termina wrote:Hello!
Creationist Jason Lisle (the one with a PhD in astrophysics) is fond of claiming that creationists and scientists alike interpret the evidence according to their worldviews.
A canard I've already addressed in the past in my creationist canard list, viz:
The "assumptions" canard (with "interpretation" side salad).This is a frequent favourite with creationists, and usually erected for the purpose of attempting to hand-wave away valid science when it happens not to genuflect before their ideological presuppositions. Science is in the business of
testing assumptions and presuppositions to destruction. As an example of destroying creationist apologetics with respect to this canard, I point interested readers to
this post, where I destroyed the lies of the laughably named "Answers in Genesis" with respect to their assertion that
14C dating was based upon "assumptions". I've also trashed this canard in detail with respect to radionuclide dating as a whole, so don't even try to go down that road. Likewise, if you try to erect this canard with respect to other valid scientific theories, you will be regarded as dishonest.
Another favourite piece of creationist mendacity is the "interpretation" assertion, which creationist erect for the purpose of suggesting that scientists force-fit data to presuppositions. Apart from the fact that this is manifestly false, it is also defamatory, and a direct slur on the integrity of thousands of honest, hard working scientists, who strive conscientiously and assiduously to ensure that conclusions drawn from real world observational data are robust conclusions to draw. This slur, of course, is yet another example of blatant projection on the part of creationists, who
manifestly operate on the basis of presupposition themselves, and appear to be incapable of imagining the very
existence of a means of determining substantive knowledge about the world that does
not rely upon presupposition. Well, I have news for you. Science does NOT rely upon "presupposition". Indeed, scientists have
expended considerable intellectual effort in the direction of ensuring that the conclusions they arrive at are
rigorously supported by the data that they present in their published papers. There exists much discourse in the scientific literature on the subject of avoiding fallacious or weak arguments, including much sterling work by people such as Ronald Fisher, who sought during their careers to bring rigour to the use of statistical inference in the physical and life sciences. Indeed, Fisher was responsible for
inventing the technique of analysis of variance, which is one of the prime tools used in empirical science with respect to experimental data, and Fisher expended much effort ensuring that inferences drawn using that technique were
proper inferences to draw.
Basically, there is only one "interpretation" of the data that matters to scientists, and that is
whatever interpretation is supported by reality. Learn this lesson quickly, unless you wish to be regarded as discoursively dishonest on a grand scale.
termina wrote:To him, the idea of neutral ground is simply self-contradictory, why?
Because he's trying to peddle a specious falsehood as fact. The specious falsehood in question being that science is simply "another doctrine", when, as I've covered above, it manifestly isn't. It's simply a duplicitous attempt to erect a fake "symmetry" between evidence-based science and assertion-laden, mythology-based doctrine, a fake "symmetry" that simply doesn't exist. Creationists are fond of this duplicitous apologetics, because they think that if they can get away with peddling this bare-faced lie, they can then simply assert blindly that science is purportedly the "wrong doctrine". It's mendacious bullshit from start to finish.
termina wrote:See the following justification he tossed around, if you've a strong stomach:
Oh I'll have fun with this one.
Many believe accept the basic discoursive principle, that evidence should be approached in a neutral and unbiased fashion
Fixed it for him. The mere fact that he tries to introduce the word "believe" here, is a transparent attempt to try and plant in unsuspecting minds, the specious notion that scientists operate on the same basis as creationists, namely by accepting uncritically unsupported assertions. This is simply another bare-faced creationist lie. Scientists don't bother with "belief" full stop, at least if they're doing their job properly. He's erecting this tissue of apologetic lies in order to try and mislead the unwary into regarding the proper scientific business of testing assertions to destruction, and paying attention solely to what the data is telling them, as being purportedly "synonymous" with creationist force-fitting of data to presuppositions. It's yet another creationist lie full stop.
without any prior beliefs.
Again, the mere fact that he's trying to misrepresent science as another "belief" is nakedly obvious here. The central question that forms the basis of every proper scientific endeavour is "does the data agree with the hypothesis?" If not, the hypothesis is binned. Which is the
exact opposite to the process endemic to creationism (and for that matter,
all doctrine centred world views), which consists of either ignoring data that doesn't conform to doctrine, or trying to manipulate the data to fit the doctrine.
However, this is impossible.
Wrong. "Does the data agree with the hypothesis? If not, bin the hypothesis" is a process that is conducted routinely in every competent science laboratory across the planet. The apologetics being erected here tries to dismiss this simply because the end result doesn't genuflect before creationist doctrine.
For this view is itself a belief about how evidence should be interpreted.
Poppycock, and yet another transparently duplicitous apologetic fabrication. Scientists operate on the principle of accepting the data, and discarding any hypothesis the data doesn't agree with, because they have
evidence of what happens when we don't do this, and instead try to cling to failed hypotheses that are roundly refuted by the data. Indeed, creationism provides us with a particularly florid example of the aetiology, and apologetics such as this make explicit the fact that creationism consists, at bottom, of the infamous Henry Morris dictum, namely "if reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right". In short, he's trying to pervert the discoursive arena, by trying to suggest that it's impossible for any examination of data to be anything other than an exercise in upholding doctrinal assertions, and that as a corollary, anything not conforming to
his doctrine is automatically wrong. This is so transparently mendacious, that one has to express a certain grudging admiration for his
chutzpah in peddling this line.
The only notion that scientists regard
a priori as applicable in their work, is the elementary notion that
the raw data doesn't lie. On the other hand, creationists routinely regard any data not conforming to their doctrine as doing precisely that. When scientists obtain evidence for an ancient age for the planet from geological strata, courtesy of physical processes that have been tested time and again and found to be in operation, creationists in effect assert that the decaying atomic nuclei are lying. When scientists obtain evidence from astronomical observations that certain deep sky objects are many millions of light years distant from us, creationists in effect assert that the photons are lying. Basically, this tissue of apologetic fabrications he's erecting is intended to try and put forward the idea that every piece of physical data from the observable universe that doesn't conform to doctrine is lying, and that the only thing telling the truth is a turgid collection of 3,000 year old myths written by piss-stained Middle Eastern nomads. If this is his position, how the hell can he call himself a scientist and keep a straight face? What is he
doing with his tenure as a purported "astronomer" if he's busy telling the world that all the other astronomers are lying, and that the only thing telling the truth is his favourite collection of bad fairy tales?
by 
: