Can the charts keep up?

[Benz]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Actually you should follow some of the links posted. There is quite a lot of evidence that the poles have reversed many times in the past. One of the most inarguable is the reversed magnetic fields in the solidified lava flows in the ocean floors as mentioned by Don CL.

I might not be on site to witness a forest fire but if I walked up to hundreds of acres of blackened terrain full of smoking tree stumps I would be pretty sure that one had happened.

But you wouldn't be postulating that a forest fire happened Xmillion years ago. The smoking stumps are current evidence: iron deposits on the ocean floor are a lot less blatant, since no one has witnessed them form, and it is a good a theory that they were placed by aliens as that 100 billion years ago the magnetic field reversed.

No human alive has ever witnessed or recorded a magnetic pole reversal. Guessing about what may have happened choose-your-favorite-number of millions of years ago is a guess. Are there deposits and all? Sure. But "evidence" often is interpreted wrong, especially when coming from the wrong assumptions, such as that we have gajillions of years to work with, and if we need more, shoot, they're free!

[Don C L]

So... we can't trust anything has happened that has not been witnessed and/recorded by a person? Do I have that right?

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Don C L

So... we can't trust anything has happened that has not been witnessed and/recorded by a person? Do I have that right?

I'm betting he's a FOX news fan

Hell, the charts can't keep up with the shifting sands on the ICW and east coast of the US. Expecting them to keep up with more complex hapenings is optimistic.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Benz

No human alive has ever witnessed or recorded a magnetic pole reversal. Guessing about what may have happened choose-your-favorite-number of millions of years ago is a guess. Are there deposits and all? Sure. But "evidence" often is interpreted wrong, especially when coming from the wrong assumptions, such as that we have gajillions of years to work with, and if we need more, shoot, they're free!

First of all, eyewitness testimony is considered among the worst evidence for anything. This has been proven over and over.

Second, just because you choose not to learn about the things which people much smarter than you or I have learned over many lifetimes of detailed research in many different and overlapping fields, doesn't mean it's OK to dismiss the overwhelming body of evidence they've collected.

I think it's a common misconception that each individual scientific fact is the result of one isolated study. Actually, each tiny advance in knowledge is hard-fought, contested, and is bolstered by the millions of little advances that preceded it, and corroborated by tiny advances in related fields.

The example of magnetism in ocean deposits is a great example. Lots of theories were proposed when these were first (unexpectedly) discovered. One by one, multiple results from multiple disciplines ruled out other possibilities and reinforced the one that nobody really wanted to believe; the earth's magnetic field is not static, and in fact can and does reverse.

You can choose not to read books or research papers, or watch those boring documentaries where these things are explained. You can choose to dismiss all of science as just "guesses." That won't change facts. It only reflects on you.

[Benz]

Originally Posted by Don C L

So... we can't trust anything has happened that has not been witnessed and/recorded by a person? Do I have that right?

Anything that has not been witnessed and recorded, and preferably witnessed and recorded by multiple people is not empirical. Science, by definition, requires that all things regarded as fact be observable and repeatable. If they are not, then they are conjecture. However plausible, however much you might choose tho believe them, they are, by definition, a guess.

Guesses made by people much smarter than me over the centuries have often been wrong. Evidence has been misinterpreted. It is astonishingly arrogant to say that the current concensus of scientists is infallibly right when historically they have been wrong.

So....unless someone can bring forth recorded testimony from reliable people who actually witnessed a pole reversal, it's all guesswork.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Don C L

So... we can't trust anything has happened that has not been witnessed and/recorded by a person? Do I have that right?

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Benz

So....unless someone can bring forth recorded testimony from reliable people who actually witnessed a pole reversal, it's all guesswork.

Dismiss all of science. Dismiss all of reality. Live in a make-believe world of your own. You have that right.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

First of all, eyewitness testimony is considered among the worst evidence for anything. This has been proven over and over.

Exactly. A classic example and this is a true story. A law school professor was giving a lecture to a large class when a person ran in, stole her purse, and ran out again. The incident was staged as a demonstration. A classroom full of law students gave dramatically conflicting evidence on the description of the "perpetrator".

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Second, just because you choose not to learn about the things which people much smarter than you or I have learned over many lifetimes of detailed research in many different and overlapping fields, doesn't mean it's OK to dismiss the overwhelming body of evidence they've collected.

I think it's a common misconception that each individual scientific fact is the result of one isolated study. Actually, each tiny advance in knowledge is hard-fought, contested, and is bolstered by the millions of little advances that preceded it, and corroborated by tiny advances in related fields.

The example of magnetism in ocean deposits is a great example. Lots of theories were proposed when these were first (unexpectedly) discovered. One by one, multiple results from multiple disciplines ruled out other possibilities and reinforced the one that nobody really wanted to believe; the earth's magnetic field is not static, and in fact can and does reverse.

