Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-23-2017 6:35 AM
388 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 386 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,847 Year: 13,453/21,208 Month: 2,935/3,605 Week: 277/933 Day: 19/154 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only)
Admin
Director
Posts: 12500
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 31 of 106 (459551)
03-08-2008 2:11 PM


A Little Moderator Guidance
I take seriously my responsibility to maintain a high level of quality in the science forums, so I feel I have to step in.

When two people involved in a discussion get so into it that it is difficult for others to follow, that's regrettable but probably can't be helped. But when there's a two person discussion that not even the participants understand, then it's time to step in.

I understand the purpose of this thread to be for Rob to explain his ideas about the nature of science to Straggler in a way that can be comprehended and understood. In such an endeavor both sides have a responsibility, in this case for Rob to present his ideas clearly, and for Straggler to provide insight and feedback about those ideas, as well as helping Rob at crafting clear explanations of any points or line of reasoning.

I've read Rob's piece (Science is the application of the Law of Contradiction). Rob seems to believe that his conception of science is rational and explained clearly, and he can't understand why Straggler is having difficulty understanding the ideas. My own assessment is that it contains the naive ideas of someone with little to no scientific experience, and that Rob should take this as an opportunity to improve it by giving it substance and clarity.

Rob's piece is actually excellent through the first four paragraphs, but then it completely falls apart in the fifth and never recovers. That paragraph opens like this:

That is fascinating since coherence is both the authority that founds science, and the revelation given by the scientific method.

Coherence is the authority that founds science?

And coherence is the revelation provided by the scientific method?

This is just gobbledygook to me, and unless Rob can begin clearly explaining what look like at best nebulous ideas and at worst nonsense, I can't see this thread making any progress. His piece gets worse further on where he begins talking about God and tearing into methodological naturalism.

Sorry to throw everything on you, Rob, but they're your ideas, and you have to help people understand them before they can be discussed. Just telling people how clear and simple your ideas are isn't going to accomplish this.

And Straggler, a sorry for you, too. I know you didn't ask for this, but hang in there. Let me know if I can provide any additional help, or if this isn't actually helpful let me know that, too, though like I said, I feel I have a responsibility to keep discussion, if you'll forgive the word, coherent.

And another sorry for you Rob. I know it must seem to you like moderation is taking sides, but science does already have a definition, you know. I'm not siding with science but with rationality by not defining our words to mean whatever we want them to mean. I'd side with the Christians if some evolutionist started trying to redefine Christianity (actually, I did side with the Christians when Jar and Ringo attempted this a couple years ago, claiming that evangelicalism did not include the concept of original sin). I think you'd be much better served arguing that science is misconstrued as currently constructed, rather than arguing that it is something it very clearly is not.

Edited by Admin, : Minor correction.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2008 5:12 PM Admin has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10195
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 32 of 106 (459564)
03-08-2008 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Rob
03-08-2008 1:44 PM


Re: Simple Logic
Rob
What I am saying is that logic is self validating.

Straggler:
Thus the application of logic is deemed to be inherently valid?

Think this through very hard Straggler...

As I said in the proposal; logic is our only scientific way, for the purposes of coming to terms with the real world (reality). Logic is the only possible truth. It is the only possible life.

Now hear me... It is not something we can prove. Rather, it is something we cannot deny without inferring that illogical applications and inferences would be valid alternatives.

No-one excepting perhaps Charles Manson would consciously infer such a thing.

Can I take this as a 'Yes'?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Rob, posted 03-08-2008 1:44 PM Rob has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10195
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 33 of 106 (459583)
03-08-2008 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Admin
03-08-2008 2:11 PM


Re: A Little Moderator Guidance
I have repeatedly requested that Rob break down the main points of his essay into a series of IF THEN type statements so that we can explore and analyse the reasoning behind each of these individually and in more depth.

This format would make clear exactly what conclusions he is making based on each premise (which I am still unclear about)

I still think this would help but am open to suggestions as to alternative methods of making things clearer?

