Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   XXXX Science
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 76 of 96 (378923)
01-22-2007 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by nator
01-22-2007 11:27 AM


Re: Peer review
You mean non-peer reviewed "science" like Origin of Species or Newton's Laws?
If they hadn't been peer-reviewed, we wouldn't be aware of them The referee-process of publication into journals is a very small part of the peer-review process. At least I sincerely hope it is given my own past role as a referee

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 01-22-2007 11:27 AM nator has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 77 of 96 (378926)
01-22-2007 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Percy
01-21-2007 9:44 AM


Re: Naturalism
but also the peer-review that happens when colleagues read and discuss the articles after they've been published and/or presented. It is this less formalized but oh-so-much-more-important part of the peer-review process by which consensus's are formed and by which we add to body of accepted scientific knowledge so that future scientific endeavors have an even higher and broader platform on which to build.
I've been meaning to stress this exceptionally important point for some time in a thread on 'debating science' that I'd still like to get round to at some point. Journals are full of crap. The only way of knowing the crap from the gold is through communication with your peers and betters. Of course, one scientist's crap can be another one's gold...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 01-21-2007 9:44 AM Percy has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 78 of 96 (379201)
01-23-2007 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Wepwawet
01-17-2007 10:33 PM


Re: Ask your science teacher for a refund...
Even if science were able to note the appearance of design (which it does not) that would not constitute evidence in support of spiritual beliefs.
You and NJ both mentioned the "appearance of design" (and others have used the same phrase in other threads). Without getting too far afield from the topic, I'd like to point out that both creation science or ID science and legitimate science are all quite capable of detecting apparent design. However, after detection is where the non-science and science part company. Creation science (and ID science and whatever XXXX-rated non-science you'd care to name) immediately default to "apparent design = was designed for some usually-inscrutable reason by a designer for which no other evidence is available and whose capabilities and intent are unfathomable, and go no further. Science notes something that has the appearance of design and means something like "if we were to design something like this that is what it could look like, however well-understood natural processes can also produce the same result, therefore there is no reason to suppose they didn't in this particular case in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary". This is just one of the many reasons that ID/creation/XXXX-rated science isn't science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Wepwawet, posted 01-17-2007 10:33 PM Wepwawet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Wepwawet, posted 01-23-2007 8:36 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Wepwawet
Member (Idle past 6108 days)
Posts: 85
From: Texas
Joined: 04-05-2006


Message 79 of 96 (379345)
01-23-2007 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Quetzal
01-23-2007 11:49 AM


Re: Ask your science teacher for a refund...
You and NJ both mentioned the "appearance of design" (and others have used the same phrase in other threads). Without getting too far afield from the topic, I'd like to point out that both creation science or ID science and legitimate science are all quite capable of detecting apparent design. However, after detection is where the non-science and science part company. Creation science (and ID science and whatever XXXX-rated non-science you'd care to name) immediately default to "apparent design = was designed for some usually-inscrutable reason by a designer for which no other evidence is available and whose capabilities and intent are unfathomable, and go no further. Science notes something that has the appearance of design and means something like "if we were to design something like this that is what it could look like, however well-understood natural processes can also produce the same result, therefore there is no reason to suppose they didn't in this particular case in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary". This is just one of the many reasons that ID/creation/XXXX-rated science isn't science.
I think I agree with you Quetzal. I should expand on my quote to avoid confusion though...perhaps it would be better if I had said something like:
Even if science were to note the appearance of design, that would not constitute evidence of design without rigorous testing and even then can only qualify as evidence, not proof of design.
I'd also add that I don't believe any test of nature can provide evidence in support of a supernatural entity.
The way I see it, if a scientist sees apparent design in something under study they could form a hypothesis to that effect and devise ways of testing it. This is what we should see ID/Creationist "scientists" doing, but instead they stop at the appearance (assuming they didn't manufacture the appearance by cherry picking their data in the first place) and immediately assert a (typically god-like) designer.
Scientists are supposed to be keen observers and any scientist who ignores a perceived pattern out of blind adherence to any dogma, be it religious or whatever, is doing humanity a disservice. The trouble with ID and Creationists as I see it is that they have all this great unshakeable faith that they are absolutely unwilling to test in any meaningful way. If they really believe God is the designer then put some chips in the pot and roll the dice with a few rational predictions or experiments.
Call it yet another reason that Creationist Science and ID Science aren't science.

