Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,820 Year: 3,077/9,624 Month: 922/1,588 Week: 105/223 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Applying Science to Past Events
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 91 of 354 (140738)
09-07-2004 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Percy
09-07-2004 5:43 PM


In Percy's defense, five hours in a shopping mall while my wife and daughter "look in there for just a minute" is easily "the best part of a year."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 09-07-2004 5:43 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 09-07-2004 6:01 PM Coragyps has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 92 of 354 (140739)
09-07-2004 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Coragyps
09-07-2004 5:56 PM


Ah, yes, thank you! This was first described by Einstein, explaining relativity as a second seeming like eternity when you accidentally set your hand on a hot stove, and an hour seeming but only a minute in the presence of a beautiful girl.
I evidently had my hand on a hot stove while writing the part about Pluto!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Coragyps, posted 09-07-2004 5:56 PM Coragyps has not replied

Mike_King
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 354 (140758)
09-07-2004 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Robert Byers
09-07-2004 4:32 PM


Rocks!
quote:
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
Rob,
Rocks are forming today all over the world,. Both sedimentary, and igneous. Its a slow process like it always has been..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Robert Byers, posted 09-07-2004 4:32 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Robert Byers, posted 09-08-2004 3:27 PM Mike_King has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 94 of 354 (140911)
09-08-2004 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Robert Byers
09-07-2004 4:18 PM


I'm replying to this out of order, somehow missed it yesterday. Please see my earlier reply, Message 88.
Robert Byers writes:
The tracks of an animal are evidence. But can the scientific method be employed here to dertermine whether it actually was.
Yes, of course. The scientific method is a way of studying the natural world. Animal tracks are part of the natural world. We can, and do, use the scientific method to study animal tracks.
After all the tracks could of been faked to lead the hunters to a ambush.
This once again highlights your misconception that evidence must lead to correct conclusions. There is no such requirement. You hear the phrase "misleading evidence" all the time. You also often hear the phrases "inconclusive evidence" and "contradictory evidence". Evidence can be inconclusive, contradictory and misleading. That doesn't mean it isn't evidence. And it is the scientists task to make sense of all this evidence and come up with a unified perspective that, if validated, becomes a theory.
Discarding evidence simply because it conflicts with other evidence you have, or because it leads you down paths you find unattractive, would be the antithesis of science. And that's basically what you're doing, practicing antiscience. Most scientific evidence leads to conclusions you don't like, so you're inventing excuses for discarding almost all scientific evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Robert Byers, posted 09-07-2004 4:18 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by NosyNed, posted 09-08-2004 9:45 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 101 by Robert Byers, posted 09-08-2004 3:54 PM Percy has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
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

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 354 (140961)
09-08-2004 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by NosyNed
09-08-2004 9:45 AM


Re: What is "science"?
quote:
Has any one asked Robert what the heck this thing he calls science is?
As far as I can tell, Rob thinks that things witnessed by humans or things that have happened in the last 2,000 years are allowed to be investigated by science. Anything prior is "untestable" in his opinion. Strange, but true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by NosyNed, posted 09-08-2004 9:45 AM NosyNed has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 97 of 354 (140993)
09-08-2004 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Loudmouth
09-07-2004 5:08 PM


I think We have advanced in agreement here suddenly.
The fossils are indeed the fact.The fact of this creature. Yes.
Then comes the interpretation. Yes I agree.
THEN you talk about how connections are drawn between fossils.
FINE
Then you say the scientific method is employed on them.
NO it isn't say I.
You would respond that sequence and place is the test.
NO say I. It is only interpretation on interpretation.
The real time existance and connections of these creatures is not being tested by your "test".
This is the problem between our ideas of testability.
I think progress though if finally one of us is to see our error. Me or you.
The last point you made.
Whether the laws of physics in the past are the same today or not DOES not allow a testing of these laws or thier effect on past events.
ANYWAYS always we are not taliking about the laws but thier deeds.
And it is these past deeds that can not be tested now even though preent deeds and so the laws can be.
Even the laws being as they are now is a premise and not proveable however reasonable and insistent.
Again also currant observations of geology now don't accomadate meltwater events for example and so aren't observed.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Loudmouth, posted 09-07-2004 5:08 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Loudmouth, posted 09-08-2004 3:35 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 09-08-2004 4:26 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 98 of 354 (140995)
09-08-2004 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Percy
09-07-2004 5:22 PM


