fromderinside

That's your opinion.

skepticalbip

You are right. I worded it poorly. My intent was that the method used in interpreting what is found is telling us is a major part of our understanding. If the process involves elimination of various possibilities we will get one answer. If we to try to fit what we see to what we believe then we can get a very different understanding.

"True believers" in anything such religion, UFOs, bigfoot, Atlantis, Nessy, etc. invariably shoehorn any "evidence" into some interpretation that supports their belief.

ThePainefulTruth

No, the evidence exists. That it's impoverished is your opinion.

ThePainefulTruth

Yes the difference is the scientific method, which includes peer review.

fromderinside

Peers who review, I've been on both sides of that, generally make comments about aptness of conclusions through suggestions of their own or through suggestions about who and what should be referenced in discussion,rarely do they reject a publication based on the discussion.

On the other hand if they note any failure of hypothesis or method or analysis of results usually results reviewers either rejecting the article or recommending a substantial redo before the submitted article can be considered for publication.

IOW peer review is primarily about what is done, not about what is opined (concluded, proposed for further study, conjectured, interpreted against other studies, etc).

SM is specifically not about opinion and that is why, IMHO, we are now discussing this in BC&H.

Toto

BAR is not a peer reviewed scientific journal. It is a popular magazine run by an entrepreneurial lawyer that depends on selling issues to religious consumers.

ThePainefulTruth

Yes. But its authors are scholars who write peer reviewed material which they condense for a lay but knowledgeable audience. Yes, Shanks is a lawyer. So what, he hasn't practiced law essentially since he started the magazine, and would probably qualify as an archaeologist based on his exceptional knowledge of the subject matter he's acquired over the last 30+ years.

Not only is he very knowledgeable of the science, he's courageous in its defense. BAR was instrumental in breaking the academic logjam which had kept the Dead Sea Scrolls from being published until the early 90's, when he published a scroll without the rights to do so, knowing he and BAR would be sued, and I'm sure suspecting he would loose--which he did.

BAR also broke the story on the James ossuary, which brought down the might and fury of all the religious poo pooers and the Israel Antiquities Authority--which lost its 5 year government lawsuit on the issue.

skepticalbip

Then there is no difference because neither use the scientific method. Someone calling themself an archeologist does not automatically mean they are using the scientific method. And even people who hold science degrees often veer from science when it comes to their beliefs - it has made even well known scientists take leaps that are unsupported only to be embarrased when the absurdity is demonstrated.

ThePainefulTruth

The same could be said about climatologists (or any science), but that doesn't mean that Climatology isn't a science which scientists pursue with integrity using the scientific method. Corruption is possible in any human endeavor--even posting on message boards, much less political science.

ThePainefulTruth

It's also about the validity of the evidence.