Wesley Bruce wrote:
More closely resembling the treatment that creationists get in science. I
have creationist friends, PhD's, that have done a large (170+) sample
single blind test on radiometric dating and it Failed completely.
I know nothing about these instruments, but that sounds highly unlikely to
me. It reminds me of assertions that hundreds of cold-fusion scientists
have all made gross errors in calorimetry. I do not think that 170
professionals using well-understood conventional instruments could all make
giant mistakes. Large groups of scientists may be wrong about theory, and
they may be wrong about subjects they have not themselves researched, but
it is very unlikely that they are wrong about how to do their daily work.
Some people assert that "lie detectors" (polygraphs) do not work. That is
to say, the instruments are not really indicate whether people are telling
the truth, especially when the subject is a pathological criminal or con
man. Perhaps that is true, but no one asserts that lie detectors do not
accurately measure blood pressure, muscle tension and other physiological
traits. The interpretation of these traits is disputed, not the basic
functionality of the instrument or the competence of the people using the
instrument. No one claims that polygraph results are random, or not
replicatable, and that different operators would derive random results in
blind tests on the same subject.
I am assuming that Bruce is not disputing the theory of operation of
radiometric dating, but rather the operator's skills. Perhaps he disputes
both. In any case, I have never heard of a case in which it turned out that
a widely-used, modern, conventional scientific instrument did not actually
function as claimed.
Although in general I oppose the suppression of scientific discoveries, I
do think there are many pernicious ideas that deserve to be ignored,
marginalized, or condemned because they are dangerous. Creationism is at
the top of the list, along with the notion that AIDS is not caused by HIV,
and that global warming -- if real -- would be good for us (the Greening
Earth Society's position).
There is a fine line between disagreeing and suppressing. It is *very*
difficult for someone in my position to assert that any idea should be
ignored, because after all, that is what most people say about cold fusion.
Yet I believe there are firm standards -- permanent, indisputable standards
of truth -- and cold fusion should be taken seriously precisely because it
meets these standards. Cold fusion's greatest strength is that the
experiments are conventional and grounded in 19th century physics. I also
firmly believe that creationism does not meet a single one of these
standards; it cannot be falsified or verified; and it has no scientific
merit. Permanent, indisputable standards cut both ways: some assertions
fail to meet them, and we should not hesitate to say so.
I realize that many people say that about cold fusion but they have not
studied the data, and many of them such as Taubes are not qualified discuss
the subject. I *have* studied biology, and I have given serious
consideration to creationist claims.
Even in the case of cold fusion, I do not oppose all forms of suppression.
For example, I think it would be premature to include a discussion of cold
fusion in a high school or undergraduate textbook. I do not think we should
embark on a billion-dollar Manhattan Project to develop cold fusion energy.
We do not know whether it can be made practical, so we should not risk that
kind of money. And, needless to say, many of the claims made at ICCF
conferences are weak, and many have not been replicated, so we cannot
believe them.
- Jed
- Re: Due Diligence on CF Jed Rothwell
-
