Applying Science to Past Events

quote:

---

The error Loudmouth is that both tests were not tests.

---

You will claim anything to deny the truth. This has become very apparent.Let me restate the theory. I am theorizing that the moon follows an orbit determined by the laws of gravity. I am also theorizing that the same laws were in effect in the past and will continue to be in effect in the future. I am arguing that the orbit of the moon is constant and consistent with the laws of gravity. In order to test the theory I must first make predictions of the position of the moon, both in the past and future, as calculated using the laws of gravity. If my theory is wrong then either the laws of gravity are incorrect or non-gravitational force is acting on the moon. To test my theory of the constancy of the moon's orbit I compare the predicted position using the laws of gravity and compare them to recorded solar eclipses in the past. I can also test my theory by predicting future solar eclipses using the same calculations.Therefore, there are three things within this theory: the theory itself (the reasoning), predictions, and data.

quote:

---

The historical documents info are not tests of the hypothesis occuring in the present. You have not tested the past event or tested anything to indicate the past event.

---

The historically recorded eclipses are not a test, they are the data. The test is how the data (past eclipses) compare to the predictions. Since they match up, the theory passes the test.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is why science is tentative, because the data can not be trusted outright. For instance, alien motherships painted like the moon could have occluded the sun to mimic a solar eclipse. However, I would think that a solar eclipse is hard to mistake for any other natural phenomena. Your incredulity is stressing fairness.

quote:

---

The second "test" is not such because the prediction is not proven at this momment but only takes effect when the future event occurs.

---

And those future events have occured since the time that the theory of the constancy of the moon's orbit has been accepted by a vast majority of astronomers. The prediction of future solar eclipses has been done and has passed the test. Do you disagree with this?

quote:

---

Again it is not a test of the future but a observation of the present that is true only when the event takes place.

---

So what happens when future predictions become the present? Is that then a test?

quote:

---

This is a good example of where the error takes place about the scientific method being applied to the past or future can happen.

---

No, your argument is a perfect example of why creationists are not allowed into public school science classes. They wouldn't know what the scientific method was if it hit them on the side of the head.

RobertYou keep wandering off into strange lands, so perhaps it is time to try to pin things down. Let's start with...What is the scientific method?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You have replies. I noticed you referenced the same argument about the scientific method in another thread, but I think you should finish discussing your position here before using it as a foundation for other arguments.--Percy

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

quote:

---

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.

---

So when his predictions were fulfilled then he was given credit. Therefore, predicting future events as a test is science.

quote:

---

Likewise science is a package deal including testing which if abscent is mere hypothesis.

---

And evolution does test things that are present right now. For instance, predictions of DNA similarities RIGHT NOW can be made from the fossil record. If those predictions are fulfilled, such as Halley's comet, then evolution is science.

quote:

---

This is why evolutionary ideas are easily changed from time to time becauise its impossible to test.

---

No, evolutionary ideas are changed because new evidence comes forward that falsifies the older ideas. Hence, the ideas are tested and they fail so a new theory must be constructed and tested in the same way.

quote:

---

and so we say its not science.

---

And do so in ingorance of what science really is.

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

quote:

---

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 the day after the eclipse the observation becomes history. So the hypothesis is only a theory for one day, the actual moment of the eclipse? Is this what you are claiming?

quote:

---

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.

---

And the present is very fleeting. The paragraph above is in the past for me. This sentence was a future statement in my head and after I put a period on the end it is in the past. Gone. Therefore, according to you, I can't even prove that the last sentence was written by me since it is in the past and untestable.The predictions that science makes are not unreachable. Once DNA was discovered as the chemical of heredity, it became obvious that DNA should match up with theorized fossil cladograms. The predictions made about similarities in DNA was made before the DNA was tested. And since those predictions have been made DNA has been tested. Evolution passed the test with flying colors. Therefore, evolution is testable in the present. Evolution is science, even according to your stringent definition of the time frames that science has to be applied to.

You're still confusing theoretical and applied science. The theory of how gravity affects celestial bodies has been established to near certainty. Calculating future orbital positions of celestial bodies is an application of the theory. No one calculating the future position of the moon or of a spacecraft thinks they are testing gravitational theories.The only thing an observation of an eclipse accomplishes is the verification that people have successfully and without error carried out the math. The theory's already been verified, now it's just being applied. As I asked in my previous message, are you unaware 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. (I know this is nearly identical to what I posted earlier, but your reply reads as if you hadn't read it).What this means is that every observation ever made since the beginning of man has been of events that occurred in the past. What you're reading right now was written in the past, yet you will have no trouble taking it as evidence that I posted this reply to you.--Percy

Applied to what? By the time you've applied it, it's in the past.

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

Newton's era and shortly after, late 1600's and early 1700's. In other words, around 300 years ago. Newton's laws are in some cases insufficient if complete accuracy is desired, and in such cases relativistic effects must be included, such as for the precession of Mercury.You didn't really think that people who calculate eclipses and spacecraft paths thought they were verifying the theory of gravitation, did you? When Nasa first started planning to send the recent spacecraft to Mars, did you really think they thought they had to first verify the theory of gravity? They just take equations like F = (G*m₁*m₂)/d² and apply them. They don't verify them. You *have* heard of theoretical and applied science, right? But it is. Your contention is that events of the past are not amenable to scientific study, but they clearly are, and this is done all the time, including by yourself while reading this message. Whether the evidence is from an event you just witnessed, or is someone's notes from long ago of something they witnessed, or is light that left on its journey to us billions of years ago, this is all valid scientific evidence, and it is all from the past.I've provided examples during this discussion that you haven't addressed. For example, I said my message was evidence from the past that I had written you a message. I said a baseball on the floor of your living room amidst broken glass was all that was needed to have a very good idea of how that baseball got there. It would help if we could enter into a dialogue about these examples, or at least about something, because I'm not really getting any insight into your thinking when you only keep reasserting that evidence from the past can't be part of the scientific method.--Percy