Applying Science to Past Events

A excellent example for everyone to pay close attention to.
This was given as an example to show the scientific method can be applied to the past. Well did it payoff.The error Loudmouth is that both tests were not tests.The historical documents info are not tests of the hypothesis occuring in the present. Just received data. You have not tested the past event or tested anything to indicate the past event. You have simply been assured by witnesses something happened. In fact maybe they were wrong. In fact one might say the historical info wasn't a test of the past but a present observation at the time.The second "test" is not such because the prediction is not proven at this momment but only takes effect when the future event occurs. Again it is not a test of the future but a observation of the present that is true only when the event takes place.This is a good example of where the error takes place about the scientific method being applied to the past or future can happen.
Rob

There is no reason for bewilderment. What we discuss is literally, after intial jawing, the essence of an important point in the great debate.Again Percy you say to me one can predict the past and prove it by evidence. I don't diaagree.
BUT we are discussing Is it Science?
The scientific method is a package deal. It is used against creationists to say we don't practice science.
One can not bring the method to bear on past or future events.
If you can show how. simple.
One can accumulate evidence and make conclusions. But this is the the special methodology of the scientic method.
The method is not just another word for evidence gathering.
Long live evidence gathering. Long live the method.BUT live longer the difference. It is forced on us.
Rob

The scientific method can be applied only to the present for only in the present can the method be applied. Testing etc is a real thing for today and thats why the scientific method has a prestige over other intellectual fields of endeavor. And evolution to catch this wave must be riding it and not just claim it later in the bar.
Rob

I find no fault with what you said.First my funk and wagnalls tells me it has been contested whether mathematics is a science at all but something else but regardless YOU are wrong in thinking that science took place when you made your predictions for the eclipses. The scientific method, if it was used, on;y took place when the eclipse took place. Only then did the method occur. Years before were still just hypothesis and not theory.
I shouldn't have to say this. It is entry level stuff.
Rob

Those who calculate orbits are doing science. So does NASA as they deal with the present. Orbits are not accepted as true until they been shown to be true. Prediction doesn't get anyone the prize. Only when it has been observed then the price.
The observation of Halley's comet at its predicted place on the calendor was essential before they gave his name too it. His prediction along didn't do the trick. Likewise science is a package deal including testing which if abscent is mere hypothesis. This is why evolutionary ideas are easily changed from time to time becauise its impossible to test. and so we say its not science.
Rob

You said "The prediction of future Solar eclipses has been done and has passed the test. Do you disagree with this?Yes (I think) And when the test occured and only then did the scientific method have occured. Only when the present observed action of the eclipses had happened could thetre now be claimed a THEORY. Before this it was only hypothesis. Before the TEST there had not occured the scientific method.
And since a future event far in the future or far in the past has not and can not by us be observered (tested) so the scientific method can not be applied to past and gone events.Your two tests as I said were not tests actually. (Unless I'm wrong in my thinking somewhere but I don't where)
Rob

I am not in ignorance of what science is. I accept from your crowd the definition. BUT then i hold you too your own definition which I believe I've shown ,on the matter of evolution, you do not satisfy.
I recommend everyone follow our discussion. It is a gain for my side I believe. And you do as well as can be done by your side.Too your first point. NO the test only occured when the observation occured. Prediction without t6ests is not science.If you had been in the day of Halley's orbit prediction would you of said THATS all we need Halley. Here's your reward for your achievment.
Never mind waiting for it to show up. Science is satisfied?
Rob

If I follow. NO. The day of the eclipse is the test. So with the positive test the hypothesis is now a theory that can take on all comers.About your paragraph analagy. You are getting too atomic about past events. In fact your paragraph is a present event. Your witness of writing it is present observation.
Likewise the DNA analagy.
Rob

Hold on there Percy. "If the only thing" an observation of an ecilpse does (in our analagy) is verify peoples mathe then ,pray tell, when was the theory verified(tested)?Also you bring up about the brain/eyes info lag. This is not a difference in the real world. It is a present event and not applicable to our contention. (although it does explain my driving)
Rob

