Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is science?
sfs
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 16 of 152 (105598)
05-05-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by John Paul
05-05-2004 1:51 PM


Re: Science defined
Just because something exists in the "natural" world (universe) does NOT mean it arose (came into being) via purely natural processes. By limiting science to look for only natural explanations does not help increase our knowledge base.
I don't know what to make of this discussion, since I don't know what "natural" means in this context. Science can study processes that generate objective observations and that have some kind of regularity, because those are the only processes it has the tools to handle. Do the non-natural processes you're talking about meet these requirements or not?
Steve

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 1:51 PM John Paul has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 17 of 152 (105599)
05-05-2004 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John Paul
05-05-2004 1:57 PM


Re: Science defined
John Paul
As for the evidence of a designer/ Creator- life is very good evidence, as is the mathematical form all of the "natural" laws take.
Could you clarify how life and math sre evidence Of a God in your view?

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 1:57 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by John Paul, posted 05-06-2004 4:58 PM sidelined has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 18 of 152 (105640)
05-05-2004 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John Paul
05-05-2004 1:57 PM


Re: Science defined
I NEVER said anything about God as part of science. However if God did create us (and the universe) to not seek out that information is an injustice to mankind and science.
I agree. And what I said in my previous message was that you must have evidence supporting your explanations, and that the evidence must be apparent to us in some way, either directly through the five senses or indirectly through instruments like microscropes and thermometers.
Do you agree?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 05-05-2004 1:57 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by SRO2, posted 05-05-2004 6:43 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 23 by John Paul, posted 05-06-2004 5:17 PM Percy has replied

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 152 (105672)
05-05-2004 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
05-05-2004 4:53 PM


Re: Science defined
Right on target. Science doesn't seek God for the same reason it doesn't seek Zeus, Unicorns, Santa Claus, Giant Cyclops, Big Foot, Witches, Vampires, Flying Saucers, Flying Pigs etc., etc.. It's because there isn't a shred of evidence that any of them exist(ed).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 05-05-2004 4:53 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by John Paul, posted 05-06-2004 5:01 PM SRO2 has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 152 (106008)
05-06-2004 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by sidelined
05-05-2004 2:37 PM


Re: Science defined
sidelined:
Could you clarify how life and math sre evidence Of a God in your view?
John Paul:
Good question. My view is based on the scientists of early days:
(on mathematics)
"The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the ratioal order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics." Johannes Kepler
Galileo obeserved " the laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics."
In his book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty Morris Kline states this about Newton , Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus: "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomena."
(life)
Life itself is irreducibly complex. Even if we get self-replicating nucleic acids we still need a cell membrane to contain it. Not only do we need nucleic acids and a cell membrane but their are organelles to consider. Add to that there isn't anything in physics, chemistry or biology that shows non-living matter can become a living organism. So by deduction if life couldn't arise from non-life via purely natural processes (and we observe that life exists) what are the alternatives?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by sidelined, posted 05-05-2004 2:37 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Loudmouth, posted 05-06-2004 5:14 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 37 by sidelined, posted 05-07-2004 11:38 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 41 by Joe Meert, posted 05-09-2004 11:49 AM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 152 (106009)
05-06-2004 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by SRO2
05-05-2004 6:43 PM


Re: Science defined
Rocket:
Right on target. Science doesn't seek God for the same reason it doesn't seek Zeus, Unicorns, Santa Claus, Giant Cyclops, Big Foot, Witches, Vampires, Flying Saucers, Flying Pigs etc., etc.. It's because there isn't a shred of evidence that any of them exist(ed).
John Paul:
That is false. It is due to the evidence that I and millions of other people are Creationists and/ or IDists. Read the book Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by SRO2, posted 05-05-2004 6:43 PM SRO2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 05-07-2004 8:47 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 152 (106012)
05-06-2004 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by John Paul
05-06-2004 4:58 PM


