Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,437 Year: 3,694/9,624 Month: 565/974 Week: 178/276 Day: 18/34 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Applying Science to Past Events
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1 of 354 (128205)
07-27-2004 9:03 PM


There have been a number of literalist posters who claim that science can't be applied to past events since "you weren't there". This is used to rule out paleontology, much of geology, cosmology and more.
Others have countered this in a number of ways. I'd like to see the issue discussed here under on roof and stop it from dragging other threads off topic.
Here are some answers supplied elsewhere:
quote:
History uses the same hypothetico-inductive method science does. Hypotheses are inferred, there are potential falsifications & predictions.
Mark
quote:
But the evidence that past events leave is witnessed, and the tests that can be performed on them are repeatable.
So in fact events in the past are accessable to science. In fact, one popular field where that is regularly done is called "forensics." You know, that stuff they do in labs on all those cop shows like "CSI".
If you believe that science cannot investigate the past, then you'd better open the prisons, because there's a lot of people convicted for crimes based only on forensic evidence.
Funny, though, that "science cannot investigate the past" has not ever succeeded - probably hasn't even been attempted - as a legal defense. Why do you suppose that is? Probably because you're wrong about science being able to investigate the past.
CrashFrog
In addition, it has been pointed out that no one who wrote about the crucifiction and resurrection was there either. I guess that can't be considered as supported at all then.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 07-28-2004 7:09 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 07-28-2004 7:40 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 7 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-29-2004 5:46 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 07-29-2004 6:01 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 10 by Robert Byers, posted 08-03-2004 4:33 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 156 by riVeRraT, posted 09-19-2004 4:34 PM NosyNed has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 13 of 354 (130077)
08-03-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Robert Byers
08-03-2004 4:47 PM


What is Science
At the risk of running badly off topic here, could you explain what you think the process of science is? I think you have some misconceptions here too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Robert Byers, posted 08-03-2004 4:47 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Robert Byers, posted 08-04-2004 2:41 PM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 95 of 354 (140914)
09-08-2004 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Percy
09-08-2004 9:38 AM


What is "science"?
Has any one asked Robert what the heck this thing he calls science is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 09-08-2004 9:38 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Loudmouth, posted 09-08-2004 1:43 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 102 by Robert Byers, posted 09-08-2004 4:06 PM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 157 of 354 (143225)
09-19-2004 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by riVeRraT
09-19-2004 4:34 PM


guess?
Its only an educated guess at best
At least it is educated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by riVeRraT, posted 09-19-2004 4:34 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by riVeRraT, posted 09-19-2004 9:48 PM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 178 of 354 (143555)
09-21-2004 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by crashfrog
09-20-2004 10:52 PM


Oh yea!
It doesn't take smarts to do what they do,
Oh yes it does! I suggest that an average person, in the right field, with the right training and education can make a real contribution. But education of an average person will not produce any Nobel prize. Those pushing the boundaries are smart.
Less than average? Ain't gonna cut it. I went into University in the top 2% (as measured on the schools IQ tests) of the people entering university (not the general population). I found myself in a class of 20 people doing honors math and physics and in the botton quartile of that class. The smartest ones were astonding. And, in spite of the popular view, rather well rounded. They had the capacity to keep up AND have fun AND learn about things outside of what was presented in class. I, on the other hand, had more fun than keeping up but managed to get through.
In the short time I spent working in a grad level lab I enjoyed the best coffee discussion I've ever been in. Sometimes just sitting back and watching the discussion whip along. The grad students were more focussed on their work so didn't have much time to peruse the wider world. However, they were so quick that in a short time they could dive into something, see the contratictions and make pertinant comments.
The profs had more time. One took a new introductory language every year. He claimed to be able to converse in 16 language. We never had any foreign visitors that he couldn't chat away with and there is no way I could check him out.
If you take the average joe on the street you'll find him left way behind if put into the kind of environment where real science is done. It isn't all education but, of course, that is also an important part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2004 10:52 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2004 8:29 AM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 240 of 354 (144358)
09-24-2004 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by riVeRraT
09-24-2004 12:24 AM


Still a bit mixed up?
no one here is saying that the theory of evolution is an absolute fact
very clear to me from the very first thread I participated in, that evolution is fact.
Those two phrases are *not* contradictory. The second one talks of the FACT that life forms have changed with time on the planet.
The first one offers a theory as to how that happened. Evolution is fact upon which a theory was built.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-24-2004 12:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by riVeRraT, posted 09-24-2004 12:24 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by riVeRraT, posted 09-24-2004 2:42 AM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024