Comments on: Naturalists Are Inherently Uncertain http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/01/03/naturalists-are-inherently-uncertain/ Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:58:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Dan Klarmann http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/01/03/naturalists-are-inherently-uncertain/comment-page-1/#comment-32922 Dan Klarmann Sun, 04 Jan 2009 23:55:46 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=4063#comment-32922 Actually, I was referring to the December 1995 Scientific American Mathematical Recreations column entitled "Murphy's Law demystified: Why toast falls butter-side down." They did a mathematical analysis (gravity, lateral velocity, initial orientation, angular momentum, and air resistance) and ran some tests to confirm it from the typical conditions out to the margins of the theory. I doubt they did as many trials as the London Telegraph. But they had a rigorous model to test, not just an observation to confirm. Actually, I was referring to the December 1995 Scientific American Mathematical Recreations column entitled “Murphy’s Law demystified: Why toast falls butter-side down.”
They did a mathematical analysis (gravity, lateral velocity, initial orientation, angular momentum, and air resistance) and ran some tests to confirm it from the typical conditions out to the margins of the theory.

I doubt they did as many trials as the London Telegraph. But they had a rigorous model to test, not just an observation to confirm.

]]> By: Erich Vieth http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/01/03/naturalists-are-inherently-uncertain/comment-page-1/#comment-32820 Erich Vieth Sun, 04 Jan 2009 05:25:20 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=4063#comment-32820 I tracked down the buttered toast experiment. Of almost 10,000 trials, toast landed butter-side down 62 per cent of the time - far more often than the 50 per cent predicted by skeptical scientists. Based on so broad a study, the probability of achieving so big a difference by chance alone is vanishingly small. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1331810/Breakfast-at-Murphys-or-why-the-toast-lands-butter-side-down.html I tracked down the buttered toast experiment.

Of almost 10,000 trials, toast landed butter-side down 62 per cent of the time - far more often than the 50 per cent predicted by skeptical scientists. Based on so broad a study, the probability of achieving so big a difference by chance alone is vanishingly small.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1331810/Breakfast-at-Murphys-or-why-the-toast-lands-butter-side-down.html

]]> By: Dan Klarmann http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/01/03/naturalists-are-inherently-uncertain/comment-page-1/#comment-32794 Dan Klarmann Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:41:32 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=4063#comment-32794 And what is this "macroevolution" thing? A process exists, such as a train ride. Most people will recognize that a train can take you downtown: Microtransportation. But why then argue that it is inconceivable that the same sort of system might take you cross country? Because it would take longer? I believe that Macrotransportation is not only possible, but real. In part because the tracks are there for anyone to see. Microevolution concedes that evolution has happened, and is happening, as directly observed in the wild, in labs, in genomes, etc. Macroevolution says that the exact same thing happens over longer periods, as observed in the wild, in the fossil record, and in the genomes. I don't get it. (<sub>Spam word: calming</sub>) And what is this "macroevolution" thing? A process exists, such as a train ride. Most people will recognize that a train can take you downtown: Microtransportation.
But why then argue that it is inconceivable that the same sort of system might take you cross country? Because it would take longer? I believe that Macrotransportation is not only possible, but real. In part because the tracks are there for anyone to see.

Microevolution concedes that evolution has happened, and is happening, as directly observed in the wild, in labs, in genomes, etc.
Macroevolution says that the exact same thing happens over longer periods, as observed in the wild, in the fossil record, and in the genomes.