Re: Science defined
quote:
Galileo obeserved " the laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics."
No, Galileo opined, he never observed. Again, this is a philosophical statement, not a scientific statement grounded in physical and repeatible observations.
quote:
In his book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty Morris Kline states this about Newton , Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus: "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomena."
Again, a philosophical position, not a scientific observation. Their statement of "One mind designing" goes against the claims of polytheistic religions, which have the same valid claim on creation as any other religion has. You seem to be falling into the same problem that you are accusing us of, ignoring someone else's diety. If you ignore the claim that science should not consider Shiva or Zeus, then you are no better than naturalistic science according to your own logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by John Paul, posted 05-06-2004 4:58 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by John Paul, posted 05-06-2004 5:20 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 152 (106014)
05-06-2004 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
05-05-2004 4:53 PM


Re: Science defined
Percy:And what I said in my previous message was that you must have evidence supporting your explanations, and that the evidence must be apparent to us in some way, either directly through the five senses or indirectly through instruments like microscropes and thermometers.
John Paul:
That evidence is very apparent to those willing to see it. It IS via the microscope that we see the specified and irreducible complexity that is life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 05-05-2004 4:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Loudmouth, posted 05-06-2004 6:01 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 05-08-2004 4:43 AM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 152 (106017)
05-06-2004 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Loudmouth
05-06-2004 5:14 PM


Re: Science defined
LM please keep this discussion in context. I was answering sidelined's question as to why mathematics was evidence for (a) God (which really wasn't what I stated).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Loudmouth, posted 05-06-2004 5:14 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 152 (106027)
05-06-2004 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by John Paul
05-06-2004 5:17 PM


Re: Science defined
quote:
LM please keep this discussion in context. I was answering sidelined's question as to why mathematics was evidence for (a) God (which really wasn't what I stated).
Sorry, quick on the trigger.
quote:
That evidence is very apparent to those willing to see it. It IS via the microscope that we see the specified and irreducible complexity that is life.
By "that evidence" I am assuming intelligent design.
This is the problem with ID theory, and why it isn't science. You must first believe without evidence that an intelligence designed things in order to believe it. In science, you need no such pre-existing belief. Science sees a designer all right, just not an intelligent one. Just like the "Face" on Mars, apparent design can be the product of natural mechanisms, as is seen in evolutionary mechanisms. Again, natural mechanisms are enough to explain natural phenomena, which is the statement of science. Pseudoscience, such as ID, wants to add unobserved mechanisms. They then cry foul when they are not included. Other than religious presuppositions, I can't see what they are on about since the design seen in biological systems can already be explained through natural mechanisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John Paul, posted 05-06-2004 5:17 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by John Paul, posted 05-07-2004 8:50 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 26 of 152 (106238)
05-07-2004 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by John Paul
05-06-2004 5:01 PM


Re: Science defined
John Paul writes:
That is false. It is due to the evidence that I and millions of other people are Creationists and/ or IDists. Read the book Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design.
The way discussion works is that you make your arguments here. Cite whatever you like in support, but make your arguments here.
I asked earlier if you agree that you must have evidence supporting your explanations, and that the evidence must be apparent to us in some way, either directly through the five senses or indirectly through instruments like microscropes and thermometers. Assuming you agree, then the argument for ID reduces to claims that biological organisms couldn't have developed by natural means. But there's no evidence for the unnatural means, no mechanisms proposed for how it was done, no examples of any such thing, and no argument eliminating the natural possibilities.
--Percy
[Hit submit too early, added last paragraph right away. --Percy]
This message has been edited by Percy, 05-07-2004 07:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by John Paul, posted 05-06-2004 5:01 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 152 (106239)
05-07-2004 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Loudmouth
05-06-2004 6:01 PM