I wholly agree that the discussion is a confused mess (on my part at least)

It was my aim to take Rob’s stance that – science = the application of logic alone

Based on –

. The objective authority of scientific revelation is found in the power of logical coherence. The whole purpose of science is to lead us wherever logic will go without bias.

It is obvious that if science is not logical, then it is meaningless to us

Combine this with -

What I am saying is that logic is self validating

We rest and rely upon logic as self evident

And then apply his thinking to his own phrase -

That is fascinating since coherence is both the authority that founds science, and the revelation given by the scientific method

By replacing “science” with “the application of logic” to form something along the lines of –

“Logic is both the basis of ‘the application of logic’ and the ‘application of logic’ results in logic”

Which (despite the fact this in itself is pretty meaningless) I took to mean something like “The validity of applying logic cannot be logically determined it must be assumed”

Then by attacking that assumption (regardless of whether I think it true or not) I hoped to get Rob to defend logic in such a way as to be incompatible with his view of science as being the application of logic alone.

That was my confused thinking anyway. I completely admit that I have gone in circles and ended up in a mess and still have no real idea what Rob is on about in terms of his main conclusions or reasoning for them.

I think the separation of premise and conclusion from reasoning is needed if I am to be able to progress at all.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Admin, posted 03-08-2008 2:11 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 03-08-2008 5:23 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12500
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 34 of 106 (459584)
03-08-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Straggler
03-08-2008 5:12 PM


Re: A Little Moderator Guidance
The approach you originally outlined for yourself seems fine, but it takes two to tango. Rob has to be willing to explore his ideas with you. Maybe Rob has some ideas of his own about how to proceed from here, we'll wait and see.

By the way, Rob's position has a parallel in the history of science, if I understand what he's saying (which is definitely an iffy proposition). It was at one time believed that the proper practice of science should refrain from examining the natural world and should instead employ reflection and logic to figure out the world's true nature. Maybe it was a branch of Greek thought?

Edited by Admin, : Fix typos.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2008 5:12 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Rob, posted 03-08-2008 6:19 PM Admin has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3257 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 35 of 106 (459588)
03-08-2008 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Admin
03-08-2008 5:23 PM


Re: A Little Moderator Guidance
Thank you gentleman. I am very pleased with the results here. And I see no need to force you to agree, or base the credibility of my proposition upon your ability/inability to comprehend the matter.

My work is done here.

And no Percy I am not advocating any form of rationalism. Logic is self validating. The emprical is self validating. Howerver, on there own, they are circular. When the two are made to cohere, we have science.

I made it so clear in the proposition. If the empirical is coherent, then our philosophies (theories about it) must also have that same quality (coherence), if the 2 entities in the equation are to be fully and coherently compatible.

In fact, I made special note of the point in the proposition. I stated it, and then restated it.

I said:

This point begs to be repeated; if nature is ordered in an intelligible, logical, and coherent fashion, then our philosophical constructs (theories) regarding it, must also be coherent if they are to be compatible with the assumed empirical order.
( http://rob-lock.livejournal.com/ )

Now here's the problem gentleman, as per an actual court case on the debate:

“since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth”.

Intelligent design has a more coherent explanation for the new evidence compiled in the last several decades. Enough to make it reasonable to re-explore the other supposed evolutionary proofs, that were undertaken with a particular end in mind.

I am not going to plague myself with dragging every kicking and screaming detractor who will never believe it no matter what the arguments are. I am going to take it to those who are looking for the truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Admin, posted 03-08-2008 5:23 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2008 7:11 PM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Admin, posted 03-09-2008 8:52 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10195
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 36 of 106 (459598)
03-08-2008 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Rob
03-08-2008 6:19 PM


Oh Well
I am sorry that you feel the need to leave this rather than restructure your argument in any way at all.

Before you go would you be willing to clarify a couple of things?(these are questions I probably should have asked much earlier)

What is it that you mean by the following? Can you explain in simpler terms exactly what you mean?

That is fascinating since coherence is both the authority that founds science, and the revelation given by the scientific method.

