Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Applying Science to Past Events
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 354 (134760)
08-17-2004 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Robert Byers
08-17-2004 4:29 PM


quote:
But when you say present movements can be used to make a theory of past and gone events as a sciecticic method thing then I must insist NO.
And you would be completely wrong for saying NO. As pointed out by Percy, we can predict when solar eclipses have happened in the past and check them against ancient writings.
To evolution, we test present day measurements to the past. Take for instance HERV insertions. These are failed viral infections that leave viral genes in an organisms genome. When this happens in a germ line cell (sperm or egg) then every cell of the child from that germ line cell will have this insertion. Given enough time, these viral genes may become ubiquitous within the population. Now, if speciation occurs then the new species will carry the same viral fingerprints as the parent species. Also, the new species will acquire new viral fingerprints since the new species has created it's own gene pool. This is exactly what we see when looking at the DNA and fossil relationships between chimps, orangutans, gorillas, and humans. We see a pattern of viral insertions that mimic the fossil record.
Therefore, by looking at these viral fingerprints today we are able to decipher what happened in the past. We check these predictions from viral fingerprints with the fossil record and cladistics, just as we check predicted historical solar eclipses with written accounts. Guess what? The DNA and the fossil record/cladistics match up. Therefore, just as in cosomology, we are able to make predictions within evolution about the past that are testable and verifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Robert Byers, posted 08-17-2004 4:29 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 47 of 354 (135964)
08-21-2004 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Percy
08-17-2004 5:26 PM


Yes you can Project the motions to Predict future events and Project backwards to PREDICT past events.
WE AGREE.
Yet in each case the future and past prediction is only that. It is not testable or falsifiable evidence and so not in the orbit of science.
Unless of coarse your saying your prediction of future motion movement in space rules out completly a well aimed meteorite or any choas taking place in the near or far future to alter the motions?!
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 08-17-2004 5:26 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 08-27-2004 6:16 AM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 48 of 354 (135965)
08-21-2004 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by pink sasquatch
08-17-2004 5:49 PM


Yes as I understand it. Yet it doesn't go that far back otherwise a complete human lineage tree would of been made.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-17-2004 5:49 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 354 (135969)
08-21-2004 5:36 PM


Aren't all events, by definition, in the past?
If you make an observation, it's in the past. It's gone. All you have now are your records; that event that you observed is forever in the inaccessable past.
To say that you can't perform science on events in the past is to say that you can't perform science at all. Everything we've made observations of is in the past.

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 50 of 354 (137309)
08-27-2004 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Robert Byers
08-21-2004 4:21 PM


Yet in each case the future and past prediction is only that. It is not testable or falsifiable evidence and so not in the orbit of science.
You may be confusing theory with application. Theory must be testable, replicable, falsifiable. Application of theory to a messy real world can be difficult. We're absolutely certain that all the matter involved in a car crash follows Newton's Laws of Motion, but try using them to predict where each car part will end up after the accident and you won't likely get very far.
Unless of coarse your saying your prediction of future motion movement in space rules out completly a well aimed meteorite or any choas taking place in the near or far future to alter the motions?!
And this happens. We've pointed our spacecraft at planets, moons, comets and asteroids. Most of the time they get there, but sometimes they fail, and sometimes, rarely, they do get hit. The Americans sent a couple probes to Mars and had two active rovers on opposite sides of the planet. The British (I think it was) also sent a probe, and it disappeared while landing. Did it experience a failure? Did a meteor hit it while descending? Did a freak wind gust upset the descent and it crashed? Did bad luck cause it to land on sharp rocks that broke it to bits? I think they still don't know the answer.
This only tells us something we already know very well, that what we don't know can cause our best efforts at prediction to fail, so we attempt to nail down as much as we can. But it by no means rules out being able to project what we know to make predictions about the future. You yourself project into the future all the time. You do this every time you get in your car to drive somewhere. But if one day you get a flat tire it won't mean that planning trips isn't possible.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Robert Byers, posted 08-21-2004 4:21 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Robert Byers, posted 08-27-2004 1:57 PM Percy has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 51 of 354 (137395)
08-27-2004 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
08-27-2004 6:16 AM


We were contending here that predictions are not the same as testing or can be tested. (and so not science). I made (a good point I think if not deadly) that the motions of planets today can not be a test of motions of the past or future. Yes predictions can be made past or future But not tests. And so the example given me to persuade that science can deal with the past but gone events is false. And this is what my opponents tried to say but have since become quiet I notice. What do you think? But watch the line of contention carefully.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 08-27-2004 6:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Loudmouth, posted 08-27-2004 2:07 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 08-27-2004 4:56 PM Robert Byers has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 354 (137397)
08-27-2004 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Robert Byers
08-27-2004 1:57 PM


quote:
made (a good point I think if not deadly) that the motions of planets today can not be a test of motions of the past or future. Yes predictions can be made past or future But not tests.
I will show that this statement is patently false.
Observation: The moon has a measured orbit around the earth.
Prediction: The current orbit is indicative of past and future movement of the moon around the earth. Therefore, solar eclipses should have occurred on certain dates in the past.
Test #1: The predicted solar eclipses are recorded in historical documents.
Test #2: The predicited solar eclipses for the future have, to this point, been accurate.
Falsification: Solar eclipses occur on dates substantially different than those predicted.
QED

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Robert Byers, posted 08-27-2004 1:57 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Robert Byers, posted 08-28-2004 3:21 PM Loudmouth has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 354 (137448)
08-27-2004 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Robert Byers
08-27-2004 1:57 PM


