Applying Science to Past Events

I don;t follow about why changes of water properties is needed to back up what I said.
Of coarse I'm not saying the distant stars are a illusion but the testing of thier source is not demonstrated by the laws of today. It could be true but not by way of the Method.
Anyway addressing ther posts will clarify what I'm saying. I got behind.
Rob

I'm behind on my post to you so I think I can continue this by answering just this post.I accept that we have tentatively reached the boiling point of water.And we can analyze evidence of past events with this knowledge
And we can make predictions with this for future events. Yes I agreeAnd then the comes the rub.
While predictions have been made about future/past events there has been no test and so the method has stoped being used.
Why am I wrong in my reasoning here?
As in blackboard equation on the front of the evcforum it is important that the numders actually are correct. A close and difficult problem needs a close scruntity.The hypothesis is that the boiling point of water is the same in the past and future as it is now.
But all you show is the testing of it NOW and assume only it was the same in the past/future. This is an intelligent and almost certainly accurate assumption. But (here I go again) the special scientific method was not used to to draw a tentative theory of past/fure boiling point.
You have not carried the two as it were. Its a close and difficult equation I admit.You must show not the present boiling point being tested you must show the past/future boiling point being tested!
Your analagy has not yet done so and of coarse I insist it can't.I've thought carefully about what you say Percy and I don't yet see this anagy being able to win your audience.
(In fact this time you came close to saying the method didn't need to be used to conclude the past/present temp. when it was brought up to make just this point)
Rob

Robert, Because a borne out prediction is a test of the theory.I predict if I boil water the temperature at which this happens will be 100C. This would be a borne out prediction, the theory has been tested.I predict from evolutionary theory that cladograms & stratigraphy should show a degree of correlation that far exceeds that of which we would expect by chance alone. This would be a borne out prediction, the theory has been tested.This is completely within the rationale of the scientific method.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

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

By other means of evidence I mean anything in the world that is gathered about anything. Scientific evidence is not the only evidence or the only method to drawing conclusions from evidence but this is all besides the point.I will correct myself about repeatability. Indeed if witnessing the glass on the floor is a test of a prediction then it would qualify as repeatable.Actually (and no loss to you) I believe it is correct to say (and keep it straight in my own mind) that you are saying The conclusion to a prediction is a test of a hypothesis.I gave a reason for why I believe the analagy fails but I don't think you understood me. No fault of you it is a close thing.
Its taken me a while to reach this conclusion because I've been thrown by the concept of predictions and mere observation qualifys as testing in the great scientific method. Im not sure about this yet but I have accepted it nevertheless. It seems to me theres something wrong at the beginning but anyways ON to why I think the hypothesis here has not been tested.The hypothesis is not that a baseball broke the glass.BUT that a particular baseball (the one on the ground near the broken glass) this one did it.
Therefore the hypothesis is that this ball broke this glass.
NOW you offer a prediction that there will be nicksetc showing where the ball was the culprit.And then test the prediction etc.
CAREFULL NOW as I say this.
Only a prediction of the nicks etc being from this PARTICULAR ball would be a prediction of the hypothesis.
Your prediction was only that the nicks etc are from a baseball.
Your prediction did not include it was from this ball there on the floor. So therefore this prediction of yours is unrelated to the hypothesis.
SOUNDS unbeliavable I know but I believe it is right.I'm making a very close analysis and it needs a close read to understand and before rejection.
Even if I'm wrong (I don't think so) it is certainly beyond grade four math here.
Rob

The big difference is that a person convicted of a crime may admit to it, there-by confirming what science had come up with. Sometimes with great sucess, or maybe with a slight variation that science would have missed.People also get released from prison in light of new evidence.So since science isn't 100% accurate at this point in time, I wouldn't let it dis-prove anything.This doesn't mean that science isn't usefull to us all. It is nice to try and "guess" what happened based on evidence. Sometimes it even leads to some good.Nothing bothers me more than watching a discovery special on TV and they find some bones in a mud pit, and then proceed to tell the whole life story of that animal as if they were there, and 100% certainty. Its only an educated guess at best. Wouldn't you agree that coming up with conclusions like this are subjective and not very scientific sometimes?

At least it is educated.

Scientific theories are also overturned in the light of new evidence.But that doesn't mean we don't know anything about the past, or that we can't come to conclusions about the past. It simply means that we realize our conclusions are tentative. When do they ever say "we're 100 percent certain"? All scientific conclusions are understood to be tentative. If you're getting "100 percent certainty", you're misunderstanding. No scientific conclusion is ever offered as 100 percent certain.

But unlike what scientists always claim, it starts with a theory. Quite the oppisite, don't you think? Sounds like creation science, which scienctist say isn't a science at all.Our first evidence is that we exist. This is usually realized before we realize God or any scientific explanation why we are here, or how we came into being. Then we go from there.I guess you think that you have to be a scientist before you have authority to come up with a theory?

I am glad you think that way, really.
Just don't go on to say "but the evidence is overwelming!"

Well, shit, RR, what do you think those guys do for their expensive degrees? Model lab coats all day?A doctorate in science involves years of training in laboratory procedures, experiment design, scientific writing, rigorous application of the scientific method, and, of course, years and years of catching up to the current state of knowledge in one's field.Developing theory isn't just a matter of making shit up, RR. It isn't a theory until it can be tested, and designing experiments that accurately test theories takes years and years of training.Much in the same way you have to be a surgeon before you have the "authority" to operate on someone's heart, you have to have undergone the rigorous training of a science education to offer worthwhile contributions to the body of scientific knowledge.

But it is, though. The evidence is so overwhelming that we tenatively conclude that evolution is an accurate model of the history of life on Earth. It's as accurate as it could possibly be given the state of our knowledge.

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

I respect all that. But if your a scientist, tell me the truth. How many scientists in your field would you considered good? Are they good because of thier knowledge, or where they born smart?I understand knowledge helps, but it is not the end all to being smart, or even wise.

lol, have a nice day.