The Astonishing Scandal of "Mary's Bones"

I post this link referencing the recent paper by Mary Schweitzer, who has "solved the problem."

I point out that this episode has now reached the stage of outright, grotesque scandal.

If there is anyone who is prepared to understand why the entire research program into soft tissue preservation is a profound departure from the authentic scientific method; that is, if anyone can see what experiment was *not* done, which renders this entire episode scandalous and a true perversion of scientific method, I would like to hear from you.

If I do not, then my next post will explain why this is so.

UPDATE DECEMBER 2 2013:

"The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game."---Karl Popper

• Ch. 2 "On the Problem of a Theory of Scientific Method", Section XI: Methodological Rules as Conventions

I want to let you in on a dirty little secret.

According to Karl Popper's Theory of the Scientific Method above, Mary Schweitzer and team have retired from the game.

They have decided that scientific statements do not call for any further test; specifically, the scientific statement that Mary's Dino Bones are scores of millions of years old.

They have also departed from the scientific method as elaborated by Popper in these specific ways:

"Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is."

>>Evolution forbids Cretaceous fossils to be significantly <65mya.


"A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific." 


>>If evolution is not refutable by the conceivable event that a Cretaceous fossil is found to be <<65mya, then it is non-scientific, that is: it is a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.

"Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice."

>>If evolution is not refutable by ANY conceivable event then it is non-scientific, that is: it is a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.

"Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it." 


Any genuine test of evolution in the face of Mary's Bones will be seen to be an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. If the test is seen to be, instead, an attempt to defend or support evolution, then we are dealing with a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.

"Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks."



>>Evolution forbids Cretaceous fossils to be significantly <65mya.

This represents a testable, risky part of the theory of evolution if and only if:

Any genuine test of evolution in the face of Mary's Bones will be seen to be an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. If the test is seen to be, instead, an attempt to defend or support it, then we are dealing with a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.

C14 testing Mary’s Bones is a genuine attempt to falsify, or refute, the risky prediction of evolution that Cretaceous fossils cannot be <<65mya. “Long age biopreservation” is not a genuine attempt to falsify, or refute, the risky prediction of ToE that Cretaceous fossils cannot be <<65mya.

Therefore, if “long age biopreservation” research is chosen over C14 testing of Mary’s Bones, then: we are dealing with a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.

“Long age biopreservation” research has in fact been chosen over C14 testing- therefore:

we are dealing with a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.

"Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")

>>Since attempts to explore long-age biopreservation are not a genuine test of the theory, they should not count as confirming evidence, because they cannot be considered a serious attempt to falsify the theory.

Therefore, “long age biopreservation” research, chosen in preference to C14 dating, and excluding C14 dating altogether, confirms we are dealing with a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.

“Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")

>>“Long age biopreservation” is, exactly, a “conventionalist twist”; a “conventionalist strategem”. It is justifiable only on the basis of a metaphysical conception of science- “leading paradigm”- which is directly contradictory to the actual, distinctive characteristic of science: falsifiability of “leading paradigm”.

Therefore any preference of “long age biopreservation” research, over the crucial experimental test of C14 dating, confirms:

we are dealing with a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.


[I]“One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.”[I]

In the face of the refusal to C14 date Mary’s Bones, it is established that the theory of evolution, the neo-Darwinian synthesis and its timeline, is not the result of a scientific research program.

It is a metaphysical research program, and should be assessed as such.

<<65mya Cretaceous fossils cannot be accounted for within the consistent predictions of the ToE.

I conclude:

The Darwinian theory is a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.