Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 1:50 AM
435 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 433 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,960 Year: 6,566/21,208 Month: 2,327/2,634 Week: 515/572 Day: 1/61 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Is truth or evidence more important in science and evolution?
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1681 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


(1)
Message 1 of 55 (662343)
05-14-2012 10:25 PM


I have been in many discussions in the realm of evolution. In the scientific method the evidence is more important than finding the truth. Finding the truth is not important to science only observing and documenting evidence is.

Since there is no truth to be found inside of science does alot of circumstancial evidence make truth?

I personally do not think it does. But many I'm sure feel that all the evidence compels one to determine that it should be considered as truth.

I have no doubt that the scientific community is very skilled at thier craft and expertise. Though how can one obtain the skills to be considered a expert in the field of dating objects of considerable age?

Can and does a scientific evolutionary believing person actually want the truth? Or do they have previous beliefs in something and fit facts and adjust theory. This is alot like white lying. I agree that theories should be improved and evidnece collected. But not when the theory has limitless bounds continuing to add and take away to the point were a common man can not achieve the ability to comprehind it. A real good theory I propose is the origin of life is so easy to understand that a common man unknowable of science can achieve it. People are smart and chose to ignore that ability.

The real problem with all of evolution is not that evolution claims us as evolved from a previous species. Or that it doesnt not supply God with direct creation ability. But it out right denies the use of predicting and estimate work is heavily involved when evolution is concerned. If a palentologist, scientist, or evolutionist does not say up front that thier dating charts are in fact predicted at best from modern day samples, thier ability to observe age, and thier estimates of ages by the knowledge they have to work with is not truthful.

So the main question is for anyone and anybody.

Is learning the truth of origin more important?

Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important?

Edited by ScottyDouglas, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 05-14-2012 11:32 PM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2012 11:52 PM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 5 by Theodoric, posted 05-15-2012 12:27 AM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2012 1:32 AM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 05-15-2012 2:12 AM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2012 2:40 AM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 21 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 9:32 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2012 9:09 PM ScottyDouglas has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3740
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 55 (662345)
05-14-2012 10:58 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Is truth or evidence more important in science and evolution? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5504
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 3 of 55 (662348)
05-14-2012 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 10:25 PM


ScottyDouglas writes:
Since there is no truth to be found inside of science does alot of circumstancial evidence make truth?

I'm not sure why you would say that. Science is widely seen as bringing us truth, though perhaps it doesn't address the particular questions that you think important.

Perhaps you could tell us what you mean by "truth."


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 10:25 PM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(5)
Message 4 of 55 (662349)
05-14-2012 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 10:25 PM


You have actually proposed a good topic.

I have been in many discussions in the realm of evolution. In the scientific method the evidence is more important than finding the truth. Finding the truth is not important to science only observing and documenting evidence is.

I posted some definitions to you in another thread. I'll repeat a couple of them here:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

These definitions will show you the role of "truth" in science -- i.e., none. Science does not claim to have "truth, Truth, TRUTH, TRVTH," or anything of that nature. That is left for religions to claim. Although the term "truth" is often used for scientific evidence and findings by the layperson, it is not technically correct.

Since there is no truth to be found inside of science does alot of circumstancial evidence make truth?

No, of course not! What that "circumstantial evidence" does do is let scientists formulate and test hypotheses. Those hypotheses which withstand the tests can be advanced to theories (see the definitions above). Theories are the current best explanations for a particular set of facts. Theories are more "true" than hypotheses, guesses, conjectures, and the like, but as the definition above notes, scientists are not likely to be claiming any ultimate truths.

I personally do not think it does. But many I'm sure feel that all the evidence compels one to determine that it should be considered as truth.

And you would be wrong, as you have not yet learned how these terms are used in science.

I have no doubt that the scientific community is very skilled at thier craft and expertise.

Finally, you are correct in something!

Though how can one obtain the skills to be considered a expert in the field of dating objects of considerable age?