Re: Science defined
LM:
By "that evidence" I am assuming intelligent design.
John Paul:
Id and / or Creation is the conclusion based on "that evidence".
LM:
This is the problem with ID theory, and why it isn't science.
John Paul:
From what I have read most alleged problems with ID and Creation aren't really problems at all.
LM:
You must first believe without evidence that an intelligence designed things in order to believe it.
John Paul:
Wrong. It IS the evidence that leads people to the conclusion a designer was involved.
As Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.
LM:
In science, you need no such pre-existing belief.
John Paul:
Correct but the beliefs or philosophies of scientists do effect the conclusions they come to. Naturalism is a philosophy.
LM:
Science sees a designer all right, just not an intelligent one.
John Paul:
That should read "scientists (as in the scientists with a naturalistic bias) see a designer all right, just not an intelligent one." However there are many scientists that do. Also there are sciences that have have processes in place that enable us to determine whether or not an intelligent agent was involved. When those processes are applied to life the logical conclusion is ID.
As for unobserved mechanisms what mechanism moved the nostrils from the tip of a snout to the top of the head? How can that be objectively tested? Ya see the door swings both ways. The theory of evolution can't be objectively tested or measured or verified. All of it grand claims have never been observed. By your logic it ain't science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Loudmouth, posted 05-06-2004 6:01 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 05-07-2004 9:05 AM John Paul has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 28 of 152 (106241)
05-07-2004 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by John Paul
05-07-2004 8:50 AM


Re: Science defined
John Paul writes:
That should read "scientists (as in the scientists with a naturalistic bias)...
This thread isn't about ID, so let me focus on just this one small part of your post in order to return to the evidence issue. In several messages, the last in Message 26, I've asked what you think constitutes scientific evidence, and I proposed an answer. If you have a different answer then this is a good time to enter it into the discussion. What constitutes scientific evidence is a key issue in answering the question of this thread, "What is science?"
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by John Paul, posted 05-07-2004 8:50 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by John Paul, posted 05-07-2004 11:55 AM Percy has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 152 (106279)
05-07-2004 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
05-07-2004 9:05 AM


Re: Science defined
Percy:
This thread isn't about ID, so let me focus on just this one small part of your post in order to return to the evidence issue.
John Paul:
This thread is about science, which ID is a part of.
Now you ask about "scientific" evidence. I was unaware that there was a distinction between evidence and "scientific" evidence. Believe it or not the evidence is the same for naturalists and non-naturalists. The DNA is the same, the rocks & sediments are the same, the organisms are the same, the solar system is the same, the "natural" laws are the same, the same universe, etc. The difference is how that evidence is interpretted. Each interpretation is controlled by one's bias. If you have a naturalistic bias you would interpret the data/ evidence under that philosophy. If you are open minded you would interpret the data/ evidence and let the evidence lead you to a conclusion.
Science is done via inference. The design explanatory filter is a starting point for investigations. IOW even if something makes it through that filter and it was determined that something was the product of design it does not stop further research from overturning that initial inference. The same goes for possible natural causes. What was once thought to be natural could indeed turn out to be the product of design. That said Dembski, Behe, Ratzsch, Johnson, Nelson, Bradley et al. have gone to lengths to put into literature what the design inference is all about and why the evidence is interpretted as a product of design.
This message has been edited by John Paul, 05-07-2004 11:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 05-07-2004 9:05 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by MrHambre, posted 05-07-2004 12:13 PM John Paul has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 30 of 152 (106286)
05-07-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by John Paul
05-07-2004 11:55 AM


Double Standard
John Paul,
This morning you said
quote:
The theory of evolution can't be objectively tested or measured or verified. All of it grand claims have never been observed.
But three hours later you say
quote:
Science is done via inference. The design explanatory filter is a starting point for investigations.
So there have to be eyewitness observations of evolutionary events, but design events can be inferred. Sounds fair.
regards,
Esteban "Testify" Hambre
This message has been edited by MrHambre, 05-07-2004 11:14 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John Paul, posted 05-07-2004 11:55 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by John Paul, posted 05-07-2004 12:54 PM MrHambre 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