Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Testing Theories of Origins
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 16 of 143 (694383)
03-24-2013 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tangle
03-24-2013 11:41 AM


Assertion
There is no need to assert your opinion of the 5 criteria. You may instead examine them one at a time and allow opinions to be developed from what you have to say about them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2013 11:41 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(6)
Message 17 of 143 (694386)
03-24-2013 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 10:37 AM


How important are the tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications to you?
Well, I regard them as dishonest vacuous self-serving rhetoric.
One mark of their vacuity is this: Ross is an Old-Earther, isn't he? Well, is there anything in there an equally dishonest or deluded Young-Earther couldn't have said?
I view the tests of explanatory power and predictive success as adequate tests.
A few caveats are needed. Many people fail to understand the scientific method, and as Ross is a creationist, it's likely that he too has failed to do so.
(1) Predictive power. This is only a test of a theory if the predictive power emerges from the theory instead of being built into it.
Let me give you an example. Suppose I come to you saying: "The theory of gravity is a crock, the planets are being pushed around by angels."
You point out, as you would, that this has no predictive power, unlike the theory of gravity.
I think about this for a while and then come back saying: "The theory of gravity is a crock, the planets are being pushed around by angels. God has ordered the angels to push the planets in ellipses having one focus at the Sun. Better now?"
I've added predictive power, but you're not impressed, because the predictive power is based on finding out what happens and then "predicting" that just by taking it as a premise of the theory. Another way to look at this is that the angels, and God, could be removed from my theory by Occam's razor, leaving me with: "The planets move in ellipses having one focus at the Sun".
Now a creationist can perform a similar maneuver. For example, if we postulate a creator who desires the existence of spotted mammals with very long necks, then we can "predict" the giraffe, and yet this is not very impressive.
So we need to see where Ross's "predictive power" actually comes from. Can he derive his predictions from the existence, in the beginning, of an omnipotent being and a whole lot of nothing, or does he have to add premises based on what is known a posteriori to be true?
(2) Explanatory power. Well, explanatory power as such can never be taken as evidence for a theory. In those cases where it apparently can, the explanatory power can be converted into predictive power. Let me explain what I mean.
Again, consider the "angels are pushing things" theory. It has all the explanatory power you could ask for. It explains anything you like. "How do you explain that?" you ask me. "Angels did it!" I reply.
Now, the theory of gravity also explains the motion of planets. So far, they appear equal.
However, the theory of gravity is better than the theory of angels in that though it can explain the observations, their are potential observations which it couldn't explain. It couldn't explain if the planets orbited the sun in triangles or octagons or a host of other shapes. So instead of saying: "The theory of gravity is good because it can explain why the planets move in ellipses", we should note that every theory predicts that the observations should be a subset of the things that it can explain, and we should say: "The theory of gravity is good because it can predict that the planets will move in ellipses". The statement about explanatory power can be converted into a statement about predictive power.
Now we can't do this with the notion that angels are pushing things, because there is nothing about angels that dictates how they should push things; they might push planets around in octagons if such was the divine will.
And similar remarks apply to creationism. Of course "Goddidit" can be used to explain anything you like. Can its explanatory power be converted into predictive power? That seems more difficult. Since God is by hypothesis omnipotent, there is nothing we can say he couldn't have done, so that offers us no way to get any predictive power out of creationism.
But also, "his ways are not our ways", as the Bible says, so it's hard to say what he wouldn't have done. Can anyone honestly say something like (for example): "If an omnipotent being created a universe, he definitely wouldn't have made any griffins, so the creation hypothesis predicts an absence of griffins"? On the contrary, it is certain that if there were griffins, the creationists would all be claiming that they were produced by the will of God --- and why not? Creationism could explain griffins. Or their absence. It has too much "explanatory power": it can explain anything you choose. And this means that the explanatory power cannot be converted into the predictive power which is the real hallmark of a good theory.
---
This, of course, is why evolution is superior to creationism. It can't explain anything imaginable, but it can explain the things lying within the scope of the theory which are actually true.
We may note that any successful creationist theory, in order to displace evolution, will have to explain why this should be so. (Just as Einstein needed to explain why Newton was so successful, and Galileo needed to explain why the Earth appeared to stand still.)
---
The most common problem with creationism, of course, is that creationists have no idea what the evidence is: they blithely provide predictions and explanations of "facts" which are not actually true; they are blissfully unaware of real facts which contradict their systems; and they ignore large classes of evidence which support evolution, because they're not sufficiently interested in biology to have heard of them. Obviously it is no test of the predictive power of a hypothesis to see if it can predict things that creationists have made up; nor indeed would it be a fair comparative test of evolution to see if it can predict and explain the extremely limited set of facts (or made-up "facts") which creationists have heard of.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 10:37 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by JonF, posted 03-24-2013 2:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 25 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 18 of 143 (694392)
03-24-2013 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate
03-24-2013 1:46 PM


