Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I bid farewell
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 28 (226083)
07-25-2005 12:27 AM


I believe this will be my last post to .
I am a long time participant at nearly 4 years and I have come rather far in that time. However, it is my observation that my participation here is no longer.. beneficial. My recent intuition into the philosophy of science has helped me come to many realizations about the nature of science, in scientific inquiry and the building, justification, and acceptance of theories by the scientific community.
This knowledge, coupled with my understanding of the physical earth, has forced me to conclude in a pragmatic sense that CPT is not likely. However, logical epistimology has simultaneously forced me to leave the "window in the attic" open for a potentially young earth, for it is epistemically logical and a scientific necessity to pay tribute to the tentativity and the degree to which truth can and cannot be determined in science. Indeed the truth may be radically different from what is presently understood to be 'most plausible' in science.
It is clear to me that the answer to the philosophical problem "what is a scientific theory?" And "how do we determine scientific accuracy, let alone truth?" is considerably more complex than it appears to imply at a first approximation.
I believe that it is important to critically scrutinize theories. But I find it more important to critique theories by applying our developed knowledge and understanding of the logic behind theory judgement and development. It is an unjustified oversimplification to characterize the work of scientists as merely seeing how hypotheses 'fare in the face of facts'. It is important to discard oversimplistic and misleading scientific methods in favor of methods that are logically consistent and adopt a methodology that contains greater intricacy and sophistication than the simple 'Scientific Method' we all learned in high school. These methods bring us to the most realistic conclusions and will also serve to help scientists better understand where and how our logic is limited in the face of finite data.
I believe, as great philosophers of science have eloquently demonstrated, that we can best determine the plausibility of theories by testing the fundamental or core statements of the theory by the application of a logically satisfying model. The framework of this method has be described schematically as a disjunctive syllogism and can be seen in the works of W. V. Quine, J. S. Ullian, Robert Hollinger, E. D. Klemke, Imre lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, Ronald Giere, et al. which I have regurgitated on this board in my attempt to constrain modern young earth theories like catastrophic plate tectonics to the point where its merit can clearly be seen.
(t)
if H and A1, A2, A3, and...An then TI is implied
TI
therefore H is confirmed
(s)
if H and A1, A2, A3, and...An then TI is implied
not TI
therefore H is disconfirmed
Where H is the hypothesis, TI is the test implication, and A1 - A3 - An are auxiliary hypotheses.
In a reasonable situation of testing the hypothesis, it can only be logically deduced that confirmation or disconfirmation has been achieved if H and A1 - A3 - An are known to be true or are confirmed.
I have applied this schema of scientific justification to young earth theories like catastrophic plate tectonics in order to best determine the status of the theory in both credibility, and level of development. I have concluded as typical that it is indeed lacking credibility, however more importantly I have concluded that it is lacking development.
For example, to test the hypothesis that has been perpetuated on the board in its original logic; if catastrophic plate tectonics is responsible for the current oceanic lithosphere, then oceanic lithosphere should essentially have no variation in thickness:
if (CPT produced the oceanic lithosphere) then (the oceanic lithosphere should essentially have no variation in thickness)
it is determined not (the oceanic lithosphere should essentially have no variation in thickness)
therefore (CPT produced the oceanic lithosphere) is disconfirmed
It should first be noted that the deduction has not acknowledged the presence of auxiliary hypotheses. But these are inherent to any deduction of this schema. So the correct premise of the argument should be stated:
if (produced the oceanic lithosphere) and A1 and, A2 and A1
and ...An then (the oceanic lithosphere should essentially have no variation in thickness)
where examples of A1 - A3 - An might be:
A1 = the lithosphere cooled by conduction
A2 = hydrothermal circulation does not contribute significantly to lithospheric cooling
A3 = the depth of significant hydrothermal penetration throughout the course of the formation of the oceanic lithosphere is not related relative age.
An = other assumptions
What this results in is much more difficulty in determining that data leads to instances of confirmation and disconfirmation, which has not been well received by some people here. The purpose of the schema is to give more credibility to the deduced conclusion of either confirmation or disconfirmation. The incipience of catastrophic plate tectonics makes it difficult to disconfirm at this point as it is not a fully developed theory. There are many geological phenomena which have not been modeled in the framework of CPT so that CPT might be tested by data consisting those phenomena. I therefore conclude that CPT is underdeveloped and needs to be better understood before tests of confirmation as well as disconfirmation can be considered plausible.
Lastly, it has become clear to me that Percy does not quite understand the details of the logic behind the methods of science, appears incapable of seeing his error, and further has chosen to execute his judgement to the point where he will restrict me from explaining these details to on the forum. I conclude that this board is no longer worth my time and not worth the time of anyone seeking to establish something of significance as true. The philosophy of Science is critical about the words used to describe the methods and structure of science and theories. The concept of 'evidence' is clearly understood within science and its philosophy as the conclusion of confirmation deduced by the method of testing the hypothesis. The evidence of a hypothesis is seen in its consequence. Ie, the evidence of a hypothesis is a result of hypothesis testing. Quine and Ullian, among many other great philosophers of science understand and have conveyed this reality in the literature.
Finally, I conclude that the relevant details of the philosophy and logic of science are not well known or respected at and are even 'gunned down', not by logical inference or a thorough analysis of the epistemic logic behind the scientific methodology, but by something else..
It is my hope that I have enlightened some spectators of my discussions and have prompted some of them to read the literature and come to a better understanding of science, geology, geodynamics, and the current status of YEC in these contexts. I will continue my journey in scientific inquiry and I hope that you hear of me again. I am planning to begin publishing some 'more refined' writing online so those interested may like to google me every so often.
Its been quite the ride.
-Chris Grose, signing off.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brian, posted 07-25-2005 3:10 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 3 by CK, posted 07-25-2005 3:18 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2005 4:55 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 5 by bernd, posted 07-25-2005 5:24 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 6 by roxrkool, posted 07-25-2005 5:28 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 7 by Philip, posted 07-25-2005 6:46 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 8 by Admin, posted 07-25-2005 6:55 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 07-26-2005 12:59 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 15 by deerbreh, posted 07-26-2005 4:17 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4949 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 2 of 28 (226267)
07-25-2005 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
07-25-2005 12:27 AM


