|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bad science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi ENC,
To state more clearly what I hinted at as Percy, evolution and thermodynamics are not the topic of this thread. If you scroll up a bit you'll see a suggestion in Message 115 for a thread in which to take up discussion of this topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, Eagles.
Here is a thread that was opened to deal with the issue of thermodynamics and evolution. You might be better off bringing your questions about that topic there. If the messages on that thread don't answer your questions, feel free to bring it back to life. "These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not." -- Ernie Cline
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
It was Quetzal that mentioned, "your religion". How does he know about "my religion" and how does he apply it to what science and evolution are? Shall we recap? If you remember correctly, the first person who mentioned anything at all about "religion" was you:
ENC in msg 87 writes: Just 1 1/2 centuries? Creation in written form has been around for 4000 years give or take. The oldest documentation of many societies confirm creation, not just the Hebrew Bible. Sorry, I can't discount history even though no human was around to record either. the nearest we come to a historian is someone you don't want to rely on. That was the Creator. This paragraph is, of course, expressing a religious position. To me, the statement strongly indicates you are a Christian Young-Earth Creationist. Alternatively, you could conceivably be a Moslem Young-Earth Creationist, or even an Orthodox Jewish Young-Earth Creationist. However, the mention of the Hebrew Bible, on the other hand, appears to indicate the first impression is the correct one. Feel free to enlighten me on the subject. Be that as it may, I limited my response to a single comment:
Quetzal in msg 89 writes: That's all very nice as far as your religion goes, but what does that have to do with science? And why are you bringing it up? Note the generic "your religion" could encompass any of the three possibilities. However, the remainder of the post, to which you failed to reply at all, deals with the meat of your contention that the length of time a belief has been accepted correlates to its validity. Beyond that, no discussion of religion - yours or anyone elses' - was either intended or expected. As another point of etiquette on this board, it is considered very bad form to incorrectly attribute something to someone, whether statement or position, that they don't actually express or hold. If you don't understand someone (or are unsure of their meaning or intent), the best thing to do is ask them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I was thinking that "theory" was just another word for "law." No, a theory often consists of several laws (though it may have just one). So, for example, the theory of electromagnetism has as its basic laws the four Maxwell equations; Newton's theory of motion has as its basic laws Newton's second and third laws of motion (the first may be derived from the second). I've already given the theory of evolution as an example.
So it would be improper to speak of the "theory of gravity"? Not at all, or scientists wouldn't go about speaking of the theory of gravity: which consists of the laws of motion plus the law of gravity. You may note that the law of gravity on its own would not be a theory, because it would not explain or predict anything. It says nothing to say: "there will be such-and-such a force between two bodies of such-and-such a mass", unless you also have laws saying how a mass will behave when a force acts on it. It is only the collection of laws --- the theory --- which allows us to explain and predict.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It is only the collection of laws --- the theory --- which allows us to explain and predict. So a theory is a collection of laws. But that cannot be because you say earlier:
a theory often consists of several laws (though it may have just one). If it's just one, it's not a collection. The Law of Gravity does not "explain and predict"? Does it not explain and predict that if you lose your balance on a ladder, that you will fall (not merely hang up in space or float away)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
It gets confusing doesn't it? Outside of physics and its children, few if any of the other sciences are still calling something a "law". Most of biology, for instance either uses theory or occasionally "rule". Maybe because physicists can't stand ambiguity ("law" sounds so much more permanent, doesn't it?), whereas biologists thrive on it (after all, rules are meant to be broken ). I dunno, that's sort of just my opinion.