Many people fail to understand the scientific method, and as Ross is a creationist, it's likely that he too has failed to do so.
Ross is a fully qualified and expert astrophysicist. I think we can take it as given that he understands the scientific method. That doesn't mean that he applies that understanding to his religious views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 1:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 2:40 PM JonF has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 19 of 143 (694393)
03-24-2013 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by JonF
03-24-2013 2:23 PM


Ross is a fully qualified and expert astrophysicist. I think we can take it as given that he understands the scientific method.
Not necessarily. He could just understand astrophysics. It is perfectly possible for someone to get good at one science without deriving from that one science the very abstract epistemological concepts which underlie the scientific method.
(After all, every adult has derived truths from observation, albeit usually not while wearing a white coat, and yet the scientific method needs to be explained to them.)
That doesn't mean that he applies that understanding to his religious views.
Well, quite. I'd be astonished if he did. Though not so astonished as he would be if he did.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by JonF, posted 03-24-2013 2:23 PM JonF has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 20 of 143 (694396)
03-24-2013 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
03-24-2013 11:16 AM


Re: Censorship? What censorship?
The biggest problem with this is that nobody is trying to censor creationism.
There is a strong effort to keep any criticism of evolution out of the scientific journals. But not the really the point of this debate. That will come later.
The question is "What are the necessary tests to decide between competing scientific models?" Explanatory power and predictive success are the two most commonly discussed. We can call these the major tests. Are there other tests you would consider major tests?
What about the five minor tests discussed? You probably realize these tests, for the most part, have been used against creationism in the past. If they are valid tests, then they are valid for every scientific model, correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 03-24-2013 11:16 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 3:05 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 03-24-2013 3:21 PM designtheorist has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 21 of 143 (694397)
03-24-2013 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by AdminNosy
03-24-2013 10:59 AM


Re: Topic
Then I'll be happy for him to give it his best shot - so long as it conforms to reality and can be tested somehow, either experimentally or mathematically, that'll do for me.
As our man thinks his additional 5 tests are not necessary so let's have at the real thing.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by AdminNosy, posted 03-24-2013 10:59 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 22 of 143 (694398)
03-24-2013 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 3:00 PM


Re: Censorship? What censorship?
There is a strong effort to keep any criticism of evolution out of the scientific journals.
Rubbish.
You probably realize these tests, for the most part, have been used against creationism in the past.
WTF?
What about the five minor tests discussed? You probably realize these tests, for the most part, have been used against creationism in the past. If they are valid tests, then they are valid for every scientific model, correct?
Yes. For example if the "censorship test" works, then flat-Earthism, homeopathy, geocentrism, young-Earthism, 9-11 Truthism, and indeed every stupid idea anyone's ever had would be validated by the same test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:00 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 23 of 143 (694399)
03-24-2013 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tangle
03-24-2013 11:41 AM


On Testing Scientific Models
If he wants to change the rules before he starts, that's a pretty big clue that he feels that his ideas fail the standard tests.
Actually, Ross is pretty confident that his model measures up better than any other model on the major tests. This debate is my idea. I want to debate the tests because I want to clarify my own thinking on the appropriate tests. I am hoping someone will propose a test that Ross has not discussed so we can discuss it. I don't think anyone will attempt to criticize the two major tests, but if there is criticism of the five minor tests - I would like to discuss that also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 03-24-2013 11:41 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 3:22 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 24 of 143 (694400)
03-24-2013 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by PaulK
03-24-2013 12:32 PM


What dishonesty?
Please be specific. What dishonesty?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 12:32 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 03-24-2013 3:31 PM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 25 of 143 (694402)
03-24-2013 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate
03-24-2013 1:46 PM


The Major Tests
Thank you for explaining your thoughts. I have a different view and think my view is closer to what Dr. Ross has in mind. Ross does not specifically differentiate between explanatory power and predictive success, but I think it is easy to do so.
Explanatory power is the ability of a model or theory to explain data we already have. For example, we need a theory that explains why life popped up on planet earth almost immediately after it cooled. We need a theory that will explain the Cambrian explosion, the cessation of new life forms evolving after mankind came on the scene and the role of extinctions (why there are fewer species alive on the planet now than earlier).
Predictive success is the ability to predict new discoveries and observations. It is purely about data we do not yet have but based on the model we would expect to find in the future. If it does not happen in the future, it is not a prediction.
Does that help?
Edited by designtheorist1, : Left out a word!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 1:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 3:32 PM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2013 3:47 PM designtheorist has replied
 Message 37 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 5:22 PM designtheorist has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 26 of 143 (694403)
03-24-2013 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 3:00 PM