Best of Luck
Can I just wish you all the best Chris.
I am extemely ignorant of the science subjects that get discussed here, but I have always enjoyed your discussions with Edge, Percy and the others.
Take care of yourself and keep popping back here to say "hello".
Later.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 07-25-2005 12:27 AM TrueCreation has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4118 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 3 of 28 (226269)
07-25-2005 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
07-25-2005 12:27 AM


Talk Origins
Best of luck - you may wish to pop over to Talk Origins and have a look at this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/dbkyl
(worksafe).
Regards
Charles

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 07-25-2005 12:27 AM TrueCreation has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 28 (226291)
07-25-2005 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
07-25-2005 12:27 AM


In my limited experience with science, and the greater experience of those I have communicated with, the philosophy of science has absolutely no relevance to the practical prosecution of science in the field or lab.
It's quite a mistake to refer to or suggest that the philosophy of science represents some kind of "underpinning" or foundation of science; the reverse is true. Philosophers of science do not establish the rules of science for scientists, but rather, they attempt to describe the process of scientific reasoning as employed by scientists.
For instance; I'm currently involved, in an assistant aspect, in certain research on the effecacy of certain transgenic hybrid corns in preventing damage by certain corn pest insects. In the course of these experiments, we:
1) Planted corn;
2) Infested the roots with insect eggs;
3) Erected enclosing tents over the corn plants;
4) Collected insects from the tents at regular intervals;
5) Counted, keyed, and sexed the insects after collection.
At no point has the "philosophy of science", nor the work of any philosopher, been relevant to the prosecution of any of these endeavors. Science is what scientists do, not what philosophers talk about. It is physical evidence that holds primacy in science, not logic chopping.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 07-25-2005 12:27 AM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 07-26-2005 1:05 PM crashfrog has not replied

bernd
Member (Idle past 3971 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 5 of 28 (226298)
07-25-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
07-25-2005 12:27 AM


All the best
Hello Chris,
I’m sorry to learn that you have signed off, specially since a discussion about the auxiliary hypotheses would have been interesting. But it’s not only the debate I’m concerned about, I’m not exactly happy about the circumstances which motivated your leave.
For me it seems to be a misunderstanding caused by different definitions of evidence, by a different concept of hypotheses, by different ideas how to falsify a theory - something which should be resolved in a discussion and not by administrative means.
On the other hand, I obviously do not know what has happened during your long ride here , therefore I refrain from any judgment and state only my regret.
I wish you all the best and hope to hear from you again.
--Bernd

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 07-25-2005 12:27 AM TrueCreation has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 6 of 28 (226300)
07-25-2005 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
07-25-2005 12:27 AM