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Quetzal, posted 01-23-2007 11:49 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Quetzal, posted 01-24-2007 8:01 AM Wepwawet has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 80 of 96 (379450)
01-24-2007 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Wepwawet
01-23-2007 8:36 PM


Re: Ask your science teacher for a refund...
Even if science were to note the appearance of design, that would not constitute evidence of design without rigorous testing and even then can only qualify as evidence, not proof of design.
This is probably a pretty good formulation. It's like Dawkins wrote on page one of his book Blind Watchmaker:
quote:
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.
Legitimate science (the only "true" XXXX science in my opinion - and the only real distinction necessary), strives to understand the workings of nature - and differentiate between "apparent" design and "purposeful" design. Unfortunately, I think we're getting too far off topic here. Suffice to say I agree with the rest of your post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Wepwawet, posted 01-23-2007 8:36 PM Wepwawet has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 81 of 96 (387348)
02-28-2007 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by mick
01-17-2007 10:38 AM


XXXX Science
There is evidently a difference between XXXX as a term of description (e.g. biological science) and XXXX as an indicator of predetermined conclusions (e.g. creationist science)
The first describes the limitations of the questions that will be investigated.
The second necessitates the limitations of the conclusions that can be formed.
As a descriptive term it is useful for describing the area being studied scientifically.
As a ideological term it implies a false science with preconceived conclusions and little respect for evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by mick, posted 01-17-2007 10:38 AM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Brad McFall, posted 02-28-2007 5:25 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 82 of 96 (387479)
02-28-2007 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Straggler
02-28-2007 8:36 AM


Re: XXXX Science and Mick's constraint
If Huxley's "anagenic" grade(s) ARE existant and can represent vicariant geographies no matter the monophyly generalized it is not clear to me that predetermined CONCLUSIONS are any worse off than terms of endearing descriptions.
So if vicariance biogeography is to give way to panbiogeography such as to "stew" Gould's juices for a new name to the then no longer persisting heterodoxy that Kitcher leaves Genesis Creationism as dead for, no matter the ID, it may be that "creation science" of Mick's denoting may NOT be wrong or effectively dead sounding but only a limitation as you said EVEN IF IT has "conclusions" built in. It will depend on whether the conclusions go too far of course... Creation Science would have to have something practical beyond the organization of new ways to teach theology etc.
The reason this second "if" may apply for me is that the phylogenetic disjunction in Huxley's sense that Gould wishes to "saltate" but may only be the praticum or purpose of future non-wrong creationist biology (and hence no difference for your "biological science" vs "creationist science") under the nonconclusive word "figure" detailed by LOGICAL restriction within anagensis that Gould simply OVERSTEPPED (both figuratively ,literally, and lingusitically/logostically) was where cladisitically (for me at least) the declination in illustatrations of Amphibian grades CAN NOT match Mammal or Bird Grades no matter the Fish in whatever the translation in space and form-making comparison. This would have to specify some specific biogeography AND the notion of BARAMIN would have to be practical where the word "species" would not thus then be (as artifical selection would have been applied and THEN IN CREATION BIOLOGY new hybrid decriptors enjoined while this would have to have been missed in a secular world of tomarrow land(whose to say how this will "pan" out..))...
Otherwise Mick would be correct that "creation biology" is just 'wrong' but this would not be because it was only looking for conclusions in line with THE BIBLE but because the models worked on did not fill the place that continues to wrongly proliferate the plethora of biological XXXXes as Mick listed.
I may be able to convince my self pretty quickly that creation biology is not going to be "wrong" in the sense that Mick implied but I do wonder whether the recent turn to biological research in creationism is going to help out where other seemingly non religious alternatives struggle for a voice...
quote:
In early 2006 Juan J. Morrone and Malte C. Ebach decided it was high time for a biogeographical society aimed at those academics, students and amateurs that are isolated from the publishing hubs of Europe and North America, where most of the learned “international” socities focus all their attention. After all, most biogeographical research is done by scientists living outside the USA or the EU.
Most western academics based in national institutions would find it unacceptable not to access to at least Nature and Science. Imagine a western European university or a North American natural history museum without a functioning photocopier, a decent library or access to any online journal. Unfortunately for most Latin American institutions this is a reality. Without proper access to resources and the difficulty of publishing in a foreign language such as English, most non-European and non-US biogeographers remain unheard.
The Systematic and Evolutioanry Biogoegraphical Association (SEBA) aims to provide a voice for biogeographers through...
On this scenario I am attempting to forecast "ideology" would expand but 'belief' may not. You were throwing too large a net and only catching minnows. Mick swam right through.
I have provided a link to SEBA at:
http://axiompanbiog.com/panbioglnks.aspx
Edited by Brad McFall, : phenotype(two excess letters)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Straggler, posted 02-28-2007 8:36 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by mick, posted 03-01-2007 4:45 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 83 of 96 (387545)
03-01-2007 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Brad McFall
02-28-2007 5:25 PM