You can choose not to read books or research papers, or watch those boring documentaries where these things are explained. You can choose to dismiss all of science as just "guesses." That won't change facts. It only reflects on you.

In the case of ocean deposits the evidence is quite clear. The North American and European continents are drifting apart. In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean there is a crack thousands of miles long where lava flows up from below to fill in the space left by the spreading. The solidified lava is mostly stable and undisturbed by earthquakes, erosion or other actions that would change it's orientation across hundreds of thousands of square miles.

Multiple sample of the solidified lave show the magnetic poles in the ferrous particles in the solidified lave are reversed periodically. In addition, the patterns of reversal has been shown to be perfectly symmetrical on the east and west sides of the crack.

There has been no other logical or possible explanation put forth for this evidence other than the reversal of the magnetic poles. If Mr Benz has any rational explanation as to what caused this it would be interesting to hear.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Benz

But you wouldn't be postulating that a forest fire happened Xmillion years ago. The smoking stumps are current evidence: iron deposits on the ocean floor are a lot less blatant, since no one has witnessed them form, and it is a good a theory that they were placed by aliens as that 100 billion years ago the magnetic field reversed.

No human alive has ever witnessed or recorded a magnetic pole reversal. Guessing about what may have happened choose-your-favorite-number of millions of years ago is a guess. Are there deposits and all? Sure. But "evidence" often is interpreted wrong, especially when coming from the wrong assumptions, such as that we have gajillions of years to work with, and if we need more, shoot, they're free!

Then extrapolate a little. I come by a year later. No smoke but no trees but an area of blackened stumps. The evidence of a forest fire is still clear. 50 years, trees will be back but it would still be easy to find lots of old, blackened stumps and a layer of soot and charcoal in the ground so still clear. Say a million years later that area is dug up and fossilized remains of thousands of burned tree stumps are found in the same soil layer. One could still be certain that the forest had burned. Of course probably impossible oo tell how it started but no doubt it happened.

So looking at large, undisturbed areas of solidified lave on finds parallel areas where the poles in the rock point one way, then the other. Seems pretty clear to me what happened. But then I'm an engineer and believe data that is proven by repeated tests by separate, independent researchers.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Benz

Anything that has not been witnessed and recorded, and preferably witnessed and recorded by multiple people is not empirical. Science, by definition, requires that all things regarded as fact be observable and repeatable.
So ....unless someone can bring forth recorded testimony from reliable people who actually witnessed a pole reversal, it's all guesswork.

"Observable and repeatable" doesn't necessarily mean that you can go out to the back shed today and flip the earth's poles a couple of times; it does mean that there's some understanding of how it possibly happened. Science forms theories all the time without having had a front row seat to something, or being able to immediately go out and repeat something (eg the Jurassic period). If experts in the field have concluded that the poles have flipped and might again, I have no reason or basis for disputing it.

Anyway, I don't know whether it's worth obsessing about whether the poles will or will not flip; it's truly out of our control. I'm still planning to go sailing this spring. You?

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"Observable and repeatable" doesn't necessarily mean that you can go out to the back shed today and flip the earth's poles a couple of times; it does mean that there's some understanding of how it possibly happened. Science forms theories all the time without having had a front row seat to something, or being able to immediately go out and repeat something (eg the Jurassic period). If experts in the field have concluded that the poles have flipped and might again, I have no reason or basis for disputing it.

Anyway, I don't know whether it's worth obsessing about whether the poles will or will not flip; it's truly out of our control. I'm still planning to go sailing this spring. You?

[Don C L]

I was out walking the other day. I saw one of the local trees had fallen after the storm. I wasn't there when it happened. I wonder if it made a sound?

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Benz

Anything that has not been witnessed and recorded, and preferably witnessed and recorded by multiple people is not empirical. Science, by definition, requires that all things regarded as fact be observable and repeatable. If they are not, then they are conjecture. However plausible, however much you might choose tho believe them, they are, by definition, a guess.

One last comment and I'm going to do some varnishing. Your logic is demonstrably specious. Another example, no one witnessed the formation of the earth but I'm pretty sure that it happened.

Evidence of pole reversal is observable and that evidence has been tested and found to be repeatable.

[boatman61]

I have a born again christian friend like Benz..
He reckons fossils were put there by god 6000yrs ago at creation to test our faith..
Needless to say we dont talk religion or science much.

[gamayun]

Originally Posted by Benz

So....unless someone can bring forth recorded testimony from reliable people who actually witnessed a pole reversal, it's all guesswork.

This might explain how people faithfully follow religious teachings - because the Bible tells them it is so - but it is just not how science works. Sorry, Benz. End of story.