I have some expertise in radiocarbon dating. I have been studying that field for over 30 years. And there are a lot of ways in which we can have some confidence in radiocarbon dates. The main way of testing this dating method is by dating materials that occur in annular layers--tree rings, corals, glacial varves, etc. There are quite a few things that occur in annular fashion. Those items are deposited year after year, and by counting back the individual layers or rings we can come up with items which are known to be of a particular age. Those can then be radiocarbon dated, and a calibration curve can be constructed which corrects the radiocarbon method for atmospheric variation. Also, certain events such as volcanoes create short-term changes in climate. By correlating those changes with known volcanic eruptions through history we can get another check on the accuracy of the radiocarbon method. Finally, we can date items of a known age, from marine shells collected at known dates to Egyptian artifacts and grave goods from dated contexts. All of these allow us to check the accuracy of the radiocarbon method, and to correct for particular forms of variation. And the method is quite accurate!

Other methods of radio-dating use similar methods, but they are outside of my expertise.

Can and does a scientific evolutionary believing person actually want the truth?

We are seeking explanations, not some "truth, Truth, TRUTH, TRVTH." We leave that to others. (There are a LOT of those proclaiming to have the truth.)

Or do they have previous beliefs in something and fit facts and adjust theory.

Scientists who fudge data do not last long--that is the exact opposite of what we do. We adjust (or discard) theories based on facts. If a theory can accommodate new facts, they are incorporated. When a theory can't accommodate new facts, it must be discarded or seriously modified.

Really, what is the use of a theory that does not accurately explain the facts it is supposed to explain? It is useless to us!

This is alot like white lying. I agree that theories should be improved and evidnece collected. But not when the theory has limitless bounds continuing to add and take away to the point were a common man can not achieve the ability to comprehind it.

The comprehension of the common man is not a requirement of science, nor is their approval or disapproval of any importance. Theories are based on evidence and the testing of both the theory and that evidence.

A real good theory I propose is the origin of life is so easy to understand that a common man unknowable of science can achieve it. People are smart and chose to ignore that ability.

Then, present your theory (actually an hypothesis) of the origin of life! But remember to bring evidence and to expect your hypothesis to be critically examined in light of your evidence and extant evidence. That's the way things are done in science. (And note, that this is not a part of the theory of evolution.)

The real problem with all of evolution is not that evolution claims us as evolved from a previous species. Or that it doesnt not supply God with direct creation ability. But it out right denies the use of predicting and estimate work is heavily involved when evolution is concerned. If a palentologist, scientist, or evolutionist does not say up front that thier dating charts are in fact predicted at best from modern day samples, thier ability to observe age, and thier estimates of ages by the knowledge they have to work with is not truthful.

Forget truth! We are after scientific accuracy. Maybe you can find ""truth, Truth, TRUTH, TRVTH" etc. in the 40,000 extant world religions, denominations, sects, and other subdivisions, but without some empirical evidence to differentiate between these religions etc. you'll never come up with anything that has any empirical support.

So the main question is for anyone and anybody.

Is learning the truth of origin more important?

Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important?

Again you are mixing several things together. Learning and predicting by the evidence collected is what is important to science. That's what science does!

Religions, on the other hand, do the opposite. They rely on belief, scripture, dogma, revelations and other non-empirical "evidence." When members of a group differ in their interpretations of that "evidence" they generally split, creating two or more denominations or sects. There is no empirical evidence that will differentiate between the interpretations! Exactly the opposite of science.

Edited by Coyote, : Grammar


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 10:25 PM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-15-2012 1:53 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5700
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 5 of 55 (662350)
05-15-2012 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 10:25 PM


Define truth.

Do you think somehow something has shone this truth to you?

I think you are trying to conflate two words that have vastly different meanings.

I for one to not think there is any higher 'truth". Using the word truth in the manner you are of course.

I would really like to hear some of this "truth" of which you speak.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Edited by Theodoric, : Need to be nicer so removed subtitle


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 10:25 PM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-15-2012 1:24 AM Theodoric has responded

    
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1681 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 6 of 55 (662351)
05-15-2012 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Theodoric
05-15-2012 12:27 AM


Truth:to me: Is the state of being in reality. Validated evidence.

Yes I have been shown what is truth by God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Theodoric, posted 05-15-2012 12:27 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Theodoric, posted 05-15-2012 8:36 AM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 20 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 9:19 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 7 of 55 (662352)
05-15-2012 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 10:25 PM


science approximates reality
Hi ScottyDouglas,

I have been in many discussions in the realm of evolution. In the scientific method the evidence is more important than finding the truth. Finding the truth is not important to science only observing and documenting evidence is.

