tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post4771631196837098140..comments2023-05-11T04:57:33.365-07:00Comments on Trees For Lunch: The Authoritative Bent of Science and ScientismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-22392665874919487732010-08-01T12:42:07.293-07:002010-08-01T12:42:07.293-07:00JD: that's fair. Thanks.JD: that's fair. Thanks.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-68613366837991618742010-07-31T21:10:16.558-07:002010-07-31T21:10:16.558-07:00Look,
It wouldn't suprise me at all if, withi...Look,<br /><br />It wouldn't suprise me at all if, within specific (individual) databases acquired by Nexis, there was an upward trend of such phrases. More research would be appreciated to see if this is true.<br /><br />There, is that a fair statement?J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-69131359848978668572010-07-31T19:33:55.850-07:002010-07-31T19:33:55.850-07:00It's a small internet.It's a small internet.ATVLChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429750754446304918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-42004013086009839002010-07-31T01:05:25.283-07:002010-07-31T01:05:25.283-07:00ATVLC (hey ATVLC! Long time no see!) and Christ F...ATVLC (hey ATVLC! Long time no see!) and Christ Follower (no longer) said it: in the absence of controls, for the size of the database and the context of the phrases searched out, this graph is meaningless. As they say, garbage in, garbage out.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-60101409467276717552010-07-30T19:35:58.922-07:002010-07-30T19:35:58.922-07:00"the graph is meaningless."
Hardly, it ..."<i>the graph is meaningless.</i>"<br /><br />Hardly, it just depends what conclusions you are drawing from it; as is true of all such things. But this is hardly the fora to get into such a topic in depth.Jquiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12391075666581691159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-40861211458403988982010-07-30T18:31:38.731-07:002010-07-30T18:31:38.731-07:00The chart (below) vividly shows the increasing use...<i>The chart (below) vividly shows the increasing use of those particular phrases</i>. <br /><br />No, it doesn't. It shows nothing about the <i>rate</i> of use so how can it show use is increasing.Christ Follower (no longer)https://www.blogger.com/profile/03448878645807494387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-18289531801348564092010-07-30T18:27:39.397-07:002010-07-30T18:27:39.397-07:00the overlaps go back to the mid-nineties when the ...the overlaps go back to the mid-nineties when the increases occur.<br /><br />the graph tells us nothing about the rate of use of any of the phrases, nothing about the contexts, nothing. the graph is meaningless.Christ Follower (no longer)https://www.blogger.com/profile/03448878645807494387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-62694199254218547492010-07-30T18:09:44.251-07:002010-07-30T18:09:44.251-07:00"They searched the media database."
Ah,..."<i>They searched the media database.</i>"<br /><br />Ah, good catch. Same point.<br /><br />"<i>some acquisitions seem to have small databases of a few years.</i>"<br /><br />So there we have it. They have both history from those databases as well as continuing product. Studies done in this manner, over multiple overlapping series, are quite normal and there's not evidence of dilution in the tails that would lead one to believe that it is not credible as stands.<br /><br />If you wish to disagree with such things you can be my guest. But it does mean that we have to throw out the bulk of all science that compels us that has been generated since the 70s for the same reasoning. I'm good either way.Jquiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12391075666581691159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-18868272245055095862010-07-30T15:03:30.940-07:002010-07-30T15:03:30.940-07:00And what years were those? And what years did thos...<i>And what years were those? And what years did those purchased databases cover</i>? <br /><br />Mid 1990's bought by Reed Elsevier from Mead Data Central.<br /><br />From 1994 they bought the searching or databases of: Michie Company, Martindale-Hubbell, Matthew Bender (data from 1993 on), Mealey's Litigation Reports, The RiskWise Database (in 2000), Anderson, Seisint Inc (in 2004), Gould Publications, Weil Publishing, Shepard's Citations.<br />(data from wiki and company websites.)<br />You could probably do a better job at finding the details. It doesn't matter the graph can't show whether the rate of these phrases is increasing.<br /><br /><i>Your argument is only facially correct if the databases they purchased were all initially empty</i>.<br /><br />Some acquisitions just added the ability of search more media, some acquisitions seem to have small databases of a few years. LexisNexis looks like one of those companies that's after a monopoly!ATVLChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429750754446304918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-87280853648536172762010-07-30T14:37:19.641-07:002010-07-30T14:37:19.641-07:00And let us not forget that this is Lexis -- a lega...<i>And let us not forget that this is Lexis -- a legal database -- in a discussion about science fetishism and authoritarianism</i>.<br /><br />Lexis Nexis is a company which sell access to two main databases. Lexis is the legal one. Nexis is the media one.