Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the basis for holding that Uniformitarianism is valid?
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 1 of 16 (243713)
09-15-2005 6:42 AM


I start out this thread having only a hazy notion of Uniformitarianism, (henceforth U). What I understand of it is that the processes which we can observe today occur more or less at the same rate and in the same manner as they have always done and will. As I also understand it, the basis for holding to U is that the observed data backs up the intial presumption. Edit: From msg 61 linked in Percys msg below, U is made up of the following 4 elements:
Uniformitarianism, as defined by Lyell, consists of four principles:
1. uniformity of law
2. uniformity of process (actualism)
3. uniformity of rate (gradualism)
4. uniformity of state (steady-statism)
(I'm not sure to what level each branch of historical science holds to each of these elements. Percy's link (msg 61)indicated that geologists for example, only hold to elements 1 & 2 )
Whilst recognising that one may feel one has to start somewhere and if one doesn't it raises questions about what one could tell about the past:
Accurate, direct data that indicates processes to have operated according to U is restricted to say the last 100 years or so (although there may be problems with even this). Given the current age of the earth is estimated at 4.5 billion years old, the data only covers 1/45,000,000th of the total amount. Thus, this data represents only a dot on the graph (which is presumed to be a straight line stretching backwards and forwards from this point). This seems, in itself, to be an insufficent basis for saying anything about the validity of U.
The comments I have heard thus far (about ice layers and radioactive dating) all seem to suffer from the same weakness, to whit: they all seem to start out with the presumption of U and analyse the data in the light of it. There seems to be a certain amount of wiggling out of this by stating the position as: "We observe and this is what we would expect to see if U was valid - we don't go out with the presumption". Investigating the validity of that approach would, I imagine, be one outworking of this thread.
If there was no objective, non-U derived basis for stating U to be valid then how is U stated to be valid? Is U just an arbitary starting point, chosen for philosophical rather than objective reasons? If so, does that mean every conclusion drawn on the basis of U is an arbitary one? In other words, though the puzzle can be arranged in one fashion if U is presumed, could the data not equally fit together with the same level of tentiveness had another arbitary, non-U set of conditions occurred.
I don't propose to discuss alternative hypothetical conditions per se - given that if the data has been analysed for so many years in the light of a presumption of U, then no other conditions can hope to compete directly. Not that that is a reason to suppose U is valid. Another outworking of the thread would be discussion around the validity of "authority of the data" argument - should it transpire that all the data is based on an initial, non-objective presumption.
This message has been edited by iano, 16-Sep-2005 01:22 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 09-15-2005 10:10 AM iano has replied
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 09-16-2005 1:39 PM iano has replied
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 09-16-2005 2:58 PM iano has not replied
 Message 9 by Matt P, posted 09-19-2005 5:29 PM iano has not replied
 Message 14 by Nuggin, posted 09-21-2005 12:08 PM iano has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 16 (243778)
09-15-2005 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
09-15-2005 6:42 AM


Uniformitarianism (note the spelling) is worthy of more discussion, but I think you should first read this post from Bill Birkeland because it contains a wealth of background information on the concept: Message 61. Unless you take issue with the historical information he provides, your opening post should be modified to be consistent with it so that we don't begin discussing uniformitarianism from square one.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 09-15-2005 6:42 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by iano, posted 09-16-2005 6:12 AM Admin has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 3 of 16 (244062)
09-16-2005 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
09-15-2005 10:10 AM


Hi Percy,
I'll modify the OP to better define current meaning of Uniformitarianism from your link - although I wouldn't be thinking of limiting the discussion to just the geological so perhaps the aspects of uniformitarianism which aren't accepted by geologists are accpeted by other branches in their science. I don't know - but hey, knowledge and understanding through discussion is why I'm here!
But before I do that I just want to check on something
In this paper, scientists directly tested whether or not a constant governing nuclear reactions had remained the same or not over the last two billion years
Having scanned the threads in post 61 and elsewhere, the question still arises in my head. In that post for example, reference was made to a natural nuclear reactor which was said to be 2 billion years old. By analysing various characteristics of it, scientists were able to say that aspects of nuclear reaction are constant over that period of time. But how do they know that the reactor was two billion years old? What did they calibrate the dating instrument against if not one uniformatarianist assumption or another
The point of this thread is to find out whether historical sciences have at their foundation a philosophical assumption of what happened in the past or an objective one and if the former, how reliable the sciences based on an arbitarily chosen datum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 09-15-2005 10:10 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by edge, posted 09-18-2005 12:55 PM iano has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 16 (244082)
09-16-2005 7:59 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 5 of 16 (244110)
09-16-2005 10:04 AM


