There’s a mystery in the good news.
EWA BEACH, Hawaii (AP) – Tsunami experts could not understand why Monday’s forceful earthquake off Indonesia failed to produce massive waves similar to those generated by the Dec. 26 quake that killed at least 175,000 people in the same region.
A magnitude 8.7 quake shook Indonesia’s west coast, killing hundreds of people and spreading panic that another devastating tsunami was on the way.
There was no tsunami, but a small wave was detected by a tide gauge on Cocos Island near Australia, about 1,500 miles south of the epicenter, according to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center on Oahu.
“I’m baffled an earthquake this size didn’t trigger a tsunami near the epicenter,” said Robert Cessaro, a geophysicist at the center, which is operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It is responsible for monitoring seismic and ocean conditions in the Pacific and alerting Pacific Rim nations and U.S. agencies, Center Director Charles McCreery said earthquakes of at least 8.0 magnitude usually generate major tsunamis.
“We expected some destructive tsunami with some distant destructive effects. It was surprising,” he said. …
“The one we initially thought was bigger turns out to have no effect,” McCreery said. “The one we initially thought was smaller had a huge effect…”A scientist was wrong? Boy- whoda thunk it.
frameone:
Noone is challenging scientific theoryor study. Noone is claiming that science has not made progress. Noone is arguing that a failed hypothesis proves the existence of God.
Paul is just fed up with the unwarranted certitude with which scientists often present their findings to an often gullible public. Much of accepted medical practice today is likely to be be regarded as quackery in the future, but you are hard put to find a doctor who will admit it.
Look at the advice we get from scientists about our diet. Avocados are a wonderful health food. No wait, they are a cholesterol bomb. No wait, they are good for you after all. Remember when liver was touted as a health food? Remember the saccharin fiasco?
The point is not that theories about interspecial evolution (or global warming, or avocados) are necessarily wrong. Paul thinks, and I agree, that scientists often address these subjects with a degree of confidence, and a lack of humility, which is offensive given their track record and the ambiguity of their evidence. And I also have the same impression as Paul about the pomposity of scientists — if you question whether their evidence really supports the unqualified assertions they make, they tend to resort to ridicule and write you off as a Thumper.
Which, by the way, is what you are attempting to do by interjecting the gratuitous remark about “jumping on every failed hypothesis as proof positive that God exists,” a subject that is completely irrelevant to my post (or any one of Paul’s gazillion posts). It’s just your way of taking a cheap shot to write me off as a Thumper. Once again, Paul’s comment thread proves his point.
If you want my advice, picke a better example than headache remedies. For my money, headache remedies haven’t gotten any better than aspirin, which is the product of tribal healers noticing the effects of willow bark without the benefit of the scientific method. And last I read, science still can’t explain why it works.
RE: Former Texan’s post (March 29, 2005 07:51 PM)
Paul is just fed up with the unwarranted certitude with which scientists often present their findings to an often gullible public. Much of accepted medical practice today is likely to be be regarded as quackery in the future, but you are hard put to find a doctor who will admit it.
This just isn’t true. The vast and overwhelming volume of research from scientists is defined within parameters and conditions described by methods and concluded based on their interpretation of their experiments and those of others. While some reporter may winnow down a peer reviewed paper to a quip in the news and call it scientific fact, or some shill may push the latest and greatest dietary fad based on a gross misunderstanding of metabolism, scientists do not do this. It is a fallacy to perpetuate such a simplification. I suggest you attend a medical or research convention where researchers and scientists present their findings to the public and peers and see exactly how such data is presented. I think you’ll change your misconception. If you opt not to attend, start reading legitimately peer-reviewed journals with a scientifically jaundiced eye and you’ll see that very little is proclaimed as outright truth.
What Former Texan wrote on both occasions, this thread (^^).
AnonymousDrivel:
Fair point. I can readily accept that at least some of the frustration I feel towards scientists can be attributed to glib and misleading treatment of their work by the media.
So, let’s stop bashing Paul and move back to common ground — is Dan Rather an asshole or what?
I was (also, but didn’t [d’oh]) going to include here the quite current medical practice of administering GOLD (the actual substance [mineral/metal]) to some people displaying certain auto immune disorders.
No one knows HOW or even WHY it produces a beneficial effect, just that it does. And so it is among the listed treatments available to physicians today to prescribe/administer to certain people suffering certain complications within Rheumatology and other areas of practice treating auto immune disorders. They actually and truly administer GOLD orally. And it has some sort of beneficial result. No one can explain why.
AnonymousDrivel:
BTW, when you mentioned a “gross misunderstanding of metabolism,” were you thinking of the Atkins Diet?
But, my approach to and about much that is included in medicine today is that if it works, do it, or at least try. I think there is much that makes risks worthwhile and many risky issues ought not be discounted due to unprovability, etc.
