Applying Science to Past Events

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

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

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

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

But, Robert, it is not by any means an unwarranted assumption. As I've already said, all the evidence we have supports this assumption. When I say all the evidence, Robert, I mean *all* the evidence. We have never found the universe to deviate from the physical laws we've discovered. Not here on earth, not out in space, not now, and not ever in the past.Your position amounts to saying, "Well, yes, I know we've never encountered any exceptions, but one never knows, there's always a first time." And we would all grant you that. But the probability of an event that has never happened anywhere anytime is so exceedingly small that the rest of us just aren't going to give it any serious consideration. Okay, Robert?So when we discover that gravity follows the inverse square law today, we assume it will follow it tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that, and so forth until the end of time or until we find out differently, whichever comes first. But no one is going to make provisions for changes that have never, ever, happened. You are still confusing theoretical and applied science. The scientific method is for developing and refining theory. It is not intended for the application of theory. We use the scientific method to develop the inverse square law for gravitation, but we do not apply the scientific method when just using the inverse square law to calculate the trajectories of spacecraft. We just plug the numbers into the equation.You're obviously seeking some way in which scientists have violated their own methodologies in practicing their science, and to that end you've latched onto the scientific method. But what we've discovered is that you had a poor understanding of the method, not only not knowing what it was, but not how it was applied, either. And your misunderstandings continue, if this is any guide: The scientific method is a multistep process involving data gathering, hypothesis, prediction and test, so you are incorrect to state that testability equals the scientific method. Testing predictions is one step of the scientific method. Testability, implying falsifiability, is one of the requirements of scientific theory.--Percy

But, Robert, you ask this question yet again without having as yet demonstrated any understanding of what has been explained to you many times now. All events are in the past, even the ones you just observed. You still haven't answered how you define how much in the past an event must be before you eliminate it from scientific consideration. You still haven't explained how evidence from past events can't be assessed scientifically. All you do is keep asking the same question.--Percy

If your only point is that the scientific method was not applied to forming the assumption that the universe is consistent and rational, then you are wrong. Every scientific observation ever made reinforces this assumption. For example, if today we measure the boiling temperature of water to be 100^oC at one atmospheric pressure, then we believe 100^oC will still be the boiling point tomorrow. Your argument equates to saying that no matter what the boiling point of water is today, we have no idea what it will be tomorrow, or what it was 10,000 years ago. Or that no matter what the boiling point of water is on earth at one atmospheric pressure, that we have no idea what it would be on the moon, or on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri.But all scientific experiments confirm the consistency of physical laws throughout time and space. No exception has ever been found. Thank you for finally at least mentioning this point. I keep bringing it up because you appear to keep repeating the mistake of thinking that the scientific method should be used when merely applying theory.Perhaps you aren't really doing this, but it is often difficult to understand what you're saying because of your inconsistent use of terminology. For example, at one point you say this: The scientific method doesn't say anything about testing evidence. You test predictions by gathering and evaluating evidence. Is that what you're trying to say?And at another point you make this incorrect statement: As I said before, the scientific method is a multistep process involving data gathering, hypothesis, prediction and test, so you are incorrect to state that testability equals the scientific method. The scientific method says nothing about "testability", which is the term you used. The scientific method says that one tests predictions as one of its steps. The term "testability", implying falsifiability, is one of the requirements of scientific theory, not of the scientific method.--Percy

I cannot concur with this. The plain truth is that I don't know what you just said, and so I don't know whether I could agree with it or not. If you want to make a statement in understandable English about what you think we agree about, then I could tell you whether I agree or not. But this is far too vague, and probably wrong, too. "And with all steps the method has not occurred" is akin to saying you didn't read the whole book in each chapter of the book. In other words, I have no idea what you're actually trying to say. First, you're getting repetitive again. I already gave you examples of the scientific method being used to verify the consistency of physical laws through time and space.Second, science is empirical. I takes reality as it finds it. Simplifying the boiling water example a little, if I measure the boiling point at one atmospheric pressure of this water here to be 100^oC, and if I measure the boiling point of that water over there to be 100^oC, and I measure the boiling point of some other water to be 100^oC, and other people measure the boiling point of various water samples to be 100^oC, then science assumes the boiling point of water is 100^oC. Your view that we don't know the boiling point of each new sample of water is just silly because it doesn't correspond to the real world, and besides, even you yourself don't think about it that way.Third, this is yet another example of following the scientific method to establish the consistency of physical laws across time and space. We generalize from our experiments to the entire universe, and as Loudmouth has already said, when we look out into space we find matter and energy following the same laws out there that the follow here. Your position, that the physical laws of the universe have to be reverified in each new area of the universe that our telescopes and probes reach has no evidence supporting its necessity. We've never observed these laws being any different. Ever.You can legitimately ask, and some scientists do ask, "Why is the universe a consistent and rational place? Why these particular laws? Why not some other laws? Why aren't the laws different in different regions of the universe?" We don't know the answer to these questions. But science has established, through the scientific method, that the physical laws of the universe are rational and consistent (although students of quantum theory may beg to differ about the rational part).Science depends upon generalizing from the specific. Measuring the boiling point of water would have no practical use if we couldn't depend upon that knowledge in the future, but had to reestablish the boiling point of water with every experiment (we'd also have to reestablish every thing else about science, too, like that objects fall, fire is hot, ice is cold, etc.). Fortunately, this is unnecessary because the universe turns out to be a rational place. I think if you read what you just wrote carefully, you'll discover it says the opposite of what you meant. Either that, or I just have no idea what you're trying to say.--Percy