I feel what you said was off thread.
We are taliking, as you know, about the scientific method.
It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of the time lag between light from distant objects.
However reasonable may be the conclusion of measureing it is still not applicable to the scientific METHOD.
Perhaps it is a fact. BUT was it put under the METHOD.
Answer NO. It's impossible to test today the source of light ,as you say, so long ago.
However I'm going to concentrate on your oher post by way of answer.
For the record in creationist thought all this light would of been given a head start and so not a true measure of its existence.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 09-07-2004 5:22 PM Percy has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 99 of 354 (140998)
09-08-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Mike_King
09-07-2004 7:05 PM


Re: Rocks!
Mike This is just not accurate.
While rocks could form today in the same way as in the past it is not the result of slow processes.
And in no way is it witnessed. It is,or used to be, just presumed because they had no other explanation for rock creation. Creationism provides the answer.
I know a few volcanoes are active and make our point.
If as you say Rocks are forming today SLOWELY then how about some evidence proof exhibit A.
If its happening all over the world it should be no problem. Just go to the source of your comment unless you just presume its happening because the theory says it should.
Perhaps thought this is off thread.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Mike_King, posted 09-07-2004 7:05 PM Mike_King has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 354 (141001)
09-08-2004 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Robert Byers
09-08-2004 3:10 PM


quote:
The fossils are indeed the fact.The fact of this creature. Yes.
Then comes the interpretation. Yes I agree.
THEN you talk about how connections are drawn between fossils.
FINE
Then you say the scientific method is employed on them.
NO it isn't say I.
Hey, we are actually making some head way here. Good, the fossil is the fact (ie data). However, the interpretation is that the fossils are connected, and this is what is being tested. I think this is a good place to continue our discussion.
Given that each fossil shares characteristics with another fossil is an observation that the fossils COULD be anscestor/descendant. The shared characteristics are the evidence that led me to the hypothesis. Now, I also need a mechanism that would allow differences to also appear if my hypothesis is correct. Those mechanisms, derived from other data sets, is mutation and natural selection. Good. Now I have an observed mechanism and the fossils. I can now make predictions about the fossils that I can test.
My mechanism that I am testing against the fossils is evolution. The result of that mechanism as it would be seen in the fossil record is "descent with modification". This allows me to put fossils in certain orders independent of where they are found in the fossil record according to my interpretation of "descent with modification". Now, how should I test my interpretation of the relationships between these fossils. I go to another prediction made by the theory of evolution and geology. That is, the daughter species should not be found below the parent species. If the daughter species are consistently found below the parent species that means that evolution through descent with modification did not act upon these fossils. It also means that my interpretation of the connection between these fossils is incorrect. Therefore, the test of stratigraphy (layering) is a test that can either confirm or falsify my hypothesis in this instance.
The point I am trying to make is that if there is no connection between these fossils, why are they found where they are predicted to be if the theory of evolution is false. If my interpretation is wrong, why does it pass this test? Why are the predictions fulfilled? Is there another mechanism that is testable that would lend itself to the same ordering of the fossils in the strata? If so, what experiments do I run?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Robert Byers, posted 09-08-2004 3:10 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 101 of 354 (141008)
09-08-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Percy
09-08-2004 9:38 AM


This is an interesting point we have come too in our discussion.
perhaps I or you are on the verge of correction.
I would say it is impossible to bring the scientific method to bear on animal tracks and it has never been done.
You said I was in error in thinking that "evidence must lead to correct conclusions'
Wrong I understand this and agree with all you said about it.
However I believe you are mistaken in equating evidence and evidence the result of the scientific method.
This is the whole point to the METHOD.
The method is to bring a superior analysis and scrunity Evidence.
Thus it is a METHOD. Not ordinary eveidence gathering/analysing.
Rob

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 103 by Loudmouth, posted 09-08-2004 4:17 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 102 of 354 (141010)
09-08-2004 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by NosyNed
09-08-2004 9:45 AM