But I agree with how and what Former Texan has capsulized (and very well) the ongoing thing here where Paul and his comments early on have been distorted, misrepresented, used to promote other websites (that last thing is what I think is the driving motivation for some who’ve made the biggest deal out of what I originally read to be nearly uneventful comments by Paul).
Anyway, ever since I mischaracterized Copernicus, I haven’t been able to sleep.
That last part was sarcasm.
RE: Former Texan’s post (March 29, 2005 08:22 PM)
So, let’s stop bashing Paul and move back to common ground — is Dan Rather an asshole or what?
LOL
I would say that given the MSM bias quotient, CBS propensity to CYA, and the historical record of leftward slant by Nixonian era reporters that your conclusion regarding the assholedness of one Dan Rather approaches 1 (actually 0.952 +/- 0.03) and well within the acceptable exclusionary statistical error. Some, of course, wince with the coarsely dehumanizing definition and prefer “jerk” or “driveler” (eek!). We should let the misinformed and readily stumped media choose whichever nomenclature it prefers to disseminate this “truth”.
Ultimately, our derived interpretations concur. 😉
RE: Former Texan’s post (March 29, 2005 08:25 PM)
… a “gross misunderstanding of metabolism,” were you thinking of the Atkins Diet?
Not really. I don’t know enough about that particular diet to draw a conclusion. My gut (heh) tells me to be highly sceptical of anything as radical as his diet appears – my limited understanding of the diet not withstanding. I was actually thinking of any “miracle” diet or compound episodically trotted out as the silver bullet of health without the required recognition that only balance, moderation, and time generally produce valid healthy returns. Any extreme is almost certainly BS and I’ll take the diet tips with a healthy dose of scepticism by default.
AnonymousDrivel
Agree fully with your scientifically accurate coefficient of determination regarding Rather.
-s-
FYI, we have been in agreement before. Former Texan = Michael from previous threads. I decided to change names after I got outed as a genuine Thumper. ;>)
RE: -S-‘s post (March 29, 2005 08:24 PM)
No one knows HOW or even WHY it [gold] produces a beneficial effect, just that it does…
Much of science is serendipitous and a good healer will take advantage of such discoveries to ease human suffering. It is up to scientific researchers to methodically and rationally investigate the “hows” and “whys” and test their hypotheses. They may discover that it is not actually the element that cures but rather some as of yet uncharacterized microbe that likes gold (and sticks to its surface) that is the real “magic” bullet. Science, hopefully, provides for us the tools to make such determinations in as efficient a manner as possible.
skybird:
How much have you had to drink?
Former Texan:
I’m afraid you completely misconstrued what I wrote. Being wrong is part of the scientific method of inquiry: propose a hypothesis, test that hypothesis, if evidence doesn’t support it, go back to the drawing board. Paul’s initial comment then, even in jest, is pointless on its face.
As to your own comments I have no doubt that there are plenty of arrogant scientists out there but you if you don’t want to be called a “Thumper” don’t argue faith-based theories in the face of empirical evidence. For example, creationsim or intelligent design.
frameone:
When did I argue a faith-based theory in the face of empirical evidence? When did I (or Paul) advocate creationism or intelligent design? (Including my ID in previous theads as Michael).
Still, you can call me a Thumper any time you want. But I will not attempt to support my ideas with empirical evidence. Want to hear a faith-based theory? I have been teaching a class on Isaiah. It’s really freaky stuff. Blows my mind, especially after you having just studied Paul’s letter to the Romans. Paul and Isaiah are like two peas in a pod. (For example, they are both preoccupied with the role of the Remnant of Israel. For example, they are both preoccupied with idolatry.)
So, here is my faith-based theory: When God visits his wrath upon this planet, the ground will shake and idolaters will hide in holes in the earth.
My empirical evidence? None. But I think Isaiah has it nailed. There is no empirical support for this, and I would never claim otherwise. I just take it as fact that God was talking to Isaiah, and Isaiah honestly reported God’s opinion on this subject.
Want more Thumperism? I think science has become a form of idolatry for many people. In Romans, Paul makes the observation that we worship creation rather than the Creator. That basically sums up my view of Darwinism. BUT, that does NOT mean that the insights afforded by evolutionary biology are necessarily false.
None of which affects my appreciation for the scientific method or the many advances of science that benefit me. Forget headache remedies — I just got a new ultra-thin cell phone with digital camera that I think is really cool. THANK YOU SCIENTISTS!!!!!!
And does the Schiavo subtext need to enter practically every thread?
Guess I inadvertently stimulated another response. 😉
RE: McGehee’s post (March 29, 2005 10:03 PM)
Dr. Pavlov? Is that you?
“When did I argue a faith-based theory in the face of empirical evidence? When did I (or Paul) advocate creationism or intelligent design? (Including my ID in previous theads as Michael).”
