Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist scientific methods
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 1 of 14 (475485)
07-16-2008 10:53 AM


In mainstream science what you do, is to try to find the initial conditions from where it's 100 percent likely someting would be, finding efficient causes along the way.
In creationist science you do the exact opposite, you try to find from where it is 0 percent likely something would be, finding the decisions along the way.
So creation science procedes by miracle, and mainstream science by (trying to find) absolute certainty.
Let's compare the logic of the two:
In mainstream science;
- the future is in the past
- the past consists of a single decision
- the present is irrellevant
In creationist science;
- the future consists of alternatives
- the past consists of a sequence of decisions
- the present is decided
So isn't it fundamentally illogical to have the initial conditions explain anything to 100 percent?
Isn't it true that an elephant is only 100 percent explained by an actual present elephant, and the initial conditions that caused an elephant can never fully explain an elephant?
This here must be the fundamental reason why we can do without causal theory. In introducing anticipation theory Professor Dubois showed that you can do all of science without causes, but just with the conservation of some properties.
For the intelligent design forum.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 07-16-2008 1:15 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 07-16-2008 2:25 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 4 by Syamsu, posted 07-16-2008 4:13 PM Syamsu has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 14 (475516)
07-16-2008 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
07-16-2008 10:53 AM


Opting to leave it alone
After reading this a couple of times I can't see anything that makes any sense (but the grammar appears to be correct ) so I am not qualified to promote it.
Maybe someone else can manage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 07-16-2008 10:53 AM Syamsu has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 14 (475521)
07-16-2008 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
07-16-2008 10:53 AM


Your topic proposal reads like nonsense. Edit your proposal into understandable prose and take the fullest possible advantage of standard terminology. Things to avoid:
  • Making up your own definition of the scientific process.
  • Making up your own definition of the creationist scientific process.
  • Using nonsensical phrases like "the future is in the past", "the past consists of a single decision", etc.
  • Mentioning obscure theories (anticipation theory) in passing without elaboration.
Please post a note when you're done.
I'm not trying to waste your time. If my request isn't reasonable for you then we can just close this.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 07-16-2008 10:53 AM Syamsu has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 4 of 14 (475535)
07-16-2008 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
07-16-2008 10:53 AM


In mainstream science what you do, is to try to find the initial conditions from where it's 100 percent likely someting would be, finding efficient causes along the way.
(like exactly predicting where the moon is a 1000 years from now etc. or for example the practice in science that experiments should be 100 percent controlled, and when variation is found in results, then one must suggest some other causitive factors, and attribute error measurement to get to the full 100 percent)
In creationist science you do the exact opposite, you try to find from where it is 0 percent likely something would be, finding the decisions along the way.
(creatio ex nihilo. a decision changes the probability something will occur, so you go from 0 to 100 percent through history, the sequence of decisions)
So creation science procedes by miracle, and mainstream science by (trying to find) absolute certainty.
(something happening from zero probability of it happening, it's a mathematical definition of a miracle. The absolute certainty refers back to the 100 percent mentioned previously)
Let's compare the logic of the two (seeing that they are two different time principles:
In mainstream science;
- the future is in the past
(from an information point of view, the information of the position of the moon now, is in the position of the moon a thousand years ago, the information of the result of the experiment is in the initial conditions of the experiment)
- the past consists of a single decision
(everything is decided at the beginning, the initial conditions, otherwise known as determinism)
- the present is irrellevant
(there is no place for the present in this logic, we just add it by our common knowledge that there is indeed a present, but it really plays no part in the logic from initial conditions)
In creationist science;
- the future consists of alternatives
(well that seems selfexplanatory)
- the past consists of a sequence of decisions
(self explanatory, history)
- the present is decided
(the act of decision defines the now)
So isn't it fundamentally illogical to have the initial conditions explain anything to 100 percent?
(how do you get from 100 percent to 100 percent, and what sense is there in that?)
Isn't it true that an elephant is only 100 percent explained by an actual present elephant, and the initial conditions that caused an elephant can never fully explain an elephant?
(obviously when we established a phenomenon is real, we see the elephant, we know the history is from smaller percentages, from when there was no elephant, to a certainty, when we see the elephant, perhaps the percentages going down along the way of going up at the last)
This here must be the fundamental reason why we can do without causal theory. In introducing anticipation theory Professor Dubois showed that you can do all of science without causes, but just with the conservation of some properties.
(Dubois is not obscure, but actually a wellknown awardwinning scientist who chaired several conferences on computing anticipation with many big names attending. So you know, some reputable scientist said that causal theory is unneccessary in science, and the logic as above is an idea about why it is false, and why a science that includes decisions is better)
http://www.mindspring.com/~cerebroscopic/Dubois.html
"A fundamental question is : are actual systems really causal ? In looking in equations of physics, there is no evidence that causation plays a central role or even exists ! "
For the intelligent design forum.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 07-16-2008 10:53 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 07-17-2008 8:39 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 9 by Syamsu, posted 07-18-2008 4:43 PM Syamsu has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 14 (475650)
07-17-2008 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Syamsu
07-16-2008 4:13 PM