preservation of harmony between physical constants
Well, I'm just a simple layman with no relevant expertise but here's my first thought; maybe someone better trained in physics could expand on it and word it more clearly (IF it makes sense at all! :-) ):
I believe there has been quite a bit of research into this already. Apart from the natural reactor example, mostly research based on astronomic observations of the fundamental properties of very distant and old objects (?).
I think the confidence that scientists have in these observations (that they support U) is caused by the fact that they don't show something obviously weird.
I U was incorrect, I would suspect almost certainly some very obvious "weirdness" would be the result. And the reason for this is that so many physical parameters and phenomenons depend on each other. Small changes of individual parameters would easily have significant effects. UNLESS we suppose that they somehow change all at once and in perfect balance, such that for example in the case of the distant astronomical objects, we wouldn't notice anything unusual.
It seems rather unreasonable and unnecessary to take that possibility serious, because the alternative assumption (U) would be indescernable from this, and is strongly favoured by Ockham's razor.
I hope this makes sense. :-)

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 6 of 16 (244164)
09-16-2005 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
09-15-2005 6:42 AM


Hi Iano,
I think there some things that still need clarification, and it might come down to this:
Uniformitarianism, as defined by Lyell, consists of four principles:
1. uniformity of law
2. uniformity of process (actualism)
3. uniformity of rate (gradualism)
4. uniformity of state (steady-statism)
(I'm not sure to what level each branch of historical science holds to each of these elements. Percy's link (msg 61)indicated that geologists for example, only hold to elements 1 & 2 )
First, uniformitarianism is a geological concept, and as Bill Birkeland pointed out, modern geologists only hold to 1 and perhaps 2. The other sciences never adhered to the principle of uniformitarianism. Perhaps Lyell's original view of it could have found application in other sciences, but the fact of the matter is that it never did.
So you can stop pondering whether the other "historical sciences" still hold to any of Lyell's principles. The fact of the matter is that they never did. This is not to say that such fields as cosmology and archeology did not at one time accept some of the same principles expressed by Lyell, only that they never grouped them under a principle called uniformitarianism.
Today, most geologists, most cosmologists, most archeologists, indeed most scientists everywhere, accept principle 1, uniformity of law. Principle 2, uniformity of process, would seem to have variable application depending upon the field of science. Principles 3 (uniformity of rate) and 4 (uniformity of state) are accepted by very few scientists as general principles, though of course these terms are perfectly applicable in certain specific situations.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 09-15-2005 6:42 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by iano, posted 09-21-2005 7:36 AM Percy has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 7 of 16 (244187)
09-16-2005 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
09-15-2005 6:42 AM


I'm puzzled
I'm a bit puzzled as to why this is even questioned. We have creationists and theologians presenting fine-tuning arguments that are supposed to show that there must be a creator. If a problem could be found in the rather meager uniformity assumptions that are made, then such a problem would surely refute the fine tuning arguments.
We measure length (and distance, etc), based on a movable measuring rod. In order for such measurement to be possible, we must depend on some well know behaviors of rigid bodies. One might be able to conceive of a world where there could be nothing that behaved like our rigid bodies. In such a world, there could not be the equivalent of our concept of length.
Once our concept of length is known to be meaningful, then basic properties of rigid bodies can be assumed. Euclidean geometry shows that a great deal can be derived deductively from these very simple starting principles. If, in addition, we are in a world where the concept of inertia can be meaningful, then Newton's laws of motion can be deductively derived. Note that I am also implicitly assuming that there is meaningful concept of time.
I think you are perhaps not recognizing that a great deal can be derived deductively from the mere assumption of the meaningfulness of a few basic concepts. The empirical observations that support the meaningfulness of these concepts are commonplace in every day life. For example, the Noah's flood story, even if it is a myth, provides evidence that length was a viable meaningful concept at the time the story was written.
What we mainly need to assume, to talk about the past, is just that the world was such that a small number of basic concepts were meaningful in the same way (same meaning) as they are today. Most of the other physical concepts are derived from the basic ones.
Gravity is definable (derived) in terms of the more basic concepts. But it is not deductively demonstratable that gravity played a role. However, lots of evidence supports the view that it did. Lots of evidence supports the view that the earth has been in a stable orbit for a long time. That's evidence that gravitation worked the same way as it works now. It is also evidence that the principle of conservation of energy has long been in effect.
What I am trying to suggest, is that the assumptions needed are fairly minimalist, that there is lots of evidence supporting these assumptions, and that creationists implicitly make the same assumptions.
Radioactive decay, likewise, is not deducible from the few basic concepts. However, as already mentioned, there is lots of evidence for conservation of energy. Given basic concepts, plus conservation of energy, we can determine the energy that is released by radioactive decay. If the decay rate had been a lot higher, then the extra energy would have been released. If high enough, the earth would be molten. Again, there is lots of evidence against such possibilities.
I'm suggesting that uniformitarian assumptions are not a likely source of problems for evolution or for geology. With respect to the most basic concepts, creationism makes the same assumptions. For secondary concepts, and even for the primary concepts, there is a great deal of supportive evidence. For dating of ancient events, there is a lot of cross calibration between a variety of different ways of dating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 09-15-2005 6:42 AM iano has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 8 of 16 (244629)
09-18-2005 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by iano
09-16-2005 6:12 AM


