Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Applying Science to Past Events
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 181 of 354 (143572)
09-21-2004 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Mammuthus
09-21-2004 6:03 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Mammuthus, posted 09-21-2004 6:03 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Mammuthus, posted 09-21-2004 9:01 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 182 of 354 (143574)
09-21-2004 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by crashfrog
09-20-2004 10:54 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2004 10:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 183 of 354 (143579)
09-21-2004 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by riVeRraT
09-21-2004 8:36 AM


quote:
You have no idea who I am at all.
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:
You are living in a world where you think you actually know whats going on.
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:
Even the smart scientist will tell you, the more we learn the less we know. Finding more evidence only leads to more questions.
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:
By using my own subjective scientific method, that anyone could follow. Its in a book called the bible.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2004 8:36 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2004 5:35 PM Mammuthus has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 184 of 354 (143605)
09-21-2004 10:32 AM


Topic Drift Warning
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 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 185 of 354 (143609)
09-21-2004 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by riVeRraT
09-21-2004 8:29 AM


Re: Oh yea!
quote:
I am going to make mistakes, just like a scientist would, but I am not limited to what was taught to me. I have freedom to think outside the box.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2004 8:29 AM riVeRraT has not replied

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


Message 186 of 354 (143636)
09-21-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by riVeRraT
09-21-2004 8:29 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2004 8:29 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by jar, posted 09-21-2004 11:51 AM crashfrog has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 187 of 354 (143641)
09-21-2004 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by crashfrog
09-21-2004 11:41 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by crashfrog, posted 09-21-2004 11:41 AM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 188 of 354 (143700)
09-21-2004 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by mark24
09-18-2004 4:53 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by mark24, posted 09-18-2004 4:53 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Loudmouth, posted 09-21-2004 4:36 PM Robert Byers has not replied

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


Message 189 of 354 (143707)
09-21-2004 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Percy
09-18-2004 5:12 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Percy, posted 09-18-2004 5:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Loudmouth, posted 09-21-2004 4:40 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 09-21-2004 9:45 PM Robert Byers has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 354 (143708)
09-21-2004 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Robert Byers
09-21-2004 4:14 PM


quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Robert Byers, posted 09-21-2004 4:14 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 354 (143709)
09-21-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Robert Byers
09-21-2004 4:32 PM


quote:
This has been a good example of where we disagree with you guys on when the scientific method has been applied.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Robert Byers, posted 09-21-2004 4:32 PM Robert Byers has not replied

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


Message 192 of 354 (143710)
09-21-2004 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Loudmouth
09-20-2004 12:54 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Loudmouth, posted 09-20-2004 12:54 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Loudmouth, posted 09-21-2004 5:05 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 280 by Loudmouth, posted 09-27-2004 2:19 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 354 (143715)
09-21-2004 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Robert Byers
09-21-2004 4:44 PM


quote:
My objection has not been addressed and if not then this analagy should be pulled as support for your position.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Robert Byers, posted 09-21-2004 4:44 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Rei, posted 09-21-2004 6:07 PM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 228 by Robert Byers, posted 09-23-2004 4:30 PM Loudmouth has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 194 of 354 (143726)
09-21-2004 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Mammuthus
09-21-2004 9:01 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Mammuthus, posted 09-21-2004 9:01 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 09-21-2004 5:42 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 197 by Loudmouth, posted 09-21-2004 6:12 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 201 by Mammuthus, posted 09-22-2004 4:34 AM riVeRraT has not replied

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


Message 195 of 354 (143727)
09-21-2004 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by riVeRraT
09-21-2004 5:35 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by riVeRraT, posted 09-21-2004 5:35 PM riVeRraT 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