Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the basis for holding that Uniformitarianism is valid?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22505
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.4


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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22505
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.4


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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024