You have stated the following -

The term empirical is a corruptive and deceptive label that conjures images of material certainty. This is not the case! The empirical world is only one of the entities in a natural science equation, and it must be tested against our ideas in order to provide a tested result. In other words, we must look at the evidence through the lens of logical coherence.

How in practise would you reliably apply this method of comparison with regard to a non-material "empirical" conclusion?
Can you give an example of such a conclusion, what elements were compared and what was the method by which you assessed the validity of the conclusion?

In terms of "believability" how does knowledge gained in the way you decribe compare to the independently repeatable verification of specific physically measurable quantities predicted by the logically necessary outcomes of hypotheses? (i.e much of conventional science)

I am not going to plague myself with dragging every kicking and screaming detractor who will never believe it no matter what the arguments are. I am going to take it to those who are looking for the truth

I don't think that is a fair assessmnet of my attempted contribution.
The fact that you have systematically used the term 'science' to describe that which you argue science SHOULD be (as opposed to that which it is generally accepted to be) has been confusing and frankly led me down the blind alley of questioning the validity of logic itself.

If you don't choose to continue I wish you luck in explaining your thoughts to a wider audience.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Rob, posted 03-08-2008 6:19 PM Rob has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12500
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 37 of 106 (459648)
03-09-2008 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Rob
03-08-2008 6:19 PM


Re: A Little Moderator Guidance
Hi Rob,

As you know, I object to the promotion of nonsense here at EvC Forum, hence I'm going to respond to a couple things you say.

I am very pleased with the results here...My work is done here.

Are you daft? This thread is unintelligible.

And I see no need to force you to agree, or base the credibility of my proposition upon your ability/inability to comprehend the matter.

The power of one's ideas is not governed by the determination with which they are held but by their ability to persuade others, and to do that one must first render them intelligible to others. You've accomplished neither intelligibility nor persuasion.

I suggest you return and work in a sincere fashion to mold your ideas into intelligible form.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Rob, posted 03-08-2008 6:19 PM Rob has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 03-09-2008 12:42 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10195
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 38 of 106 (459677)
03-09-2008 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Admin
03-09-2008 8:52 AM


Re: A Little Moderator Guidance
This thread is unintelligible.

The reponsibility for this is partly mine. My apologies.

However I do think I have finally unravelled the fundamentals of what it is Rob is saying.

As I understand it Rob's argument can be summed up thus -

1) Science (should) = Evidence form perception (in it's widest definition) + The application of logic

2) Evidence should include ALL forms of perception including those that do NOT pertain to the material world alone

3) The current view of science as applying logic ONLY to perception of the material world alone is unjustified in that other forms of perception are equally logically/philosophically as valid

If the above is an accurate summary of Rob's thinking then it seems a shame to leave things now that I have finally deciphered his arguments.

If the above is not an accurate summary of Rob's thinking then I can only repeat my calls for clarification (which Rob seems unwilling to meet)

And I see no need to force you to agree, or base the credibility of my proposition upon your ability/inability to comprehend the matter.

Either way I don't want it to be said that I did not at least try and understand.............

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Admin, posted 03-09-2008 8:52 AM Admin has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3257 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 39 of 106 (459721)
03-09-2008 3:27 PM


Ok Straggler
Straggler, I have edited in an initial abstract as per your advice here: www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=6&t=769&m=85#85 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=6&t=769&m=85#85">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=6&t=769&m=85#85 thanks again...

The abstract is as follows and can be read in context with the overall argument at the link below:

In the debate and discourse involving the theory of intelligent design (ID), we inevitably run up against a difficulty in the definition of science. Intelligent design advocates hold that historically, the institution of science has relied upon ‘the inference to the best explanation’ as the criteria for determining which theory best explains a given body of evidence, and is thus given reasonable consideration and treatment. ID proponents advocate increasing the bounds of scientific inquiry to incorporate new evidence that is best coherently explained philosophically (theoretically) by invoking intelligent design.

