About 2 hours later, the lawyer wanted to know what I thought of carbon dating. I figured he was baiting me, so I reversed the same question back to him. He proceeded to tell me his reasoning, not based on science in the least, for not trusting carbon dating. When I brought up that if you see something modern and something ancient, something in the middle is not hard to connect dots to. His response was that not everything is linear.
He's right about that. Euclidean Geometry isn't. The theory of relativity isn't. The spiral design that appears in the universe and in life forms on Earth isn't. Other examples exist as well. But, carbon dating's basis is linear and uniform. Not to trust the science of carbon dating would require that one know what the limitations of the theory are, distrust the statistical margin of error established by the theory, and replace it with something definite and scientific that is not linear.
He couldn't do that. Since he can't, I think he was letting what lawyers do best guide him. And what do lawyers do best? They think they know how to use words better than anybody, so they can create a mirage, and no one can see what lies behind it. They are most of the time so arrogant with that attitude, that they believe themselves and their illusion turns to facts in their eyes because they have made a plausible case for an alternative explanation.
I don't want to live under an illusion. I have done that before and try hard not to have that happen. It would be more honest to acknowledge that he doesn't trust science for other than scientific reasons and hope that science will someday follow his way of thinking (which is based on religious conditioning in his case).
Following evidence has a much better record for proving things than notions. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment