ericmurphy

I think we got our wires crossed, and don't disagree with anything you said before this. But this part:

My dictionary (New Oxford American) says this:

Since this is now in danger of becoming a battle of the dictionaries, I'm going to state that I believe the use of the term is a matter of personal preference. You're okay with using "speculation" to mean "infer with inconclusive evidence," which would mean most scientists who are at the cutting edge in their field spend most of their time "speculating" (something creationists will no doubt rejoice in hearing). I think it's better to use "speculate" to mean "conjecture beyond what the evidence will support, i.e., "without firm evidence."

A stylistic preference, perhaps. But don't say I didn't warn you when a biblical literalist says, e.g. "The documentary hypothesis is just speculation," or "theories about a polytheistic tradition in predynastic Egypt are just speculation."

It may just be a shade of meaning and not matter to a scientist, but there is a larger battle out there that science is in danger of losing.

Minimalist

Superb explanation, Hex.

Don't expect to convince the Fundies, though.

Pappy Jack

Dave, further to the references I gave you before and repeated above regarding the polytheistic origins of Israelite worship, which later evolved into the almost-but-not-quite-monotheism of xtianity, you may also find these online references helpful:

Hebrew Henotheism at http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm
Another review of Prof. Mark Smith's book at http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/...Monotheism.htm
The Search for the Hebrew God by Jack M. Sasson at http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~jack.m.sasson/Adams_Lecture.htm

Amaleq13

There is no real difference between the two definitions because there is no difference between the absence of "firm evidence" and "inconclusive evidence". Both clearly include circumstantial evidence which is, by definition, inconclusive.

The dictionaries agree. Personal preference is only relevant to which word one chooses. It should not be capable of changing the meaning of words.

I'm "okay" with it because that is how the word is defined.

Yes and that is undeniably true! Honest scientists have no problem acknowledging this fact and we see this confirmed in the article. It is quite clear that the archaeologists openly acknowledge that their conclusions are necessarily speculative in nature.

That is an example of the logical error of argument from adverse consequences. That certain ignorant fools will abuse the language so they can pretend there is nothing substantive opposing their beliefs is entirely irrelevant to the fact that much of science is necessarily speculative. You want certainty, join a religion. Science isn't for those who desire certainty. Certainty is, in fact, antithetical to the fundamental concepts of science.

I continue to think it is better to use words as they are actually defined and not alter our language for the benefit of fools.

All one can do is lay out the evidence and reasoning upon which the conclusion is based. If you think changing the words one uses in describing this process makes one bit of difference to individuals who have no interest in genuine thought, you will always be disappointed.

And conceding to ignorance by allowing the ignorant to dictate the meaning of words is certainly not the way to win.

When they abuse "theory" do we change words or, instead, try to improve their understanding of the word? When they pretend that the fact science changes its conclusions in response to new evidence or argument is a weakness, do we deny that it happens or explain why it is actually a strength? There should be no difference when they abuse "speculation" in the exact same way.

Denying the speculative nature of so much of science is simply a bad move because it is so demonstrably wrong. The ignorant need to be educated about the difference between a wild guess with no basis in evidence and the necessary use of speculation in science.

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -- Voltaire

Wolfie

Well said, I applaud you.

Why can't more people realise that there is nothing in ToE, proof of old Earth etc., etc that prevents either belief in god or adherence to Christianity?

OK, I stopped being a Christian some 41 years ago, but I retain plenty of respect for those Christians who have let their eyes stay open and who live in the real world.

ericmurphy

I disagree. The CMB evidence is certainly circumstantial with respect to the inflationary big bang scenario, but at this point it is probably fair to say it's conclusive evidence in favor of inflation. Therefore, I disagree that "circumstantial" evidence is necessarily "inconclusive."

If I can get you to agree that a sufficient quantity of circumstantial evidence can eventually become "conclusive," then I think you'll have to agree that argument based on circumstantial, but nevertheless conclusive, evidence, is not "speculation."

An example: all of the evidence that birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs is circumstantial, correct? None of that evidence is direct. Nevertheless, the paleontological and cladistics communities seem persuaded that such evidence is conclusive at this point. Does that mean it's still nevertheless "speculation" that birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs? I think most paleontologists would disagree with you.

I'm not making that error. What I saying is that there needs to be something between "speculation" and "certainty," and while you're claiming that something like "speculation based on firm evidence" fills that gap, I'm saying it's a misuse of the term "speculation," just as saying a "wild guess based on preponderant evidence" is a misuse of the term "wild guess."

I think I am using the term as it is actually defined. And I do not agree that "circumstantial evidence" is necessarily inconclusive. Murderers have been sent to prison (i.e., with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt) using circumstantial evidence alone.


No, of course not. But again, I think using the phrase "speculation supported by substantial evidence" does not work to fill the gap between "wild-ass guess" and "certainty," because it verges on being an oxymoron.

Another clarification here. Yes, I agree that most science starts out as speculation. However, it doesn't stay that way, and to claim now that the inflationary big bang model today is just as speculative as it was thirty years ago merely because it is founded on circumstantial, rather than direct, evidence, is unjustifiable, just as to assert that the descent of birds from theropod dinosaurs is just as speculative today as it was forty years ago merely because the supporting evidence is indirect.

Thoughts?

Amaleq13

Evidence that confirms a prediction is circumstantial?

I think that depends on whether you are referring to a single piece of circumstantial evidence or an accumulated body of circumstantial evidence. It necessarily holds true for the former but I would agree that an accumulation of enough lends itself to greater confidence. It still isn't direct evidence but I think it could be enough to be called "firm" and, therefore, not speculation.

The archaeologists in the article, however, do not appear to think they have that.

Not if that is a synonym for "certain". None of that in science.

Yes, "degrees of confidence" dependent upon the amount and nature of the evidence.

The archaeologists, by their own words, appear to be much closer to the "speculation" side of that range.

No. I've repeatedly stated that speculation is in the absence of firm evidence.

So have innocent people. Direct evidence has set some of them free.

ericmurphy

Sure. The CMB is not "direct" evidence for cosmic inflation. Nevertheless, it confirms numerous predictions of cosmic inflation. So yes, evidence can be both confirmatory and circumstantial.


That's as may be. My point is independent of the particular article in question. I'm just saying, and have been saying, that if it's supported by substantial evidence, it isn't speculation, even if that evidence happens to be circumstantial.

We definitely agree there! As I've said to creationists millions of times, if you want proof, or certainty, try mathematics or logic, not science.

Well, if their conjecture is beyond what the evidence really supports, I'd agree that they're speculating.

Okay, so then we really are in agreement. You do agree, after all, that if a particular assertion is based on substantial evidence, even if that evidence is circumstantial, then it's not speculation?

So has circumstantial evidence. :-)

Amaleq13

Yes, "substantial evidence" is what is absent when one is forced to speculate.

Their conjecture is beyond what the evidence can establish to be true with a high degree of confidence.

If they have "substantial evidence", they are not speculating according to the definition of the word.

Circumstantial evidence has reversed a conviction? I wouldn't bet money on that.

ericmurphy

You wouldn't consider a DNA mismatch to be "circumstantial evidence" that the accused didn't commit the murder?