No .People who calcuate eclipses are having verified thier predictions when the eclipse shows up. Nothing to do with gravity laws.
You have before tried to say theoretical and applied science is my problem. It isn't I've been clear on addressing the point of the scientif method. Science is or is not. words matter.OK I like your baseball analagy.The baseball amongst shattered glass. Now lets apply the scientific method to it. (you first just kidding)Since it was apast event I say the method can't be done.
However YES the weighing of evidence can take place here and lead to a correct conclusion. But the parenmt who does it is not engaged in Science.
Also because the method can not be used the conclusion is more open to error. As follows. Instead of the ball having come thru the window someone first broke the window with no ball in sight and then placed a ball there later to trap the owner of the ball.
The evidence is open to interpretation. No conclusion can be reached yet.
The scientific method cound say can the evidence be falsified. As I just did. But there can be no test of the event to show the truth.
Reasonable conclusion but not science.
Your ball

Yes,as you said ,past eclipses can be used to verify a hypothesis made today.YES I agree.
Therefore
"Theories made today can be confirmed or falsified by historical data" you said.
Yes I think I agree with that.
But the operative word is HISTORICAL data.
Rob

Yes I agree the operative word is also theory. I presume your phrasing means you agree the other operative word is HISTORICAL data.Yes the scientific method can be used to test scientific theories with occurances from the past. WOW we seem to at last be coming to a great mutual conclusion. Oh Oh wait a minute.NO absolutely not .Fossils and dating methods etc are not historical data.m They are just data that is interpretated to be something.
They are not open to testing. Just a snapshot of a past momment.Well close but no cigar.When I say historical I mean witnessed by human beings. As a experiment in 1666 could be used today for a scientific theory without actually repeating the experiment.You didn't demonstrate how a past occurance can be tested today. You only repeated that evidence with a premise interpretation can be used to test a theory today.
Rob

To your first paragraph.
And until historical records or an observation take place there has been no science only hypothesis.
I'm not trying to be unreasonable here. Where does my logic break down?You offered me the baseball analagy and I demonstrated it also broke down as a process open to the scientific method. YES it is evidence. But evidence of what? It is not scientific evidence that is it is not evidence that has successfully withstood the special method ofr testing,falsifying etc.i'm a little surprised that after all this discussion you bring up the example of the astronomers.
They do not have a image of what it looked like billions of years ago.
All they have is what they have and then they make an interpretation of what it means.
To say this is what it was like billions of years ago has no evidence behind it. It is only a observation of what is now the case. It is not the conclusion of the scientific method.
Perhaps you or anyone out there in tv land could bring up a killer analagy that would settle the matter once and for all
Rob

To all you said I agrre. But again Is it Science? We are taliking about the scientific method here and if it is or can be used for past/future events.
The tracks of an animal are evidence. But can the scientific method be employed here to dertermine whether it actually was. After all the tracks could of been faked to lead the hunters to a ambush. They have evidence and draw a conclusion but it would be wrong to say they are employed in science.
Rob

This is just not an accurate analysis Loudmouth. Historically recorded eclipses are not interpretated. They are rock solid facts.No interpretation need play here. They are factual data.A fossil is only a fact of what it is in hand and not a fact to its origin or any other connection. That is interpretation. Why is there confusion here for one of us.
A recorded solar eclipse is a snapshot of what it is. The eclipse happening and witnessed by a human.
The fossil is also of what it is and nothing more of connection.The rock analagy demonstrates that the rock formed today is evidence only of its particular forming.
It can be used to hypothesis how unwitnessed rocks formed but those rocks indeed having been formed is not evidenced by the recent rocfk.
Also I would add rocks forming rarely takes place now if ever and its formation would indicate the tremendous pressures needed and so refute slow geological change.
Rob