orgin of life paper retracted
Posted: 28 October 2007 11:13 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2007-10-08

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/science/25jacobson.html?ex=1350964800&en=f30ec63e2ceba123&ei=5088

Great article. glad to see it in the mainstream press.

 Signature 

“We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.” Bill hicks

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2007 11:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15433
Joined  2006-02-14

Yes, I did see that story. Neat—thanks for posting it! Good for Homer Jacobson.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2007 11:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
misfit of joy - 28 October 2007 11:13 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/science/25jacobson.html?ex=1350964800&en=f30ec63e2ceba123&ei=5088

Great article. glad to see it in the mainstream press.

I wonder if a scientists prefers to admit to be incorrect because his ideas appear to support religion over the discovery that his findings were founded in error.

The article leans on the tendency to suggest that if a new discovery with solid factual evidence one day supports religion, such discovery “must be hidden”?

Why?

I guess that as long a discovery is scientifically sound and enjoys of factual evidence, the knowledge of it must be published regardless of its use as a support to religion or to anti-religious statements.

Of course, in this case this scientist seems to recognize also some mistakes inside his theory which invalidate his conclusions, still the look for a review by him appeared to be motivated because he discovered that the religious side was favoured with his theory.

Fortunately, the end of this story reveals that he was in error and his theory won’t be used as point of reference. This is what it counts at last and I’m glad as well of being in knowledge of the public.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2007 11:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15433
Joined  2006-02-14

Where does the article claim that we should hide experimental results that “support religion”?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2007 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2007-10-08

“The article leans on the tendency to suggest that if a new discovery with solid factual evidence one day supports religion, such discovery “must be hidden”?

Why? “

but that’s the thing, his 55 paper did not have solid factual evidence to support religion. There are two issues with it, one he was wrong, and two creationist where using it as proof of divine intervention. Even if his paper was correct it still would not have proven divine intervention.

 Signature 

“We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.” Bill hicks

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2007 08:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1214
Joined  2007-09-21

From reading it, I didn’t get the impression that the article suggested that anyone felt that evidence in support of religion “must be hidden.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 October 2007 09:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4108
Joined  2006-11-28

I agree that the article does not suggest anything about hiding facts that might support religious ideas. I think what conquer is referring to is the quote by a creationist who said scientists might “get in trouble” for producing results that support creationism and suggested obliquely that that might have been the motive for the retraction. I think that is exactly what you’d expect a creationist to say, but I don’t buy it. The “embarrassment” the author felt had to do with the errors and misuse of his paper, not pressure from the scientific community not to give support to theri religious “enemies.”

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2007 08:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1214
Joined  2007-09-21

Personally, I would welcome any genuine evidence supporting religious ideas and/or creationism.  If compelling enough, I would change my views on the topic.  I suspect this to be Homer Jacobson’s view as well.

He seemed, to me, a little ticked off that his work was used as false evidence of something that it did not represent.  I don’t blame him.

Profile