Re: XXXX Science and Mick's constraint
brad writes:
So if vicariance biogeography is to give way to panbiogeography such as to "stew" Gould's juices for a new name to the then no longer persisting heterodoxy that Kitcher leaves Genesis Creationism as dead for, no matter the ID, it may be that "creation science" of Mick's denoting may NOT be wrong or effectively dead sounding but only a limitation as you said EVEN IF IT has "conclusions" built in. It will depend on whether the conclusions go too far of course... Creation Science would have to have something practical beyond the organization of new ways to teach theology etc.
Indeed, but "something practical beyond the organization of new ways to teach theology" is precisely what creation science lacks, by definition. Creation science in its own words is nothing more than a new way to teach theology. This is why the discovery institute lists as some of its five year objectives:
quote:
to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism... Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation... Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God
The limitation is self-imposed and it's definitional in the concept of creation science. The extra thing they would "have to have" is what is provided by one of the XXXXs in my list - a scientific approach rooted in an empirical research methodology. Those XXXXs are not just "endearing descriptions" as you call them, they are denotive of an empirical research methodology which is definitionally lacking in creation science.
brad writes:
cladisitically (for me at least) the declination in illustatrations of Amphibian grades CAN NOT match Mammal or Bird Grades no matter the Fish in whatever the translation in space and form-making comparison. This would have to specify some specific biogeography AND the notion of BARAMIN would have to be practical where the word "species" would not thus then be (as artifical selection would have been applied and THEN IN CREATION BIOLOGY new hybrid decriptors enjoined while this would have to have been missed in a secular world of tomarrow land(whose to say how this will "pan" out..))...
I think the importance of an empirical methodology is pretty well illustrated in the quote above. You make a claim about grades in fish, and hope beyond reason that a nebulous undefined and quite likely unnecessary concept (baramin) is (somehow) going to be of practical use. Perhaps if you had more of the XXXXs from my list in your armoury of research strategies you would have more success in describing and explaining differences within the vertebrate groups? Because as of yet I see nothing of interest or promise in the concepts or applicaitons of baraminology. It is merely a methodologically empty XXXX that creationists have invented, in order to cover up their ignorance. It is surprising that you would pin any hopes on it!
brad writes:
Otherwise Mick would be correct that "creation biology" is just 'wrong'
Now, let's disentangle your post and see what you're getting at here. According to you, in order to be of any use, creation science/baraminology must
a) "have to have something practical beyond the organization of new ways to teach theology"
b) "have to specify some specific biogeography"
c) "have to be practical"
d) must create "new hybrid decriptors"
Since, by your own admission, it has none of these things, and since any assessment of the published works of the DI must agree with you, then it seems that you think I was correct when I said that creation biology is just wrong. Fine.
brad writes:
I do wonder whether the recent turn to biological research in creationism is going to help out where other seemingly non religious alternatives struggle for a voice...
I doubt it strongly. First of all, as you document, there has been no turn to biological research in creationism; second, the creationist movement is clearly far more highly america/western-oriented than the academic community. The suggestion that the likes of the discovery institute are interested in promoting third world access to scholarly journals is frankly laughable. Perhaps they will give out knock-down prices for pandas and people maybe?
brad writes:
On this scenario I am attempting to forecast "ideology" would expand but 'belief' may not.
What makes you think that biogeographers in central america have any interest whatsoever in the ideologies of creationism or intelligent design? Do you mean that the discovery institute might be able to "buy converts" by targeting poor countries, or what?
Mick
Edited by mick, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Brad McFall, posted 02-28-2007 5:25 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Brad McFall, posted 03-01-2007 6:35 PM mick has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 84 of 96 (387653)
03-01-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by mick
03-01-2007 4:45 AM


