|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Applying Science to Past Events | |||||||
Unknown Guest |
Message lost, sorry
|
|||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: I hope you will grace us with one.
quote: Not any more. People don't just go randomly dig.
quote: One which they strangely cannot demonstrate.
quote: Exactly which of the three requisites can we not put an experiment to test the hypothesis: 1) Plant and animal tissue2) Water 3) Pressure ?
quote: How hard is it for you to read about oil prospecting? Do you want me to sum up the process for you? Oil from margins is prospected for as follows: a geological survey is conducted in a region with plate activity. The following are looked for: 1. Old layer subduction. 2. "Resevoir rocks" near them. 3. cap rocks (such as muds and clays) above them. 4. A nearby divergent margin, to induce folding/faulting, and thus oil traps. Why has no creationist company come up and blown all of the other companies out of the water by using a flood-geology basic for prospecting? Some of the most oil-rich parts of the world are very religious, after all, and oil companies - especially new startups - are famed for taking risks on where to drill. Why haven't we seen flood-geology-driven wildcatters striking it rich? BTW, it is up for *you* to show that your hypothesis - that oil can be formed in flood conditions - is real. Why has no creationist organization done it? Could it be the fact that the chemistry doesn't work?
quote: I didn't ask you whether information can be drawn from pottery. I asked you *what* information can be drawn from pottery. *gasp*! Don't tell me you're debating about something without knowing anything about it??? This message has been edited by Rei, 09-29-2004 02:21 PM "Illuminant light, illuminate me." |
|||||||
Unknown Guest |
Message lost, sorry
|
|||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: So which is it, yes or no? The first sentence you agree that the method can look at past events. Then two sentences later you say it can't.
quote: Having incomplete data does not prevent science from making tentative theories in order to interpret the data. The less evidence there is the more tentative the conclusions are. This is why scientists are still being trained today, to try and find more evidence and lower the tentativity of theories or falsify them. Science doesn't rest on it's laurels, it is an agressive forward looking process. The scientific method does not fail in either the question of Origins or in the baseball analogy. However, as you have pointed out, we can trust the baseball analogy much more than Origins studies because of the amount of evidence available at this time.
quote: Correct, it is a method, not a way to claim complete knowledge of every event that ever happened. The method is our most reliable tool when interpreting data, even if it is limited data. Also, if the scientific method is "special" what is "ordinary" analysis and how does it differ from the scietific method?
quote: The baseball analogy still happened in the past. Saying it is almost in the present doesn't make this fact disappear. What differs is the amount of data and the quality of data. The method is the same for both, and is trustworthy in both cases.
quote: The scientific method is a simple, rational, and logical extension of everyday experience. It is no wonder that mothers or anyone employs the scientific method every day. What differs is the exotic assays and expertise that it takes to employ the scientific method in the biological sciences, or in almost any branch of science. Learning the scientific method is easy, learning how to employ it in a complicated system is much harder.
|
|||||||
Unknown Guest |
Message lost, sorry
|
|||||||
Unknown Guest |
Message lost, sorry
|
|||||||
Unknown Guest |
Message lost, sorry
|
|||||||
Unknown Guest |
Message lost, sorry
|
|||||||
Unknown Guest |
Message lost, sorry
|
|||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I sure wish you'd answer my question about your background. I'd like some clues about where your misconceptions come from.
Robert Byers writes: Again I'm told what the scientific method is.First your list is missing the true agenda. #3 doesn't do it. The point is to test the hypothesis which can included mere predictions. However the predictions must test the hypothesis to say the hypothesis has been tested. You critisized the 3rd step of the scientific method, which I restate here:
Then you say:
A few predictions about minor matters of the hypothesis doesn't do it. This is science not guessimating. Where does step 3 say anything about minor matters? Or about guestimating? Do you have any criticisms about anything that step 3 actually says?
I am indeed saying the method is a higher standard of compentancy in drawing conclusions from evidence. I provided the entire scientific method, Robert. Where does it say anything about a "higher standard of competency"?
Your idea would mean housewives and children use the method everyday (oh wait you did say that). And I say they do not have a clue. And you'd be wrong. Housewife says to herself, "When I cook a cup of rice with a cup of water, the rice comes out fine. When I cook two cups of rice with two cups of water, that's too much water, so I use a quarter cup less. [These are the observations] Today I need to cook 4 cups of rice. It seems like every additional cup of rice beyond the first cup requires only 3/4 of a cup of additional water. [This is the hypothesis] So if I'm correct, then 3-1/4 cups water should work fine for my rice. [This is the prediction]" She cooks the four cups of rice with 3-1/4 cups water. The rice comes out dry. Next time she cooks rice she will have to modify her hypothesis and make a new prediction. The scientific method is just simple logical procedure. It says nothing about whether you should employ a yardstick or a micrometer, or whether the issue should only be considered by geniuses, or whether it can be used in the kitchen or not.
This aspect of the scientific method should not be in question and (i think) the others do not repeat what you say. You'd be wrong again. --Percy
|
|||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4368 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Yes this analagy showed the scientific method looking at a past event.
Or did it Now you asked me what is ordinary analysis and how is it separate from scientific analysis/method.You said mothers and everyone employs the scientific method everyday and is a simple rational extension of everyday life. Yet here is the great rub of misunderstanding. Ordinary analysis and mothers for everyday life do not need to use the scientific method. And they don't. They can make excellent conclusions because the data is so COMPLETE. Any past event is for all intents a present event save for actually being on camera.All this is opposite to the whole point of the scientific method being employed in the first place. The method exists to bring a competent assesment of data to draw conclusion where otherwise it is not obvious.The method is about making hypothesis. In everyday life people do not do this including the baseball example. In the baseball thing a mother would not make a hypothesis because the data is so complete. The method exists for a reason and is not a definition of ordinary thinking as you said. The method is a agressive testing of hypothesis to draw conclusion and so this is why it is not used in origin subjects. Because there is nothing to test relative to the great hypothesis made.And so creationists say origin subjects do not emoploy the method. And this is true. However then I went further and said any past event can't have the Method applied to it. This is strictly speaking not so as the baseball analagy seems to show. However in real life the method would not be employed here because the data is so complete no extra method is needed to draw a clear conclusion. Because the method should not be employed here one might say it was wrongly used as an analagy of bringing the method to bear on past and gone events. One might say one could use the method on a past event where as part of the evidence/test was a video of the event. No way. The method exists for where the conclusion is not obvious and needs scrunity even if it can also be used where the conclusion is obvious. I know this is a close equation but thats science. Rob |
|||||||
Unknown Guest |
Message lost, sorry
|
|||||||
Unknown Guest |
Message lost, sorry
|
|||||||
Unknown Guest |
Message lost, sorry
|
|||||||
Unknown Guest |
Message lost, sorry
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024