Applying Science to Past Events

quote:

---

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.

---

The boiling point of a liquid is tied to it's atomic or molecular structure. For the boiling point to change at one atmosphere the very atomic makeup of atoms would have to change. Since such a drastic change to the very makeup of matter would be detectable by looking at older objects and at distant objects in the sky, the scientific method is able to verify that the boiling point is constant with the evidence at hand.

I'm ready for this.
I found at first this adifficult question and in fact this is the first time on evcforum where I was intellectually and logically frustrated and I didn't know why.
Then I got it and here goes.I was wrong to agree to Percy's idea in post 115 that only predictions are tested in the scientific method. In fact this came up once before.The scientific method is by definition and acceptance by acedemia and the public a more severe,strict, muscular examination of evidence.
Not just eveidence gathering as we have ,I think, all agreed.It is hypothesis with repeatable testing including predictions and falsibility tc. It is multi-step.
It is not just muscular predicting. And then observation.It must have repeatable testing separated from the "testing" of predictions. And the predictions also must be tested not just observations in the guise of testing.So with the analagy of the ball and broken glass.Yes there was a hypothesis and then predictions were made.
But at no time were there tests done of a repeatable fashion of the actual event taking place. Indeed even more importantly at no time were the predictions tested. All that happened was observations of already existing data. And observation of sush in no way qualifies with the word test. No test no application of the scientific method.And indeed in real life the people dealing with the broken window would not of been though to have used the Method.The great answer we creationists use in all this is that past (or future) events not being testable renders them beyond the Method.
This is our great point. And testability of the method is its great point in separating it from other methods of evidence/conclusion.The mere observation of data does not test the hypothesis. It only tests (and it doesn't do that even) the prediction part of the hypothesis. And the pupose of the hypothesis was not to make a prediction. The prediction is only ONE way to verify the hypothesis. But it is a minor one. On its own its useless.
In the analagy we are not testing whether a ball going through a window will do such and such but we are testing whether this particular ball did. And no test took place and the prediction made was only circumstancel (even if true).
RobIn

quote:

---

The scientific method is by definition and acceptance by acedemia and the public a more severe,strict, muscular examination of evidence.

---

More severe, strict, etc than what? It might help if maybe you begin by referencing poor scientific method.

quote:

---

It is hypothesis with repeatable testing including predictions and falsibility tc. It is multi-step.
It is not just muscular predicting. And then observation.

​

It must have repeatable testing separated from the "testing" of predictions. And the predictions also must be tested not just observations in the guise of testing.

---

And my scenario was repeatable. Every person who investigated where the glass landed would agree that most of the glass landed in the room. This is at the heart of repeatability, in that the evidence is judged the same by everyone through emperical observation and not subject to personal judgement or revelation. This is why religious revelation is not allowed as evidence since every person does not have access to the same data.I could even go a step further. I predicted that a mark would be left inside the house that would be consistent with a baseball hitting that surface. I could repeatably hurl a baseball at the surface and from that I could conclude that the baseball will reliably and repeatably make the same mark as what is observed after the actual event. The observations that I used to test my hypothesis are repeatable and therefore scientific. However, my tests do not confer absolute proof, they only lessen the tentativity of the hypothesis.

quote:

---

The great answer we creationists use in all this is that past (or future) events not being testable renders them beyond the Method.
This is our great point.

---

This is a fight that creationists will lose because the past is testable through the scientific method. It is funny that creationists claim this out one side of their mouth and then claim scientific status with ID theory and Hydroplate theory. If creationists truly think this, then why do they put forth theories on past events in order to bring them closer to what they think the Bible claims? Why do creationists demand evidence of past occurences when in fact they won't believe any evidence brought forth? If creationists think so little about science, then why do they use carbon dating to date the Dead Sea Scrolls and other artifacts? If creationists don't trust science to peer into the past then why do they use it to try and verify the Bible? This is quite a conundrum.

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

Ok a good analagy to examine.
You say all the fundamental laws have been observed to be constant outside our solar system.
The operative word here is OBSERVED.
Fine now that is science, I agree.
Then you say to assume otherwise is without evidence. I insist to assume anything is by definition without evidence.
You have not shown (despite being your motive) how this analagy demonstrates long ago, far away source of light has come under the scientic method.
Assumptions are just that. However true they are not a product of methology.In order for the source of light to be determined by the scientific method one would have to observe its creation and then keep a stopwatch while watching it on its journey.
Rob

This is a long reach.
The looking at older objects and distant objects in way has been demostrated to be testing the past or furture boiling point of water.
This is just another way of trying to say fossils can be used as a test of the past.
In order for this verification of past or future boiling points you are requirering the reader to accept an assumption that these older and distant objects are what they are even though they themselves are just an interpretation.
Rob

quote:

---

This is a long reach.
The looking at older objects and distant objects in way has been demostrated to be testing the past or furture boiling point of water.

---

Could you then tell me how the chemical and physical properties of water could be changed between here and distant stars but every other atom or molecule is unaffected?

quote:

---

In order for this verification of past or future boiling points you are requirering the reader to accept an assumption that these older and distant objects are what they are even though they themselves are just an interpretation.

---

Are you then saying that distant objects in the sky are an illusion? If they are real, then why can't we test them like we do our own sun?