But we never do this for any light, so if this were true we couldn't ever determine the source. But since we have no trouble determining light sources (I'm looking at one right now), your statement is false.Let's return to the boiling water example. I said that after I had determined the boiling point of water for various water samples in various locations, and after other scientists had repeated the measurement for their own water samples, that if our findings were consistent we could reasonably conclude we have found the boiling point of water. Your view holds that you don't know the boilinng point of any sample of water until we measure it. After all the measurements establishing the boiling point of water, what evidence or argument can you advance for your position?--Percy

Hi Robert,I'm going to explain this again, but using a different example, one I read somewhere, but I no longer remember the source.One of the reasons science is tentative is because we cannot know everything. Even though all the evidence might point to a certain conclusion, there is always the possibility that some new evidence could come along to call that conclusion into question. Tentativity means that science is never 100% sure of anything.Now let's apply the scientific method to a simple hypothesis. The hypothesis is that all crows are black. We predict that if the hypothesis is true, then we will never find a crow that isn't black. So we go around looking at every crow we can find, and every one is black. We enlist friends around the globe to observe crows and report to us the color, and they all report finding only black crows. After observations of millions of crows, we conclude that the hypothesis is correct, that all crows are black.But that hypothesis must be tentative, for it is always possible that the next crow observed could be white. The hypothesis is tentative because it would never be possible to observe all crows around the world. Science takes the impossibility of examining absolutely 100% of everything into account through the concept of tentativity. We accept our hypothesis that all crows are black until the discovery of white crows calls our hypothesis into question.And the same is true of the boiling point of water. We know that we'll never be able to check the boiling point of all water throughout the universe, and so we form a hypothesis that the boiling point of water is the same everywhere for all time. All the evidence indicates that this is the case, and so we call the hypothesis confirmed. But we know that we'll never be able to check the boiling point of all water throughout all time, so we only consider the hypothesis confirmed tentatively. We are prepared to give up the hypothesis should we ever discover evidence of some different boiling point.This is in stark contrast to your own approach, which if you actually followed it to its logical conclusion would mean that no one could ever know anything, scientifically or otherwise.Is this helpful, Robert?--Percy

As I explained, there is no practical way that one can test the boiling point of all water in the universe, past, present and future. And so science is tentative. It uses the scientific method across a variety of replicated experiments to establish a hypothesis, such as that the boiling temperature of water is 100^oC, and then it holds that hypothesis tentatively until such time as evidence to the contrary presents itself. Where in the steps of the scientific method does it require that 100% of something be tested across all time and space? That particular requirement is yours, and it is not part of the scientific method.According to your odd interpretation, it isn't even possible for the scientific method to establish the boiling point of water, yet cooks boil water every day, and scientists have used the scientific method to divine the structure of both atom and cosmos. If you were correct, then we should never have learned any of these things. The very success of the scientific method says that your interpretation is wrong. You need to seek a perspective consistent with reality.--Percy

Let's use the boiling point of water example again. Teams of scientists around the globe test and verify the hypothesis that the boiling point of water is 100^oC no matter when or where measured using the scientific method. We now tentatively accept that the boiling point of water is 100^oC.Now we can apply that knowledge in our further scientific study of the natural world. We can analyze evidence of past events in light of this knowledge. For example, if we know that the temperature of magma in the mid-oceanic ridge is above the boiling point of water, then we know that steam has been produced at the ridge throughout geologic history (the boiling point of sea-water under pressure is not the same as pure water at one atmospheric pressure, but of course we can use the scientific method to determine that boiling point, too).And we can also use our knowledge of water's boiling point to predict future events. For example, we know that we can heat objects to 100^oC by submerging them in boiling water.And this is the difference between establishing theory and applying theory. The scientific method is for establishing theory. It is not for applying theory. When we were measuring the boiling point of water we were verifying a hypothesis using the scientific method. But one we'vr verified the hypothesis we now use that knowledge for other endeavors. We don't keep using the scientific method to reverify the boiling point of water over and over again, because we've already done that.Science expands our knowledge by building upon prior knowledge. There is no requirement that all prior knowledge be reverified at every step.--Percy

Why do you say this? I just described a hypothetical verification of the hypothesis that the boiling point of water is 100^oC via the scientific method applied by hundreds of scientists conducting tests at different places and times, and it always measured the same, thereby verifying the hypothesis. We now tentatively accept the hypothesis that the boiling point of water is 100^oC, and we can apply and build upon this knowledge in future experiments. Well, of course I stopped using the scientific method to verify the boiling point of water, because my team of scientists has already done that. We're finished with that and we can move on. In any new experiments that I conduct I am allowed to assume that the boiling point of water has already been verified, and that I do not have to verify the boiling point of water anymore. I will of course use the scientific method for any new knowledge I work toward.This is why I keep bringing up the difference between theoretical and applied science. When I'm using the scientific method to determine the boiling point of water I am conducting theoretical science. When I simply apply my knowledge about the boiling point of water I am doing applied science. You might consider cooking to be a form of applied science, since it relies upon the already established fact about the boiling point of water. Cooking does not use the scientific method. It instead applies knowledge gained via the scientific method.--Percy

Thinking any other way would not be scientific. If the evidence *is* overwhelming, why would one say anything else. Even theories with overwhelming evidence are still held tentatively. After all, even though the evidence for evolution is overwhelming today, that doesn't mean that at some point in the future that evidence pointing in other directions might begin to accumulate and eventually outweigh our current evidence.Science can only venture theories for the currently available evidence. But the theories are always held tentatively because one never knows what evidence might be waiting just around the corner.--Percy

If you're talking about issues of normal everyday life, including not only what should we do this weekend but also faith and morality, last time I checked we still had free choice.But if you're talking about what should be taught in science class, then yes, our course is dictated to us, for in that case there is really no other choice but to include accepted scientific theories.--Percy