone got into it 500 years later, we'd have to wonder why they'd do so just to leave some seeds behind, and not take some of the good stuff that was there.

FYI, I regard this as a problem that requires investigation, not a reason to jettison C-14 dating methods.

Back to the topic at hand: I don't see a monolithic body of "fundamentalists" willing to "throw science under the bus." I see a range of different approaches to reconciling scientific and religious knowledge. My approach is to recognise that they are not merely different methods, but that they address quite different problems. I reject the false anti-religious polemic that religion is a failed attempt to do science, and find no basic conflicts between them.

The opening chapters of Genesis are a ritual text, not a scientific treatise.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ElfLord]

Since tomb robbery was an ongoing practice throughout ancient Egypt, and since the tomb in question was sealed when Tutankhamen was buried in it, if someone got into it 500 years later, we'd have to wonder why they'd do so just to leave some seeds behind, and not take some of the good stuff that was there.

FYI, I regard this as a problem that requires investigation, not a reason to jettison C-14 dating methods.

I agree Pahoran.

It just goes to show that alot of the previous assumptions and "junk science" so they could toe the party line of preconceived notions needs to be reassest. BIG time.

One would assume that the offerings would give a better indicator of his actual death date because I think its safe to assume that they would have come from that years harvest. And not from some hundred year old wheet store.

[semlogo]

Since tomb robbery was an ongoing practice throughout ancient Egypt, and since the tomb in question was sealed when Tutankhamen was buried in it, if someone got into it 500 years later, we'd have to wonder why they'd do so just to leave some seeds behind, and not take some of the good stuff that was there.

FYI, I regard this as a problem that requires investigation, not a reason to jettison C-14 dating methods.

Back to the topic at hand: I don't see a monolithic body of "fundamentalists" willing to "throw science under the bus." I see a range of different approaches to reconciling scientific and religious knowledge. My approach is to recognise that they are not merely different methods, but that they address quite different problems. I reject the false anti-religious polemic that religion is a failed attempt to do science, and find no basic conflicts between them.

The opening chapters of Genesis are a ritual text, not a scientific treatise.

Regards,

Pahoran

If indeed the tomb was totally sealed and undisturbed in the interim, that does merit further investigation.

You are, of course, not a fundamentalist. But there are plenty of them here.

[zelder]

semlogo:

Does "fundamentalism" actually bother you? I'm sure the vast majority of active members are scriptural literalists. I'm pretty sure you are an extreme minority. Does it bother you that Elder Nelson is a "fundamentalist"? I'm wondering if you just enjoy the thrill of debate?

[SilverKnight]

I'm sure the vast majority of active members are scriptural literalists.

Not in my experience.

When you start picking the brains of individual members about the more ludicrous Bible stories you get a lot of non-committal answers, hedging and backpedaling.

[zelder]

Not in my experience.

When you start picking the brains of individual members about the more ludicrous Bible stories you get a lot of non-committal answers, hedging and backpedaling.

Which bible stories?

Maybe this is a symptom of like minds attracting to each other (for both you and me). Did you backpedal as a gospel doctrine teacher?

[Vex]

vex:

I don't know of any such experiments, but that doesn't mean there isn't. It shouldn't too hard to set up such an experiment. However for all but a few of the very short and relatively short lived radio-nucleotides time frames can get very long at least in human terms.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/halflife.htm

It is, but that's the only way any measure of 'engineering grade' variances could be obtained in my mind. The closest thing I can think of is the kg mass which is slowly getting lighter as time progresses (or at the very least appears to be)

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/08-kilogram-isn.t-what-it-used-to-be-it.s-lighter/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

[44Foxtrot]

semlogo:

Does "fundamentalism" actually bother you? I'm sure the vast majority of active members are scriptural literalists. I'm pretty sure you are an extreme minority. Does it bother you that Elder Nelson is a "fundamentalist"? I'm wondering if you just enjoy the thrill of debate?

Do you actually have objective evidence that the vast majority of active LDS are scriptural literalists? Most LDS that I knew as member, and know today, are very quick to assure me that they do not believe in a genesis creation, an earth that is less than 7,000 years old, or a global flood. Perhaps rationalists in the LDS Church constitute more than the extreme minority you claim.

Seriously, if you have evidence for your surprising assertion, I would love to see it. Based on my (anecdotal) experience, I would put absolute scriptural literalists in the general Church population at well under 50%.

[zelder]

Do you actually have objective evidence that the vast majority of active LDS are scriptural literalists? Most LDS that I knew as member, and know today, are very quick to assure me that they do not believe in a genesis creation, an earth that is less than 7,000 years old, or a global flood. Perhaps rationalists in the LDS Church constitute more than the extreme minority you claim.

Seriously, if you have evidence for your surprising assertion, I would love to see it. Based on my (anecdotal) experience, I would put absolute scriptural literalists in the general Church population at well under 50%.

I can humbly admit that I have no evidence. Its purely based on my (anecdotal) experience. So yes I could be wrong.

[semlogo]

semlogo:

Does "fundamentalism" actually bother you? I'm sure the vast majority of active members are scriptural literalists. I'm pretty sure you are an extreme minority. Does it bother you that Elder Nelson is a "fundamentalist"? I'm wondering if you just enjoy the thrill of debate?

Most members I know are uncomfortable with a lot of the Old Testament and avoid reading it for that reason. Indeed, it is a long-standing doctrine that the Bible is correct so far as it is "translated correctly." In other words, the understanding has long been that the Bible contains errors. The extent of those errors is understood differently by different people.

Yes, fundamentalism really does bother me. I don't see the point of faith if you have to throw out objective reality to maintain it. I refuse to do so, which is why my position is nuanced rather than fundamentalist.

[SilverKnight]

Let me address this first...

Does "fundamentalism" actually bother you?

Yes, to say the least.

Religious Fundamentalism is a freedom and human spirit devouring monster that closes minds, blinds people to reality, and cause immeasurable human suffering.

Fundamentalism flies planes into buildings, stones women, disowns gay children, burns crosses, mutiliates baby girls, and forces preteen girls to marry pedophiles.

Which bible stories?

The one where God slaughters innocent children, offers up sons as sacrifices, offers up daughters to be raped, etc.

Pretty much the entire Old Testament.

Did you backpedal as a gospel doctrine teacher?

Not once. I shared the Old Testament in all its grisly horror and let the members of the class stumble over themselves in a rush disavow, explain away, water down and rationalize the brutal ugliness of it all.

I think you are flat wrong when you say most LDS are scriptural literalists - most I encounter are very uncomfortable with the barbarity of the bible.