Re: XXXX Science and Mick's constraint
quote:
What makes you think that biogeographers in central america have any interest whatsoever in the ideologies of creationism or intelligent design? Do you mean that the discovery institute might be able to "buy converts" by targeting poor countries, or what?
Mick
SEBA is, at least for me, an extension of TAXACOM
http://listserv.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A0=taxacom&D=1&...
but made more specific in focus. Croizat wrote much his later works especially in SPANISH and Latin American Countires have an interest thus in his work that is not appreciated philosophically between the difference of “analysis and synthesis”.
Panbiogeographer John Grehan spoke “for” creationism in the sense that evolution is too much theory or as in this thread there are too many XXXXbiologies etc Here are three posts that contexualize separate creation in “historical” biogeography and later special creation was foiled against Darwin’s view in “Panbiogeography: Tracking the History of Life.”
quote:
Brian Jones makes a significant point, I think, when drawing attention to the
strong involvement of non-Scientists in formation and organization of
scientific
groups in the past. There also seemed to be a greater involvement by the
lay public. According to the book Heyday of Natural History the general public
would attend serious scientific presentations on the most obscure topics. Now
of course there are so many more alternatives. Perhaps on the positive side
many young children seem to be drawn to natural history one way or another,
and
even if they do not pusue this in later years, it may be responsible for
some of the "respect" science still receives among many adults, and this
attitude may be
transferred to the suceeding generation.
In relation to the Royal Society, my perception of the organization was
that it
had developed an elitist persona so I certainly did not join it. A few
meetings I
did attend were full of the stuffing of formality, rigidity and a certain
social order. That
may be fine for those for which such societies are a necessary prop in
climbing the
ladder, but it wasn't for me. This sense of social conservatism extended
into science itself with the NZ Royal Scociety, through its editorial
policies, being instrumental in the blackout and suppression of
panbiogeography. Not a healthy science culture.
I am in agreement that it is not sufficient to just complain about public
attitudes, and in my view it is necessary to change the way science is
taught, including evolutionary science.
As for the distinction Curtis Clark draws between science and religion, I
am not so sure. It seems to me that philosophers have a difficult time with
this demarkation also. As Lakatos pointed out, Popperian falsificationism
as a criterion of science can also be successfully applied to witchcraft.
John Grehan
quote:
http://listserv.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0008&L=ta...
quote:
>It seems like that would be true of any research program. "By their works
>you shall know them," but it's difficult to see how one would falsify
>methodology. Even the most sh*t-awful protocol can result in useful
>information, and an impeccable method applied to the wrong question can
>result in nothing.
>--
>Curtis Clark
I agree. Looking at evolution as a research program changes the context of
the debate as it is now more about what procedural activities take place in
consequence of adopting the research program, and what is the result. It is
my contention that some evolutionary methodology has resulted in
information that is not only 'useful' but novel in that it anticipated
future empirical discovery. This type of productivity is verifiable against
experience rather than involving philosophical debate. Whether or not
evolution is true or not in the greater scheme of reality (whatever that
is), as a scientific methodology, it works (and by 'it' I am referring to
the research program as a whole - some component research I would not
regard much higher than creationism).
John Grehan
quote:
http://listserv.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0108&L=ta...
quote:
>
>What's particularly disturbing to us here in Hawaii, one of the "hot-spots"
>of evolutionary research, is this wholly unexpected move by our DOE.
Given the cultural context of the debate in the US I fail to see how it
is 'unexpected.'
.
>Along these lines ("theory", etc.), in my draft testimonial to the Hawaii
>BOE, I state that the concept of "Evolution" (change in the structure or
>behavior of organisms over multiple generations) is actually a scientific
>*fact*, as it has been directly observed on small scales repeatedly, and
>indirectly observed on large scales through the fossil record.
More of the fact vs theory hasn't worked in the past so why should it in the
future? It also pits evolution as a kind of theology of the truth of the world
rather than a pathway of investigation.
>I further
>maintain that Natural Selection is the leading "Theory" to explain how the
>fact of biological evolution has led to a broad diversity of organisms that
>appear to be adapted to the environments in which they live.
Leading theory - read most popular.
>I further maintain in my draft testimonial that, in fact, the theory of
>evolution by natural selection does *not* relate to the "origin" of life;
>but rather to an explanation of the *diversity* of life. From my
>understanding, there is no extremely well-supported theory for the actual
>*origin* of life; only some interesting hypotheses supported in part by some
>compelling experiments.
Again more obscure philosophical theory.
John Grehan
quote:
http://listserv.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0107&L=ta...
NOW -
quote:
At 04:45 AM 7/28/01, Richard Pyle wrote:
