Adam said- "MadGiant, do you want to break it to Eugenie C. Scott, the person IN CHARGE of Science EDUCATION in the US, she's wrong about her understanding of a BASIC TERM used in science? A topic in which SHE WROTE A TEXTBOOK?"
Madgiant said-
Argument from authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.
Nice try, Ishmael, but the fallacy is actually called an "appeal to a FALSE authority".
Did you note the warning (which you even quoted above) about how the claim is 'often applied fallaciously' (improperly) in an argument? They're referring to YOU, right now.
(Have you taken a basic logic course at the university level, as this is typically covered when teaching fallacies in logic?)
The "true" fallacy of appeal to authority occurs whenever someone cites a FALSE authority, i.e. someone who's talking out of their ass about a subject which they don't have the understanding and/or experience to know what they don't know (it's an all-too-common phenomena on the internet).
eg If I cite psychic Sylvia Browne as an authority on..... well, almost ANYTHING (aside from how to sucker fools out of their money), it's likely an appeal to a FALSE authority. She's even written books on the Bible, but she's not a recognized scholar/theologian, so relies on nothing but appeals to her "gift of psychic abilities" upon which to base her claims of possessing any special knowledge from God.
In this case, compare Sylvia Brown to Dr Scott, who IS a recognized spokesperson and holds a doctorate degree in her field; but more importantly, she is the executive director of NCSE, the VERY BODY who has fought tooth-and-nail for improved science education in the U.S. Dr. Scott has repeatedly been recognized as an expert witness by the Courts of the land as someone who's possesses the credibility and expertise to testify on behalf of the scientific community in such milestone court cases as the landmark case in South Carolina, where the ruling was delivered against the "intelligent design" camp.
Dr Scott IS recognized as an authority on the issue of science by scientists who work in the field, AND science educators Nationwide (whether from the collegiate/post doc level, down to the elementary school level). She's written TEXTBOOKS on the subject of the scientific method. Dr Scott thus IS the very epitome of a recognized authority, and she is more than capable of speaking to the very basic definitions of terms used in science (like what facts are). Even without relying on personal experiences in science, I would trust her opinion more than yours.
Should I cite MORE examples of OTHER RECOGNIZED AUTHORITIES who actually WORK in science, though, to support my claim?
Education-check time: I hypothesize that those who argue against the idea of facts changing are NOT actually scientists, and hence labor under the burden of accepting ideas based on common layperson misconceptions they picked up on the internetz?
(I remember that Cofty doesn't hold a science degree, so although he's an self-educated layperson, no offense, but his opinion means little since he hasn't spent years in a formalized educational system learning the consensus standards utilized in science. And yes, I've earned a doctorate degree in science, which means I've spent decades studying the principles of science, daily practicing in the field as my careeer, and interacting with others in scientific/medical endeavors where consensus opinion actually matters, etc.)
Madgiant said-
Yes, they get modifications, and that is part of the learning process. The earth was the center of the universe, the earth was flat, the milky way was the entire universe. Even a spontaneous generation, but a fact is a fact because it was tested and can be tested a number of times with the same results.
The word fact can be used several ways, but in general in science, "facts" refer to the observations. They are best when they are repeatable observations under controlled conditions, such as "It is a fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum." This is the part of science which will be the same a century from now, unless more precise measurements show otherwise.
Being that the ENTIRE THREAD is about the scientific discovery of something that challenges beliefs once accepted as FACT (i.e. true), one would think the very article above would point out the irony of arguing that facts don't change? I guess not!
It's true that the "facts" obtained from the physical sciences (eg physics' 'c', the speed of light) are less-likely to change than those from the natural sciences (eg paleontology, which BTW, is spelling incorrectly in the title of the thread), this very thread demonstrates that point.
When scientists once thought there were 22 chromosomes in the human genome (biology, so a natural science), they were INCORRECT. They were simply WRONG. That's not a 'modification', a 'slight change', it was simply being WRONG based on subtle differences that existed but weren't detectable with limits in the scientific apparatus used at the time. If you answered on a test of human genetics the CORRECT answer (23) before better tools developed and the FACT changed, you'd be marked off a point as WRONG on your test.
ALL "FACTS" ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, EVEN BEING COMPLETELY DISCARDED, IF SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE EXISTS.
It's WHY we publish studies in journals: to ADVANCE human knowledge, and not to cling dogmatically to old incorrect facts, theories, etc.
Thinking the Earth was flat WAS once accepted as FACT (based on theological grounds, which WAS supported by observational findings from the best-available science of the day), but it was simply WRONG. The Earth was actually (and is) known to be SPHERICAL in shape, and the massive amount of confirmatory supportive would require EXTRAORDINARY proof to overcome. Doesn't change the fact that humans were simply WRONG by following the Ptolemaic Model of the Solar System, since Ptolemy was simply WRONG.
I suspect some of you see admission of having been wrong as a sign of WEAKNESS, instead of what it is: a sign of a willingness to CHANGE your beliefs when existing evidence is presented? That's what allows advancement, progress: you should know that, based on the mental stagnation of cult dogmatism.
If you're looking to science as your replacement for theology to dogmatically cling to, as if replacing the JW dogma, keep looking: science doesn't stagnate or cater to dogmatic thinking, and doesn't care about what you WANT it to be. Yes, by accepting definitions, science operates in a dogmatic manner (it's called 'consensus opinion'). The method has worked well for humanity so far, as it is, but if you have any better ideas for how to acquire knowledge, lay it on us.
Adam