The point of this thread is to find out whether historical sciences have at their foundation a philosophical assumption of what happened in the past or an objective one...
Not quite sure what you mean by a philosophical assumption. Or is it possible that you create a false dilemma in that a philosophical assumption may also be, or may have been, objective at some point in time. Or that an assumption could be both philosphical and objective. I'm not sure that the two are mutually exclusive. It seems that you contrive an argument against what we used to call uniformitarianism. If there were not some degree of uniformity in the universe, science would become impossible and many data would make no sense, whatsoever. Indeed, with less and less uniformity, we eventually couldn't rely upon anything and civilization would be impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by iano, posted 09-16-2005 6:12 AM iano has not replied

  
Matt P
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 9 of 16 (244988)
09-19-2005 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
09-15-2005 6:42 AM


Duplicitous treatment of uniformitarianism by creationists
Hi, it's interesting to see that many popular creationist authors enjoy using uniformitarianism when it suits them as well. For instance, I currently have a copy of "Creation-Evolution Controversy" by Randy Wysong (Inquiry Press, East Lansing Michigan, 1976). He asserts the following to prove a young Earth:
1. The subsurface pressure at a given point in the Earth is everywhere constant- thus oil fields should not exist.
2. The decay rate of the Earth's magnetic field is constant- thus the magnetic field would be too strong beyong 6000 years.
3. Helium accumulation rate is constant- thus the small quantity of He in the current atmosphere indicates a young Earth.
4. The flow rate of the Mississippi river is constant- thus the small volume of sediment in the delta indicates a young Earth.
5. The accumulation of U, Na, Ni, Mg, Si, K, Cu, Au, Ag, Hg, Pb, Sn, Al, and a few others in salt water is a constant rate process- thus the accumulation of these elements suggests a young Earth.
6. Cliff erosion is constant- why are there still cliffs if the Earth is old?
7. Sea ooze accumulation rates are constant- the total volume of Sea Ooze is too low for an Old Earth.
8. The slowing of the Earth's spin is constant- thus the Earth would be spinning too fast if the Earth is old.
9. Continent erosion is constant, thus continents should have all eroded away.
10. The rate of water exhalation from volcanoes is constant- thus all water came from volcanoes 6000 years ago through the present.
11. The cosmic dust influx is constant (dust delivery to the moon)- thus the astronauts should have sunk into a huge layer of dust if the Moon is old.
12. The cometary flux is constant (thus all comets should be gone).
13. Interplanetary dust removal is constant (thus there shouldn't be meteors).
14. Lunar inert gas accumulation rate is constant- thus we should see a lot of He in lunar soil.
15. Topsoil formation rate is constant- thus the topsoil today has formed in less than 6000 years.
16. Niagara falls erosion rate is constant- thus to move from the ocean to just north of Buffalo would only take 6000 years.
17. Atmospheric oxygen accumulation from plants is constant- thus all plants have been making the oxygen in the past 6000 years.
There are many others stated in his book (a total of 44), but they're mostly just variations on a theme. Wysong references a huge amount of creationist literature (he's very current on his creationist literature through 1976), and even some secular literature (up to date to about 1957), and many of his arguments can still be found today from experts like Kent Hovind and Answers in Genesis. Basically, Wysong's argument is that Uniformitarianism as geologists use it (uniform radioactive decay, generalized statements about the lithification times for sediments, etc.) is invalid, however, uniformitarianism is completely valid when applied to specific cases that would support a young Earth. Also, Young-Earth-only Uniformitarianism is also allowed to omit sinks of material when necessary.
Geologic and especially geomorphic processes are not constant, and definitely can't be used to date something, especially when one forgets to include half of the equation. For instance, Wysong's arguments 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 17 all exclude the removal of something by a natural process.
3- Helium is removed through atmospheric escape
7- Sea Ooze is easily removed through water action and subduction
9- Continental uplift is measure and counteracts erosion (which had an abnormally high erosion rate, anyway)
10- Water is removed through reaction with minerals
14- Helium is easily lost from soil through minor movement
15- Topsoil is easily removed by water
17- Animals breathe oxygen
Many of his other arguments start with faulty initial rates (6, 8, 11, 12, 13,- use wrong initial rates) or causes (2- the Earth's magnetic field actually flips, which is observed in the rock record), or assumptions (1- the pressure is not uniform, 4- the Mississippi delta has moved with time, 5- many elements give ages much older than the Earth, and are also removed by other processes). Some come to faulty conclusions (16- The age of Niagara falls is not the age of the Earth). Uniformitarianism in science should definitely be questioned, but should especially be questioned when used by young Earth creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 09-15-2005 6:42 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by edge, posted 09-19-2005 9:09 PM Matt P has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 10 of 16 (245026)
09-19-2005 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Matt P
09-19-2005 5:29 PM


