Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Applying Science to Past Events
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 121 of 354 (141594)
09-11-2004 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Loudmouth
09-10-2004 5:48 PM


OK good post to advance the matter.
Yes as you said it is speculation.
AND yes it is supported by evidence. I agree
BUT
The method, the scientific one, is not in play here. Thats the point. The evidence here must be part of a package deal in order to qualify as a method. A conclusion to be reached by a method that includes not eveidence. BUT evidence that has been tested etc etc.
VERY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE.
Your speed of light example is not dealing with a past event in reality. It is a present event. And is so tested with scientific results.
For outside the solar system it is speculation with present action.
However if what is going on out in the solar systen can not be measured/'tested then it is not a conclusion of the scientific method. However reasonable. Of coarse again this is the present and we are about origins of past and gone events.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Loudmouth, posted 09-10-2004 5:48 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Loudmouth, posted 09-14-2004 5:38 PM Robert Byers has replied

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


Message 122 of 354 (141597)
09-11-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Percy
09-10-2004 6:14 PM


An assumption is just that. And its point about all time is not open to the scientific method.
The evidence supporting this is fine as long as it is not confused with the method that uses evidence plus testing that evidence to draw conclusion. And that conclusion can not claim it has used the method unless the evidence has been tested. Its testability not eveidence that equals the scientific method.
Important equation and our debate.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 09-10-2004 6:14 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 09-11-2004 5:22 PM Robert Byers has replied

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


Message 123 of 354 (141599)
09-11-2004 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by crashfrog
09-11-2004 1:47 AM


Actually it wasn't a mistype.
A prediction of a future event can not be tested at the time of the hypothesis. Only when that future event occurs has it been tested and so only then is the scientific method occured. Until then it was hypothesis.
This is important because future but more importantly past event are claimed to be the result otf the method when they have not and can not(long time distant)been witnessed.
And so creationists content the method has not been used or can be in events beyond observation/testing.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2004 1:47 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2004 6:42 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 126 by sidelined, posted 09-11-2004 6:59 PM Robert Byers has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 124 of 354 (141627)
09-11-2004 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Robert Byers
09-11-2004 3:29 PM


An assumption is just that.
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.
And its point about all time is not open to the scientific method.
The evidence supporting this is fine as long as it is not confused with the method that uses evidence plus testing that evidence to draw conclusion. And that conclusion can not claim it has used the method unless the evidence has been tested.
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:
Its testability not eveidence that equals the scientific method.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Robert Byers, posted 09-11-2004 3:29 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Robert Byers, posted 09-13-2004 4:14 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 125 of 354 (141639)
09-11-2004 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Robert Byers
09-11-2004 3:36 PM


A prediction of a future event can not be tested at the time of the hypothesis.
Trivially obvious. So what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Robert Byers, posted 09-11-2004 3:36 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Robert Byers, posted 09-13-2004 3:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 126 of 354 (141641)
09-11-2004 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Robert Byers
09-11-2004 3:36 PM


Robert Byers
Pardon me for asking but is there some specific finding of science that you are aware of that has not met the criteria of the scientific method or are you merely trying to dance around the issue of methods of science investigation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Robert Byers, posted 09-11-2004 3:36 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Robert Byers, posted 09-13-2004 3:38 PM sidelined has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 354 (142052)
09-13-2004 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Robert Byers
09-10-2004 5:56 PM


quote:
Now it is your move to show how a prediction can be tested about a past or future event that is not now happening.
Percy's earlier discussion on the broken window and the baseball is a perfect example. I can make the prediction that most of the glass will be on the same side as the baseball. I can predict that there will be a mark on some surface inside the house consistent with a baseball striking it. Etc. If each of my predictions is consistent with the data I become more and more confident that the baseball caused the window to break. Will I ever know FOR SURE that the baseball broke the window? Nope. Can I lower the tentativity of that possibility? Yes, through the scientific method. Therefore, I can test things that happened in the past by looking at the result of that happening. In the same way, I can test for evolution in the past by looking at what was left over, namely fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Robert Byers, posted 09-10-2004 5:56 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Robert Byers, posted 09-13-2004 4:21 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 137 by Robert Byers, posted 09-14-2004 6:15 PM Loudmouth has replied

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


Message 128 of 354 (142086)
09-13-2004 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by sidelined
09-11-2004 6:59 PM


I don't follow. This is about whether the scientific method has been applied to origin subjects so that they can qualify as subjects of science as opposed to subjects of history.
Do you have a analagy to demostrate science being applied to past and gone events.?
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by sidelined, posted 09-11-2004 6:59 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Percy, posted 09-13-2004 3:43 PM Robert Byers has not replied

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


Message 129 of 354 (142088)
09-13-2004 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by crashfrog
09-11-2004 6:42 PM


Examples to demonstrate the method at work on future events was presented to me. And I was told theory had come when only hypothesis had
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2004 6:42 PM crashfrog has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 130 of 354 (142089)
09-13-2004 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Robert Byers
09-13-2004 3:38 PM