>Along these lines ("theory", etc.), in my draft testimonial to the Hawaii
>BOE, I state that the concept of "Evolution" (change in the structure or
>behavior of organisms over multiple generations) is actually a scientific
>*fact*, as it has been directly observed on small scales repeatedly, and
>indirectly observed on large scales through the fossil record. I further
>maintain that Natural Selection is the leading "Theory" to explain how the
>fact of biological evolution has led to a broad diversity of organisms that
>appear to be adapted to the environments in which they live.
I think it is important to go on the offensive: If species are separately
created, a key element in the study of biology is to determine what were
the originally created species, and thus be able to address the question of
which similarities in modern organisms are the result of descent and which
are the result of design. Modern "creation science" has no research program
to address this seemingly fundamental question, despite the fact that such
research programs were the norm two centuries ago. In fact, modern
creationists often disagree about the limits of originally created species,
but without providing scientific evidence to back up their claims.
quote:
http://listserv.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0107&L=ta...
So, if there IS an operational issue that biogeographiers are attempting to solve and if creationists can operationalize their academy AT THE PLACE that vicariance and separate creation speak of THE SAME disjunction (but different potential when not actual barriers) then indeed we are at the place of asking either with you that creation biology is wrong or is providing an alternative mode of thought capable of distheorizing evolutionary thought long enough for it to improve in the same phenotype.
The issue HERE sans genetics is over Croizat’s “recombination” of characters. Some accused Croizat of willingly accepting polyphyly but if form not only would be coincidentally the same for better analytic biogeographers than we have synthetic biologists then the recombination of characters across space may have implications for non-US biogeograhers who insist that North America be divided into west and east AND creationists who find the baramin IN THE SECULAR accusations against polyphyletic operationalism. My reference/claim to grades of amphibians vs mammals divides in this possibility but as I have suggested a full biogeography of the turtle genus Clemmys should resolve the whole c/e issue for me at least.
Next, one needs to operationalize the genetic elements of creationism and recombination of characters but this work I did not do nor did I look lately for creationist work that may assist. Different definitions of “hybrids” based on DNA may help and though without this or some such evidence about what ICR is doing with GENE I DO agree with you that creation science is wrong.
It is not that creationists would get “converts” by buying photocopiers for the research station on Lac Tumba in Zaiire (I was there, they have very very little) but that comparative biology of the new space, time and form begun in New Zeland and Latin America may expand to its proper sphere in US and EU science as the comparisons are tried operationally beyond simple science to include the nair fictional ideas of creationism secondly falsified but with beliefs of those doing the work remaining intact.
I find that Gould's writings are immiscible with this possiblity even though on specific points I think his discontinuty with past adapationism etc are more valuable than simple reductionist XXXXes.
I am indicating that the dichtomy of "descent" OR "design" (as the non-John poster of Taxacom said,)would be widened not constricted or hardened on my sythetic view. There may be design without baramins if creationsist can not do better than Huxley's "chalk" but the board may remain as blank as SEBA if people like Kitcher(in "Living with Darwin") attempt to rephrase seperate creation in terms of cave insect morpholgy in Europe vs the US(and elite's like Provine are not reading this material etc) as THIS IS the temporality that these biogeographers CAN SPEAK towards but may not be creation wise contrary to the divarication between design and descent that artifical orthoselections may empirically support in the future.
I for one was stopped from becoming an evolutionist not by any oppression for or against thinking about evolution (or creationism0 but by preventing me from operationalizing my thoughts - no degree, no paper, no job...
There is no doubt (I doubt this would be questioned) that I give as much or more thought to biological change and form-making than many biology graduates.
ICR is just now operationalizing a new on-line technical journal. Perhaps in the near future the result will not be to read some speculative scenario by me on EvC or SEBA but here with actual changes having already occurred regardless of the ideology (in or out of 'science'.)
quote:
Furthermore, we have just instituted a new online technical journal. The lead article of this issue of Acts & Facts calls for papers to be submitted. Because of all this, the creation message, and thus creation ministry, has never been stronger.
quote:
The Need for ICR's Research Program | The Institute for Creation Research
Edited by Brad McFall, : letter "n"
Edited by Brad McFall, : logical adjustment
Edited by Brad McFall, : personal disclosure
Edited by Brad McFall, : ICR link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by mick, posted 03-01-2007 4:45 AM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 11:18 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 85 of 96 (387882)
03-03-2007 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Brad McFall
03-01-2007 6:35 PM


