|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Applying Science to Past Events | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
You have no idea who I am at all. I am really trying hard to contain myself right now. With all that intelligence you have, you can't even figure me out. Its no wonder I came up with the term jerk scientist.
You are living in a world where you think you actually know whats going on. Even the smart scientist will tell you, the more we learn the less we know. Finding more evidence only leads to more questions. And WTF is a good old day? How stupid is that? You know I was a atheist evolutionist for 31 years? Despite all that I found God. By using my own subjective scientific method, that anyone could follow. Its in a book called the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
How is it that what I said, was just made up off the top of my head?
Did you even read what I wrote? Are you so hell bent on making anyone who believes in God look bad, that you can ignore all the facts? I made observations, and applied them to my theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6504 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:That is not particularly relevant to the ongoing discussion. The issue is what you have stated and implied which is that and methodological naturalism (science, and conjecture are equivalent and that is patently false. quote: Nope. However, the system of investigation in which I am trained in has been far more successful in achieving an undertanding of the biological world than any other even if it is largely incomplete.
quote: However, the dumbest scientist would not ignore, wish away, studiously avoid reading etc. the knowledge that ALREADY exists. Science is a cumulative effort and ignoring current data (even if it is wrong sometimes) is hardly admirable.
quote: As you yourself admit it is a "subjective" method leading to a wished for conclusion colored by your own bias and belief which can niether be tested nor verified independently. That is not meant to be derogatory but that is why religion is sustained by faith and science by fact based on observation. Any experiment or study I do can be performed independently by others regardless of their religious beliefs or background. That is not true in your case as your belief is personal. I am not really sure why you bring up the bible as it is irrelvant to the topic but I have read it...I liked the Iliad better...Lord of the Rings even more This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 09-21-2004 08:02 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Some suggestions...
To RiverRat: There are a number of scientists here. Scientists are human, too. Referring to them as "jerk scientists" is unlikely to bring kindly and understanding responses. To everyone else: I think RiverRat gets enough of the point about science. No one flips perspectives in just a few days, so continued pushing is unlikely to be productive. The thread's topic is whether the historical sciences like evolution, geology and cosmology are valid. The primary assertion is that it isn't possible to apply scientific analysis to past events. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The problem is, you don't even know what's in the box, so how can you possibly think outside it? Education and knowledge and expertise is what frees thought. Ignorance limits thought. I find this to be true in my work all the time. My field of expertise is in food, particularly olive oil. I am responsible for selling, or training people to sell, $200,000 per year of fine, hand made olive oil out of only two 8' tall shelving units in my little walk-in closet sized section of the shop, which has about 800 square feet of retail space total. I know all about how olive oil is made, the differences in texture and flavor between the styles, the blends, the single varietals, the regional and seasonal differences, the chemical differences, etc. etc. Most people who walk in to my section have little to no idea about most of what I know, so if I were to ask them, "What flavor qualities are you looking for in an olive oil", I would often get a blank look or an "I didn't know there was such a difference" comment in response. My point of telling you this story is to illustrate that if you don't have a certain level of expertise and knowledge in a subject, you can't "think outside the box". You are just ignorant of the subject. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-21-2004 09:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What I have a problem with is that you guys seem to think that coming up with a good theory, or a good invention, or a revelation is left to only the "elite" who have education. For the areas in which we're discussing - biology, geology, paleontology, physics - it is, though. Making substantiatial contributions to those areas requires years of education, because of the vast, vast amount of groundwork already laid in those theories. Newton's famous quote is "if I have seen father than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." That was 400 years ago, and we've stacked up a hell of a lot of giants since then. If you want to do the seeing, you've got a lot of climbing to do. You're simply not going to be able to see as far from your vantage on the ground.
But unfortunatly the way I got treated leads me to believe that you guys are just not interested in the great flood making any sense whatsoever, and only look to dis-prove it. Your idea was ridiculous on the surface. That's what we've been trying to tell you. The reason that you've never seen your idea before is because it's so patently wrong that any discriminating intellect would have rejected it immediately.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The reason that you've never seen your idea before is because it's so patently wrong that any discriminating intellect would have rejected it immediately. Again, the term discrimination. RR, I hope you note this. Discrimination is a valuable tool in learning how to think. To sort through the mountain of data that is available today, you absolutely need to discriminate. It is one of the essential tools in critical thinking. Thank you Kermee. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Borne predictions being a test of hypothesis aside.
I accept and said so that that boiling water so tested as you said is indeed a test of hypothesis. Agreed Now test boiling water in 1066A.D.Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
I was addressing your analagy. And trying to show where it comes short.
All that you have shown is the verification of the hypothesis today about the temp to boil. YET when I ask you to show how the scientific method is able to determine the boiling point in the past/present you just show the testing of today or yesterday (by a test yesterday). Then you say WE will ASSUME conditions were the same in the past/present. Perhaps so and probably so. However an assumption is only just that. It is not the product of the Method. Otherwise it would not be an assumption. For example if you said we know the future boiling point of water say in 2222A.D and yet a time machine shows it is 96 degrees (if at all possible) then your theory of temp to boil would be shown to have beed poorly founded. This has been a good example of where we disagree with you guys on when the scientific method has been applied.It really should be forcing one side to re-examine its stance. There shouldn't be such a disagreement at this point in our discussion. Someone is just plain wrong and I've been over it in my mind and can't see where I'm wrong. Your analagy(s) always support my side. Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The boiling point of a liquid is a physical constant. Therefore, testing boiling water today is a test of the boiling temp in 1066 AD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, this is where we part company. We can test the reliance of physical constants on the atomic structure of molecules. The boiling point is one of those constants and it depends on the properties of atoms. We have tested for differing atomic characteristics in galaxies far far away, and yet none have shown a departure from those physical constants. Therefore, we have tested the boiling point of water in the past, as it relies on the physical characteristics of atoms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
I read carefully what you said Loudmouth and with all respect you didn't address why I said this analagy fails as an example of the scientific method being applied to a past event. Our great contention.
Usually you do directly answer everyone so thats why I point it out. I understand what you said and don't disagre.Yet it still remains that the hypothesis was not tested here. The culprit ball did not have a test/observation of a prediction of its involvement. As I said this is a close equation but we are beyond entry level and I'm holding up my end.My objection has not been addressed and if not then this analagy should be pulled as support for your position. and we struggled over this for a while. Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Water on earth can not be directly observed boiling at 100 celsius at 1 atmosphere in the year 1066 AD. This is understood and agreed upon. However, whether or not water boiled at this temperature can be tested. Therefore, we can state, tentatively through the scientific method, that water boiled at 100 degrees celcius in the year 1066 AD. This fulfills your requirements in that we can scientifically test whether or not water boiled at 100 degress celcius in the past even in the absence of direct eye witness accounts. Do you understand how that testing occurs? If not, I can go over it again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
close parenthesis.
I need a undertanding of the biological world too.
However, the dumbest scientist would not ignore, wish away, studiously avoid reading etc. the knowledge that ALREADY exists. Science is a cumulative effort and ignoring current data (even if it is wrong sometimes) is hardly admirable.
This is why I do not ignore the data. I just do not take it as an end all. There is just too much to know. 1000 years from now, we can look back and laugh at some of the things you currently believe in. Maybe even the bible too, but I doubt it. Thats if we are still here
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There is just too much to know. That's not an excuse to ignore it, though. You wouldn't trust a surgeon that said "the heart's too complicated to learn about; I'll just think outside the box instead", would you?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024