I don’t get it.
(Spam word: calming)

]]> By: Dan Klarmann http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/01/03/naturalists-are-inherently-uncertain/comment-page-1/#comment-32792 Dan Klarmann Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:20:27 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=4063#comment-32792 Data is not "cherry picked". Data that doesn't match a theory is not discarded. Anyone caught concealing unfavorable data without properly explaining what was wrong with it would be chastised, and then ignored. No reputable scientist in the last several generations would risk doing that. "Bad" data has led to confirming some surprising new theories. Like general relativity. But it has to be on the books for the process to work. Our understanding of geology is getting pretty good. Dating a rock depends on the type of rock, and what you are dating. A lava flow is freshly regurgitated stone. Parts of it are recycled older rocks. Therefore, one needs to know the geological case to determine what sort of radiological (or other) dating method<b>s</b> to use. A rock from a neolithic camp fire may give the age of the last campfire, and possibly also of the time the rock formed. Sedimentary rocks cannot be accurately dated using isotopes, unless fossils or certain types of crystals are present. Igneous rocks get reset each time they are melted. Data is not "cherry picked". Data that doesn’t match a theory is not discarded. Anyone caught concealing unfavorable data without properly explaining what was wrong with it would be chastised, and then ignored. No reputable scientist in the last several generations would risk doing that.

“Bad” data has led to confirming some surprising new theories. Like general relativity. But it has to be on the books for the process to work.

Our understanding of geology is getting pretty good. Dating a rock depends on the type of rock, and what you are dating. A lava flow is freshly regurgitated stone. Parts of it are recycled older rocks. Therefore, one needs to know the geological case to determine what sort of radiological (or other) dating methods to use.

A rock from a neolithic camp fire may give the age of the last campfire, and possibly also of the time the rock formed. Sedimentary rocks cannot be accurately dated using isotopes, unless fossils or certain types of crystals are present. Igneous rocks get reset each time they are melted.

]]> By: Karl http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/01/03/naturalists-are-inherently-uncertain/comment-page-1/#comment-32748 Karl Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:54:22 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=4063#comment-32748 Can radioctive dating techniques take any rock from any location (assuming no contamination and fooling with its chemistry) and give you a hard and fast date for how old it is? Can the technique somehow roll back the hands of time to tell you both the manner and time of its deposition? Why must someone tell the rock location and either presumed or actual known history before the technique yields useful results? You know as well as I do that the technique cherry picks the data it likes and discards the rest as explanable errors that will one day all be documented and not a problem. Why then are so many articles written with certainty about anything that radioactive dating tries to claim? Can radioctive dating techniques take any rock from any location (assuming no contamination and fooling with its chemistry) and give you a hard and fast date for how old it is? Can the technique somehow roll back the hands of time to tell you both the manner and time of its deposition?

Why must someone tell the rock location and either presumed or actual known history before the technique yields useful results? You know as well as I do that the technique cherry picks the data it likes and discards the rest as explanable errors that will one day all be documented and not a problem.

Why then are so many articles written with certainty about anything that radioactive dating tries to claim?

]]> By: Karl http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/01/03/naturalists-are-inherently-uncertain/comment-page-1/#comment-32746 Karl Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:42:22 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=4063#comment-32746 These comments were from a rewording of another DI writer who was commenting upon my beliefs in catastrophism. I was using the same comments to show that the same mentality used against unprovable recorded human history us used to favor the work of naturalist's extrapolations that are based upon long term steady state invariability. Both macroevolution and historical geology are used by naturalists to point to useful and assumed true facts. Facts others must try to tear down because they have insolated them from falsification. I was stating how this type of science assumes it is correct even though it is philosophy based, and not strictly scientifically based. Radioactive dating has been shown to be wrong in many ways. Its interesting how Dan runs and starts new blogs when an existing one would serve just fine. These comments were from a rewording of another DI writer who was commenting upon my beliefs in catastrophism. I was using the same comments to show that the same mentality used against unprovable recorded human history us used to favor the work of naturalist’s extrapolations that are based upon long term steady state invariability.

Both macroevolution and historical geology are used by naturalists to point to useful and assumed true facts. Facts others must try to tear down because they have insolated them from falsification.

I was stating how this type of science assumes it is correct even though it is philosophy based, and not strictly scientifically based. Radioactive dating has been shown to be wrong in many ways. Its interesting how Dan runs and starts new blogs when an existing one would serve just fine.

]]>