More Pants on Fire

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

More Pants on Fire

Postby psiloiordinary » Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:51 pm

The recently retired David Anderson, who attempted a smear blog against the BCSE - check him out in the Wiki - has now been proven to have lied about his scientific qualifications on that very blog.

The proof comes from his own mouth.

My own blog entry has the details;

http://web.mac.com/theedonfamily/iWeb/Site/Blog/CD61E2E3-D299-4F90-97D9-6662B8F6AE7F.html

:roll:
User avatar
psiloiordinary
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:03 am
Location: Yorkshire

More Pants on Fire

Postby Anonymous » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:03 pm

psiloiordinary wrote:

http://web.mac.com/theedonfamily/iWeb/Site/Blog/CD61E2E3-D299-4F90-97D9-6662B8F6AE7F.html

As far as I can make out (I have heard the clip before), he is only
technically guilty of falsehood if one does not regards mathematics as
scientific. What he is guilty of is deliberate deception by stating
"science" instead of "mathematics". He doesn't mention theology in his
speech. I really do not know what can be gained by comparing his summary
statement with the clip, apart from his known tendency to play with words.
Anonymous
 

Postby psiloiordinary » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:47 am

A quick survey of people around my office yesterday revealed zero support for the idea that someone saying they had a science degree who actually had a maths degree was telling the truth.

Everyone either used the word liar or a similar word.

I would further assert that this is an argument adpopulum as I would suggest that my office colleagues are a reasonable mix of the UK public and that this is the target audience for his blog.
User avatar
psiloiordinary
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:03 am
Location: Yorkshire

More Pants on Fire

Postby Anonymous » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:16 am

psiloiordinary wrote:
A quick survey of people around my office yesterday revealed zero support for the idea that someone saying they had a science degree who actually had a maths degree was telling the truth.

And herein lies the difference between public perception and technical
reality. Mathematics is technically a science, while the public
perception of what constitutes a science subject differs.

Another example. I personally do not regard sociology as constituting
any valid form of science, but technically it is.

Anderson knows how to word-play but he is not technically lying. Just a
friendly warning as to the traps he lays:-)
Anonymous
 

Postby psiloiordinary » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:44 am

Hi Mike,

Nah - he's lying - he deliberately put down a different title for his qualification from that on his text books, exam papers etc. , knowing what people would think he meant by science.

In my opinion the obvious motive was the the additional authority he expected this claim would give him.

Technically you do of course have a point.

But I think it more relevant and certainly I am more interested in, the general and usual interpretation of what he said - this is not a technical journal but a web site aimed at the general public and in particular parents of high school pupils.

Technically, smechnically . . .

;-)
User avatar
psiloiordinary
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:03 am
Location: Yorkshire

Re: More Pants on Fire

Postby Paula Thomas » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:50 pm

Mike Brass wrote:psiloiordinary wrote:

http://web.mac.com/theedonfamily/iWeb/Site/Blog/CD61E2E3-D299-4F90-97D9-6662B8F6AE7F.html

As far as I can make out (I have heard the clip before), he is only
technically guilty of falsehood if one does not regards mathematics as
scientific. What he is guilty of is deliberate deception by stating
"science" instead of "mathematics". He doesn't mention theology in his
speech. I really do not know what can be gained by comparing his summary
statement with the clip, apart from his known tendency to play with words.


No. If he has a degree in Maths and claims it as a science degree then he is making a false claim. I have a maths degree. I would never claim it was a science degree. Now some people have suggested that an applied maths degree may be one in science. But they are wrong. Knowing the maths behind the theory of relativity is not the same as studying the theory of relativity itself. Please see my long argument with Derek for the reasons.

As for studying the maths behind some biology work (which would be mainly statistics) and claiming to have studied science - that is just laughable!!!! You would have studied the same maths that is used in opinion polls - is anyone claiming that psephology is a science?!!*#?!

Paula
Paula Thomas
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:51 pm
Location: London, UK

More Pants on Fire

Postby Jaf » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:33 pm

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:50:05 -0500, you wrote:

is anyone claiming that psephology is a science?!!*#?!

Well, as Beattie (as played by Maureen Lipman) said, "You got an Ology? That
means you're a scientist!"
--
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
www.amnestynorthlincs.org.uk
Jaf
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: Scunthorpe, N.Lincolnshire

Re: More Pants on Fire

Postby Paula Thomas » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:54 pm

Jaf wrote:On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:50:05 -0500, you wrote:

is anyone claiming that psephology is a science?!!*#?!

Well, as Beattie (as played by Maureen Lipman) said, "You got an Ology? That
means you're a scientist!"
--
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
www.amnestynorthlincs.org.uk


On that definition Physics and Chemistry aren't sciences either!! :lol: :lol: :shock: :lol: :lol:
Paula Thomas
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:51 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Paula Thomas » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:19 pm

But to get back to the original subject for a minute. I see from Anderson's blog that he thinks he has achieved his aim because posts to this board have "declined". Mmmm - he is of course wrong there are less posts now - that is true but the reason is that the threat from the likes of TiS is less than it was.

Their News blog has only one short entry so far this month. and they singularly failed in their attempt to get ID into the National Curriculum

But beware...

These are not people who will give up easily. They, or some organisation like them, will do more and we must be ready for them.

Much work has been done and we are now in a much better position than we were last year when the Guardian broke the story about the 'resource packs' on their front page.

