Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2017 8:12 AM
344 online now:
frako, Joe T, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Pressie, RAZD, Tangle (7 members, 337 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,009 Year: 28,615/21,208 Month: 681/1,847 Week: 56/475 Day: 3/53 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3435
36
3738
...
41Next
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11839
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 526 of 614 (736467)
09-10-2014 3:48 PM


In my mind, and in the sense that I use the term, Faith is retarded.
  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 527 of 614 (736543)
09-11-2014 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 525 by PaulK
09-10-2014 12:58 PM


Re: Faith responds about "proof"
PaulK writes:

In fairness I think that Faith is simply presenting her point very poorly. Facts are not evidence for a claim if they do not support that claim.

I don't think so. First she said, "All it really means to say you can't prove something is that you don't have the evidence you claim to have." When it was pointed out that she was wrong and that we do have the evidence we say we have, unable to concede error she instead compounded it by insisting, "It isn't evidence if it doesn't lead to the conclusions you claim for it." She believes we have no evidence for what we claim, but since we obviously do have evidence for what we claim (even if we're wrong) she makes up a definition of evidence where it refers only to that which supports a claim. This is a common fallback tactic for Faith, to play word games when the evidence isn't in her favor.

What is closest to what Faith said that happens to be true is that a claim can't be considered proven (successfully subjected to a technical testing process) until persuasive evidence has been gathered in its support. But Faith won't embrace a definition like this because it is just too obvious that science *has* gathered persuasive evidence in support of its claims, has, in effect, proven its claims.


Limestones do not normally build up as layers among layers, they had to have formed elsewhere and been transported and deposited as a layer. Water, of course, makes sedimentary layers; this is demonstrated in deltas and along the coastal margins.

Making up irrational excuses to cling to predetermined conclusions in the face of the evidence only shows that the evidence really does support a quite different conclusion.

I couldn't extract any single unambiguous meaning from that passage from Faith (nor from most of the rest of her update). Maybe it is an irrational excuse, but maybe it's just a further reflection of her inner confusion. Having no clear picture in her own mind of what she thinks happened that isn't starkly in violation of the known laws of the universe, and having only a tenuous understanding of those laws anyway, she's left to utter vague inanities.

When participating here Faith's posts follow an evolutionary pattern of gradual improvement over time as she weans out her weakest arguments, but all those lessons are forgotten when she returns to her blog.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2014 12:58 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by edge, posted 09-11-2014 2:52 PM Percy has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 528 of 614 (736622)
09-11-2014 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by Percy
09-11-2014 6:50 AM


Re: Faith responds about "proof"
I don't think so. First she said, "All it really means to say you can't prove something is that you don't have the evidence you claim to have." When it was pointed out that she was wrong and that we do have the evidence we say we have, unable to concede error she instead compounded it by insisting, "It isn't evidence if it doesn't lead to the conclusions you claim for it." She believes we have no evidence for what we claim, but since we obviously do have evidence for what we claim (even if we're wrong) she makes up a definition of evidence where it refers only to that which supports a claim. This is a common fallback tactic for Faith, to play word games when the evidence isn't in her favor.

What is closest to what Faith said that happens to be true is that a claim can't be considered proven (successfully subjected to a technical testing process) until persuasive evidence has been gathered in its support. But Faith won't embrace a definition like this because it is just too obvious that science *has* gathered persuasive evidence in support of its claims, has, in effect, proven its claims.


I think that when Faith says that we have no evidence, she misspeaks. Facts are facts and they cannot be simply dismissed. I think what she means is that the interpretation of those facts is wrong.

Never mind that she then fails to support that statement. It's an easy, throw-away argument: 'you have no evidence!'

On the other hand, Faith does in deed provide no evidence other than feelings and made-up stories about how the world ought to be, with none of those stubborn little fact to stumble over.

When she does present facts, such as her cross-sections of the GC and Colorado Plateau, she has no framework in which to interpret them, so they invariably end up supporting her addled opinion: e.g., all intrusive rocks are of the same age and since some cut the youngest sediments, then they all are young.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by Percy, posted 09-11-2014 6:50 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2014 9:08 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 531 by Percy, posted 09-12-2014 7:23 AM edge has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10115
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 529 of 614 (736661)
09-11-2014 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 528 by edge
09-11-2014 2:52 PM


Re: Faith responds about "proof"
I think that when Faith says that we have no evidence, she misspeaks. Facts are facts and they cannot be simply dismissed. I think what she means is that the interpretation of those facts is wrong.

