Deletion of deep hot biosphere answer

Question

On this question: Is there a deep, hot biosphere? , I provided an answer which was essentially a summary of Thomas Gold's book "The Deep Hot Biosphere", which I have just read. The answer was upvoted, and yet, it was deleted summarily after a claim that it is "unreferenced". It is not unreferenced, it has exactly one reference, which is Gold's book (although this book itself has many references which one can include). The deletion is unjustified even by the claimed standards of this site. I ask that it be restored.

The consensus in petrolium science in the west is that oil is biogenic. The consensus in the Soviet Union (and in modern Russia and Ukraine) is exactly the opposite. Gold was one of the few English writers who supported this position.

It is common practice on this site to evaluate claims not by reading the material, or learning what the subject is about, but based upon statistical counting of the number of sources that support one claim over the other.

This is guaranteed to lead to ignorant censorious deletion in those cases where the majority mainstream opinion is mentally defective. The opinion that oil is biogenic is the mentally defective claim, it is ridiculous to think that you can get pure hydrocarbons from plants under natural conditions, it is just a stupid thing that many powerful people believe, although they also now have to acknowledge that abiogenic methane exists at the very least, and deep thermophillic bacteria too.

Answer 1

How about "Verifiable References"? You say that it's from Gold's book, but there is absolutely nothing in your answer to give any validity to that claim. Add links. Put in screenshots from a PDF, etc.

Answer 2

There are several problems with that answer:

1. It uses the same source that is questioned to answer the question. The question is skeptical about Gold's claims, using his book to prove that he is right doesn't add much.

2. The answer doesn't make clear which statements are directly from Gold's book and which parts you added yourself.

The post also contains some non-constructive assertions like

That oil is abiogenic should be obvious to everyone today, the evidence was strong in the 1950s, and it's certain now. This idea is rejected today because oil scientists are stupid and reactionary.

and

[..] but the abiogenic character of oil can't be disputed by a sane person today.

Those statement contradict the current scientific consensus and are not backed up by evidence. You can of course make a case against the current scientific understanding, but that requires bringing along some hard evidence.

Answer 3

I haven't deleted your answer however, I might guess that the reason it was deleted is that you are only bringing to the table the opinions of someone writing a book. Why is it that the book is a valid resource and not garbage?

You rightly say the book has references, do they support the thesis you present as a summary? Checking references is clearly something we expect you to do! We also expect to be able to check ourselves, by the way.

The answer, as it is, is basically uncheckable. I need to read the whole book to check whether your summary is correct, then correlate your summary to the references and verify that there are enough references in the book to support it, and finally I also have to look for and verify all the primary sources.

No thanks.

Also, note that we don't allow wikipedia for very similar reasons. We don't even allow referenced wikipedia articles.

To get your answer reinstated:

1. Cite verbatim passages in the book which support the points you wish to make.
2. Check that those passages are supported by references.
3. Cite those references as well.

Answer 4

Ron,

Saw some of your "crank" responses to Larian, and had to add in another defenition of skepticism that I saw over at JREF that may help you realize why you are having problems here.

Skepticism is a world-view, most reflected in the intellectual practice of questioning instead of just accepting assertions. Skepticism can be as simple as looking out the bedroom window to see if this morning's weather matches last night's weather prediction; it can be as complex as comparing the source and validity of evidence in an emerging medical or biological question. Skepticism necessarily includes the willingness to say--and to be comfortable with-- "I don't know" about an issue, an experience, or a perception. Skepticism is recognizing that there is an implicit "As far as we can so far determine" about currently held truths.

Skepticism is not denying assertions on a priori grounds, except for things which are metaphysically impossible (as, perpetual motion devices) or unprovable (as, "There are pink dragons sipping tea on Alpha Centauri"). Nor is it patiently and interminably arguing, researching, and debunking every wild-eyed claim that is made. For example, it is not necessary to disprove every claim of psychokinesis to hold the view that it is vanishingly unlikely; it is enough to recognize that there have been many unsubstantiated claims, and many examples of fraud; that there is no mechanism postulated to support such a thing that fits with known physical phenomena; and to hold the caveat that if such a claimant is able to offer repeated successful demonstrations of this ability under stringent laboratory conditions, it would warrant further consideration.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, skepticism is the mental habit of not believing in things simply because you want them to be true; nor denying things because you want them to not be true. In its simplest form, skepticism is a commitment to finding reality and accepting it.