Bottom line: there really isn't any hierarchy of confidence reflected in the terms used. In biology, "law" is pretty archaic and no longer used. IIRC, almost all of the original biological "laws" have been shown to be wrong in whole or in part. Biology simply doesn't appear to lend itself to "unbreakable laws" - there are just too many exceptions in nature. My two cents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Head Eagle Inactive Member |
Enough of conceptualizing one over the other. Here are those particulars from my own observations that support creation and disastrophism:
In driving on I-10 between Texas and California, I've seen several formations that show evidence of severe castastrophy that would indicate a univeral flood. Folded mountains, huge depths of limestone formations, spiral snails atop high desert mountains. And a personal observation right close to home that shows that millions of years would have given us a Kevin Costner Waterworld or something similar to the flood of Noah: We live in the forest of south-east Texas. In trying to slow down erosion, I have stacked young dead pines across paths that water flows over. After a month of those 3" pines laying on the ground, the fill behind them of sand and silty clay had come to the top of those trees. 3 inches of soil movement in just one month. Small scale erosion control. The saplings just down from the first ones near the top also had accumulations of fill. From observation, I can surmise that were there millions of years of erosion, there wouldn't be much, if anything left above water. This small scale experiment shows that the millions of years of degrading of the earth's surface would be evidence that supports only a few thousand years of earth's existence. Note that these just a few observations of the unchanging evidence presented to us all. As I said at first....only a matter of how you perceive the evidence; whether your perception or mine. Lan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
disastrophism This is a word?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
robinrohan writes: So a theory is a collection of laws. But that cannot be because you say earlier: Despite Dr Adequate's apparent assurance, let me repeat what I said earlier in Message 103: You'll go crazy trying to figure out the logic behind naming something a law or theory. Quetzal's summary Message 126 is very good, so I'd recommend lending credence to that, too. Bottom line: if you want to look more deeply into law versus theory nomenclature in the history of science then continue delving, I think it's pretty interesting myself, but if you're trying to make overall sense out of it by seeking logic, order and hierarchy, then quit now. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
It has been pointed out that you are not on topic here. In fact, a strict look at the OP suggests that no one is.
However, you are particularly off topic and have been warned. You may bring all of this up in a new thread. If you do it here again you will get a short suspension. Others may or may not get a warning before they are suspended. ABE
As I said at first....only a matter of how you perceive the evidence; whether your perception or mine. You have been invited to discuss this alterntive perception. Do not bring it up if you can not defend it. Edited by AdminNosy, : Additional note on perceptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Sorry, Q, I`m a late arrival to this thread
As long as you are willing to admit that the "bad science" is limited to a vanishingly small subset of all scientists, then we have no further disagreement.
While I realise there may not have been much choice in selection of employment, the use of approx 20,000 'scientists' in the Biopreparat program to develop incurable diseases might suggest that `bad' science is more widespread than you suggest. Of course, it`s more a question of morality than misuse of the scientific method, but the victims mightn`t see it that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
seeking logic, order and hierarchy That's what I'm always seeking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"It is only the collection of laws --- the theory --- which allows us to explain and predict." So a theory is a collection of laws. But that cannot be because you say earlier: "a theory often consists of several laws (though it may have just one)." If it's just one, it's not a collection.
No, listen carefully. I said that in the case of the theory of gravity, it is only the collection of laws which constitute a theory. This does not preclude the existence of a theory which consists of only one law.
The Law of Gravity does not "explain and predict"? Does it not explain and predict that if you lose your balance on a ladder, that you will fall (not merely hang up in space or float away)? No. It does nothing of the sort, for reasons which I explained in my previous post. The law of gravity on its own has no predictive power whatsoever. It does not tell me that I will fall off a ladder. For that, I also need the laws of motion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The law of gravity on its own has no predictive power whatsoever. It does not tell me that I will fall off a ladder. For that, I also need the laws of motion. So what you need for a theory is predictive power?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
As you point out, that's really a question of morality than "bad science" as indicated in the thread's OP. Although I don't entirely absolve science (and scientists) from the use to which their science is put, I think participation in such activities is really up to the personal ethics and conscience of the individual. I would no more advocate "limiting" science to "safe" subjects than I would advocate banning books that some people might find "unsafe".
That, of course, is merely my opinion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024