Re: XXXX Science and Mick's constraint
ICR is just now operationalizing a new on-line technical journal.
Well we can all look forward to that!!
If the ICR undertake research with predetermined conclusions which pick, choose and adapt evidence to support these conclusions then is this scientificaly valid in any way at all?
If they are undertaking their research without this creationist bias (i.e. whereby they could make evidence based conclusions that are contrary to a biblical account of creation) then how is this 'creation science' and not just......science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Brad McFall, posted 03-01-2007 6:35 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Brad McFall, posted 03-03-2007 7:41 PM Straggler has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 86 of 96 (387968)
03-03-2007 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Straggler
03-03-2007 11:18 AM


Re: XXXX Science and Mick's constraint
I will be looking for some sort of resolution between the "ecological" difference of Price and Clark
I am not sure where in here
Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense
is
quote:
Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense Creationist "Flood Geology" Vs Common Sense by Edward T. Babinski ... Clark wrote to Price: The rocks do lie in a much more definite sequence than we have ...
Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense - 66k
and perhaps something about biology and creation NOT dependent simply on how organisms drown at varying depths. Something more about the creationist observation that plants and animals "go extinct" IN DIFFERENT HORIZONS. If they relate baramins (FORM) to hybrids (FORM MAKING)to differences in the relation of gene combinations per individual vs gene frequencies in (sub)species within a kind(TRANSLATION IN SPACE) based on genomics they may FIRST be able to resolve purely logical puzzles Kant put forth on a syllogism on the matter or form of the “soul” which when telescoped throughout a specific purpose and math of symmetry might torque restrictions ON THE PROXIMITY (of Gould’s “bush” of life) TO MAIN MASSINGS rather than to as is current (statistical differences in arbitrary allometry). Thus they may be able to cash out arbitrary anatomy for a matterless soul.
The details as I have them I have just uploaded at:
http://www.axiompanbiog.com/steps.aspx
(diagram of main massing contrary to Gould's "proximate")
The problem with special creation is about islands NOT being populated by immigration vs. extinction (island biogeography) but migration vs. recombination according to the "science" I am looking forward THROUGH but because Price and Clark differed I have not seen since Sherwin got to ICR that this issue was focused on and thus if for instance Creationists focused on recombination before (the) fall and "migration" after the flood/catastrophe they might be able to raise the tenor of general discussions on biogeography of "spatial logic" to where say simple assumptions about long-distance dispersal to Hawaii are not simply assumed as is standard today. The effect of creationism may not "hit" its principle 'target' but a third party instead.
This is currently confounded by temporality that reaches back beyond the Eocene but rarely is it possible to be even THAT confident about difference(s) between the Cretaceous and Jurassic as one might be in the dismissive of Agassiz's glacial periods(LOL). If creationists start to become hyper logicians and realize that the 2nd wall problem of evolution coming from within secular universities need not be a target of technical discussions perhaps we will see two birds (or clines) killed with one stone. I mean that quite literally where "call" might substitute for the cultural war term "kill".
By the way, I really only wanted to know if Mick agreed with your dichotomy or not, not what I thought the future would betray. It would not be science not because there is no science in it but by the way the science is developed. If it could be otherwise I would prefer but I have no confidence in that.
Edited by Brad McFall, : upload finished!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 11:18 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 7:52 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 87 of 96 (387971)
03-03-2007 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Brad McFall
03-03-2007 7:41 PM


