Originally posted by sonship

But in case you weren't, please explain why scientists changing the definition of a word somehow detracts from the proofs of science as you seem to be implying.

Though you probably have a point I am sure you would also argue that
if it were not the case science could not grow as it should. So I don't think it is a completely bad ...[text shortened]... he most depressing thing is that everything we believe here today will one day be proved wrong."

It’s a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it’s very wrong to say it’s a suspension bridge.
—Stuart Bloom, The Big Bang Theory, episode The Hofstadter Isotope

The Relativity of Wrong
By Isaac Asimov

I RECEIVED a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.)

It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight.

I didn't go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we now know the basic rules governing the universe, together with the gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What's more, we have found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units of the physical universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930.

These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." ........

Originally posted by Suzianne
This is blatantly incorrect and I've told you this a zillion times. Yes, a zillion.

And besides, you have zero evidence "against" my faith. It's wrong? Prove it. Something you cannot do. Does this mean it's wrong? Absolutely not. In fact, you cannot know it is wrong, and therefore you err when saying that it is wrong (with zero evidence).

There ...[text shortened]... valid justification for.

And, as you ask, why should anyone care that you believe something?

And besides, you have zero evidence "against" my faith. It's wrong? Prove it. Something you cannot do.
Does this mean it's wrong? Absolutely not. In fact, you cannot know it is wrong, and therefore you err when saying
that it is wrong (with zero evidence).

Therefore, you telling me that my faith is wrong carries precisely zero weight. I'd rather listen all day to what
a person believes without evidence than what a person calls "fact" with no evidence.

That's right. What you call a "fact" should be significantly less-regarded if there is no evidence to back it up than
what someone believes if there is no evidence to back it up.

Why should anyone care that you call something a "fact" without evidence? Does it suddenly have weight if
you call it a "fact"? No.

So, basically, you only "believe" that my faith is wrong, a "belief" that you cannot have any valid justification
for.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I included links from Stanford Law, Yale Law Review, The Innocence Project,
and the American Bar Association.

You may disagree, [why not, you disagree with everything else science says]
but it is undeniable that science says that eyewitness testimony is highly unreliable.

You are simply too pig headed to admit that you are wrong.

Originally posted by sonship
Though you probably have a point I am sure you would also argue that if it were not the case science could not grow as it should. So I don't think it is a completely bad thing that definitions of scientific terms change.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My point, which you appear to have missed, is that when a definition changes, it doesn't make the former definition wrong.
It was never ever the case that science was wrong about pluto being a planet. Our knowledge of Pluto did not change as a result of the definition change, nor did our knowledge of the solar system.

[b]A group of white coated scie ...[text shortened]... ition of the word 'planet' just demonstrates you don't actually understand what happened or why.

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Originally posted by sonship

Have you heard of this thing we have called Science?

Been proving stuff for 200+ years...

Right.
There are nine planets.
No there are eight.
No, its nine again.

Can't argue with the proofs of science.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Just nomenclature.

There are now officially only eight planets in our solar system. Of
course this change in terminology does not affect what's actually out
there. In the end, it's not very important how we classify the various
objects in our solar system. What is important is to learn about their
physical nature and their histories.
[b]http://nineplanets.org/[/b]

So it was that the planet Ceres was removed from the list of planets, a place it had held for half a century, to take up instead its role as the largest asteroid.

The story of Ceres should sound familiar as it is echoed in almost every way possible by the story of Pluto. However, most of the people who want to reinstate Pluto’s planethood do not also want to elevate Ceres or similar objects to the category of planets.

No matter what we call it, Pluto itself really doesn’t care.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So it should be clear that naming planets or animals is not science because God does not care what we call them or else he would not have given that privilege to man.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As always, you don't have a clue what science is. If you want a word that means 'what God cares about' then make one up. Don't confuse everyone by trying to hijack the word 'science'.

Originally posted by Suzianne

No, no you cannot be sure.

That was the whole point.

Unless you have external evidence to fall back on you cannot KNOW that
any memories you have are actually true.

No, I can be sure. Your point is wrong. I'm not a mental patient. I can remember exactly what I was doing and how I was feeling at every single major event in my ...[text shortened]... udge and jury to me is way, way beyond me. And far, FAR more than I would presume to do to you.

YES. it does. Science absolutely says that eyewitnesses are unreliable.
Not by any means absolutely unreliable, but it's much less reliable than most
people believe and it's far to unreliable to be evidence for extraordinary claims of
the supernatural or gods.