Re: Censorship? What censorship?
There is a strong effort to keep any criticism of evolution out of the scientific journals.
No, there isn't. It is difficult to get creationist tracts into science journals, but that's just because they aren't scientific. However, a refusal to print unscientific apologetics in science journals is hardly the same thing as censorship.
What about the five minor tests discussed? You probably realize these tests, for the most part, have been used against creationism in the past. If they are valid tests, then they are valid for every scientific model, correct?
Science is about finding accurate descriptions of the natural world. Scientific theories are evaluated by how well they do that. Your proposed "minor tests" have nothing to do with accuracy. Thus, they have nothing to do with evaluating whether something is scientific or not.
Explanatory power and predictive success are simply tools to use to evaluate how accurate a particular description is. If a theory can explain what we see in the natural world and make predictions that are accurate, that is strong evidence supporting the theory. But they are not ends in and of themselves.
I have no idea what you mean or what point you are making when you talk about these "minor tests" being "used against creationism."

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:00 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:59 PM subbie has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 143 (694404)
03-24-2013 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 3:06 PM


Re: On Testing Scientific Models
I don't think anyone will attempt to criticize the two major tests ...
I thought I had, especially when I explained how "explanatory power" as such is worthless as a test of a hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:06 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 28 of 143 (694405)
03-24-2013 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 3:07 PM


Re: What dishonesty?
Did you actually read what you were writing ?
So let us consider the "censorship test":
Even if there is genuine censorship why should it be considered a strength of the idea itself ? Young Earth Creationists will object to Old Earth views because they consider them theologically unacceptable - whether the arguments are good or bad.
And is there real censorship ? Ross says so, but there's precious little evidence. Wouldn't making false accusations of censorship be a good cover for a poor idea's lack of acceptance ? In fact it's a standard of the ID movement.
Stultification:
Here Ross is simply trying to repeat the dubious claim that Christianity is responsible for science. That's really not relevant to whether Ross's view's would stultify science or not. I suspect that they would - not to the degree that YECs would because Ross is prepared to accept more science, but there are limits to his tolerance.
Integration:
This is highly dubious as a general test. Why should particle physics have significant impacts in anthropology ? And isn't cosmology far more closely related to particle physics than it is to any subject outside physics and astronomy ?
Research Passion:
Why count science and engineering students as a measure of research passion ? Original research generally only starts with post-graduate work, and there are plenty of other reasons for getting a Bachelor's degree - especially in engineering !
Destiny Implications:
Why is this even listed ? Isn't it really code for "theologically acceptable to Hugh Ross". Does it offer ANYTHING that wasn't already covered by "Integration" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:07 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 4:04 PM PaulK has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 29 of 143 (694406)
03-24-2013 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 3:20 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Explanatory power is the ability of a model or theory to explain data we already have. For example, we need a theory that explains why life popped up on planet earth almost immediately after it cooled. We need a theory that will explain the Cambrian explosion, the cessation of new life forms after mankind came on the scene and the role of extinctions (why there are fewer species alive on the planet now than earlier).
Predictive success is the ability to predict new discoveries and observations. It is purely about data we do not yet have but based on the model we would expect to find in the future. If it does not happen in the future, it is not a prediction.
Does that help?
Well, that's not what "prediction" means in the context of the scientific method. The predictions of a theory are the logical consequences of it being true, whether or not they are already known. For example, it is perfectly in order to say that Newton predicted that planets should move in elliptical orbits, even though this had already been discovered by Brahe. Why? Because Newton was able to logically derive the elliptical orbits from the inverse square law and the laws of motion.
"Prediction" is perhaps a misleading word, but it's the one we've got. And this is the concept we need, because we're trying to explain the epistemological relationship between a hypothesis and the data, and from that point of view it doesn't matter a damn whether the hypothesis was invented before or after the observation of the data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:20 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 30 of 143 (694407)
03-24-2013 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 10:37 AM


Research Passion
A large percentage, perhaps a majority, of America’s science and engineering graduate students now come from other countries. South Korea, with only one-sixth the U.S. population, graduates almost as many engineers. In a 2003 address to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Richard Smalley, Nobel laureate in chemistry (1996), forecast that by 2010, if current trends continue, over 90 percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be Asians working in Asia.
Could it be that, to some degree, the American science education crisis stems from the quelling of controversy? Has dismissive attitude toward any alternative to strict naturalism made science education boring? Is fear of the religious or philosophical implications of amazing new scientific discoveries prompting American science educators to squash discussion of the important and intriguing why questions? Do science educators avoid the very issues with the most potential to engage their students?
It the RTB model widely taught in Korea? No? You astonish me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 10:37 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024