???Genius or Lunatic???
Do you set out to be utterly incomprehensible??
I am afraid that I have no idea what most of your post is about. This could be because what you are saying is completely over my head. It could be because it is rampant nonsense. Or it could be that you are just a woefully bad comminicator.
Can you summarise in a more user friendly manner?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Brad McFall, posted 03-03-2007 7:41 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Brad McFall, posted 03-03-2007 8:11 PM Straggler has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 88 of 96 (387976)
03-03-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Straggler
03-03-2007 7:52 PM


Re: ???Genius or Lunatic???
Yes but I probably would need to scan some material to cover "the bases" (and I still have not uploaded the pages I just worked up this afternoon).
Your question seemed to me to be, "How can ICR's new on-line journal be science if they continue to do Bible Based "research" OR how can it NOT BE SCIENCE if that is what the journal is to produce?" It seems like a catch-22 question, one that no 5th grader could answer! And it was 'deftly' crafted across a "line-break" to boot. If that leaves you wanting let me know that I misunderstood your question, please.
It seems to me that one can DO whatever it is that creationists DO in purely "logical" frame of mind. What one often finds justly criticizable on EVC and elsewhere in blogs etc is when rationality is substituted for simple belief. I was trying to point to an issue in evolutionary theory where I feel that more rigor is needed (and I can rewrite the "science" part for you over$over again if that is necessary) and how technical creationism may out of sheer opening of more on-line discussions provide an expandable horizon that non-creationists are desireous to fill and could or should if in so doing Biblical Creationists knocked off some current standard evolutionary theory for the heterodox depauperization in the wings. Creationists would make further theological hermenutics no doubt that pays for evoltionist advance and so yoked we may have a better creation science and science without creationists. This has always been my point on EVC. I see no reason why creation and evolution generically can not work together to further biology where technical expressions overreach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 7:52 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2007 4:20 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 89 of 96 (388102)
03-04-2007 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Brad McFall
03-03-2007 8:11 PM