Robert Byers writes:
I don't follow. This is about whether the scientific method has been applied to origin subjects so that they can qualify as subjects of science as opposed to subjects of history.
Do you have a analagy to demostrate science being applied to past and gone events.?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Robert Byers, posted 09-13-2004 3:38 PM Robert Byers has not replied

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


Message 131 of 354 (142092)
09-13-2004 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Percy
09-11-2004 5:22 PM


Warranted or not an assuption is just a assuption. words matter.
Your saying I'm saying this is about exceptions. Exceptions is not my point.
My point is whether the scientific method was applied to draw the conclusion. Your assumption.
You bring up gravity. Good. Yes it is the same past,present,future.
BUT it is an assumption that it is as it is now. And future likewise.
Very reasonable and legitamate to assume it. BUT
the conclusion of its past and future reality is not a product of the scientific method. Assumptions to be relied on are excellent without the method. Indeed the truths of Christianity do so this way.
Yet these assuptions of gravity are still not from the method. They can't be. They can't be tested.
The rest of your answer is a repeat of past matters.
i don't know why you keep bringing up applied and theoritical. I have just addressed the definition of the method and if its in play.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 09-11-2004 5:22 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 09-13-2004 5:18 PM Robert Byers has replied

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


Message 132 of 354 (142093)
09-13-2004 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Loudmouth
09-13-2004 12:54 PM


I need to think about this at home. back to you later.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Loudmouth, posted 09-13-2004 12:54 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 133 of 354 (142119)
09-13-2004 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Robert Byers
09-13-2004 4:14 PM


Robert Byers writes:
Warranted or not an assuption is just a assuption. words matter.
Your saying I'm saying this is about exceptions. Exceptions is not my point.
My point is whether the scientific method was applied to draw the conclusion. Your assumption.
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 100oC at one atmospheric pressure, then we believe 100oC 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.
The rest of your answer is a repeat of past matters.
i don't know why you keep bringing up applied and theoritical. I have just addressed the definition of the method and if its in play.
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 evidence supporting this is fine as long as it is not confused with the method that uses evidence plus testing that evidence to draw conclusion. And that conclusion can not claim it has used the method unless the evidence has been tested.
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:
Its testability not eveidence that equals the scientific method.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Robert Byers, posted 09-13-2004 4:14 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Robert Byers, posted 09-14-2004 5:29 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 134 of 354 (142401)
09-14-2004 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Percy
09-13-2004 5:18 PM


Where to start. Al least we agree words matter.
Your last point I agree with. In fact it is I who have had to insist it is a multi-step process. Or I've have used the word package deal. And with all steps the method has not occured. WE AGREE.
Now you bring up a excellent example of where we disagree.
You say the boiling point of water of today leads to a conclusion of what it will be tommorrow or in the past. You complain my view means we have no idea what the boilibg piont will be tommorow or in the past.
Bingo. We meet the rub.
I say the boiling point of today does insist on tommorow and in the past all things being equal. All these evidences and conclusions in life are legitamate and accurate for mankind.
BUT and this is the RUB
It is wrong to say the boiling point of water tommorrow or in the past has gone thru the process, the multi-step process, a method, the method called the scientific method.
Why do you think it has.? Why do you tell me about how unreasonable it is to not conclude the boiling temp today won't be the same tommorow.
This has nothing to do with the scientific method.
Howeever reasonable.
A method is a method.
Where could I possibily be wrong in my reasoning on YOUR analagy.
Something has got to give here with reasonable people.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 09-13-2004 5:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Loudmouth, posted 09-14-2004 5:42 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 09-16-2004 8:42 AM Robert Byers has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 354 (142403)
09-14-2004 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Robert Byers
09-11-2004 3:24 PM


quote:
The method, the scientific one, is not in play here. Thats the point. The evidence here must be part of a package deal in order to qualify as a method. A conclusion to be reached by a method that includes not eveidence. BUT evidence that has been tested etc etc.
And the evidence used can be tested. Using the speed of light example, the light from a distant star can be tested to see if it is consistent with light from our sun. We see the same characteristics from distant suns that we see in our own sun, including the frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum. Therefore, the evidence of distant light from distant suns can be checked to make sure it is consistent with other sources of starlight.
quote:
Your speed of light example is not dealing with a past event in reality. It is a present event. And is so tested with scientific results.
For outside the solar system it is speculation with present action.
The speed of light is dealing with electromagnetic waves created in the past and observed in the present. As an analogy, fossils are the current observation of past living species.
Secondly, there is nothing stopping us from extending the speed of light outside of our solar system. All of the fundamental laws, including the speed of light, have been observed to be constant outside of our solar system. To assume otherwise is to do so without evidence, testable or otherwise. If physical constants were different outside of the solar system then it would be detectable by observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Robert Byers, posted 09-11-2004 3:24 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Robert Byers, posted 09-16-2004 4:26 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