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

First point. I mean other means of evedence gathering and conclusions. i don't mean poor scientific method.Now you say everyone looking at the glass is the repeatability of a test. It isn't. The people are just witsessing glass on the floor. They are not seeing the event to why its there.The observations of the mark I would say is not a test of the prediction that THIS particular ball did it but only a observation that some baseball did not mark.In fact yet again I had to rethink this matter over the last few days.
I'm still strugglinmg with this analagy to your credit.You are saying THE conclusion (after observation) to a prediction is a test of a hypothesis.This has changed to me the whole idea of testing in the scientific method and I will go over what others have said about this.In the meanwhile I would say the analagy fails because you are predicting nicks and glass from this PARTICULAR ball action. And yet only successully observing nicks and glass. And so no test of the hypothesis has taken place since the hypothesis is that this baseball on the floor did the dirty deed.
Still thinking about it anyways.
Rob

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

Lets examine your simplified example of the boiling water.You say many people in different places come to the same conclusion of the temp for boiling water and that it is silly to say new samples are unkowable.
I agree with you.
However what is being tested here is not the temp of each sample but a law. A law of the present. And the law is established.
However that this law existed in the past or in the future has not been established by the testing of the present.
It is a assumption that the present is the past/future. And this assumption is not the product of the scientific method. you have not shown your readers why it is.
It is reasonable and legitamate to say all sorts of eveidence lead to the conclusion that the temp of boiling today is the same as yesterday and tommorow. BUT it is not under the rules of the scientific method. Not my rules but this method's rules.This analagy is easily dealt with. Others are more difficult.
The method is, Percy, the point here and you are bound by its rules of scruntity about otherwise reasonable conclusions in nature.
Rob

quote:

---

First point. I mean other means of evedence gathering and conclusions. i don't mean poor scientific method.

---

What are these "other means of evidence gathering"?

quote:

---

Now you say everyone looking at the glass is the repeatability of a test. It isn't. The people are just witsessing glass on the floor. They are not seeing the event to why its there.

---

No one saw the event, that is what we are forming the hypotheses to explain.Also, the fact that other people OBSERVE the same thing I do (ie the glass is inside, the baseball mark on the wall) means that my observations are repeatable and reliable. Therefore, the observations adhere to the scientific method which requires repeatability.

quote:

---

You are saying THE conclusion (after observation) to a prediction is a test of a hypothesis.

---

If I am reading you right, the answer is no.Remember the steps?Observation----> Hypothesis----> Predictions-----> Test----> ConclusionThe test is to see if the data (ie the mark on the wall and the placement of the glass) fits the predictions. The predictions are a result of the hypothesis. The conclusion is that the hypothesis is accurate with the data collected so far, that is the hypothesis passed the tests.

quote:

---

In the meanwhile I would say the analagy fails because you are predicting nicks and glass from this PARTICULAR ball action. And yet only successully observing nicks and glass.

---

Absolutely correct. That is why hypotheses, even if they pass numerous tests, are held tentatively. Future tests could show my hypothesis to be incorrect, but the data up to this point, using the scientific method, supports my hypothesis. To show that the hypothesis is wrong you would have to run tests to differentiate between a ball causing the broken glass versus another object. For instance, we could reconstruct the pane of glass somewhat like reconstructing a jigsaw puzzle. If the baseball caused the window to break then there should be a roundish area made up of small pieces where the ball struck the pain of glass. What happens if we find an oblong section that resembles a crowbar? Well, my hypothesis is in serious doubt. A robber could have smashed the window in and the ball on the floor could be a coincidence. Again, it is only through making predictions and testing those predictions can we come to any sort of conclusion.Let me ask you this question. What if I claimed that the Bible is just a bunch of words? What if I claimed that anyone getting information out of the Bible was just an untestable interpretation? I would be wrong, wouldn't I? The scientific method is used to INTERPRET DATA. Without interpretation all we have is a bunch of data that doesn't mean anything. The human mind interprets data constantly every second of every day.The scientific method was formed to RELIABLY interpret data. That is, to remove subjectivity by relying on predictions that can be tested with objective data. Think of it as the difference between the high jump and gymnastics. In the high jump you can't complain to a judge if you missed your height because your distance is objective, it is the same for everyone. However, in gymnastics there is an almost total reliance on subjective scoring. In gymnastics, you can complain to a judge because you didn't recieve the score you think you deserved. However, creationists try to obscure this difference when they use subjective criteria (eg, "it just looks designed", "it just makes sense to me") and pretend like they are using the same evidence as scientists. Also, you are pretending like you can do away with the scientific method for past events not because it is faulty but because it says things you don't like. If science was ableto confirm a global flood, would you still claim that the scientific method was faulty? I would guess not.

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

Percy a problem here with posting. I always respond to posts in order but I realize now that person might respond back before I've gotton on to the next post. And the a charge of repeating myself or other confusion.
I plan to respond to your posts in order but it requires some repeat.
I have no other answer and I like these analagys.Yes one can determine the source of light in time and space if it is actually observed as in your personal light example. It is observed. Therefore to determine the source of light is not the point rather its dertermining when the source started by using the scientific method.
I'm being misunderstood. I agree that all these measurements have sucessfully concluded the boiling point of water as you presented it. This is science indeed and all must agree.
Yet the rub is when using this fact or law you say this will be the boiling point of water in the past or future.
Again I agree this is so and much evidence demands this conclusion.
But the rub is when you say that past or future fact was demonstrated by the Method.
No it wasn't.

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