Robert Byers writes:
We were contending here that predictions are not the same as testing or can be tested. (and so not science). I made (a good point I think if not deadly) that the motions of planets today can not be a test of motions of the past or future. Yes predictions can be made past or future But not tests. And so the example given me to persuade that science can deal with the past but gone events is false. And this is what my opponents tried to say but have since become quiet I notice. What do you think? But watch the line of contention carefully.
Assigning your own special meanings to words like "prediction" and "test" will lead to false conclusions. I'm not going to try to untangle the knot you've gotten yourself into, but I suggest you adopt the same terminology as the rest of the world. One tests a theory by checking its predictions, as Loudmouth has just explained. There's nothing to prevent one from predicting what might have happened in the past, or what may happen in the future. One tests these predictions by examining evidence.
This is how one does science. This is how everyone operates most of the time when they're just trying to be logical and rational, including yourself. When you find the baseball sitting on the living rug amidst broken glass, you don't have much trouble deciphering what must have happened. You don't say to yourself, "The motions of baseballs now can not be a test of motions of baseballs of the past or future, and therefore I have no idea how this baseball got here."
The threads I've chosen to participate in recently leave me feeling more bewildered than Alice in Wonderland. In this thread Robert is arguing we can't examine evidence to figure out what happened in the past. In another thread DarkStar is arguing that his quotes of evolutionary scientists saying that evolution is bogus are valid. In yet another thread WillowTree cannot be persuaded to check distances on a map and complains bitterly of unfair treatment that we think his claims should be examined. In yet another thread, Nothingness says there's no such thing as an apeman, but refuses to define the term. It's a Bizarro world lately. I yearn for a normal discussion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Robert Byers, posted 08-27-2004 1:57 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Loudmouth, posted 08-27-2004 5:52 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2004 11:01 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 57 by Robert Byers, posted 08-28-2004 3:29 PM Percy has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 354 (137475)
08-27-2004 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
08-27-2004 4:56 PM


quote:
It's a Bizarro world lately. I yearn for a normal discussion.
Perhaps it would be useful to start a thread focused on how science is practiced and what qualifies as science. I know that it is touched upon in numerous other threads, but I think a thread that is not focused on the EvC debate but does focus on scientific methodology might be very adventageous. Also, it might be advantageous to have a thread on how to construct a logically sound argument. I am trying to figure out a way to start such a thread but it just isn't coming to me. My only thought would be to use the scientific method to investigate a non-controversial subject and contrast this with non-scientific methods of investigation. The only requirement is that no one is allowed to use the words "evolution" or "creationism" anywhere in the thread.
I wouldn't say that it is bizzaro. It is closer to being outright frustrating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 08-27-2004 4:56 PM Percy has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 354 (137604)
08-28-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
08-27-2004 4:56 PM


I yearn for a normal discussion.
Come over to the "Gaming Thread" in the Coffeehouse where we're having a normal discussion about what games we like to play.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 08-27-2004 4:56 PM Percy has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 56 of 354 (137652)
08-28-2004 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Loudmouth
08-27-2004 2:07 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Loudmouth, posted 08-27-2004 2:07 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Mike_King, posted 08-28-2004 5:31 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 61 by Loudmouth, posted 08-30-2004 1:23 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 57 of 354 (137656)
08-28-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
08-27-2004 4:56 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 08-27-2004 4:56 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2004 4:40 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 08-29-2004 10:01 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 62 by jar, posted 08-30-2004 3:12 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 08-31-2004 1:52 PM Robert Byers has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 354 (137667)
08-28-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Robert Byers
08-28-2004 3:29 PM


One can not bring the method to bear on past or future events.
All events are in the past or the future, though. So you're saying that the scientific method can be applied to nothing at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Robert Byers, posted 08-28-2004 3:29 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Robert Byers, posted 09-02-2004 2:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 354 (137701)
08-28-2004 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Robert Byers
08-28-2004 3:21 PM


So what about calculations?
quote:
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
Robert,
I think you must live on another planet, there is plenty of evidence that complex mathematical formulae are used to predict eclipses. Working the maths for past ecliptic events have proved to be accurate tests of the formulae backed up with historical data.
5 years ago I was in France for the eclipse of August 99. Now if the maths had been wrong, I would have been in the wrong place, but I was not. I was right in the middle of the totality zone and had the time of my life..
I think you are trying to stretch the argument far too hard and make yourself into someone who will never be taken seriously!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Robert Byers, posted 08-28-2004 3:21 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Robert Byers, posted 09-02-2004 3:04 PM Mike_King has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 354 (137953)
08-29-2004 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Robert Byers
08-28-2004 3:29 PM


Robert Byers writes:
The scientific method is a package deal. It is used against creationists to say we don't practice science.
I again think you're confusing verifying theory versus applying theory. There are two types of science: theoretical and applied. Those who calculate planetary orbits and eclipses are doing applied science. In other words, they're applying theories that have already been accepted within the scientific community because of the work of theoretical scientists.
I think you're making the same mistake as the Gish argument that says that while Creationism isn't science, neither is evolution. But you've broadened the argument to somehow conclude that when Nasa puts a probe on Mars they're not doing science in one of the most mathematical of all fields, astronomy. So when you say something like this:
One can not bring the method to bear on past or future events.
It is hard to take you seriously. Crash's post makes me wonder whether you're aware that by the time your brain makes sense of what your eyes have seen that the event is already in the past. The present is exceedingly fleeting.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Robert Byers, posted 08-28-2004 3:29 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Robert Byers, posted 09-02-2004 3:12 PM Percy 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