In my opinion, what the leading proponents of ID have failed to do is offer a clear alternative definition of science that incorporates the legitimate aspects of the current convention, as well as incorporating the ability to allow for the new evidence consistently within a larger design paradigm. If that is to be accomplished, we must re-examine exactly what science is. In the process, I propose a clear and distinct definition of science that should satisfy both of these requirements. The implications are quite staggering.

http://rob-lock.livejournal.com/

Perhaps your inability to follow the argument was my responsibility after-all. I will not make that an absolute admission, but I will take my half of the responsibility for a conversation that takes two to tango.

Though we may not agree, thanks again...


Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Straggler, posted 03-09-2008 5:54 PM Rob has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10195
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 40 of 106 (459747)
03-09-2008 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Rob
03-09-2008 3:27 PM


Fresh Start
Does this mean that you are willing to continue?

If so - Would you be able to comment on (and rewrite if necessary) my summary below to let me know if I have now understood at least the gist of your thinking (albeit in my own words)?

As I understand it Rob's argument can be summed up thus -

1) Science (should) = Evidence form perception (in it's widest definition) + The application of logic

2) Evidence should include ALL forms of perception including those that do NOT pertain to the material world alone (i.e. empirical evidence is “only one of the entities in a natural science equation”)

3) The current view of science as applying logic to perception of the MATERIAL world ALONE is unjustified in that other forms of perception are equally theoretically/logically/philosophically as valid

Any definition of science that cannot describe how a scientific conclusion is reliably verified or refuted in practical terms is pointless (I hope you agree with that at least). As such I would like to further understand your thinking by the consideration of some examples of the practical application of “science” as you argue it to be.

It seems to me that the following passage contains the crux of your argument in terms of actually applying your definition of science in practice -

The term empirical is a corruptive and deceptive label that conjures images of material certainty. This is not the case! The empirical world is only one of the entities in a natural science equation, and it must be tested against our ideas in order to provide a tested result. In other words, we must look at the evidence through the lens of logical coherence.

How in practice would you reliably apply this method of comparison with regard to a conclusion based on non-empirical evidence?

KEY QUESTIONS TO ANSWER
*****Can you give an example of such a conclusion? What evidence was available? What elements were compared? What was the method by which you assessed the validity of the conclusion? What evidence would refute the conclusion? What further evidence should be sought in order to further validate the conclusion? (scientific conclusions should always be tentative and open to the possibility of a superior theory after all!!)*****

If the example you chose was the existence of God then can the same method of comparison be used to conclude other (less contentious) aspects of nature? Or is your definition of science solely aimed at enabling the verification of God?
Can you give a further example that is not related to God? (including all the same components the last example required)

In terms of "reliability of conclusion" how does knowledge gained in the way you describe compare to the independently repeatable verification of specific physically measurable quantities predicted by the logically necessary outcomes of hypotheses? (i.e. a form of verification considered highly reliable by conventional science). More reliable, less reliable or equally reliable?

Apologies if this seems like a lot of questions and a lot of work on your part but I do think it is necessary to fully ensure that I understand what you are saying before I start leading myself down all sorts of dark alleys again.
I have always found that the best method of increasing my own understanding of my own ideas is to try and explain them to others. Whether I manage to contribute anything meaningful to this debate or not such an exercise should at least improve your own grasp of your own thinking.

Stay Happy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Rob, posted 03-09-2008 3:27 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Rob, posted 03-09-2008 6:35 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 42 by Rob, posted 03-09-2008 7:25 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Rob, posted 03-09-2008 7:41 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3257 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 41 of 106 (459759)
03-09-2008 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Straggler
03-09-2008 5:54 PM


Re: Fresh Start
I can give you some time, and answer your questions by answering the one you asked that is the real point of contention. But let's slow it down from here on out, only because this takes so much focus.

Straggler:

How in practice would you reliably apply this method of comparison with regard to a conclusion based on non-empirical evidence?

Well, I already showed how...

For instance, if we take the current view that only material explanations are valid 'scientifically', then how do we provide evidence for that?

Obviously there is a lot of empirical evidence to work with. But the current view is implictily absolute. In order to sustain it, we would have to be omnipotent.