Science is about understanding objective empirical evidence. The basic assumption of science is that objective empirical evidence represents reality. By developing hypothesis to explain the objective empirical evidence we make an approximation of reality, then that hypothesis is used to make predictions that can be tested against reality by whether or not the predictions result in new objective empirical evidence validates (occurs as predicted) or falsifies (does not occur as predicted or occurs when prediction says it shouldn't) the hypothesis.

By rejecting falsified concepts, the remaining hypothesis are a better approximation of reality than before, by further testing of validated concepts the cycle of approximation continues. Every test brings us a little bit closer in our approximation, but we can never be sure that we have reached a "true" representation of reality.

No matter how good a theory is, nor how well tested it is, it is still a tentative explanation of reality, subject to further refinement as more knowledge is developed through testing, testing, and testing.

Since there is no truth to be found inside of science does alot of circumstancial evidence make truth?

How could it? Circumstantial evidence is inadequate for testing hypothesis, and hypothesis can only approximate reality at best, be wildly wrong at worst.

Circumstantial evidence may be used as a basis for an hypothesis, but that hypothesis then needs to be tested against objective empirical evidence before it can be considered anything more than a conjecture.

Alien visitations would be an example of circumstantial evidence that can be used to form an hypothesis that aliens have visited earth, but we need to test that hypothesis with objective empirical evidence before we can say that this is anything more than a possibility.

I personally do not think it does. But many I'm sure feel that all the evidence compels one to determine that it should be considered as truth.

And personally I don't think you will find anyone who agrees with this.

I have no doubt that the scientific community is very skilled at thier craft and expertise. Though how can one obtain the skills to be considered a expert in the field of dating objects of considerable age?

By going to university, getting a PhD in the field, doing some field work, having that work reviewed by other scientists who will treat it with extreme skepticism, and over many years of consistent quality work becoming recognized by other scientists as someone who is knowledgeable in your field.

Though how can one obtain the skills to be considered a expert in the field of dating objects of considerable age?

You seem to have a pet peeve about how dating is done with the accuracy accepted in science. Once again I recommend you read the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread, as it will walk you through ways that dating methods can be verified and validated.

Can and does a scientific evolutionary believing person actually want the truth? ...

A "scientific evolutionary believing person" wants to see improved approximations of reality, as does any scientist or science believing person.

However, science does not talk about believing, just as it does not talk about truth, rather it talks about acceptance, accepting tested theories as good explanations of objective empirical evidence, and good at making usable predictions that help find new objective empirical evidence.

... Or do they have previous beliefs in something and fit facts and adjust theory. ...

That is fraud, and yes there are some people who commit fraud in science, just as there are people who commit fraud outside science. When it is discovered (usually by other scientists testing the results to confirm them) then the career of the person who commits fraud is over.

... This is alot like white lying. ...

Fraud is not like "white lying" it is outright lying. Lying and fraud are despised in science.

... I agree that theories should be improved and evidnece collected. ...

Good, because the process never ends. Because no theory can be shown to be true, the best we can do is to improve our approximation of reality by continuing to test theories, even long established ones (like evolution).

But not when the theory has limitless bounds continuing to add and take away to the point were a common man can not achieve the ability to comprehind it.

All theories necessarily have limitless bounds until they are falsified.

The ability of a common man - especially one who has not studied the particular field in any scholastic depth - to comprehend a theory is a problem for that common man, not for science or scientists. The common man can improve his ability to comprehend by taking courses in the field, or by studying the subject from scientific sources.

A real good theory I propose is the origin of life is so easy to understand that a common man unknowable of science can achieve it.

Propose your theory hypothesis, and tell us how you think you can test it.

People are smart and chose to ignore that ability.

Scientists are smart and they are trained in specific fields to get a high degree of knowledge in those fields, but a biologist cannot necessarily understand a theory from physics, nor a physicist understand a theory in biology, because that is outside their area of expertise.

The real problem with all of evolution is not that evolution claims us as evolved from a previous species. Or that it doesnt not supply God with direct creation ability. But it out right denies the use of predicting and estimate work is heavily involved when evolution is concerned

When you come to understand that all science is a tentative understanding of reality, that all the tentative understanding of reality uses prediction and estimation to set goals for further testing against objective empirical evidence, then you will come to understand that this is an accepted part of doing science -- the results are tentative, the results are an approximation of reality -- and then perhaps you will come to understand that evolution is not special in this regard.

