The Instigator
roguetech
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
pr.Daniel_Jordan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Astronomical evidence established the universe is young

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
roguetech
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 359 times Debate No: 79228
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

roguetech

Con

The Pro (pr.Daniel_Jordan) will argue that there is sufficient astronomical evidence to establish the universe is young. The Con (myself) will argue there is insufficient astronomical evidence to establish a young universe.

Definitions:
astronomy|ical - science dealing with extra-terrestrial celestial objects, such as stars and galaxies

evidence - facts or information provided through peer-reviewed publications

universe - the sum of all observable objects and phenomenon

young - less than 100,000 years

First round goes to Pro.
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

I will debate you when you re-define evidence, since peer review is not the gold standard of scientific legitimacy.

http://jrs.sagepub.com...

http://retractionwatch.com...

http://www.evolutionnews.org...
Debate Round No. 1
roguetech

Con

Pro failed to provide any arguments or evidence regarding the age of the universe. They assert the scientific method is not valid.

I maintain that the universe is older than 100,000 years.

To rebut the claims regarding peer-reviewed evidence, first, if this standard was too great of a burden to meet, Pro should have stated so in the comments some alternative. They should not have accpted the debate. At a minimum they should have proposed an alternative.

The first sentence of the first source:

>Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science.

Clearly, this is not a negative statement. The source actually provides that peer-review functions well.

From the second source:

>But today there is no way to do [do something different] without money. That"s the difficulty. In order to do science you have to have it supported"

>Do you know we now have these performance criteria, which I think are just ridiculous in many ways. But of course this money has to be apportioned, and our administrators love having numbers like impact factors or scores. Singapore is full of them too. Everybody has what are called key performance indicators. But everybody has them. You have to justify them...

>No sooner did I sit down then all the business people stand up and say, how can we ensure payback on our investment? My answer was, okay make it 0.1%.

Dr. Sydney Brenner is a geneticist who has had to deal with patenting of genes. Money does corrupt the process. However, there's little or no money in astronomy. Pro has not stated how Dr. Brenner's concerns are relevant, let alone demonstrated any meaningful impact.

From your third source:

>Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution, including breaking news about scientific research.

Not only is this an appeal to authority fallacy, but obviously they don't support peer-review since they can't get any news from peer-reviewed journals. There is no evidence for "intelligent design" (or not-intelligent design).

Further, Pro is cherry-picking. They provide one that demonstrates it's extremely effective, if not perfect, for another field of study. They find one expert in an a different field of study saying peer-review has problems. They pad it out with a claim from a supporter of a special interest group that has spent millions to undermine the system specifically because it does work. Yet, they ignore the thousands of subject matter experts who support the system.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu...
https://www.lib.utexas.edu...
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu...
Etc., etc., etc.

To assert something is not a "gold standard", they must demonstrate something is better. They haven't even SUGGESTED any alternatives. Pro, do you have any peer-reviewed research demonstrating a more effective system. Do you have any peer-reviewed research demonstrating such a system is actually being used?
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

You: The first sentence of the first source:
>Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science.
Clearly, this is not a negative statement. The source actually provides that peer-review functions well.

Answer: It's a neutral statement. The title, however, is negative: "Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals"
_____________
You: From the second source:
>But today there is no way to do [do something different] without money. That"s the difficulty. In order to do science you have to have it supported"
>Do you know we now have these performance criteria, which I think are just ridiculous in many ways. But of course this money has to be apportioned, and our administrators love having numbers like impact factors or scores. Singapore is full of them too. Everybody has what are called key performance indicators. But everybody has them. You have to justify them...
>No sooner did I sit down then all the business people stand up and say, how can we ensure payback on our investment? My answer was, okay make it 0.1%.
Dr. Sydney Brenner is a geneticist who has had to deal with patenting of genes. Money does corrupt the process. However, there's little or no money in astronomy. Pro has not stated how Dr. Brenner's concerns are relevant, let alone demonstrated any meaningful impact.

Answer: Here is what is told in the article I gave: "
And of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean. I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists."
_____________
You: From your third source:
>Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution, including breaking news about scientific research.
Not only is this an appeal to authority fallacy, but obviously they don't support peer-review since they can't get any news from peer-reviewed journals. There is no evidence for "intelligent design" (or not-intelligent design).

Answer: You completely ignored the critique provided by the website.
_____________
Debate Round No. 2
roguetech

Con

Pro again does not address the age of the universe. I maintain the universe is not young.

To rebut Pro's spurious claim regarding the first source, it states:

>The most important question with peer review is not whether to abandon it, but how to improve it.

Taken as a whole, while pointing out that there are flaws, the paper asserts peer-review is the "gold standard", but can be improved upon. I invite Con to only cite studies from journals that meet the recommendations the source proposes.

Regarding Dr. Brenner's position, as stated, his words are being taken out of context. Dr. Brenner has a history of being adversarial regarding grant funding.[1] He works in medicine, where the corrupting effect of profit motives and special interest groups like religious organizations can be felt more directly than any other field of research.[2]

[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com...

[2] http://jme.bmj.com...

Pro fails to address how the opinion of one medical scientist and one medical literature study are relevant to astronomy. They fail to mention any alternatives. They fail to establish any alternative is better. They fail to establish such a system exists and is in use by astronomers.

More to the point, they are welcome to use any peer-reviewed research that meets their own criteria.
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

This is my last response to you due to your extreme level of manipulation.

You take words out of context, leave out an entire title [previous post, response to my first link] and then attempt to accuse me of that with some non sequitor claims about Brenner. Then you go on about medical literature and how it does not relate to astronomy. What?! I heard that if you let a person talk, they'll eventually trip. It's true.

Keep going my friend, keep going -- you have been exposed.
Debate Round No. 3
roguetech

Con

Pro does not address the age of the universe. Pro makes no new assertions.

To support my assertion, I provide potassium-argon dating of Martian mudstone on the surface of Mars. It is between 3.86 billion and 4.56 billion years old. As per the definition provided for "universe", the mudstone is a portion thereof. In addition, it was found to have been exposed to surface solar radiation for at least 48 million years. Ergo, at least this one part of the universe is some years older than 100,000.

http://m.caltech.edu...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Pro

pr.Daniel_Jordan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 1 year ago
Unbelievable.Time
roguetechpr.Daniel_JordanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
roguetechpr.Daniel_JordanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF