Posted on 12/04/2009 9:55:41 PM PST by Gordon Greene
Near as I can figure, peer review isn't about determining the truth of the matter. It's just about determining whether the proper procedures were followed in doing the research. I don't think that there's much else they can actually, technically, objectively determine from reviewing a paper
One correction though: mathematics is not science.
Moreover, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences (Wigner) is to me like God's copyright notice on the cosmos.
Mathematics claims logical proofs. Science can make no such claim.
The difference is that no one claims infallibility for science. (Well, maybe a few do, like Dawkins, but mostly not, and not here.) That's why peer review exists--to check one another's work. Who checks the work of translators who, we are told, were guided by the hand of God?
Looking at Job 40:17, the verse that's supposed to be about a dinosaur, I see the familiar "He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together." And also "It makes its tail stiff like a cedar. The ligaments of its thighs are intertwined." But also "He setteth up his tail like a cedar, the sinews of his testicles are wrapped together." So is the tail stiff or swaying? Is it even a "tail" at all, or another appendage? And is the second sentence about leg muscles or something associated with that other appendage? What process is there for deciding which of those translations was guided by the hand of God?
Putting aside for the moment the question of whether that's really true or not (and how you know), it's irrelevant. No one had to know that in order to show that maggots did not spontaneously generate from rotting meat. People did not have to know the correct answer in order to identify a wrong one.
[[And after saying ‘noone has a monopoly on bible interpretations’, they act like they do by proceeding to tell us that we’re wrong. ]]
Precisely, and what’s even funnier- they can attack other people’s beleifs in public forums, but when we defend our beleifs, they go mental and insist that we can’t discuss ‘religious issues’ in public places ,and demand that the thread be moved to hte back room where noone really goes. It’s l;ike dealing with kids before hte age or reasoning
Sorry I had to leave your party early yesterday. Thanks for the invitation but I have a life outside of FR.
Despite the fact that the FRevos are not even paid to post!
“I’ m still here.”
As am I.
You’ve been engaging in a discussion with one of the least mentally proficient creation rationalizers at FR. A follower, really—kind of an Igor or Renfield who simply parrots what the others are posting while entertaining thoughts of greater self-importance.
Now that this thread is winding down, perhaps it would be a good time to inform GG that, in French, “two” is spelled “deux”, not “deaux”.
To claim a special meaning or usage for a word simply because one chooses to apply it in a certain way is the kind of linguistic destruction described by Orwell. If I hold up two fingers and demand that all agree with my saying it is to be called three or four fingers then it becomes impossible for us to discuss numbers at all.
Further if my usage becomes a jargon understood and used only by a rather small coterie its as though they speak a different, isolating language.
This isn't a matter of one person having a larger vocabulary but with meanings of words. If I use a word in a way not typical to my audience then I'm responsible to define exactly what I mean, that is if I wish to be be understood. Demanding that my reader or listener play detective with my usage of words just won't do.
True, certain disciplines have their own vocabularies, a jargon, but that is not the same as assigning an arbitrary meaning to words.
Take the much bandied about “species”. If one is of the Biblical “creationist” view then species will likely be used in the broad sense of being able to reproduce, interbreed, whether with help or on the animal's own, a kind, a common group.
If one is a Darwinist then Wikipedia will provide a dozen different definitions, take your pick.
A dictionary might simply say a class of things with common attributes and name. But what attributes?
Recently a large number of dinosaur “species” disappeared when it was realized they were only already existing animals in a different stage of growth.
Species is the eye of the beholder.
Mathematics, as defined at this source: Princeton.edu is "a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement."
I like your "God's copyright" concept, but I do not quite understand what you mean by "unreasonable" effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences, as mathematics involves quantitative measurements and "unreasonableness" by contrast is a rather subjective, non-quantitative metric.
Mathematics claims logical proofs. Science can make no such claim.
Where mathematics is defined as it is above, I believe science can indeed make such a claim.
The reason I teed you up to this comment was because I happened upon a thread the other day that I had saved from back in 2005, which I found quite fascinating at the time entitled, 'Theory of everything' tying researchers up in knots" , and I found your writing throughout the thread to be quite profound. So, I do definitely have an appreciation for your perspective on this topic:
This was an interesting article revealing a bit of infighting among physicists wrt string theory.
IMHO, it points to an ideological difference which would stem from the priority given to pure mathematics in physics. Indeed we've seen similar disputes here on the forum between those of us who center on the mathematics (information theory, complexity, etc.) related to evolution and those who center on the sciences (biology, chemistry, genetics, paleontology).