Don't you see? Methodological naturalism is a faith based proposition.

So... the way to test it, is with the law of contradiction. It is philosophically incoherent, therefore it is false. It places too much emphasis on the material side of the equation. Empirical evidence is important, but cannot ultimately be sustained on it's own.

The same goes for belief in God. It cannot ultimately be sustained by philosophy (theology) alone. It is also faith based.

The only absolute is the law of contradiction. We must all agree on that or our debates are just hot air (:laugh: which we all know they are most of the time anyway).

The point is, the philosophy with the most coherence is the best explanation.

Now let's look at your question again:

How in practice would you reliably apply this method of comparison with regard to a conclusion based on non-empirical evidence?

Who ever said that we don't need empirical evidence?

If we look at the design inference by William Dembski, it says that since we know empirically that intelligent agents (humans) can produce information [of the type] found in biological systems, then that is empirical evidence of intelligence creating biological systems.

We don't need to see the designer for it to be a reasonable theory, just as we don't need to see the full material explanation for abiogenesis.

For many years, I supposed that evolution was self-evident, not because I could see it, but because I presupposed it was true before thinking it through.

You see, I am not promoting a form of rationalism. But we cannot also think that empirical evidence is enough. Empirical evidence just is!

Rocks do not speak.

The only way that we can interact with the empirical world is by way of our logical faculties. And the two must cohere.

What I am advocating is purely scientific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Straggler, posted 03-09-2008 5:54 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 03-09-2008 8:00 PM Rob has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3257 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 42 of 106 (459772)
03-09-2008 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Straggler
03-09-2008 5:54 PM


A Couple More Things...
Straggler:
As I understand it Rob's argument can be summed up thus -

1) Science (should) = Evidence form perception (in it's widest definition) + The application of logic

2) Evidence should include ALL forms of perception including those that do NOT pertain to the material world alone (i.e. empirical evidence is “only one of the entities in a natural science equation”)

3) The current view of science as applying logic to perception of the MATERIAL world ALONE is unjustified in that other forms of perception are equally theoretically/logically/philosophically as valid

1. That is not my position. What I am saying is that evidence + logic (which is our supposed perception or philosophy)= scientific knowledge.

Do you see the difference?

2. Any form of perception that is wholly seperate from the empirical is invalid. That would be a purely blind faith.

Only perceptions that match the empirical when tested can reveal the truth (at least in part) about the evidence.

3. The current convention does not apply logical coherence as the rule. It instead relies upon material evidence. Evidence that from either perspective would necessitate omnipotence for a conclusion to be reached.

And that's why so many people will tell us that science is not about truth; becuase we simply don't have all of the evidence. But let's apply the law of contradiction to that particular philosophy.

If they don't have all of the evidence... then how can they reach that conclusion?

Do you see how firmly their feet are planted in mid air?

And that is why I say that our faith is in logic. Logic is the Way the truth and the life. No one comes to reality but by him.

Do we know for sure? No... The righteous shall live by faith.

But faith just means trust, hope, and patience. It is far from blind if we are honest and using the entire capacity of our God given mind.

Seek and you shall find.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Straggler, posted 03-09-2008 5:54 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3257 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 43 of 106 (459775)
03-09-2008 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Straggler
03-09-2008 5:54 PM


An aside...
As an aside, if you have not watched part 4,5,6, and 7 of this documentary, please do so. It will help you enormously in understanding my argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iULh7olGm9Q

If you have seen it, then carry on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Straggler, posted 03-09-2008 5:54 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10195
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 44 of 106 (459784)
03-09-2008 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Rob
03-09-2008 6:35 PM


Re: Fresh Start
I feel that you are trying to encompass you entire argument into every single post!!!! Your last post covered the need for omnipotence, methodological naturalism as a faith position, contradiction, coherence, science and religious equivalence, the nature of empirical evidence etc. etc. etc.

Please, please, please……slow down.

I am not (yet) disclaiming the validity of your reasoning at all. I am just establishing what your position is. In detail.