If you're willing to continue making edits then I'll be glad to keep giving you feedback. Let's first focus on paragraph 1:
Symansu writes:
In mainstream science what you do, is to try to find the initial conditions from where it's 100 percent likely someting would be, finding efficient causes along the way.
Since you're trying to describe mainstream science, you really want to describe it in a way that is recognizably mainstream science. Try giving the Wikipedia article on Science a read and see if that helps you improve your first paragraph so that it actually describes a summary view of mainstream science. There's a section on the scientific method.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Syamsu, posted 07-16-2008 4:13 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 07-17-2008 9:36 AM Admin has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 6 of 14 (475660)
07-17-2008 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Admin
07-17-2008 8:39 AM


I don't have the references anymore, but I can remember Dubois referencing somebody "famously" saying "give me the initial conditions and I can explain everything."
Then I can also remember reading Robert Rosen, also a big name, almost apologizing for engaging in the subject of anticipation, on account of the argument that since anticipation was not causal, it therefore wasn't scientific.
I can also remember some years back an article which spoke of a quiet revolution in biology, which revolution was that biologists allowed for one to many, free, explanations in their papers.
So mainstream science is generally based on causal theory, and nothing in the article you referenced seems to say otherwise.
That there is some epistemological problem with achieving 100 percent certainty, as the article states, does not deny the fact that scientists on a practical basis do in fact aim for 100 percent certainty from initial conditions in their papers.
For example they measured the position of the moon and found some difference with their prediction, then they suggested the mooninteraction with tidal waves and a few other factors, to explain away the variation. They did not actually research these particular factors, those were mere suggestions, as is standard procedure in science, that if you find variation, then suggest some causal factors to explain the difference. That way scientists strive to find 100 percent predetermination in initial conditions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 07-17-2008 8:39 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Syamsu, posted 07-17-2008 10:02 AM Syamsu has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 7 of 14 (475664)
07-17-2008 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Syamsu
07-17-2008 9:36 AM


http://www.anticipation.info/...nticipatorysystems_rosen.pdf
page 5
"For the basic cornerstones on which our entire scientific enterprise rests is the belief that events are not arbitrary, but obey definite laws which can be discovered. The search for such laws is an expression of our faith in causlity."
......
"Thus, from a knowledge of the values of all the relevant quantities as some initial instant t0 the values of these quantities at the succeeding instant t0 + dt are determined."
......
etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 07-17-2008 9:36 AM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Admin, posted 07-18-2008 6:46 AM Syamsu has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 8 of 14 (475761)
07-18-2008 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Syamsu
07-17-2008 10:02 AM


Hi Syamsu,
I'm not here to engage in a back and forth. I'm just providing feedback about what it would take for me to promote your topic proposal.
If all you're trying to say about mainstream science is that it is based upon the assumption that effects have causes, then say so. Read your opening paragraph again and you'll see that that's not what you say. You instead say that mainstream science is about finding initial conditions and efficient causes, and you mention "100 percent likely" when science is tentative.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Syamsu, posted 07-17-2008 10:02 AM Syamsu has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 9 of 14 (475826)
07-18-2008 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Syamsu
07-16-2008 4:13 PM


