I'm sure it crops up in every day speech, and of course under a dictionary usage "proof" doesn't necessarily mean "showing something to to be true" but can also mean something ala "has evidence". In that latter sense "proof" would probably coincide with how many researchers feel about reigning scientific theories. We easily see however that stating "proof" as in the second meaning, and having it interpreted as in the first meaning would be very bad.

However, and maybe more relevant to this matter, merely to accept such hazy and potentially confounding terminology is very dangerous when any statement is a potential debate.

Why? Because it isn't that impressive that a theory has evidence. If people believe in a theory, it tends to have evidence. Creationism has plenty of evidence. So some might argue that "this evidence is so shoddy that it would be wrong to use the word "proven" even in its latter and less formal sense, and they might have a point. However, now the barndoor is already opened for language that lacks precision and you will have a discussion on your hands and one where rhetoric could easily sway an audience. "That's not what I meant by proof!" isn't going to sound very convincing.

To use a more precise statements ala "the evidence favors evolution as the explaining mechanism for biological diversity" or "there is nothing that indicates that evolution is not sufficient to explain our current diversity of life" will prove much more solid and hold less weakness to rhetoric. This becomes especially important for any researcher commenting on a topic that might be considered controversial and where debate can arise.

To use your analogy, the case of the earth revolving around the sun won't get anyone to bat an eyelid. Imagine however, if a researcher states "it is proven that high taxes does not have an significant impact on economic growth". Lack of precision mixed with precision can be very problematic, but not necessarily so in cases where your statement is not controversial.

Only just saw this, and since it came before my own question I can, for once, be sure that you're not making fun of me.

I'm assuming that you've seen Bladesman's responses to my similar line of questioning, what do you think about it just not mattering? Why did you ask that question?

I'll take this as another version of 'I don't know'.

Whilst Bladesman is quite correct, and your lack of knowledge about what I think is a fairly crucial part of being a Christian, or of believing in 'the soul', doesn't mean that in fact what you believe is complete make believe, it's just another example of a shoulder shrug followed by 'I'm gonna just believe it anyway' that from my perspective so badly undermines the credibility of religions and adds so little to the possibility that they're actually true.

Not much. He's quite right, but, as you've mentioned, it does help to add another annoying layer of hand waving on their part, which is always nice.

Just exploring NotReady's position.

RTB is the old-earth equivalent of AiG. There's a commercial for RTB running on a local religious radio station where Hugh Ross confidently claims that he came to believe after examining the Bible's creation account and seeing that it matched up perfectly--in details and chronological order--with the scientific record.

RTB's evolution guy, 'Fuz' Rana was on later claiming that finding Denisovan genes in the mtDNA of the 400K Sima fossils "undermines the entire evolution story." When a caller asked for specifics, he backpedaled and said something like 'not the entire evolution story, but they didn't find what they expected to find and they have no possible explanation for it.' He was, of course, lying or badly ignorant of what the Sima study leader had published in Nature magazine a year earlier, saying that the findings could be explained by gene flow or genetic drift (or the presence of other species we haven't discovered yet swapping DNA around).

There's a debate on youtube between Hugh Ross and Ken Ham about OEC vs YEC.

I'm never quite sure whether prominent creationists are simply natural shysters or if creationism somehow induces dishonesty and lying in its adherents.

EDIT

I think it's a bit of both, I mean if someone actively studies the topic and remains a creationist, it must induce such a colossal load of cognitive dissonance that probing would inevitably elicit areas of thinking which are evasive at best.

Thanks, I can understand the importance of using precise language academically, particularly in areas of controversy. Informally, though, among the general public I still think "proven beyond reasonable doubt'" (which is what I said about common descent) is going to better convey the importance of universal scientific consensus where it exists than more proper/ more conservative (philosophically safer?) language.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I am aware scientists working in related fields universally think evidence so strongly supports common descent that it would be unreasonable (waste of time) to pursue the possibility of any other explanation.

As non-English speaker it is a bit hard for me to reflect on the deeper intricacies of language. The one thing might worry me is that it could make people think of a jury-system and that "scientific reasonable doubt" is something laymen can decide upon. But that is perhaps a stretch.

At this point it is not really "a theory" that anyone works with, no. It is a principle they work within. The positive way of putting this is to say it has a general consensus, in that noone sees no particular reason to dispute it. A more negative way of putting it is that it has become a scientific paradigm, or something that sets the tone for which questions to ask, how to answer them and how to interpret the results.

The latter is not intended as criticism of evolutionary theory per se, but you have related fields that try to cram their data and observations into a framework of natural selection. For example you might (hypothetically, but it has probably happened) have musical theorists who try to explain the development of music via natural selection.