If a palentologist, scientist, or evolutionist does not say up front that thier dating charts are in fact predicted at best from modern day samples, thier ability to observe age, and thier estimates of ages by the knowledge they have to work with is not truthful.

Again, read 14C Calibration and Correlations to see how the ability to measure age can be validated by objective empirical evidence of actual age. Also see Consistent Radiometric dates and Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective.

When you see an age reported in a scientific article you will see a range of dates that represents the uncertainty of the dating method. That uncertainty has been established by testing the method against objective empirical evidence.

So the main question is for anyone and anybody.
Is learning the truth of origin more important?
Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important?

As there is no known way of determining truth, the best we can do is approximate reality by learning and prediction, by collecting objective empirical evidence, and by continuing to test our concepts of reality against the objective empirical evidence.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 10:25 PM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-15-2012 2:19 AM RAZD has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4405
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 8 of 55 (662353)
05-15-2012 1:52 AM


I would second what Coyote says and add that science, in its mission to understand how things work, concerns itself as much with proving things false as it does with trying to prove them 'true' (ie correct).

A scientific theory must be capable of being falsified - if it can't be, it isn't science. So you'll see that when a new idea (hypothesis) is published, the scientific community does its damnedest to prove it wrong. When a significant theory is proven to be wrong (or incomplete), the challenger is often awarded the highest plaudits available, including Nobel prizes.

The falsifying process is the exact opposite of religious methodology which concerns itself with reinforcing its ideas through repetition and ritual and the shunning and persecution of ideas that differ from their own.

And just for completeness, some parts of science can claim to have discovered real truths - mathematics is the best example. The angles in a triangle will always add to 180 degrees for example.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-15-2012 2:08 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1681 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 9 of 55 (662354)
05-15-2012 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
05-14-2012 11:52 PM


You have actually proposed a good topic.
Thank you.

Science does not claim to have "truth, Truth, TRUTH, TRVTH," or anything of that nature. That is left for religions to claim. Although the term "truth" is often used for scientific evidence and findings by the layperson, it is not technically correct.
Thank you again for the admission. Though I seek and many like myself seek the truth. We have not to much concern for physical evidence by your terms which simply is speclative. Or our billion year origin which also is speclative.

And you would be wrong, as you have not yet learned how these terms are used in science.
We both could be wrong.

I have no doubt that the scientific community is very skilled at thier craft and expertise.
Finally, you are correct in something!
Regardless of skill and expert opinion if speculation is involved a chunk of percentages are lost in the grand scheme.

I have some expertise in radiocarbon dating. I have been studying that field for over 30 years. And there are a lot of ways in which we can have some confidence in radiocarbon dates.
Im sure you do or you would not consider yourself a expert.

The main way of testing this dating method is by dating materials that occur in annular layers--tree rings, corals, glacial varves, etc.
How can you be sure that the layers aged as specified? I understand what you said. But how can you be 100% sure that you are accounting for everything needed for dating?

There are quite a few things that occur in annular fashion. Those items are deposited year after year, and by counting back the individual layers or rings we can come up with items which are known to be of a particular age. I understand this and know you are very well seasoned at it. But again how can you give 100% assuraties that you are accounting for everything needed for dating?

Those can then be radiocarbon dated, and a calibration curve can be constructed which corrects the radiocarbon method for atmospheric variation. Also, certain events such as volcanoes create short-term changes in climate. By correlating those changes with known volcanic eruptions through history we can get another check on the accuracy of the radiocarbon method. Finally, we can date items of a known age, from marine shells collected at known dates to Egyptian artifacts and grave goods from dated contexts. All of these allow us to check the accuracy of the radiocarbon method, and to correct for particular forms of variation. And the method is quite accurate!
Im sure the method results are very effeciant. The issue is not your technique or knowledge of the tests and how to collect them. The available unknown data that could cause much variance is flatout refused and denied.

Really, what is the use of a theory that does not accurately explain the facts it is supposed to explain? It is useless to us!
Does tons and tons endless amount of facts and evidence make what ever theory it is a truth?

