[angryoldfatman]

And it takes no great genius to ask questions for which there are not answers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You’re right there, I never claimed to be a genius.

However, after all of the junk science I’ve seen (”climate change” being the most recent and prominent of it), and seeing the similar arguments used to support neo-Darwinian evolution (percentage of scientists’ consensus, settled science, evidence provided by vested interests, etc.), it leads me to my conclusion.

How much study do you need to answer some of the most basic questions that underpin the theory? We’ve had over 150 years. Most laymen (read: non-geniuses) should not be able to come up with unanswerable questions.

Should we be calling academics “scientists” when they simply pull “sexual selection” out of their hats when they can’t explain a trait that (logically) should have been eradicated by natural selection? And then they even claim that it PROVES their theory and call people stupid for questioning it, instead of prompting a re-examination of the theory?

If you have to use the Dawkins trifecta - anyone who doesn’t believe what I do is either “stupid, ignorant, or insane” - to upgrade your hypothesis to theory, it’s not very good science.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You’ve just recited some famous controversies or frauds from 100+ years ago, as if they happened yesterday.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You act like we don’t use theories from 100+ years ago.

Science is science, or so I’m told.

The methods by which those hoaxes permeated and endured in scientific academia is the most instructive part of those incidents.

Many of those methods that allowed those hoaxes to be foisted onto scientists of the time are still in place. For example, most of the Devonian fish fossils (with a very small number of notable exceptions) are small bone fragments extrapolated into entire creatures.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In fact, in every case, science worked just as it is supposed to: errors were reviewed, exposed & corrected eventually, by other scientists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You mean they asked questions about “settled science”? Imagine that! Oh no, wait, they found other evidence of outright tampering, but never questioned the premise upon which the fossils themselves were based.

“Your Honor, Mr. Jones is most assuredly a murderer, but this knife was planted at the scene. However, I’m sure the REAL knife will turn up, and possibly some other weapons he used to kill the victim with, if we just search another 150 years or so.”

[BroJoeK]

Angryoldfatman: “...after all of the junk science I’ve seen (’climate change’ being the most recent and prominent of it), and seeing the similar arguments used to support neo-Darwinian evolution (percentage of scientists’ consensus, settled science, evidence provided by vested interests, etc.), it leads me to my conclusion.”

In the world of scientific terminology, AGW — anthropogenic global warming — qualifies as an unconfirmed, or at best, weakly confirmed **hypothesis**, since it has not yet accurately predicted future climate.

By sharp contrast, Darwin’s basic evolution **theory** is confirmed daily by many scientists working in related fields.
So, the fact that you can concoct questions which have not been answered does not negate the theory, just points to areas for future research.

The scientific term for disproving a theory is “falsification” and generally refers to new evidence which is contrary to the theory ‘ s predictions.
Basic evolution theory has never been falsified scientifically.

Angryoldfatman: “How much study do you need to answer some of the most basic questions that underpin the theory?”

OK... let me ask you a favor.
Please take a few minutes to write down what you imagine are these “basic questions”, and then rank them in your mind from most important on down.
I’ll answer them, and let’s see where that leads.

Angryoldfatman : “Should we be calling academics “scientists” when they simply pull “sexual selection” out of their hats when they can’t explain a trait that (logically) should have been eradicated by natural selection?”

Can you be more specific?

Angryoldfatman : “the methods by which those hoaxes permeated and endured in scientific academia is the most instructive part of those incidents.”

In fact, you mentioned three examples, all from 100+ years ago, two of which were frauds, one a controversy since resolved.
Of the two frauds, one was very quickly exposed, the other, Piltdown Man, took some years to fully understand, but 8n the end had no effect on our overall picture of prehistoric times.
So I don’t “get” why you still think it’s such a big deal.

Now I’m out of time, more later....

[BroJoeK]

angryoldfatman: "If you have to use the Dawkins trifecta -- anyone who doesn't believe what I do is either 'stupid, ignorant, or insane' -- to upgrade your hypothesis to theory, it's not very good science."

So, it seems, you do know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?
You may know that a hypothesis is a scientifically confirmable idea, while a theory is a hypothesis which has been strongly confirmed.

AGW -- anthropogenic global warming -- is an unconfirmed, or at best weakly confirmed, hypothesis.
It cannot qualify as strongly confirmed theory until its predictions -- measurable global warming caused by other than natural factors -- are demonstrated accurate.
Since that has not yet happened, AGW remains an interesting hypothesis which has, unfortunately, grabbed the imaginations of Big Government politicians.

By sharp contrast, Darwin's basic evolution hypothesis is confirmed daily by many, many working scientists in fields related to it.
Of course, "confirmed theory" doesn't mean you are required by law to believe it -- you're not.
You're not required to believe anything from science, just so long as you don't label your own contrary beliefs "science".

angryoldfatman: "Many of those methods that allowed those hoaxes to be foisted onto scientists of the time are still in place.
For example, most of the Devonian fish fossils (with a very small number of notable exceptions) are small bone fragments extrapolated into entire creatures."

And this is a problem because you suspect there were no Devonian fish?
Or is it that you tremble at the thought that sometime, somewhere, somehow some scientist may have got his/her interpretation of a particular fossil wrong?
This causes, what, a crisis of faith in your soul?
Why?

Scientists do the best they can with the data they have.
When new data comes along, or new ideas, then the science changes -- that's the way science is supposed to work.
So what exactly is your problem with that?

angryoldfatman: "You mean they asked questions about 'settled science'? Imagine that!
Oh no, wait, they found other evidence of outright tampering, but never questioned the premise upon which the fossils themselves were based."

No, of the three items you mentioned, only Piltdown Man was a serious hoax, created for the purpose of filling in the supposed "missing link" between humans & apes.
It was immediately suspected by some, as being too odd to be accepted, but it took nearly 40 years for formal investigations to utterly debunk it.

In the mean time, thousands of real fossils from hundreds of individuals in dozens of pre-human or early human populations were uncovered, each one providing a clearer & more precise picture of prehistoric times.
So, by the time Piltdown Man was formally overthrown, it had long since become an anomaly, outside the mainstream of science.

Bottom line: science moved-on beyond Piltdown Man, long before the "fossil" itself was formally debunked.

So what, exactly, is your problem with it?