I think this is what comes from believing something, and then trying to justify it. It's no different than the Piltdown Man, where allegedly, some people convinced that evolution was true, didn't think it was a big deal to push this hoax forward, since it was true anyway.

YEC do the same thing, if they are presented with something which is dated more than 6,000 to 8,000 years, they begin trying to refute it instead of examining the possibility that there may be another interpretation to the text.

People in general are guilty of this, you can see it on both sides of the origin of life debate, as a layman, I find it frustrating.

Did you just say English is not your native tongue? I didn't follow this conversation that closely so forgive me if you were saying something else.

I'd noticed that too. TD, what is your first language?

Hehe, yes. That is what I meant to say.

Norwegian.

Tame_deuces's command of written English is superior to the median native speaker on this forum, so I would still pay attention to what he says about English usage.

It's a testament to TD's command of English that the post in this thread eliciting the most shock was his claim that English was not his native tongue.

I think it's a big mistake to equate the two things here. Piltdown man was accepted by some scientists back in the day but it was also attacked by others from the outset. As the scientific method improved it was proved conclusively to be a fake. I'd be interested to know how many, if any, of the scientific community knew it was a fake but persisted with this hoax?

Also, to claim that people on both side of this debate (I hate to use the word here as there really is no debate), are as guilty as each other of ignoring data that doesn't fit their interpretation is just very wrong.

Link here;

http://www.answersingenesis.org/outr...ye-Ham-Debate/

Yeah, his english is better than mine, that's amazing. Well done TD.

I'm fluent in spanish, but I can barely write it, let alone discuss philosophy and religion, that's a feat.

sure, but this is sort of what I was talking about - the kind of language that, when used for things that scientists take as effectively factual (universal consensus) might give me the wrong impression if I didn't like to read about science & philosophy and didn't have a (very) cursory understanding of scientific methodology & epistemology, which a lot of the general public (in the USA) does not.

"Scientists see no particular reason to dispute common descent" (I was referring to that aspect specifically, not anything to do with mechanisms) sort of undersells the nature of consensus in that particular case, and I think potentially leaves the door open for strengthening the illusion of credibility for YEC-agenda pseudoscience.

Maybe it's just me nitting and it isn't really a big problem, but I do seem to run into a lot of YEC or Christians who are evolution fence-sitters who don't understand or aren't aware of how strong/universal scientific consensus on common descent (and old earth) is, and I'm always looking for the best way to effectively communicate that to them.

This is a tangential issue, but it would be interesting to see how it works as a process within the scientific community. I'm guessing extension of evolutionary principals without evidence (like Smolin's cosmological selection) would be quickly marginalized (?)

What do you say? Honestly interested in concise factual arguments.

I usually try to communicate how incredibly rigorous a process it is for a theory to get to the point of universal scientific consensus and the importance of that, not shying away from phrases like "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" (obviously ).

One method of pseudoscience propaganda that gets in the way is to downplay that - like to say oh it's no big deal that scientists generally accept common descent. Scientists change their minds all the time and it's very possible, if not expected that new evidence will come along and shift scientific "truth" any day now. Let me sell you a book telling you what I think that evidence is...

I haven't had much luck getting past that using language that can be interpreted as equivocating.

The problem of theory change is exactly why you shouldn't be using words like 'proven'. If you start saying that our current empirically-successful theories are 'true'/'proven' (in a strong sense) then the history of science leads inevitably to the argument against scientific realism that your pseudo-scientists present.

Instead, pointing out the complete lack of empirically-successful rival theories shows both a more appropriate level of epistemic humility and puts those rival 'theories' on the back foot (i.e. your pseudo-scientist / creationist now has to explain why their pet speculations are not supported by data etc).

I like Miller's comments here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re4zVcRgTz0

Namely, the competitive contentious culture within the scientific community.

Where are you at with these days in terms of evolution LZ?

I consider myself a keen idiot when it comes to science. My science background stops at grade 10 earth science (16 years old). Earth science was what the dumb kids took instead of chemistry/physics/biology. I like to think I just wasn't applying myself and was actually bright In any case all that is to say I don't have a ton of science background so it is difficult for me to parse information objectively.

I read Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth which was interesting. I have a hard time believing we came from a common ancestor. I don't have anything that supports my view except my religious background. I suppose I have been slack in actually doing research and settling some of these issues in my own mind.

My thoughts revolve more around atheism v. theism. - but I feel this quandary is insolvable. I guess you could say I am in an open minded learning phase.

I will say that I am pretty disappointed by the pseudoscience often posited from the Christian camp. In principle I believe it wrong to start with a conclusion and build supporting premises. I want to learn and let the evidence lead where it may. Having said that I have a pretty good idea where the evidence will lead...

Okay. Just wondered.