Re: Duplicitous treatment of uniformitarianism by creationists
Let's not forget the old favorite:
If we project backward, the earth had a populaton of 8 people 4000 years ago...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Matt P, posted 09-19-2005 5:29 PM Matt P has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 11 of 16 (245413)
09-21-2005 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
09-16-2005 1:39 PM


Percy writes:
So you can stop pondering whether the other "historical sciences" still hold to any of Lyell's principles. The fact of the matter is that they never did.
Lyell had four principles you say historical sciences don't and never did hold to any of Lyells principles
This is not to say that such fields as cosmology and archeology did not at one time accept some of the same principles expressed by Lyell, only that they never grouped them under a principle called uniformitarianism.
Here they did accept some (any) of Lyells principles (if not all at all times) and presumably still do. Genetic mutation is a mechanism of Toe. It, I gather, holds to a rate of mutation which provides raw material for Survival of the fittest to work on. ToE needs an old enough earth in order for the rate of mutation to have the time necessary for evolution to occur. No old earth, no evolution. How do they avoid any of U's principles?
If uniformity of rate isn't held in geology then how are radioactive clocks employed? Is it that different principles are used in different areas and if so, on what basis? How does one chose to decide for uniform rate in one area and non-uniform rate in another?
Surely it can't be the observation which determines it. How can you observe something without a uniformity presumption of whatever sort then presume a uniformity exists on the basis of the observation. Is that not circular reasoning:
What I'm trying to get at, but probably not explaining clearly, is that uniformity principles seem to be applied when things appear to be happening uniformly and not when their not apparently happening uniformly. But on what basis does the appearance of uniformity imply actual uniformity?
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-21-2005 07:38 AM

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 09-16-2005 1:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 09-21-2005 11:02 AM iano has not replied
 Message 15 by edge, posted 09-22-2005 8:19 PM iano has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 12 of 16 (245456)
09-21-2005 10:22 AM


Where is that old post?
Someone will need to help me remember where the original post is. There was a great post awhile back where someone described how we were able to test that radioactive decay rates were the same in the past as they are today by examining the decay of short half life elements during a recent super nova.
I remember that it was a very good treatment of the topic especially in explaining that the result did not depend on the speed of light or rather that it also was evidence for the consistency of the speed of light. I can't remember which.
Anyhow. Somewhere on this board there was a post that made this argument. Thus we know that decay rates are constant. Thus there is additional evidence besides the existing correlations that radiometric dating is in built upon a solid fact that decay rates do not change.
This is all to point out that sometimes uniformity is not an assumption but rather an observation.
{ABE}
Ahh! Found it! It was right there in front of me!
Message 1
It is not just 1 post but rather a few posts on the topic of the nova. You'll need to read at least the first 2-4 pages.
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 09-21-2005 08:42 AM

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 13 of 16 (245465)
09-21-2005 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by iano
09-21-2005 7:36 AM


iano writes:
ToE needs an old enough earth in order for the rate of mutation to have the time necessary for evolution to occur. No old earth, no evolution. How do they avoid any of U's principles?
The age of the earth is not deduced by assuming uniformitarian principles but by measurement.
If uniformity of rate isn't held in geology then how are radioactive clocks employed?
You're correct that uniformity of rate isn't held in geology, but it is only as a general principle that it isn't held. The reason it isn't held as a general principle is because rates cannot be assumed to be constant.
Radioactive decay rates are not assumed to be constant as a general principle. Rather, they have been determined to be constant by experiment, observation and theory. We even know that radioactive decay is due to the nuclear weak force, and that it is therefore based upon fundamental physical laws, which we do assume to be constant throughout all time and space.
What I'm trying to get at, but probably not explaining clearly, is that uniformity principles seem to be applied when things appear to be happening uniformly and not when their not apparently happening uniformly. But on what basis does the appearance of uniformity imply actual uniformity?
Uniformity cannot be assumed as a general principle. You can only know something is uniform over time and/or space by measuring it or somehow deducing it from related data. The only principle of uniformitarianism remaining is uniformity of physical laws, and it isn't called uniformitarianism. Extremely few in any field of science would list themselves under the uniformitarian category.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by iano, posted 09-21-2005 7:36 AM iano has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 14 of 16 (245475)
09-21-2005 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
09-15-2005 6:42 AM