Then, present your theory (actually an hypothesis) of the origin of life! But remember to bring evidence and to expect your hypothesis to be critically examined in light of your evidence and extant evidence. That's the way things are done in science.
Good Idea!

Forget truth! We are after scientific accuracy.
What is anything about in this life if you have all the evidence in the world and find no truth?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2012 11:52 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-15-2012 2:10 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2012 7:31 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

    
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1681 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 10 of 55 (662356)
05-15-2012 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tangle
05-15-2012 1:52 AM


I can accept that as being truth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tangle, posted 05-15-2012 1:52 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3740
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 11 of 55 (662357)
05-15-2012 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ScottyDouglas
05-15-2012 1:53 AM


Formatting tips
You need to use the codings that will create quote boxes. Otherwise it's hard to tell who is saying what.

[quote]This is the original style quote box. It is here customarily used for quoting off-site material[/quote]

The above has extra code to prevent the other code from acting. Thus you can see the code. Without that extra code you get:

quote:
This is the original style quote box. It is here customarily used for quoting off-site material

Likewise

[qs]This is the "quote shaded" box. It is here customarily used for quoting from other messages[/qs]

You get:

This is the "quote shaded" box. It is here customarily used for quoting from other messages

A variation on the qs box is

[qs=Adminnemooseus]This is the "quote shaded with attribute" box.[/qs]

You get:

Adminnemooseus writes:

This is the "quote shaded with attribute" box.

For any message, you can use "peek" to see how coding is done. The is also the dBCodes On link at the left of the message text entry box, which gives information on the various available codes.

Also, try to put an extra blank line between paragraphs. That keeps things from running together.

Good luck. No reply to this message needed.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Typo, or something like that.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Another goof. This is what happens when you try to get a message out ASAP.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-15-2012 1:53 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12438
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 12 of 55 (662358)
05-15-2012 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 10:25 PM


quote:

I have been in many discussions in the realm of evolution. In the scientific method the evidence is more important than finding the truth. Finding the truth is not important to science only observing and documenting evidence is.

I think that you have misunderstood. Science is not about finding the big-T final Truth (that's not available to us). But it is about finding the truth in the ordinary sense of the word - as best we can (and if there is a better method for finding out truths about our physical world I don't know of it). The whole point about observing and documenting evidence is a part of finding the truth. It allows others to investigate and confirm the results - or not - which helps find errors in the original work - and makes details that may be useful available to others.

quote:

I have no doubt that the scientific community is very skilled at thier craft and expertise. Though how can one obtain the skills to be considered a expert in the field of dating objects of considerable age?

By acquiring the skills and techniques that allow us to successfully do just that. I know that they give results that your intellectual masters hate and refuse to accept. But that's because they don't want the truth.

quote:

Can and does a scientific evolutionary believing person actually want the truth?

The vast majority of them do. I don't think that many creationists want the truth at all.

quote:

Or do they have previous beliefs in something and fit facts and adjust theory. This is alot like white lying.

I would say that that describes creationism more. And I don't think I'd be so generous as to describe it all as white lying.

quote:

I agree that theories should be improved and evidnece collected. But not when the theory has limitless bounds continuing to add and take away to the point were a common man can not achieve the ability to comprehind it. A real good theory I propose is the origin of life is so easy to understand that a common man unknowable of science can achieve it. People are smart and chose to ignore that ability.

But what if the truth IS that complicated ?

quote:

The real problem with all of evolution is not that evolution claims us as evolved from a previous species. Or that it doesnt not supply God with direct creation ability. But it out right denies the use of predicting and estimate work is heavily involved when evolution is concerned. If a palentologist, scientist, or evolutionist does not say up front that thier dating charts are in fact predicted at best from modern day samples, thier ability to observe age, and thier estimates of ages by the knowledge they have to work with is not truthful.

Carbon dating has been calibrated based on genuinely old samples. To deny that would not be truthful - it would be a lie. In fact all dating methods are thoroughly checked by cross-calibrating the results of different methods. The basis is not simply theoretical (although the theoretical basis is very strong - and not something that can lightly be rejected by an honest and informed person).

This is a fine example of creationists (in this case Young Earth Creationists) adjusting the "facts" to fit them to their pre-existing idea of a young Earth.

quote:

So the main question is for anyone and anybody.

Is learning the truth of origin more important?

Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important?