Re: What is "science"?
Nosyned. We have been in discussion long time now about "Is it science"
I have accepted what I am told science is and then hold my opponents to the definition.
We have a vigorous debate that mirrors the great debate by millions of people every year. Except we are beyond entry level and so they would be wise to follow the discussion.
If you have anything to add, if correctly understanding the discussion, then please do.
I'm not abusive or insulting in my presentation and do my best to answer with integrity and good will the other side.
If you have something to say to us of a intellectual nature then don't be shy. Unless you secretly feel your out of your league.
Rob Byers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by NosyNed, posted 09-08-2004 9:45 AM NosyNed has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 354 (141013)
09-08-2004 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Robert Byers
09-08-2004 3:54 PM


quote:
This is the whole point to the METHOD.
The method is to bring a superior analysis and scrunity Evidence.
Thus it is a METHOD. Not ordinary eveidence gathering/analysing.
Could you please show us a better method for analysing data than the sceintific method? What is this "ordinary evidence analysis" that you speak of?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Robert Byers, posted 09-08-2004 3:54 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Robert Byers, posted 09-10-2004 3:06 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 104 of 354 (141014)
09-08-2004 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Robert Byers
09-08-2004 3:10 PM


It might be helpful if we referred to an outline of the scientific method. Here's my version:
  1. Make observations and gather data.
  2. Form a hypothesis.
  3. Make some predictions based upon that hypothesis.
  4. Test the hypothesis by checking the predictions.
  5. If necessary, modify the hypothesis and return to step 3.
  6. If the tests pass, then the hypothesis is verified, but still must be replicated by other scientists before it can be considered accepted theory.
No matter what Loudmouth said, this is the scientific method, but what he says seems to follow this pretty well:
Loudmouth in Message 87 writes:
The same for fossils. The fossils themselves are the fact. That they are the remains of a living organism is a fact. The interpretation is their connection with other fossils which is tested by comparing the ordering of the fossils and the shape of the fossils. Therefore, by applying the scientific method to the data (fossils) the interpretation of the fossils can be checked. If there is no connection between the fossils then the interpretations should fail to predict their order in the fossil record. Since the prediction (the interpretation) matches the order of the data (fossils) then evolutionary theories can pass the test through the scientific method.
Moving on:
NO say I. It is only interpretation on interpretation.
Everything that impacts our senses is interpreted, so everything is an interpretation. What you're really saying is that the more removed from events we are, the less certain we can be, and I don't think anyone would argue with this. But you are further concluding that if we're not 100% certain then it isn't science, and that's where you're wrong. Science, by definition, is not certain. All scientific theories are tentative, which means that they are open to change or ever to complete falsification. 100% certainty is definitely not a requirement. Theories represent only our best understanding of the data.
Whether the laws of physics in the past are the same today or not DOES not allow a testing of these laws or thier effect on past events.
Sure it does. The actions of these laws have effects which we can observe and measure, the very first step of the scientific method. We can then continue with the scientific method and form hypotheses about these laws, and then formulate predictions based upon our hypotheses and test those predictions to see if they hold up.
Here's an example. We measure the absorption spectrum of hydrogen in the lab through experiment, observation and data gathering. We hypothesize that the absorption spectrum of hydrogen is the same throughout the universe and throughout all time. We look out into space and measure the absorption spectrum of hydrogen clouds at varying distances from us, which means varying amounts of time ago, and we find the absorption spectrum of hydrogen is always the same as what we found in the lab. Our hypothesis has been verified via the scientific method.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Robert Byers, posted 09-08-2004 3:10 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Robert Byers, posted 09-10-2004 3:29 PM Percy has replied
 Message 108 by Robert Byers, posted 09-10-2004 4:04 PM Percy has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 105 of 354 (141429)
09-10-2004 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Loudmouth
09-08-2004 4:17 PM


I don't understand what your saying.
I AM saying the scientific method is a METHOD to bring a better analysis of facts. Thats my point.
And other ways of drawing conclusions from evidence is what Percy was saying was science also. I was saying the METHOD is such for a reason. To draw more sure conclusions from othere ways. He was saying ALL evidence and conclusions from evidence equals the scientific method.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Loudmouth, posted 09-08-2004 4:17 PM Loudmouth 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