Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Testing Theories of Origins
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 14 of 143 (694379)
03-24-2013 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 10:37 AM


Re: Thanks for helping me sharpen this
Given the dishonesty on display here, I very much doubt that Ross's claim to have a successful creation model is any more true.

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 24 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:07 PM PaulK has 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

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


Message 34 of 143 (694417)
03-24-2013 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 4:04 PM


Re: What dishonesty?
He's proposing bogus tests and making bogus arguments to claim that his model passes them. That's pretty good evidence of dishonesty.
So are the bogus justifications you just posted.
Why would Ross be doing this if his model really was as good as he claims ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 4:04 PM designtheorist has not replied

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


(1)
Message 36 of 143 (694419)
03-24-2013 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 3:59 PM


Re: Minor tests used against young earth creationism
quote:
The tests have been used in the past against young-earth creationism. The arguments don't work against the RTB model of creationism or at least Ross does not think so.
That YECs have been criticised for doing something does not make it a test of the scientific value or even the truth of their theories.
quote:
Criticism of young-earth creationism often starts with this and using the Scopes Trial as a prime example. When you try to censor a competing model, it shows fear that your paradigm is under attack. If you were really confident of your model, then you would allow the evidence to be brought forward and discussed. Science should be an open market place of ideas where the best ideas and models win because they have the best evidence, not because of censorship.
I'd say that the Scopes trial was more about the quality of education - and about establishment of religion. Evolution had already won in scientific circles, and the law was obviously religious in nature.
quote:
This is often used against young-earth creationism when people say "If you get your science from the Bible, there is no reason to do research." So the claim is that Christianity promotes ignorance. It is true that young earth creationists have not done a lot of research. But that seems to be changing as the young earth creationists are losing ground. Ross actually has a couple of sections in his book on this topic. When the Bible is interpreted rightly, it encourages research.
Of course the main problem is religious dogma placing certain conclusions beyond question.
quote:
Ross writes: "If one model generates more scientific breakthroughs, better explanations of natural phenomena, and more comprehensive integration of scientific disciplines for less effort and expense than a competing model, then the better model deserves consideration, whatever its philosophical or religious implications."
So is Ross going to abandon creationism ?
quote:
For a long time young earth creationists thought the discipline of geology was the only field that was problematic. The last half century has shown the problem of an old universe and old earth is found in many different scientific disciplines.
But how does this show that integration is a good general test ? Isn't a large part of it because the YEC views on the age of the Earth are so far adrift ?
quote:
Ross tells the story of Chinese paleontologists studying the famous Cambrian explosion fossils in the Chengjiang shale in the Yunnan province saying "In China we are not allowed to criticize our government leaders, but we are free to criticize Darwin. In your country you are free to criticize your government leaders, but you are not permitted to criticize Darwin."
This suppression of any criticism of Darwin is a problem in the U.S. Ross believes it is a major reason U.S. students are not studying science as much as Asian students.
Like to show me anyone who has been thrown in jail just for "criticising Darwin" ?
And isn't this just an example of religion causing stultification ? Which Ross wants to support, quite possibly to the extent of censorship ?
quote:
This seems to be the only test that has not been used against the young-earth creationists. I could be wrong, but it looks like a test developed by Ross. It has some similar characteristics as some of the tests used against the young-earth creationists. It may even be valid as a confirmatory test.
Well, please explain why it is a valid test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:59 PM designtheorist has not replied

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


(1)
Message 61 of 143 (694466)
03-25-2013 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 8:08 PM


Re: The Major Tests
If you think that there's any good in these points that isn't already covered by predictive power and explanatory power I think we need to see it
quote:
1. "Censorship is not a good test because we have the right to censor out bad science or anything that sniffs of religion or god."
Can you really point to anyone saying that ?
And can you point to any REAL censorship ?
quote:
2. "Stultification is not a good test because it only applies to religious dogma placing certain conclusions beyond question. It cannot possibly apply to our model."
Nope, what's being said is "Hugh Ross's model probably performs badly on this test."
That said, I'd put Lakatos' similar ideas about Research programs as a better version of this - but evolution performs well in that case. They'd probably be a better measure of research passion, too. (Surely just counting people getting BSc and B.Eng degrees is less important to that than the amount of productive research being done !)
quote:
3. "Integration is a good test for young-earth creationism but there is no evidence it is a good general test."
Nope, again. THe fact that YEC performs badly doesn't make it a good test. And really, is there anything that isn't adequately covered by explanatory power ?
quote:
Actually, integration is my favorite among these minor tests. The early conditions of the universe were very special and could not have come about by random chance. The one-time only, low entropy Big Bang has implications for any model of origins. So also, do the hundreds of examples of the fine-tuned universe.
Note that this is NOT an example of integration. Which suggests that you don't even understand your "favorite" test.
quote:
4. "Research passion is not a good test because it results only from removing religious stultification."
Nope. What is being said is that Ross doesn't attempt to make a good measure of research passion, and his own words suggest that religious stultification is the cause of the problem in America (we do not need to - and probably should not - assume that his comments are correct).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 8:08 PM designtheorist has not replied

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


(1)
Message 62 of 143 (694469)
03-25-2013 3:29 AM


Parsimony
Essentially, parsimony is the idea that we should make as few assumptions as we can get away with. This can be a subtle point and counting assumptions is not always simple.
While this is not nearly as important overall as (genuine) explanatory or predictive power it can outweigh small increases in either. e.g. If the currently accepted theory adequately handles an event producing a better explanation would not necessarily be sufficient in itself to overthrow that theory.
Supernatural theories tend to do very badly on this test because they often require a host of assumptions.

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-25-2013 9:02 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 83 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 9:14 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 88 of 143 (694516)
03-25-2013 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 9:14 AM


Re: Parsimony
Actually it's necessary because you can always add assumptions to any theory to save it from falsification (the Duhem-Quine thesis) - for instance the idea that phlogiston had negative mass, or the addition of epicycles to planetary orbits to keep geocentrism (the latter was a highly successful model of planetary motion).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 9:14 AM designtheorist has not replied

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


Message 89 of 143 (694517)
03-25-2013 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by AdminNosy
03-25-2013 9:10 AM


Re: Different Definitions
The important point about prediction is that the ANSWER is not known at the time that the prediction is made. Ross would agree with that, I'm sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by AdminNosy, posted 03-25-2013 9:10 AM AdminNosy has not replied

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


(1)
Message 115 of 143 (694589)
03-26-2013 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 11:50 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Well let's hear your defence of the censorship test.
As I see it, it has two main problems:
1) We can determine if a position is weak by directly examining it and the evidence. The censorship test can't add anything to that. So long as the idea and evidence are public the test isn't helpful.
2) As actually applied it seems to mean "opponents of a view that Hugh Ross doesn't like aren't given special privileges". Since this is both absurd and unfair I propose that the entire point of the test is to claim an undeserved advantage for one side - and that, according to you - is what the censorship test is really about. So if you were being fair you would have to admit that the "test" really shows that Ross's position is weak.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 11:50 PM 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