<br /><br /><b>We searched Nexis for the following phrases</b>... <br /><br />They searched the media database.ATVLChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429750754446304918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-26968410753687753302010-07-30T14:24:21.015-07:002010-07-30T14:24:21.015-07:00ATVLC: "THERE IS NO CONTROL PHRASES IN THE GR...ATVLC: "<i>THERE IS NO CONTROL PHRASES IN THE GRAPH. THE UPWARD TREND IS MEANINGLESS and almost certainly caused by the companies acquisition of various databases. (Every year they buy a new database all the phrases jump.)</i>"<br /><br />And what years were those? And what years did those purchased databases cover? Your argument is only facially correct if the databases they purchased were all initially empty.<br /><br />And let us not forget that this is Lexis -- a legal database -- in a discussion about science fetishism and authoritarianism.<br /><br />Froggie: "<i>I also maintain that The real problem is that the understanding of science in our society is so shallow.</i>"<br /><br />I share your sentiment if not your conclusion. Nonetheless neither of our hopes on this count can be achieved until education starts turning out graduates that are both literate and capable of doing basic addition on paper. Neither of which is being accomplished anymore.Jquiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12391075666581691159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-49706007837527129722010-07-30T11:50:57.522-07:002010-07-30T11:50:57.522-07:00Please hurry, lest I perish of curiosity....Please hurry, lest I perish of curiosity....Froggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12972110380349786742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-6773010253891511482010-07-30T11:02:20.226-07:002010-07-30T11:02:20.226-07:00By revelation I mean the supposed gaining of infor...<i>By revelation I mean the supposed gaining of information through active or passive communication with supernatural entities</i><br /><br />There are 2 things here. The topic of whether information was communicated through a supernatural entity and whether or not said information/instructions are useful.<br /><br />The former we could go around and around on for days and accomplish little.<br /><br />The latter is more substantive in that there are (in the case of Christianity), solid examPles of that which was claimed to be divinely inspired and we can examine it. Actually this will segui into my next entry which I was going to get into anyway.J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-26371773054148774982010-07-30T09:58:03.697-07:002010-07-30T09:58:03.697-07:00TCA,
I also maintain that The real problem is that...TCA,<br />I also maintain that The real problem is that the understanding of science in our society is so shallow. In the future, if we want to have enough water, enough food and enough energy without totally destroying our planet, then we will have to be dependent on good science.Froggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12972110380349786742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-45150350034226608972010-07-30T08:59:20.774-07:002010-07-30T08:59:20.774-07:00TCA,
I totally respect that.TCA,<br />I totally respect that.Froggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12972110380349786742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-45497189252346981552010-07-30T08:39:35.425-07:002010-07-30T08:39:35.425-07:00Froggie,
I for one love Science. My favorite cha...Froggie,<br /><br />I for one love Science. My favorite channels are the History Channel, the Science Channel, and Discovery. I am most interested in explorations of Quantuum Mechanics. The more I learn, the more I am amazed at God's creation. Sir, the things that are discovered in Science far from leading me to the conclusion that God does not exist, lead me to the ocnclusion that God does exist.<br /><br />True Christians have nothing to fear from Science, and everything to gain.The Catholic Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11346882586629450512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-46570024544384061432010-07-30T04:50:27.331-07:002010-07-30T04:50:27.331-07:00It is interesting to note that a lot of the ant-sc...It is interesting to note that a lot of the ant-science rhetoric comes from people who have no knowledge or education in science and who base their opinions on religious beliefs.Froggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12972110380349786742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-25738761373054630082010-07-30T03:37:40.272-07:002010-07-30T03:37:40.272-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.ATVLChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429750754446304918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-45169717643376413472010-07-30T03:36:40.683-07:002010-07-30T03:36:40.683-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.ATVLChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429750754446304918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-42714678876465608192010-07-30T03:36:18.073-07:002010-07-30T03:36:18.073-07:00I just find the phrase "Science requires more...<i>I just find the phrase "Science requires more money" a bit spookey because it is too general and doesnt actually refer to a specific project</i>.