The Dangerous Unreliability of Eyewitnesses
YouTube

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-eyewitnesses-in-the-z/

http://people.howstuffworks.com/eyewitnesses-unreliable.htm

http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony

http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

http://theweek.com/articles/480511/eyewitness-testimony-unreliable-trust

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/winterspring2012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/eyewitness.htm

Bump for Suzianne so you can easily find all the links I have posted with
references showing that science does in fact say what I am claiming it does.

For anyone who has a netflix account [USA region I believe] they might also
like to try out the series "Brain Games" [the first series in particular] to see
a whole bunch of ways your brain can be tricked and how much of what you
experience is an illusion.

Also...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/21/three_illusions_that_will_destroy_your_brain.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/01/08/optical_illusion_the_bulging_checkboard_illusion.html

And here I have a whole list of ways our brains go wrong...

http://skepdic.com/hiddenpersuaders.html

hidden persuaders (cognitive biases, fallacies, and illusions)

A term used by Geoffrey Dean and Ivan Kelly (2003) to describe affective, perceptual, and cognitive biases or illusions that lead to erroneous beliefs. Examples of hidden persuaders abound. Some of the more important ones are:

[list abbreviated because it's way to long to fit]

ad hoc hypothesis

affect bias

anchoring effect

....SNIP ......

hindsight bias

hypersensory perception

ideomotor effect

illusion of control

illusion of justice

illusion of skill

illusion of understanding

inattentional blindness

intentionality bias

loss aversion

...SNIP....

sunk-cost fallacy

testimonials (anecdotal evidence) http://skepdic.com/testimon.html

Texas-sharpshooter fallacy

wishful thinking.


"Technically these hidden persuaders can be described as ‘statistical artifacts and inferential biases’ (Dean and Kelly 2003: 180)." Dean and Kelly argue that hidden persuaders explain why many astrologers continue to believe in the validity of astrology despite overwhelming evidence that astrology is bunk. Psychologist Terence Hines, who has explored many varieties of hidden persuaders (Hines 2003), blames them for the continued use by psychologists of such instruments as the Rorschach test, despite overwhelming evidence that the test is invalid and useless:

Psychologists continue to believe in the Rorschach for the same reasons that Tarot card readers believe in Tarot cards, that palm readers believe in palm reading, and that astrologers believe in astrology: the well-known cognitive illusions that foster false belief. These include reliance on anecdotal evidence, selective memory for seeming successes, and reinforcement from colleagues. (Hines 2003)

The hidden persuaders originate in quite useful adaptations. Seeing patterns, especially causal patterns, is quite beneficial to our species. Recognizing how data support our beliefs and having others share those beliefs are also beneficial. Drawing inferences quickly may mean the difference between life and death. Having hope, reducing tension caused by conflicting ideas, and even deceiving ourselves can be psychologically advantageous. But all of these positive tendencies can become perverted and lead us into error if we are not careful. Many skeptics have noted that the hidden persuaders sometimes seem to affect people in proportion to their intelligence: the smarter one is the easier it is to develop false beliefs. There are several reasons for this: (1) the hidden persuaders affect everybody to some degree; (2) the smarter one is the easier it is to see patterns, fit data to a hypothesis, and draw inferences; (3) the smarter one is the easier it is to rationalize, i.e., explain away strong evidence contrary to one's belief; and (4) smart people are often arrogant and incorrectly think that they cannot be deceived by others, the data, or themselves. Hidden Persuaders (1957) is also the title of a book by Vance Packard. He chronicled the many methods, some pretty open and obvious, that advertisers use in their quest to manipulate the thoughts and actions of consumers. Packard attempted to expose corporate propaganda as a kind of mind control operation, especially in its use of subliminal messaging. What Dean and Kelly describe are the many ways in which we sell ourselves on ideas by putting up conceptual and perceptual blocks to thinking clearly and fairly about certain subjects.

So Suzianne... It's been a week.

Have you checked the links I posted to scientists saying that the things I have been saying are true?

Or have you been to scared to find out that you are wrong and that you don't accept science?

Originally posted by googlefudge
So Suzianne... It's been a week.

Have you checked the links I posted to scientists saying that the things I have been saying are true?

Or have you been to scared to find out that you are wrong and that you don't accept science?

Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]Why eyewitness testimony isn't reliable or sufficient for extraordinary claims.
Or why I wont [and we shouldn't] accept your 'personal experience' as evidence

It is often claimed by believers of all stripes that while they don't have any evidence
to show you to back up their claims of the supernatural, they have had a personal
exper ...[text shortened]... abducted and impregnated by aliens. ....[/quote]


If you cannot show it, you cannot know it.[/b]