Re: ???Genius or Lunatic???
It seems to me that one can DO whatever it is that creationists DO in purely "logical" frame of mind
Well that is the question. Can they?
It sems to me that "whatever it is that creationists DO" is in fact seek out evidence that is cosistent with biblical creationism and ignore or misinterpret evidece that does not spport this view.
Can that be done logically? Or, in your view, is this not what creationist science does?
Your question seemed to me to be, "How can ICR's new on-line journal be science if they continue to do Bible Based "research" OR how can it NOT BE SCIENCE if that is what the journal is to produce?" It seems like a catch-22 question, one that no 5th grader could answer! And it was 'deftly' crafted across a "line-break" to boot. If that leaves you wanting let me know that I misunderstood your question, please.
I don't think I am being as clever as you credit me.
The question is basically this - If an investigation is being undertaken where conclusions are based on the physical evidence EXCLUSIVELY using the methods of conventional science then, even if the hypothesis being evaluated is biblically based (the possibility of a worldwide flood - for example) is this "creationist science" or just science?
I would say science.
The creationist in "creationist science" relates to the (predetermined) conclusions not the area of question or hypothesis. The same is true of any XXXX science in terms of the OP.
I have no problem with challenges to established scientific thinking (this is after all how science progresses) but faith based irrationalities that provide no new evidence, make no testable predictions and explain no new phenomenon and which amount to (often quite bizzarre) alternate explanations that are obviously objectively infereior to the established theory seem unlikely to bear fruit in terms of discovery and scientific progress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Brad McFall, posted 03-03-2007 8:11 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Brad McFall, posted 03-04-2007 5:08 PM Straggler has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 90 of 96 (388109)
03-04-2007 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Straggler
03-04-2007 4:20 PM


Re: ???Genius or Lunatic???
If this is a question about being a genius or crazy then perhaps it should be part of the All About Brad 2 thread in the Coffee house...
else,
Are you familiar with the "two model" distinction rasied early in ICR history and continuing now-a-days when creationists will speak about, "given the evolutionary model..." or "following creation...."?
Do you recognize this difference or is it part of your question where you ask IF they can be logical and if what is done is it not science simplicter??
I can dig up a few examples if you like, but on any reading of creationist literature one finds pretty readily these "different hypotheses". What Mick is saying is that the creationist ones are simply 'wrong' rather than being simply specialized, as occurs amongst the numerous domains of secular science so-called. Phillip Kitcher calls them "dead" such that no resurrection man can raise. Hence why the Taxacom discussion said "there is no creationist research program". ICR however seems day by day to be changing in this regard.
I was suggesting that "irrational" faith based extensions of the denotable syntax of science can serve a needed logical extension even if whatever it may hypothesize is falisfied secondarily, as a scientist's inuition might percolate. It seemed that Mick's list caused you speak of "description" vs "preconclusive" and I simply challenged THAT back towards the OP.
I think that the extension IS MOSTLY or ALL on the creationist side so I find that the burden IS on them, which is why I cited the need for a working praxis as well as any newer theology. Mick was challenging that THIS can exist. But if the extension is done in a purposive way directed to specifically possible natural products the side effect may indeed be a change in science itself. I base this on a decided difference of opinion with Bertrand Russell on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason's transcendental asthetic NOT being dismantled with non-euclidean geometry where geometry relates to spatial logic in biogeography(admittedly not available to Russell in his time), but that may be peculiar and so far isolated to me.
Edited by Brad McFall, : couple sentences
Edited by Brad McFall, : adverb

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2007 4:20 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2007 5:29 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024