<br /><br />That was just an example of a phrase that starts with "science requires". <br /><br /><i> But the upward trend would have me believing that mindset of the aformentioned idiot spouting off in my church is more and more common. I encounter it in different forums from time to time</i>.<br /><br />(Man, I hate to be the kind of person who types in all-caps but)<br />THERE IS NO CONTROL PHRASES IN THE GRAPH. THE UPWARD TREND IS MEANINGLESS and almost certainly caused by the companies acquisition of various databases. (Every year they buy a new database all the phrases jump.)<br /><br />You said this fellow uses the phrase "We must use science" and he's right if he means "We must use the scientific method to answer scientific questions."<br />I'd like to see the graph against phrases like "God said" or "Jesus told me...", etc.<br /><br /><i>The results appear to indicate an upward trend in such phrases. You can say that the researcj might not have been "scientific", but the results have some value at some level</i>.<br /><br />The results have meaning as propaganda tools, yes.<br /><br />----------<br /><br />I asked what was the alternatives to using the scientific method to discovering scientific facts.<br />One answer so far: revelation. I know which method is more useful.<br /><br />--------------------------------<br />This is off topic and I know everyone will want to see this.<br /><br />The author of The Pink Swastika on the Daily Show.<br /><br />http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-28-2010/gay-reichs<br /><br />If you're Canadian.<br />http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip328964<br /><br />PZ discusses. <br />http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/more_savage_than_natural_men.phpATVLChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429750754446304918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-35539280133942625472010-07-30T01:49:36.562-07:002010-07-30T01:49:36.562-07:00By revelation I mean the supposed gaining of infor...By revelation I mean the supposed gaining of information through active or passive communication with supernatural entities.Christ Follower (no longer)https://www.blogger.com/profile/03448878645807494387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-23982493506286120212010-07-29T20:06:04.277-07:002010-07-29T20:06:04.277-07:00JD: Popper is best known currently for his revival...JD: Popper is best known currently for his revival of falsificationism. However, he also stated that a topic was correctly a scientific theory if it was agreed to be so by a consensus of those in the field. Likewise he stated that no new theory can, or should, replace an older theory unless it both explained more than the old theory and had corroboration of its correctness that could not be explained by the old theory.<br /><br />So, in the wee ages of it, relativity was considered a scientific theory because it was believed to be so by a consensus of people that lacked the technology to test it directly. After tests were performed it then gained the ability to unseat Newtonian Physics.Jquiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12391075666581691159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-18515064563261296192010-07-29T19:48:12.059-07:002010-07-29T19:48:12.059-07:00You know JC,
Many Scientists forget how much Scie...You know JC,<br /><br />Many Scientists forget how much Science advanced when it was taken for granted that God existed. Many Scientists forget that intelligent life existed prior to the 19th century. Scientists conviently forget that the first person to formally propose that the Earth is not the center of the Solar System was a Catholic priest! Copernicus was a priest.<br /><br />Maybe just maybe if Scientists would look at the world as created by God, and seek to understand how Science and Theology are not mutually opposed, but rather are two sides of the same coin- we might see real Scientific progress.The Catholic Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11346882586629450512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-68712134409916938692010-07-29T19:20:11.386-07:002010-07-29T19:20:11.386-07:00this goes back to Popper as well
Youre talking ab...<i>this goes back to Popper as well</i><br /><br />Youre talking about falsifiability as a criteria for legitimate science I guess?J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4434842591971703006.post-28889721673042311992010-07-29T17:16:03.831-07:002010-07-29T17:16:03.831-07:00"I think I know what you are getting at. One ..."<i>I think I know what you are getting at. One could test the validity of information/instructions received via revelation rather than simply accepting them on face value..</i>"<br /><br />I think CFnl is actually after repetition to others as establishing the proof. eg. God reveals to CFnl His existence. How then does CFnl prove it to ATVLC? <br /><br />This is a common and fundamental misunderstanding about science nowadays. Unless ATVLC repeats the recipe based on the instructions that CFnl gives him then ATVLC has no personal knowledge on the freezing point of ice. If ATVLC merely trusts CFnl's revelation about 32 degrees Farenheit then ATVLC has simply taken CFnl on faith as a trustworthy individual. Of course nothing changes if ATVLC is incapable of following the instructions due technological limitations either; dragging him around again, this goes back to Popper as well.Jquiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12391075666581691159noreply@blogger.com