Applying Science to Past Events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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. AgreedNow test boiling water in 1066A.D.
Rob