Which is more important, achieving the goal, or honestly and diligently applying the best methods to achieve the goal ?

Well in the case where the goal is difficult to achieve even with our best efforts, and if it is hard to know if we have truly achieved it even with our best efforts, then surely anyone who wants to achieve that goal can do nothing better than to honestly and diligently apply the best methods we have.

Determining the origin of life is just such a case.

If you honestly want to find the truth - or at least the best approximation we can hope to get - then you have to do it by the scientific method. There is no alternative.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 10:25 PM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 12:27 AM PaulK has responded

    
ScottyDouglas
Member (Idle past 1681 days)
Posts: 79
Joined: 05-10-2012


Message 13 of 55 (662359)
05-15-2012 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
05-15-2012 1:32 AM


Re: science approximates reality
Every test brings us a little bit closer in our approximation, but we can never be sure that we have reached a "true" representation of reality.
Absolutely correct.

And personally I don't think you will find anyone who agrees with this.
Maybe you do not but many do.

Fraud is not like "white lying" it is outright lying. Lying and fraud are despised in science.
Thank you. I was being kind.

Scientists are smart and they are trained in specific fields to get a high degree of knowledge in those fields, but a biologist cannot necessarily understand a theory from physics, nor a physicist understand a theory in biology, because that is outside their area of expertise.
I do not doubt this.

When you come to understand that all science is a tentative understanding of reality, that all the tentative understanding of reality uses prediction and estimation to set goals for further testing
Again true.

When you see an age reported in a scientific article you will see a range of dates that represents the uncertainty of the dating method. That uncertainty has been established by testing the method against objective empirical evidence.
I have seen many. How can you be sure 100% that all knowledge is applied to determine age?

As there is no known way of determining truth, the best we can do is approximate reality by learning and prediction, by collecting objective empirical evidence, and by continuing to test our concepts of reality against the objective empirical evidence.
Agreed.And by all accounts the evolutionary theory can not be considered as truth, right?

Enjoy.
Thanks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2012 1:32 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2012 2:45 AM ScottyDouglas has responded
 Message 16 by frako, posted 05-15-2012 2:59 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2012 7:43 AM ScottyDouglas has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 14 of 55 (662360)
05-15-2012 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ScottyDouglas
05-14-2012 10:25 PM


In the scientific method the evidence is more important than finding the truth. Finding the truth is not important to science only observing and documenting evidence is.

No. Finding the evidence is important because it makes our conclusions more likely to be the truth, less likely to be false. That's what the collection of the evidence is for.

Since there is no truth to be found inside of science ...

There is probably lots.

But many I'm sure feel that all the evidence compels one to determine that it should be considered as truth.

Provisionally considered as truth, yes.

Can and does a scientific evolutionary believing person actually want the truth?

Of course. This is why we're interested in evidence and creationists are more interested in vacuous rhetoric with no connection to reality.

I agree that theories should be improved and evidnece collected. But not when the theory has limitless bounds continuing to add and take away to the point were a common man can not achieve the ability to comprehind it. A real good theory I propose is the origin of life is so easy to understand that a common man unknowable of science can achieve it. People are smart and chose to ignore that ability.

Or that it doesnt not supply God with direct creation ability. But it out right denies the use of predicting and estimate work is heavily involved when evolution is concerned.

If that was written in a better approximation to English, so that it was meaningful, it would probably be untrue.

So the main question is for anyone and anybody.

Is learning the truth of origin more important?

Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important?

But this is a mere category error.

One approaches the truth by looking at the evidence. You might as well ask: "What's more important to you, walking or putting one foot in front of the other?" That's how one walks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-14-2012 10:25 PM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 12:37 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 15 of 55 (662361)
05-15-2012 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by ScottyDouglas
05-15-2012 2:19 AM


Re: science approximates reality
And by all accounts the evolutionary theory can not be considered as truth, right?

Only in the same sense that the proposition that (for example) elephants have trunks "cannot be considered as truth". It is merely consistent with all the evidence. There's nothing special about evolution in this respect, it ranks with such propositions as: "The world is not tetrahedral", "Penguins are birds", "The Statue of Liberty is not purple", "I am in Nevada right now" and any other completely true statement which a philosopher with too much time on his hands might see fit to quibble with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-15-2012 2:19 AM ScottyDouglas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 2:10 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017