Chris, I think you are an exceedingly intelligent person and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see you become a leader in your field sometime in the future. I'm sorry to see you leave.
My personal opinion on why you have (and get) a hard time here, specifically in the science forum, is because:
1. Your form of writing is too often very difficult to understand. You use too many 'big' and/or obscure words, which convolute almost each one of your sentences. Maybe YOU understand what you're writing, but what matters most is if your audience can understand what you're writing. Scientific writing already has a significant number of difficult terms, we don't need anymore. I hope that in the course of your education, you learn to write in a more straight-forward and clear manner.
2. Your idea of what constitutes science is a bit off - either that, or I/we just can't understand what you're trying to say or you're being deliberately obtuse. Percy is not the only one who has a problem with your scientific statements and methodologies. It seems to me pretty much every scientist you have come into contact with on this forum has a problem with how you present and support your various positions. I would suggest you consider that in the future and ask yourself why that might be. Like I said, it's either because you fail to present your ideas in such a way that we can understand them, you are way off in your thinking, or you know exactly what you're doing.
I suspect, Chris, that if you continue studying geoscience (maybe getting an M.Sc. or Ph.D.), at some point in time you will be given the opportunity to apply your knowledge in practical situations. Then perhaps you might understand why we had such a problem with you. Right now, although you have a solid understanding of some basic and even complex geologic principles, you lack quite a bit of basic knowledge. You lack a conceptual understanding of geology, which is completely understandable since you've just started your college education.
In either case, I am sorry to see you leave. Especially over something as innocuous as "what constitutes evidence?" I think it's in your best interest to learn as much as you can about the topic. Heck, I've learned some new stuff.
You are one of a few (VERY FEW!) creationists who is actually willing to deal with the data - to a point. Good luck and take care.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 07-25-2005 05:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 07-25-2005 12:27 AM TrueCreation has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4713 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 7 of 28 (226311)
07-25-2005 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
07-25-2005 12:27 AM


Thank you for your provoking arguments and expertise in geology and science philosophy.
I hope you return (ASAP) and continue to stand your ground in geology, despite the unnecessary persecutions of Admin and other pseudo-experts participating at this pathetic *dinner conversation of origins*. Their excommunicating you (and TB) was mischievous and unprofessional (and every reader knows it). To me, you exposed their *PT science* as thoroughly bigoted.
I, personally and professionally, fully support your CPT cause, and believe you’ve dealt with the issue *well enough* to convince myself and most readers that CPT is both conjectural and viable theory.
--Philip (Doctor Professional | Pure & Natural Supplements)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 07-25-2005 12:27 AM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by deerbreh, posted 07-26-2005 4:25 PM Philip has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 8 of 28 (226313)
07-25-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
07-25-2005 12:27 AM


TrueCreation writes:
...and further has chosen to execute his judgement to the point where he will restrict me from explaining these details to on the forum.
Whoops, my mistake. I didn't mean to remove your privileges in the [forum=-11] forum. I've turned them on again.
I will continue my journey in scientific inquiry and I hope that you hear of me again.
Oh, I'm sure we'll hear from you again. You're already better than most of those at ICR, CRS and Discovery Institute. The question is, will you use your powers for good or evil?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 07-25-2005 12:27 AM TrueCreation has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18248
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 9 of 28 (226476)
07-26-2005 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
07-25-2005 12:27 AM


Laters, Chris
I saw this thread AFTER I sent you the e-mail. This explains a bit of your philosophies to me. You are intelligent and know how to throw dem big ole words around quite brashly!
Keep up your studies and my 2 cents for you is this:
1) Humans are by and large followers rather than leaders. Leaders have a lonely job. (Gotta have faith, kid!)
2) Established theories and methadologies die a slow death.
3) Keep the point and the words as simple as possible. (Although perhaps I need to study more and "up" my level of comprehension!
I will e-mail you now and then if you reply and if you so desire.
It is good to stay busy! Best to you, Mr. G.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 07-25-2005 12:27 AM TrueCreation has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18248
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 10 of 28 (226478)
07-26-2005 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
07-25-2005 4:55 PM


Crashfrog hits one out of the park for a change
That was a well explained post, Crashfrog! I usually get tired of you when you joust with me philosophically, but I respect the way that you explained a position quite simply!
Chris is more of an asset than a liability as a poster, and I hope that we hear from him again!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2005 4:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Admin, posted 07-26-2005 1:59 PM Phat has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 11 of 28 (226491)
07-26-2005 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phat
07-26-2005 1:05 PM


Re: Crashfrog hits one out of the park for a change
Phatboy writes:
That was a well explained post, Crashfrog!
I agree, and I posted an acknowledgement and reply at Message 85 earlier today. Someone should give Crash's post a POTM nomination.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 07-26-2005 1:05 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2005 3:52 PM Admin has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 28 (226521)
07-26-2005 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Admin
07-26-2005 1:59 PM


Re: Crashfrog hits one out of the park for a change
Thanks, guys. Especially you, Phatboy. I was genuinely touched by your comments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Admin, posted 07-26-2005 1:59 PM Admin has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 28 (226525)
07-26-2005 3:56 PM