In comparison: creation science and mainstream science
In my view of mainstream science, what you do in practice, is to try to find the initial conditions from where it's 100 percent likely someting would be, finding efficient causes along the way. Whereas your finding is tentative, the phenomenon under investigation itself is proposed to behave with absolute 100 percent likelyhood towards the result.
For example exactly predicting where the moon is a 1000 years from now. NASA measured the position of the moon and found some difference with their prediction. That prompted them to suggest the moons' interaction with tidal waves and a few other factors to explain away the difference. They did not actually research those particular factors, those were mere suggestions. In mainstream science it is standard procedure for experiments, that if you find variation in results, that you suggest some causal factors to explain away the difference.
The general practice is that all factors in an experiment should be controlled, and when variation is found in results, then one must suggest some other causitive factors, and attribute error measurement, to get to the full 100 percent causation from initial conditions.
In creationist science on the other hand you do the exact opposite. You try to find the initial conditions from where it is 0 percent likely something would be, finding the decisions along the way. The ancient discipline called "creatio ex nihilo", creation from nothing. A decision changes the probability something will occur. So you go from 0 to 100 percent through history, the sequence of decisions.
Note that talking about probabilities in a creationist context, is talking about objects which have alternatives. So in a creationist context rolling a die is described in terms of the throw of the die itself having six possible alternatives to choose from. (what is called "strong anticipation" by professor Dubois who helped invent the mathematical basis for describing decisions). In mainstream science the probabilities are only with the observer, the probabilities are in the prediction of the throw of the die, (called weak anticipation) not with the thing itself.
So creation science procedes by miracle, and mainstream science by (trying to find) absolute certainty in nature. Something happening from zero probability of it happening, that's a mathematical definition of a miracle. The cause and effect equations of mainstream science mathematically perfectly predetermine everything.
Let's compare the logic of the two approaches, noticing that they are two different time principles:
In mainstream science:
- the future is in the past
When we calculate in terms of cause and effect, then from an information point of view, the information of the position of the moon now, must be contained in the position of the moon a thousand years ago. The information of the result of the experiment must be contained in the initial conditions of the experiment.
- the past consists of a single decision
Everything is decided at the beginning, the initial conditions, otherwise known as determinism.
- the present is irrellevant
There is no mathematical place for the present in this logic. A cause and effect equation just goes on into infinity, and there is no specialness to the present. We just add the present by our common knowledge that there is indeed a present, but it really plays no part in the logic from initial conditions.
In creationist science:
- the future consists of alternatives
So again, these alternatives exist in the actual future, they are actual part and parcel of any object (strong anticipation), and they don't refer to alternatives in the brain that are used for predictions (weak anticipation)
(also notice how big a smartalec you could be, when you'd be able to tell people the difference between strong - and weak anticipation! just something to consider..)
- the past consists of a sequence of decisions
That is broadly how we ususally conceive of history. But it is just not a single chain, there is also rhythm in these sequences of decisions.
- the present is decided
The act of decision defines the now, so we have an identifiable present in our equations. (note that professor Dubois refers to a past, present, future, and also a current state, but I don't understand that last)
So comparing the two, isn't it fundamentally illogical to have the initial conditions explain anything to 100 percent? How do you get from 100 percent information to 100 percent information, and what sense is there in that?
Isn't it true that an elephant is only 100 percent explained by an actual present elephant, and the initial conditions that caused an elephant can never fully explain an elephant?
Obviously, from a creationist point of view, when we have established a phenomenon is real, we see the elephant, then we know the history is from smaller percentages of likelyhood of the elephant coming to be, from when there was no elephant, to a full 100 pecent actualization, when we see the elephant, perhaps the percentages going down along the way of going up at the last)
This argument about time must be the fundamental reason why we can do without causal theory in science. In introducing anticipation theory Professor Dubois showed that you can do all of science without causes, but just with the conservation of some properties.
Dubois is a wellknown awardwinning scientist who chaired several conferences on computing anticipation with many big names attending. So some reputable scientist said that causal theory is unneccessary in science, and the logic as above is an idea about why it is false, and why a science that includes decisions is better.
http://www.mindspring.com/~cerebroscopic/Dubois.html
"A fundamental question is : are actual systems really causal ? In looking in equations of physics, there is no evidence that causation plays a central role or even exists ! "
Another big name in anticipation science is Robert Rosen, who'se theories on anticipation Dubois generally refers to as "weak anticipation". (remember the difference!)
http://www.anticipation.info/...nticipatorysystems_rosen.pdf
page 5
"For the basic cornerstones on which our entire scientific enterprise rests is the belief that events are not arbitrary, but obey definite laws which can be discovered. The search for such laws is an expression of our faith in causlity."
......
"Thus, from a knowledge of the values of all the relevant quantities as some initial instant t0 the values of these quantities at the succeeding instant t0 + dt are determined."
......
Edited by Syamsu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Syamsu, posted 07-16-2008 4:13 PM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Admin, posted 07-19-2008 7:17 AM Syamsu has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 14 (475854)
07-19-2008 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Syamsu
07-18-2008 4:43 PM


Re: In comparison: creation science and mainstream science
Hi Syamsu,
It doesn't look like we're making any progress, let's try something different. In the first paragraph, instead of calling it "mainstream science" why don't you call it "my view of the scientific method"?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Syamsu, posted 07-18-2008 4:43 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Syamsu, posted 07-19-2008 9:12 AM Admin has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 11 of 14 (475862)
07-19-2008 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Admin
07-19-2008 7:17 AM


Re: In comparison: creation science and mainstream science
I changed it. I can't call it "my view" of the scientific method, because I consider that method false. My view is the decision method, the mainstream view is the cause and effect method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Admin, posted 07-19-2008 7:17 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Admin, posted 07-19-2008 7:55 PM Syamsu has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 12 of 14 (475925)
07-19-2008 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Syamsu
07-19-2008 9:12 AM


Re: In comparison: creation science and mainstream science
Okay, great.
Your opening post has grown longer with each change, and it is now very long. I originally thought we could work through a series of small changes that would leave me feeling comfortable promoting your topic proposal, but what looks to me as nonsense is being added faster than you're fixing it. Given that you keep increasing the legnth I don't think this exercise is going to work. The best I can offer you is to release your proposal to [forum=-15].

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Syamsu, posted 07-19-2008 9:12 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Syamsu, posted 07-20-2008 4:35 AM Admin has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 13 of 14 (475951)
07-20-2008 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Admin
07-19-2008 7:55 PM


Re: In comparison: creation science and mainstream science
Okay, put it in free for all. I hope they don't engage in swearing there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Admin, posted 07-19-2008 7:55 PM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 14 of 14 (475961)
07-20-2008 7:15 AM


Thread copied to the Creationist scientific methods thread in the Free For All forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024