You didn’t. I said “for example.” You said that scientists and the scientific community “belittle” and dismiss people who question their theories by calling them “thumpers.” This is patently a strawman argument because no legitimate scientist would belittle anyone who could present valid empirical evidence in support of an opposing hypothesis. You only get called a “thumper” when you make “thumper” arguments. Does being a “thumper” mean you should be belittled? No, not necessarily.
“Does being a “thumper” mean you should be belittled? No, not necessarily.”
Thank you.
It’s the end of the thread, or thereabouts, so I thought I’d share something that the atheists won’t read anyway and that others will enjoy reading if they have some time to do so, so no harms done:
Here…
The Slippery Slope: From Trust to Presumption
by Friar Jack Wintz, O.F.M.
A reader responded to my last E-spiration, “Trusting God in the Desert: A Lenten Meditation,” with this comment: “I believe it can be very easy to slip from trust to presumption and not even realize one is doing that.” The reader wanted to know my thoughts on the subject. So here they are:
A great example of how a person can slip into presumption is demonstrated, I believe, in Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. The Pharisee has a lot of trust all right, but it is all placed upon his own virtue (rather than upon the power of God). He has slipped into presumption big time.
Listen to him: “Oh God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income” (Luke 18: 11-12). A paragon of virtue in his own eyes, he is presuming that his personal acts of fasting and contributions to a holy cause are automatically making him holy in God’s sight—without any help from God. He is not trusting in God’s power to elevate him to sainthood, but in his own. He presumes he is much closer to God than that poor tax collector he looks upon with scorn in the back of the temple.
The Pharisee’s overblown self-trust is really presumption, the placing of too much trust in himself rather than in God. It’s a kind of blindness. Jesus presents the tax collector, on the other hand, as much more pleasing to God, because he has a better understanding of who he is before God—a fallible human being, a self-acknowledged vessel of clay. He does not presume he is more than he is, or that he can save himself by his own power. He knows that the true source of his healing and his salvation is God, and he puts his trust in this source. In touch with his own smallness in contrast to God’s greatness, he strikes his breast and says, “O God, be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13). Jesus tells us that this man of humble trust went home “justified,” that is, in right relationship with God, while the Pharisee did not.
From:
Friar Jack’s E-spirations
friarjack@americancatholic.org
americancatholic.org
Areaman asks:
“My question is this: Do you have a point beside “Scientists arent always right?””
Well… My point might have been that there were so many freaking zealots out there that a simple mention that there was a question science could not answer might elicit over 50 replies from people wanting to bash me for pointing it out.
— Of course that would never really happen now would it.
Paul:
I know who and what you are talking about…and that Steven Jay Gould quote that I posted on another thread sums it up well for me. There ARE scientists who are so dogmatic that their views are akin to religious belief. I see it, and dont like it. But then, I have a problem with anyone who claims to be correct all the time.
Former Texan:
So, here is my faith-based theory: When God visits his wrath upon this planet, the ground will shake and idolaters will hide in holes in the earth.
Okay, that sounds good enough to me. What do you consider to be an “idolater”. From what I have read in Judeo Christian texts, idolators are usually people who worship false gods, etc. Now, thats something to look at critically. I have no problem with religious people, with belief, faith, etc. But when one group of people claims that theirs is the only universal god, and that all other gods are false, well thats religious bigotry IMHO.
Ben Franklin wrote about this in regards to Native Americans. One Indian man said to him (paraphrased): We listened to your stories, and believed them to be true, but when you heard ours, you claimed they were all false. That is unfair for you to think that you are the only one who is right.
I just take it as fact that God was talking to Isaiah, and Isaiah honestly reported God’s opinion on this subject.
I can respect that. In fact, I find it interesting to haer about what people believe. Good stuff.
Want more Thumperism? I think science has become a form of idolatry for many people. In Romans, Paul makes the observation that we worship creation rather than the Creator. That basically sums up my view of Darwinism.
Now, I might have to take issue with this comment. I dont understand where you get the idea that people are worshipping creation, as you say. I know alot of anthropologists, archaeologists, and biologists who have a thorough understanding of evolution, but I dont think that they “worship” it. Most of them just feel that its a pretty good explanation of how life diversified. Not a perfect answer, but definitely a good start.
And what does “Darwinism” mean to you anyway? I would be interested to know that. I honestly dont see any need for your faith to clash with science, with evolutionary theory at all. But thats just me.
Here’s my definition of a bible thumper, FYI: someone who believes that their religion is the only right religion, and who decries as false anything that conflicts with a strict interpretation of their sacred texts.
RE: areaman’s post (March 30, 2005 11:52 AM)
bible thumper – FYI: someone who believes that their religion is the only right religion, and who decries as false anything that conflicts with a strict interpretation of their sacred texts.
Hmm. Sounds suspiciously Talebanish. Are there “Koran Thumpers”? And should I now go into hiding for such blasphemy?
AnonD:
Hmm. Sounds suspiciously Talebanish. Are there “Koran Thumpers”? And should I now go into hiding for such blasphemy?
lol It’s true.
Now…run blasphemer!