I was nearly awed from the many e-mails i've received. I am so glad to see such favorable thoughts in retrospect of my existance on these boards and the discussions I have prompted. Some of your thoughts nearly brought me to tears! I am sorry to those who have enjoyed my presence, I have probably enjoyed yours equally as much(yes frequently I have even enjoyed yours, edge!), but I do believe my time here has come to an end and I have no immediate plans to return posting. I do have plans to continue contributing to my fellow armchair scientists and scientists by different means.
I am sorry to those of you whose worthy posts I was never able to respond to. Bernd's questions re: the evolution of seamounts, thermal structure of the oceanic lithosphere and the processes of heat transfer involved are among the class of questions I would consider the best of evcforum. Those interested further interest in my argument regarding where 'uniformitarianism' fits and misfits in modern geology or would like references to chew on, feel free to e-mail me. There were some interesting musings in the CPT thread regarding implications of the earths stress field on the driving forces of plate tectonics. I am sorry I was never able to explain these studies of basal tractions and their influence the forces of slab pull and gravitational sliding.
Thank you Charles for the link to the talk origins thread you made. Unfortunately, Percy's recent addition to the thread is just one more reason I no longer wish to participate here. How someone can continue misrepresenting so much of what I say is beyond me.
Lastly, crashfrog is correct to say that philosophy of science is not the foundation from which the 'rules' of science are seen, and it is true that philosophy of science attempts to describe what scientists do in practice. However, the reason philosophy of science attempts to describe the practice of science throughout its history is to find where it is rooted in logic and how methods can be improved. It attempts to explain why scientists will entertain ideas like string theory where evidence is lacking, but by virtue of mere elegance the theory prevails. Why ultimately non-scientific ideas like Ockham's razor nevertheless greatly influence scientific progress. And why a degenerating 'research program' can still be justified.
Yes philosophy of science is something of a different 'field' than science, but that is far from the point. Indeed, where we start thinking about science itself, we are not doing 'science' but philosophy. The credibility and relative significance we attach to the methods of science and the conclusions we derive from those methods are ultimately philosophical. Science is an attempt at objective analysis, and yet scientists will always make value judgements. Why can one scientists decide that the evidence is 'strong enough' or the degree of confirmation is 'high enough' to warrant acceptance of a hypothesis over another and the another can disagree without breaching scientific error? Philosophy of science attempts to tackle the philosophical problems inherent in the methods of science and in how theories are built, justified, accepted, and even believed. Just as philosophy of science looks at the meaning and implications of science itself, it also looks at the meaning and implications of confirming and disconfirming evidence and what can and can't be logically derived from instances of each. The analysis of the logic behind science has shown to be influencial to how science is done, both in theory and practice. Probably the most well known example being Poppers notions of falsificationism.
A deeper understanding of the logic of scientific methods allows us to understand where theories go when they 'die' and how the 'dead' can be brought back to life.
I have focused here on the importance and significance of auxiliary assumptions in the determination of confirmation and disconfirmation of hypothetical aspects because I believe (and now understand rather well) that it has been overlooked by many here. I doubt, as usual, that my assertions and arguments will go undisputed here, but again I do not plan to return here anytime soon. I would be happy to give my thoughts and answer questions via e-mail.
Take care.
Edit - here is a fair introduction to the philosophy of science: The Nature and Philosophy of Science
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-26-2005 04:19 PM

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2005 4:14 PM TrueCreation has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 28 (226528)
07-26-2005 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by TrueCreation
07-26-2005 3:56 PM


Probably the most well known example being Poppers notions of falsificationism.
Not once - not a single time - has the work of Popper, nor any other philosopher, been relevant to the prosecution of science by scientists that I, or any person with whom I have interacted, have observed.
Here's a hint, trying to make more plain something that Percy has already told you - if you're being asked to defend a scientific proposal or model, and you're referencing Popper instead of evidence, then what you're doing is nonsense. None of that philosophy is relevant to convincing scientists, or anybody else for that matter, that you have a compelling model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by TrueCreation, posted 07-26-2005 3:56 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Sylas, posted 07-26-2005 4:49 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 18 by roxrkool, posted 07-26-2005 5:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2883 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 15 of 28 (226530)
07-26-2005 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
07-25-2005 12:27 AM


logic
"if H and A1, A2, A3, and...An then TI is implied
TI
therefore H is confirmed"
No, this is not logically correct. One can have correlation without causation. All that can be said is that H is not rejected, not confirmed.
In the example you gave of CPT and the oceanic lithosphere....
If CPT, then uniform thickness of OL
and we in fact find uniform thickness of OL - that does not confirm CPT, it merely means lacking other evidence, we can't reject CPT.
OTOH, If CPT, then uniform thickness of OL
and we in fact find that the OL thickness varies....
CPT is rejected, assuming the original If/then statement was correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 07-25-2005 12:27 AM TrueCreation 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