I think establishing HOW scientific conclusions are derived and verified or refuted according to your view of science is the essence of understanding your argument. As such I need to understand – in detail- how you have applied your thinking to specific cases. In other words – “How have you applied the scientific method as you define it to draw scientific conclusions?”

Rob

The term empirical is a corruptive and deceptive label that conjures images of material certainty. This is not the case! The empirical world is only one of the entities in a natural science equation, and it must be tested against our ideas in order to provide a tested result. In other words, we must look at the evidence through the lens of logical coherence.

Straggler

How in practice would you reliably apply this method of comparison with regard to a conclusion based on non-empirical evidence?How in practice would you reliably apply this method of comparison with regard to a conclusion based on non-empirical evidence?

Rob

Who ever said that we don't need empirical evidence?

OK let me rephrase the question

How in practice would you reliably apply this method of comparison with regard to a conclusion based on evidence that includes non-empirical evidence?

In other words when you say -

The empirical world is only one of the entities in a natural science equation

I am asking for a practical example of a conclusion formed on evidence that includes one or more of these “other entities” along with explicit statements as to what these “other entities” are.

Once you have explicitly stated the specific conclusion and the evidence (non-empirical + empirical if also relevant) that this is based upon you then also need to state how this evidence was used to make that conclusion by answering the following questions

*****What elements were compared? What was the method by which you assessed the validity of the conclusion? What evidence would refute the conclusion? What further evidence should be sought in order to further validate the conclusion?*****

The devil is in the detail ;)

EXAMPLE
If I were asked to give a specific example of an –

independently repeatable verification of specific physically measurable quantities predicted by the logically necessary outcomes of hypotheses?

I would cite the Big Bang as the specific conclusion. The evidence as the detection and measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. I would then describe how both the existence and a specific value of this radiation was logically derived from theory alone. Then I would describe the subsequent detection and measurement of this theoretically predicted phenomenon. I would explain why prediction is a valid and reliable form of verification. I would explain why independent confirmation of the result was required as well as citing examples of independent corroboration of the detection and measurement in question. Finally we could discuss ways in which the theory could still be refuted or better verified with additional experimental data.

There are many other examples of this type in the field of physics.

Lets examine one or two examples of your thinking applied in detail and see where we get to. Lets not (either of us) try to defend or promote our whole position in every single post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Rob, posted 03-09-2008 6:35 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Rob, posted 03-09-2008 8:25 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 46 by Rob, posted 03-09-2008 9:28 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3257 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 45 of 106 (459788)
03-09-2008 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Straggler
03-09-2008 8:00 PM


Re: Fresh Start
Straggler:
I am asking for a practical example of a conclusion formed on evidence that includes one or more of these “other entities” along with explicit statements as to what these “other entities” are.

The 'other entity' is logic Straggler, that's what you are missing. It's not as though I am trying to cohere evidence with something that does not exist.

So pick whatever scientific equation you like. They are all the same.

I am only saying that logic is itself the 'other entity'.

That's God Straggler! Logic is God in as far as his ability to communicate with us. He is obviously more than that, but it is His mind that transcends the empirical.

That's why it's intelligible.

As for your Big bang example... it assumes (without evidence) that because there are observable material quantities and the like, that material causation is all that is needed to explain the existence of the material. That's why it called 'theoretical physics' and not physics. Because it is postulating things that are purely philosophical by way of logic, based upon what is proven scientifically.

Do you see my point? There is no directly observable evidence of the big bang.

It is therefore strictly not empirical. But it is held as scientific because it assumes a material origin. That cannot be proven... ever- minus omnipotence.

So back to my question...

If they don't have empirical evidence, then how can the conclude that only material evidence is valid?

Because methodological naturalism is not empirical, it is philsophical, i.e. religious belief.

Their god is a nature God. Mine is the God of nature.

What you have to decide for yourself is which one you bow to. Either way you take a mark. You can have the number of man, or the seal of the Holy Spirit.

Think about it...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 03-09-2008 8:00 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 03-10-2008 6:19 AM Rob has responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017