Faith is wrong, but I think she is expressing herself properly. If the facts actually support both the scientific explanation as well as Faith's then the facts are not evidence for either proposition over the other.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by edge, posted 09-11-2014 2:52 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by Coyote, posted 09-11-2014 10:14 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 530 of 614 (736670)
09-11-2014 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by NoNukes
09-11-2014 9:08 PM


Re: Faith responds about "proof"
Faith is wrong, but I think she is expressing herself properly. If the facts actually support both the scientific explanation as well as Faith's then the facts are not evidence for either proposition over the other.

Interpretation must be derived from facts. As such, not all interpretations are of equal value. Some stem directly from the facts, while others...not so much.

Faith has a long history of mis-interpretation of facts in order to arrive at her desired outcome. She twists, manipulates, and mis-represents facts to make her points, and most often she ignores facts which contradict her points.

And then she tries to tell us how we should do science!


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2014 9:08 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 531 of 614 (736695)
09-12-2014 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 528 by edge
09-11-2014 2:52 PM


Re: Faith responds about "proof"
edge writes:

I think that when Faith says that we have no evidence, she misspeaks. Facts are facts and they cannot be simply dismissed. I think what she means is that the interpretation of those facts is wrong.

I suggested that to Faith back in Message 519:

Percy in Message 519 writes:

...so I think you must have meant to say that the evidence we have doesn't lead to the conclusions we claim,...

In her answer in her update she reiterated her original statement:

Faith in her 9/8 Update writes:

But of course, have it your way if you must but you know what I mean. It isn't evidence if it doesn't lead to the conclusions you claim for it.

Having to defend offhand nonsensical things she's said actually works out well for Faith because it distracts time and attention away from the actual topic.

And the reason she keeps coming up with and then defending nonsensical statements is because she wants to present a line of reasoning that concludes we're wrong, but she can't do that with the normal definitions, so she keeps nudging word definitions around until she can. Of course by inventing her own definitions even those who might otherwise be on her side can't tell what she's saying.

--Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by edge, posted 09-11-2014 2:52 PM edge has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 532 of 614 (736696)
09-12-2014 7:51 AM


Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
Faith has posted another update at her blog, see Finishing up the "Proof" and Untestable Past discussion, then search for "9/11 Update".

Proof was the original topic of Faith's blog post, but in her updates she's been gradually drifting away from that topic and more into geology. In this latest update she's completely abandoned the proof topic, repeating a few of her wackier geological claims as if they hadn't already been rebutted many times. The rebuttals can all be found in the Growing the Geologic Column, Continuation of Flood Discussion, and Why the Flood Never Happened threads.

Concerning the topic of proof, I hope that at some point Faith will begin embracing normal word definitions and agree that evidence is evidence independent of whether anyone has drawn the right conclusions from it. It makes no sense to say, "Your evidence doesn't support your claims, therefore you have no evidence." This shouldn't even have to be explained. It's simple English.

When scientists say they have proven something, all they mean is that they have supported their claims with evidence sufficiently persuasive to form a consensus.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


Replies to this message:
 Message 533 by Taq, posted 09-12-2014 1:36 PM Percy has responded
 Message 535 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2014 3:34 PM Percy has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7271
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 533 of 614 (736724)
09-12-2014 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 532 by Percy
09-12-2014 7:51 AM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
Concerning the topic of proof, I hope that at some point Faith will begin embracing normal word definitions and agree that evidence is evidence independent of whether anyone has drawn the right conclusions from it. It makes no sense to say, "Your evidence doesn't support your claims, therefore you have no evidence." This shouldn't even have to be explained. It's simple English.

What Faith needs to do is separate observations from evidence, and then show how each relates to the hypothesis AND the null hypothesis. Evidence is a set of observations that satisfies the hypothesis and disproves the null hypothesis.

One of Faith's greatest weaknesses has always been her lack of a null hypothesis which means that she is unable to evidence her claims. In order to have evidence, there need to be potential observations that would be inconsistent with her hypothesis. As she has shown, she will claim that any and all geologic observations are consistent with a flood, no matter what. She can not describe the features a geologic formation would need to have in order to satisfy the null hypothesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by Percy, posted 09-12-2014 7:51 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by Percy, posted 09-12-2014 2:35 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 534 of 614 (736732)
09-12-2014 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 533 by Taq
09-12-2014 1:36 PM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
Taq writes:

Evidence is a set of observations that satisfies the hypothesis and disproves the null hypothesis.

Expressed this way, it's consistent with what Faith is saying. Putting it in your terms, she's saying that evidence that does not satisfy the hypothesis and does not disprove the null hypothesis is not evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by Taq, posted 09-12-2014 1:36 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10115
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 535 of 614 (736735)
09-12-2014 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 532 by Percy
09-12-2014 7:51 AM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
When scientists say they have proven something

How often do scientists even bother with the word proof?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by Percy, posted 09-12-2014 7:51 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by edge, posted 09-12-2014 4:21 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 537 by Percy, posted 09-12-2014 4:35 PM NoNukes has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 536 of 614 (736740)
09-12-2014 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by NoNukes
09-12-2014 3:34 PM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
How often do scientists even bother with the word proof?

