Applying Science to Past Events

I have had several people here tell me what the scientific method is and while roughly the same words and ideas do change.
I would say your idea of science is not the one thats been told me or I have read anywhere else.
You left out the most important point in the method. TESTING.
In #4 you did say the predictions would be testable. Pehis is what you meant. I understand simply that the htpothesis to become a theory must include testing.
In holding my opponents to thier difinition of what science is I believe I have drawn blood and so words at this point matter.Your next point. You think I mean the more removed from something the less certain we can be and thus if not 100% certain its not science.
NOT so. Time and space is not my contention. I am saying a method is a method. And the method can not be said to have been employed if it hasn't. I demonstrate the the scientific method is not employed (or can be) to past or future events not occuring today. i agree with your other points in this section.

Google "scientific method", with the quotation marks included. This will list tons of places on the web that describe the scientific method, and they will all tell you pretty much what I told you. Step 4 explicitly calls for testing:

4. Test the hypothesis by checking the predictions.

I can't say it any more clearly than that. If this doesn't sound like testing to you then your problem is English, not the scientific method. I agree that words matter, but before resuming the slaughter of the evolutionists, you might check a dictionary. All you've demonstrated so far is an inability to understand plain English.--Percy

OK excellent. A example. Lets see where I or you have made a important mistake.I would say your example was not applicable.
The error in your example is requiring the reader to accept that "varying distances" equals "varying amounts of time ago" has been settled. Is a fact. Yet the reason behind this is the very point you are trying to convince by the example.
In order for me to persuaded that the scientific method can be applied to past events by your example. I must of already accepted that point as a assumption of your example.I'm not being difficult. It's a good point. Perhaps you could give another example to demostrate your contention.
Rob

You mean you don't accept that the more distant the object, the longer its light takes to reach us? You're serious?--Percy

Just a final thought on this point.
I understand testing
I understand predictions
I don't understand if you are saying testing is only applicable to predictions of the hypothesis. It seems too me that I've been told they are two different matters.
In short the hypothesis before becomeing a theory includes testing and predictions. Not predictions equals testing.
Words matter
Rob

quote:

---

In short the hypothesis before becomeing a theory includes testing and predictions. Not predictions equals testing.

---

You test the predictions to see if your predictions are right or wrong. That is how it works. If you can't make predictions then you can't test the hypothesis.

I don't really think your problem is with the scientific method. I never said anywhere that predictions equals testing, and if you think I did then reading for comprehension is your problem.The evolutionists here will be glad to to explain the workings of the scientific method to you, as well as the philosophy of science, but it takes two to communicate.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 09-10-2004 04:39 PM

For the example you gave it is insisting on a assuption. A assumption that is itself making the point of your example. In accepting the assuption I've already conceded the contention for the example in the place. (I think, Whew)Accepting that the more distant an object is the longer its light takes to reach us is fine.
Where observed only.
Beyond that it is specualtion. However reasonable.
However we have another source,the bible, and so the unwitnessed origin of light is contended. In short it was given a head start.
Anyways though its irrelevant to why your example fails. However there must be better and killer examples to make your point unless of coarse your , with all respect truly, wrong in your contention.
Somebody is wrong here since we are using agreed definitions.
Rob

quote:

---

Accepting that the more distant an object is the longer its light takes to reach us is fine.
Where observed only.
Beyond that it is specualtion. However reasonable.

---

It is speculation, but it is supported by evidence. Again, science is tentative, but no theory is devoid of supporting evidence. For instance, we can calculate the speed of light in a vacuum by measuring the time it takes to bounce radio messages to distant probes like Voyager. If the speed of light remains the same as a probe ventures out into the solar system why would we expect the speed of light to change outside of the boundaries of our solar system? If you think it does, what evidence are you going by? We would have to assume, without evidence, that another force is acting on the speed of light outside of the solar system. I would rather go with the assumption that is supported by the evidence.

quote:

---

However we have another source,the bible, and so the unwitnessed origin of light is contended. In short it was given a head start.

---

So if I wrote a book about an Invisible Pink Unicorn speeding up light in the Andromeda galaxy, would that throw out all scientific findings about the Andromeda galaxy? According to you, it would.

OK then. PREDICTIONS are the only way to test hypothesis. If this is so (and I accept it as presented to me) then the testing of predictionsis to strick and without any other assuption to taint it.
Now it is your move to show how a prediction can be tested about a past or future event that is not now happening. Not testing a present similiar event but that PAST event personally.
Unless of coarse as I suspect indeed insist you can't because it can't be done. And you guys are as good as anyone will find in these contentions.
Rob

Robert, there is an assumption that underlies all of science. It is that the physical laws we know are the same throughout the entire universe and across all time. All the evidence supports this assumption, but we have as yet uncovered no physical laws that require that it be so.--Percy

> Robert, there is an assumption that underlies all of science. It is that the
> physical laws we know are the same throughout the entire universe and
> across all time.Not completely. We can even test for that in many cases.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

You can predict what you're going to find, like fossils and things. The fossils were deposited in the past.I don't know why you included "future" in this - obviously, predictions about the future can be tested. That's the definition of "prediction." I think you may have mistyped that.

Robert Byers wrote

quote:

---

However we have another source,the bible, and so the unwitnessed origin of light is contended. In short it was given a head start.

---

Hi Robert,
Your stance comes completely from a literal interpretation of the Genesis chapter 1 text. I will send you some interesting reading if you agree?

OK I agree. And welcome any personal summery of yours I can sink my teeth into
Rob