I don't understand your point
Are you asking us to defend the idea that what we see is what we see?
It sounds like you want to radically redefine all the sciences based on some theory of your own.
Rather than ask us to defend an established, documented, and observable princple of the world, why don't you simply present the case for your theory?
What is the basis to believe that everything around us is false?
When in the past has gravity been reversed?
When have electrons broken off of atoms at a much faster rate than they do currently?
Do you have any evidence that any of this has actually happened? And, by evidence, I want to be clear - demonstratable, testable, peer-reviewed evidence. Not a rewrite of a rewrite of a book that no one can agree which version is right in the first place.
This thread might as well be called: Can you prove to me that the number 2 is actually the number 2 and not really the number 17? Or how do we know that blue is blue?
What is your theory of anti-uniformity called anyway? What are the mechanics behind it? How did we change from the way it was in your past to the way it is in our present? When will it change again and why?
If you can't begin to answer these questions, you really have no place attacking U.
You've already shown that evidence in support of what exists is insuffiencent to convince you of fact, so I don't feel that the science side of the debate should be even attempting to present you with evidence.
If you have a problem with what is, then PROVE that it is in fact wrong. Don't assert some half baked theory based on no mechanics, no reasoning and no evidence. It's a waste of everyone's time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 09-15-2005 6:42 AM iano has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 16 (245829)
09-22-2005 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by iano
09-21-2005 7:36 AM


Lyell had four principles you say historical sciences don't and never did hold to any of Lyells principles
Correct. Lyell is known for his work in Geology. I'm not sure what is so hard about this.
Here they did accept some (any) of Lyells principles (if not all at all times) and presumably still do. Genetic mutation is a mechanism of Toe. It, I gather, holds to a rate of mutation which provides raw material for Survival of the fittest to work on.
I know of nothing about uniform rates of mutation being necessary for evolution. Please reference.
ToE needs an old enough earth in order for the rate of mutation to have the time necessary for evolution to occur. No old earth, no evolution. How do they avoid any of U's principles?
YOu need to explain this question. It appears that your understanding of evolution is crude and fragmentary. This is a common sign of Evolution learned form YEC websites. Who is 'they' and what principles are you talking about? Some examples would be nice here. Why do you continue to pursue uniformitarianism when that is not the modern understanding of nature?
If uniformity of rate isn't held in geology then how are radioactive clocks employed?
Did you ever think that some processes might be uniform and others not? Do you think it is erroneous for Geology to recognize this fact?
Is it that different principles are used in different areas and if so, on what basis?
Uniformity is utilized when processes, rates etc., are thought to be uniform. Do you have an alternative?
How does one chose to decide for uniform rate in one area and non-uniform rate in another?
Obseration, extrapolation, logic. YOu name it. HOw do you do it?
Surely it can't be the observation which determines it. How can you observe something without a uniformity presumption of whatever sort then presume a uniformity exists on the basis of the observation.
Why not? Do you think the sun will 'rise' tomorrow? Why do you think so?
Is that not circular reasoning:
If it is circular reasoning to impute uniformity because uniformity is observed, you have completely redefined the definition of 'circular reasoning' and perhaps 'uniformity.' Look it up sometime and get back to us.
What I'm trying to get at, but probably not explaining clearly, is that uniformity principles seem to be applied when things appear to be happening uniformly and not when their not apparently happening uniformly.
This is a problem?
But on what basis does the appearance of uniformity imply actual uniformity?
When a process, rate, etc. is uniform we assume uniformity. Do you have an alternative?
I am sorry, but your thinking on this is so muddled that I cannot even begin to tell where to start answering these questions. Whether you know it or not, you are a uniformitarianist. Do you assume that the sun will 'rise' tomorrow? Why? Do you assume that your alarm will work to wake you up? Why? Do you assume that your watch is correct? Why? Is it all based on observation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by iano, posted 09-21-2005 7:36 AM iano 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