Good question. It may be more than you think.

In the natural resources business, the concept of 'proven reserves' has a long and checkered history. That is partly due to unscrupulous operators, but also to a lack of consistent definition. Only in recent years have they tried to tighten up the restrictions to make them more rigid and yet transparent to the public.

In another sense, I could say that I have proven the source of a gravity anomaly by drilling into a particular rock type and feel pretty certain that I'm correct. However, someone else may have a different standard for proof, because one data point might be insufficient.

And then there are some people who are just overconfident and feel that anything they do is proof positive.

To me, the key word is 'certainty', and in the context of this discussion, the problem is that faith provides a level of certainty that can never be matched by mere data and the principles we use to interpret them. YECs want absolute proof because that is what they think they already have; and there's no going back on that.

And that is why they can glibly say that 'you have no evidence', or 'your interpretation is wrong' and (in their own mind) get away with it.

And so it goes...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2014 3:34 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 537 of 614 (736743)
09-12-2014 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by NoNukes
09-12-2014 3:34 PM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
NoNukes writes:

How often do scientists even bother with the word proof?

Faith included "proof" in her blog title, but I don't think you often see that word in science writing unless it's about math. I'm thinking mainly about uses of the words "prove" and "proven" and "proving" in science writing, whether by scientists or science writers. Since I wince every time I see those words in a science article, I'd say they occur much more often than they should. Here's an example from Were the Dinosaurs Really Wiped Out by an Asteroid? Possibly Not:

Universe Today writes:

Gerta Keller of Princeton University in New Jersey, and Thierry Adatte of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, are set to publish this new work in the Journal of the Geological Society today, using data from the analysis of sediment from Mexico to prove the asteroid impact pre-dated the K-T boundary by as much as 300,000 years.

So what does O'Neill mean when he writes that Keller proved the asteroid impact occurred as much as 300,000 years before the K-T boundary? Using the definition I've offered it means that Keller has provided evidence sufficient to produce a consensus. Since I doubt he's done any such thing (since 5 years later the debate rages on), what O'Neill means is something slighter weaker, that Keller has provided strong evidence in support of his contention.

So when Faith says we can't prove anything about the "untestable past," then if she's using the word "prove" in the same way that science writers use the "prove" she can only mean that we can't provide strong evidence in support of our claims about the past. Of course that makes no sense, which is why Faith is now attempting to redefine the word "evidence."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2014 3:34 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2014 12:39 AM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10115
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 538 of 614 (736775)
09-13-2014 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 537 by Percy
09-12-2014 4:35 PM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
Faith uses "prove" in the Ken Ham sense.

It is a given that the Bible is the truth and the undisputable Word of God in literal form, and that science is tentative and definitely in error when it contradicts the Bible. Therefore the truth can easily lie in whatever uncertainty that exists in scientific results and only mathematical proof from Biblical premises can remove all uncertainty. Maybe not even that.

Even if you demonstrate that one of Faith's scenarios is wrong, that simply means that a different, Bible supported scenario is correct even if she cannot come up with it now or ever.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by Percy, posted 09-12-2014 4:35 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by Percy, posted 09-13-2014 8:54 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 539 of 614 (736790)
09-13-2014 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 538 by NoNukes
09-13-2014 12:39 AM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
NoNukes writes:

Faith uses "prove" in the Ken Ham sense.

I don't know what the "Ken Ham sense" of the word "prove" is. A Google search didn't find anything that helped me find the answer.

My best guess of what you're saying is that because Faith believes nothing can contradict the Bible, evidence proving the Bible wrong cannot exist. Therefore we can have no such evidence, and therefore she's justified in claiming that we have no evidence. This is self evidently irrational, but as I said, that interpretation is just a guess.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2014 12:39 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by edge, posted 09-13-2014 11:06 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 541 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2014 8:02 PM Percy has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4002
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 540 of 614 (736795)
09-13-2014 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 539 by Percy
09-13-2014 8:54 AM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
I don't know what the "Ken Ham sense" of the word "prove" is. A Google search didn't find anything that helped me find the answer.

I has to be something absolute.

I think we probably have some kind of idea what Ken Ham thinks about 'proof', but it's hard to get a handle on it. Maybe it has to be something that supports an absolute truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by Percy, posted 09-13-2014 8:54 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
3435
36
3738
...
41Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017