So David it is not us that has blown it but you and TiS. Evolution by natural selection is the only scientific game in town.

Paula
Paula Thomas
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:51 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:41 pm

No. If he has a degree in Maths and claims it as a science degree then he is making a false claim. I have a maths degree. I would never claim it was a science degree.


Does that mean then that creation opponents such as Dr. Jason Rosenhouse aren't scientists ?:

http://www.scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/

He did a magnificent job at debunking the claims of people like Dr. Verner Gitt amd Philip Bell, both biologists as far as I know, at the creation-mega conference (AiG) in the US in 2005.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Postby Michael » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:41 pm

wilmot wrote:But to get back to the original subject for a minute. I see from Anderson's blog that he thinks he has achieved his aim because posts to this board have "declined". Mmmm - he is of course wrong there are less posts now - that is true but the reason is that the threat from the likes of TiS is less than it was.

Their News blog has only one short entry so far this month. and they singularly failed in their attempt to get ID into the National Curriculum

But beware...

These are not people who will give up easily. They, or some organisation like them, will do more and we must be ready for them.

Much work has been done and we are now in a much better position than we were last year when the Guardian broke the story about the 'resource packs' on their front page.

So David it is not us that has blown it but you and TiS. Evolution by natural selection is the only scientific game in town.

Paula


THE THREAT FROM TIS HAS NOT LESSENED

MICHAEL


I write in capitals as that means I am shouting.

PS Look at uncommondescent to see how Dembski and pals are slagging evangelicals Christians off

Lions 12 Christians 0 , lots of blood on the carpet of the stadium
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

More Pants on Fire

Postby Anonymous » Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:34 pm

wilmot wrote:

No. If he has a degree in Maths and claims it as a science degree then he is making a false claim. I have a maths degree. I would never claim it was a science degree.

I remember the thread. I also remember long discussions with a former
manager of mine who is a top mathematician on the same subject.
Anonymous
 

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:27 pm

psiloiordinary wrote:Hi Mike,

Nah - he's lying - he deliberately put down a different title for his qualification from that on his text books, exam papers etc. , knowing what people would think he meant by science.

In my opinion the obvious motive was the the additional authority he expected this claim would give him.

Technically you do of course have a point.

But I think it more relevant and certainly I am more interested in, the general and usual interpretation of what he said - this is not a technical journal but a web site aimed at the general public and in particular parents of high school pupils.

Technically, smechnically . . .

;-)


We went through this debate about maths being a science months ago. What it is not is a natural science. Indeed, mathmatical expertise requires no knowledge of the natural sciences whatsoever.

Moreover, part of Anderson's training appears to be in statistics. I did that as part of my MBA as well as part of my first degree. Like mainstream maths it is used all the time in a huge variety of differently fields. most of them, I guess, having nothing at all to do with the natural sciences. Hells bells, you use it in accountancy.

Training in statistics is bog standard stuff on a vast range of university degree courses. You're quite right to pull Anderson up on that one.

The issue is whether Anderson has any training in the natural sciences - from what he says it looks to be pretty thin. So what if he done a couple of science A levels as a teenager? I guess most in this forum have. Applying statistics to genetics as part of his studies doesn't make him a geneticist. I applied statistics to production mnagement as part of my MBA. That doesn't make me a professional authority on production management or production engineering.

Nothing impreses me less than creationists who try to convince the public how knowledgable they are about science. the hype is usually staggering. McIntosh doesn't even have a GCSE in biology or geology (or, indeed, geogrpahy). On those subject matters he is no better than the average person in the street. And those are the key subjects that the creationists are attacking.

As far as I can make out, there is only one young earth creationist with a PhD in the biological sciences who is a full time scientist at a British university. It's Geoff Bernard at Cambridge, btw. There are none in the geological sciences.

basically what the 77 or so leading creationists i have identified are is a bunch of professional and managerial people overwhelmingly operating well away from commercial business. Over half of them are basically teachers of some sort and most of the rest are religious ministers. They are exceedingly untypical of the managerial and professional classes at large and most are basically trained to tell other people what they should think.

This frigging crap where they try to pass themselves off as experts doesn't wash as my latest research will show. Even where they are academics they mostly are in the "also ran" category. These people are not world-class brains.

Roger
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:34 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:
No. If he has a degree in Maths and claims it as a science degree then he is making a false claim. I have a maths degree. I would never claim it was a science degree.


Does that mean then that creation opponents such as Dr. Jason Rosenhouse aren't scientists ?:

http://www.scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/

He did a magnificent job at debunking the claims of people like Dr. Verner Gitt amd Philip Bell, both biologists as far as I know, at the creation-mega conference (AiG) in the US in 2005.


I have to say that it really doesn't require much in the way of scientific knowledge to pull most of the creationist crapola to pieces for the simple reason that the crapola isn't science in the first place. However much scientific knowledge does it take to pull to pieces Bell's claims about pictures of dinosaurs in Carlisle Cathedral? None at all. A simpe knowledge of history or the lowest grade of pass mark in GCSE art is enough.

Roger
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:37 pm

Michael wrote:THE THREAT FROM TIS HAS NOT LESSENED

MICHAEL




I'm in complete agreement here. And yes, I am working very hard to make sure we have ammunition for the next fight. Watch this space.

Roger
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Next

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron