Logical fallacy.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Mainstream Science
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
The places where government mostly does what it should do have banned preaching the gospel. I might go anyway.
Why is that question a logical fallacy? It is not an argument, just a question based on Clete's earlier comment.
It falls under the false dilemma, because of the presumption that mainstream science is correct.
Places like where?
Kuwait. The UAE. You're allowed to earn a living. But brewing alcohol and preaching the gospel are crimes.
Well, the entire basis of science is skepticism so there is always the possibility that a particular bit of science would not be accurate. That's the reason science changes on occasion---we got past the miasma theory of disease for example when scientists started to understand and formulate the germ theory of disease. In the mid 1800's John Snow investigated cholera outbreaks and determined they were connected not by "bad air" but by something bad in certain wells in London.
Scientists also determined that atoms, first thought to be indivisible, in fact are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons which are themselves made up of other pieces--quarks for example.
Many thought the unit of inheritance had to be a protein base because proteins are complicated---surprise DNA
But I think the general thought now in 2024 is mainstream science is in fact correct on most things. Again, if you are the person able to show major inconsistencies in a generally accepted scientific theory---Hello Nobel.
Right Divider
Body part
Quite the classic response.
Why does "general thought now" hold any weight with science? It does not.
Of course it does. Do you question the fact the earth revolves around the sun? Germ theory vs miasma? That DNA is transcribed/translated to RNA and that is how proteins are made in cells?
Aren't each of those examples part of generally accepted mainstream science?
Right Divider
Body part
No, it does not.
I don't believe anything is "scientific" because it's "generally accepted". That's not how science works. You are falling into fallacy again.
And you did not answer the questions I posed.
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, I did. Just not the way that you wanted me to.
Well, no. I asked a couple of specific questions and you did not answer them. OK if
You don't want to do so.
Right Divider
Body part
The answers to those were implied in my previous answer. The answer was YES, but NOT because they are "generally accepted". General acceptance is meaningless with regard to scientific truth.
I believe that the earth orbits the sun based on many simple observations and not because many people agree with it.
I think that Michael Crichton said it very well (as you can see in my signature lines):
“Consensus is the business of politics. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Crichton said that in a speech at Cal Tech in 2003. He was a climate change skeptic and was bemoaning the consensus then developing around climate change. I think this was not long after Mann's hockey stick graph became well known.
But Crichton overstated his complaint re science consensus. He gave several examples in his talk about consensus in science. But his examples each ended in the particular consensus changing. His examples dealt with change in consensus based on better information. One was my favorite about Alfred Wegener in the early 1900's. Wegener described continental drift based on geology, biology, paleontology etc. However, Wegener had no mechanism to support his theory. It wasn't until the middle of the last century when Heezen and Tharp, mapping the sea floor, were able to suggest a mechanism for plate tectonics that Wegener made more sense. There is now a consensus in science, a general agreement, that plate tectonics is actually the likely explanation for certain geological processes over time.
Crichton died almost 16 years ago so we cannot know if his position on climate change would have remained the same. I'll note too that Crichton was a fiction writer with an MD who never practiced. He was not a scientist. One of his complaints, maybe justified, about climate change was that emphasis and government and other money spent there took away from funds available to cure disease, feed people and ameliorate poverty. Since climate change has the potential to cause a great deal of damage to, and interference with, human culture I think understanding it is likely to effect our understanding of the impact of disease on certain areas, crop and food production and poverty. Crichton's criticism may have been well-meaning but perhaps misplaced.
Right Divider
Body part
Crichton was correct to be skeptical of the climate hysteria that is based on bogus science that had become a "consensus" as opposed to real science.
Yes, the consensus is meaningless with regard to actual scientific truth.
Sometimes it works that way and sometimes not. Consensus is not science.
Plate tectonics is another bogus theory based on nonsense and consensus. Seafloor spreading is a completely ridiculous idea.
https://hpt.rsr.org/onlinebook/FAQ223.html#wp16506849
His knowledge of science seems to be much better than yours.
Nope. His criticism was correct then and is just as valid today.
Have a nice life
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, I understand that you cannot handle a justified criticism of your position.
P.S. The Hydro-Plate Theory is a much better scientific explanation of the earth than the current "consensus" of Plate Tectonics.
Uh, no. The Hydro-Plate Theory is funnier than plate tectonics--about the only thing it has going for it. How many H-bombs worth of energy does it take in what period of time to make it work?
Right Divider
Body part
Your opinion does not impress me.
The fact of the matter is that HPT explains all of the features that we see on earth far better than any other theory.
Things like:
- The mid-Atlantic ridge
- The 90 east ridge
- The location of the major mountain ranges and the associated plateaus
- The Grand Canyon
- The earth's radioactivity
- The Pacific ring of fire
- The sunken crust under the Pacific ocean
- etc. etc. etc.
Last edited: