I probably have far more formal education in science than you do, and I have spent a lot of additional time researching a number of topics, including the philosophy of science.

Nope. Just pointing out that there is a section in a paper, in which scientists will often include their own opinion and interpretation, which does not necessarily follow from the research being addressed.

No. I haven’t written that many. I don’t even know how many I’ve read though, both required for my degrees and for my own research. But I also cited another discussion on the issue, and I’m sure I could cite plenty of other references which will tell you the same thing.

I don’t think they understand “facts” either, or at least not “facts” as the idea relates to science. http://politicoid.us/scientific-fac…

> Hey, at least you recognize that shouldn’t go in the conclusion any more... not bad for a lay person.

I never said that they were. I said that they were a SUMMARY OF THE ENTIRE PAPER INCLUDING THE END.

There is no such thing as definite proof in science. Regardless, the final section of the paper, usually the discussion, can indeed include personal opinion, and that’s why the discussion should not really be used as source material. http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-p…

Let me start by clearing a stupid misconception that you probably have. I’m not a Christian. I don’t believe Jesus is the son of god. I don’t believe in a god. I don’t believe in an afterlife. However, I do understand science, and I do understand religion.

Sorry. You are correct. It does say that. And an abstract is a total summary of the paper, including the conclusion and discussion. So?

Yes; I do. And your comment does not follow from what I said. The abstract is an overall summary of the paper. It’s often listed, when the full paper is not available, and allows those researching a topic to know whether or not it’s worthwhile to find or purchase the paper itself.

Actually, I should say that it should go in the discussion section.

I feel like a lot of people in the academic community are religious negativists. They default to a belief in nonexistence, whenever there is no evidence for existence. This is actually just as religious as a belief in existence (any belief, which lacks a known method of empirical investigation, is religious), and so…

Your comment in no way logically follows from what I have said.

Science cannot conclusively prove anything, but I wouldn’t expect better wording from a layperson.

Actually, all claims carry burden of proof, whether claims for existence or nonexistence. But that’s not my point. My point is that science has mute on the issue, because science and religion are mutually exclusive domains of knowledge. But be that as it may, it is not unreasonable to include opinion and personal…

No; that’s you. After all, you haven’t actually said anything, except to accuse me of being a troll.

Actually, scientific papers can indeed include opinion, so long as it’s separate from the scientific investigation itself, and a conclusion is a perfectly sound place to put your own opinion on the topic.

That’s true. What’s your point?

Luckily, I don’t care about the “thrashings” of people who have no clue what they’re talking about.

Actually, final section of a paper is an acceptable place to put your own personal view on the issue, and it is quite common for people to do so. And, since there is nothing within science which contradicts the existence of a creator/intelligent designer, so what if the author views the existence of a creator?