It is a philosophical difference which I believe we would all benefit from exploring.
Personally, I fall on the “math first” side of the debate – I put mathematics above all sciences - and physics at the top of the science heap because of its integration with the mathematics.
The thing I like about dialog with you is that while we agree on much, where we disagree with respect to whether Schroeder's view of Genesis days is correct or our respective inclusions or exclusions where it comes to the meaning of the term,"science," is concerned we are able to do so pleasantly.
Be well, Sister!
“Sorry I had to leave your party early yesterday. Thanks for the invitation but I have a life outside of FR.”
Yesterday was an unusually slow day for me so I got to hang for a while. Unlike some, my life is full enough that I don’t have time to post back and forth often, but the debate was plentiful so I stuck it out. Wish you could have been here more, but alas... I’m sure you are the social butterfly.
May God in His vast Creation and endless bounty grant you blessings beyond your capacity to receive and leave you with no human explanation as to how... that’s all I got, man.
Evolutionists have routinely credited their "peer-review" process with having been able to ferret out such things as the more recent van Zeiten frauds of 2004-2005, and even the the Pildown frauds of the '20's.
I know, it wasn't "peer review" either, just hoaxes busted as hoaxes, while the academic "peer review" community was busy running interference or looking the other way.
The only thing materialists haven't yet seemed to subject the "peer review" process to are such age old questions like "Jif, or Skippy?" "Coke or Pepsi?" and, "Stripes or Plaids?"
Again, since when it all comes down to it in their view it's neither right nor wrong and "peer review" is all about establishing consensus, we'll just have to see which researchers make the loudest political belch for which.
I (very) humbly appreciate the encouragement. I’d like to have more confidence, but my intellect and lack of education constantly remind me of my insufficiencies.
If I didn’t have God, I’d have given up long ago (seriously)... I’m so glad He uses us in spite of our limitations.
God bless.
GG
I just thought it was an equally misspelled Freudian slip telling us that his little morality play requires a deus ex machina plot twist to tie all of the loose ends together.....
You have a few options available to you to find out more for yourself.
You can study Hebrew (and/or Greek) and learn the language yourself.
You can access any of the many online Bibles and study guides.
Here’s one link...
Hebrew Interlinear Bible (OT)
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
There’s also the old standby of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
http://www.biblestudytools.com/concordances/strongs-exhaustive-concordance/
There are also translations which are easier to understand because they are in more contemporary English.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=
The words *stiff* and *swaying* are not mutually exclusive.
Trees sway in the wind. Buildings sway in earthquakes.
Have fun.
Thanks for the pointers. I like the sites that explore the different meanings of the Hebrew words—that’s how I learned that the word translated as “windows” in “windows of heaven” always means an opening in a physical barrier.
I was going to take some Hebrew in college—it would have been my first non-Romance language—but the semester I’d made room for it, they didn’t offer it for some reason.
But it seems like a corollary to your recommendations is that some Bible translations might contain errors. Which means that we can’t necessarily rely on them to have been guided by the hand of God. I wonder how everyone here who insists on the infallibility of translations decided which one to put their faith in.
“The words *stiff* and *swaying* are not mutually exclusive.”
True. But if someone wants to use that verse to show that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, it pretty much has to be “swaying.” Stiff tails—much less the other thing “tail” might refer to—are hardly unique to dinos.
The "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences" is the title of a major essay by Wigner. If you'd like, you can read it here
Wigner and his essay are also cited by Cumrun Vafa in a lecture he gave on geometric physics raising even more examples of the phenomenon.
As to mathematics not being science, that's the claim most of the scientists around here have made for years. And the meaning of the term "science" has also changed over time. Originally it was philosophy, but now of course scientists insist that philosophy is not science.
Beginning of Modern Science and Modern Philosophy
You claim that, because mathematics can and does, in at least many of its results, achieve certain truth, we should expect the same of the natural sciences.
You don't use the term "natural" science, but this is precisely the problem. You ignore the critical distinction that mathematics, even if it is a science, is not a natural science.
We can achieve certainty in mathematics precisely because we know the "laws" that govern all possible operations of the relevant systems in advance. In the natural sciences we do not have this information in advance. IT is, rather, those laws what we are trying to discover by doing science. The whole process is almost exactly opposite. In mathematics we start with the rules, and investigate their consequences. In natural science we start with the consequences, and try to infer the rules that cause them.
To claim that we can achieve certainty in natural science the same way we can in mathematics, is to claim to know all the laws of nature, IOW to claim to have the knowledge of GOD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.