SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Remember when we discussed Rocks Request Rejection issue back in May? The discussion was nothing if not spirited.
Andrew Snelling, who got a PhD in geology before joining Answers in Genesis, continues working to interpret the canyon in a way that is consistent with his views. In 2013, he requested permission from the National Park Service to collect some rock samples in the canyon for a new project to that end.
...
The National Park Service sent Snelling's proposal out for review, having three academic geologists who study the canyon look at it. Those reviews were not kind. Snelling didn't get his permit. Snelling sued.
Well It turns out the guy gets to harvest his bag-o-rocks because the the National Park Service has decided its easier to give a few rocks than take the religious flack.
That lawsuit was withdrawn by Snelling on June 28. According to a story in The Australian, Snelling withdrew his suit because the National Park Service has relented and granted him his permit. He will be able to collect about 40 fist-sized samples, provided that he makes the data from any analyses freely available.
Further he promises to publish his findings in a peer reviewed journal. Perhaps even his own journal. Perhaps even his own peers.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @07:54PM (13 children)
So pretty much like any other scientist. Except those that publish papers with the expensive pay-per-view schemes.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 12 2017, @08:33PM (12 children)
Pretty sure that was sarcasm...
Scientists work from the evidence forward. This guy works from his conclusion backwards.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:03PM (3 children)
Real scientists work from the evidence forward, some scientists are more "real" than others, I doubt any human being is 100% pure scientist in this respect, conclusions are always drawn from a combination of collected evidence and existing knowledge aka prejudice. Even the manner in which the evidence is collected is rarely free from prejudice.
Do I think this guy is going to find anything "concrete" to back up his purported views? Nope, but when the park service asks why a study is being done, they're already getting into the business of revealing prejudices in the data being collected and analyzed. Good, academically and emotionally secure, scientists would let this guy do his worst and then see if he has come up with anything reproduce-able.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Touché) by mhajicek on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:37AM (2 children)
This guy has already stated that no matter what he finds he will not change his mind about his preconceptions. That's as much as admitting he's not doing science.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:20AM (1 child)
Not only that - he also thinks his rock-finding mission is of no value to science:
So, according to the guy himself, Grand Canyon rocks are not needed for evidence for his pet theories... so why does he need them again?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:35AM
It's a big canyon, and claiming that there is "one true science" would be rather insecure of those who practice it. Yeah, this guy is a wing-nut, but if "the science" can't handle a couple of loose wing-nuts, it needs to grow up and figure out how to.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by HiThere on Wednesday July 12 2017, @09:39PM (7 children)
No. Scientists frequently start off with a hypothesis that they intend to prove. That's not what they tell you in high school, but if you read the biographies of famous scientists that's what you'll see. (I'm not counting Einstein here as most of his work was as a theoretician. An exception would be his work on the photo-electric effect.)
What science depends on is peer review, and the rejection of hypotheses that aren't sustained by the data. The problem here is that creationists have a long history of doctoring the data to fit their hypotheses...so how can you trust the data he publishes. This is clearly prejudicial reasoning on my part as I'm judging him as a member of a group rather than as an individual, but there are reasons why people so often reason from prejudice. As long as you know it and allow for it, it's not unreasonable. Because I'm aware that I'm using prejudiced reasoning, I'm not certain that he's going to doctor the evidence. But that's the way I'd bet.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:48PM
Einstein did theorize from the data. The photoelectric effect was a straightforward summary of the experimental results, only organised as an explanation instead of a puzzle.
Same for the special theory of relativity -- the relevant equations, such as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, had been known for ages as a way to make electromagnetic theory work. What Einstein did was put these disparate phenomena together and notice that they yielded a consistent formalism.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:05PM
Thou shalt not worship thine own hypotheses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:05AM (1 child)
No, what is today called "peer review" is a recent thing, there is absolutely no evidence for its utility. It seems to only act to enforce whatever the prevailing thought is (and thus impede all progress).
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/ [michaelnielsen.org]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ [nih.gov]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:47AM
No, there was always peer review. It's just that previously, the peer review happened after publication, by other people saying what they thought of those ideas.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:50PM (2 children)
Glad you can at least admit that.
Denying permission for any study in advance seems just a (wrong) way to enforce one's own prejudice, and every bit as wrong-headed as starting a study to prove one's own prejudice.
And, the Park Service restricting access to to samples pretty much aids and abets that, doesn't it?
After all if the next geologist looking at his data can not refute it, because the Park Service denies them, then the Park service plays directly into his hands, does it not? And had the Park Service maintained their denial, they play directly into the hands of the anti religious bigots.
Also how much "data" does he get from 40 rocks? A few radio carbon dates? Composition analysis, magnetic orientations, collection site strata, etc., is pretty much all you get in Geology.
All of these are perfectly repeatable. Provided there is access to samples. (His or in situ replicates).
I personally doubt he would doctor the evidence.
That would be too easy to refute (in a normal situation where samples can be acquired).
But he may well reach unwarranted conclusions. Science is a process, not a thing. We need to Let it Work.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @12:53PM
As he's already said that it won't make any difference to him either way, there's little point in allowing him to take those rocks.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday July 16 2017, @08:22PM
No, it doesn't. If you want to (e.g.) collect a few rocks to find evidence to support your thesis that Julius Caesar never personally visited the Grand Canyon, based on the premise of "I read this in a SoylentNews comment and was curious", then the value of your study is insufficient to warrant the intrusion it represents.
Basically, the Park services seem to require that any project has a scientific approach, a scientific goal, and that will contribute to the advancement of science. That in no way rules out a project to support this particular individual's pet hypothesis. I'm not sure exactly what did rule it out, but the individual claiming "we already have sufficient and convincing proof of what I want to prove using these rocks" seems like a great way to get your project denied -- irrespective of what your project is about.
That is something I wholeheartedly support. Either the Grand Canyon is a free-for-all where everyone can take rocks (fine too, for me), or it's more restricted. If rock-gathering is restricted to scientific endeavors, then the park services have a duty to check that any proposed endeavor is indeed scientific. This one wasn't, according to other scientists.
Making exceptions just because someone's shouting "religious freedom" is silly and undermines the original restriction on rock-gathering.