Applying Science to Past Events

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

Atmosphere is a standard unit of pressure. Type "1 atmosphere in psi" into Google (without the quotes).--Percy

This isn't getting anywhere, so let's try a different approach.If science is using invalid methodologies, how do you explain all the successes of science?--Percy

Here's what you said: You're saying you don't limit yourself to just the data. You don't say what there might be in addition to data, but I assume they're the Bible and spiritual insights. If I've got this right, then Loudmouth's response would appear to be apropos. As far as science goes, data *is all there is. Knowledge gained through means other than our five senses cannot be scientific.--Percy

I think everyone on both sides is frustrated by this, but for different reasons. Those within science know that new scientific results from just the past year are unlikely to be reliable, but they're frustrated at the way the news media portrays them as if they were the final word. And those outside the sciences are frustrated because they feel whipsawed as studies with opposite conclusions come fast on the heels of one another. Eat eggs, don't eat eggs, eat eggs, don't eat eggs, eat the whites but not the yolks, oh wait a minute, there's a condition on that - MAKE UP YOUR MINDS ALREADY.It's no big deal if you personally find the evidence for some parts of science insufficient. That's your privilege. But it's still science. And to attempt to bring this thread back on topic, there is no evidence that the natural physical laws vary over time or space, and so disregarding scientific findings on that basis is definitely not science.--Percy

But they're not. What you call "origin subjects" have many successes, too.Take the oil industry, for example. They study geological evidence from the past by to make predictions about where to find oil. If their science were unsound we would quickly abandon it after drilling too many dry holes. But we keep finding oil, Robert. How do you explain the success of oil industry geologists if evidence from the past is invalid?Or take archeology. All our archeological evidence comes from the past. The location of the ancient city of Ur was found through satellite photographs that revealed ancient travel routes. If evidence from the past is actually invalid, then how did this ancient evidence lead us to the city?Until you actually start addressing the points people have raised instead of just repeating your premise that evidence from the past is invalid because it somehow violates the scientific method, you don't really need to be carrying on the discussion yourself. A parrot would suffice.--Percy

The key word is tentatively. Physical laws have never been observed to vary across time and space, so we tentatively accept the theory that physical laws are invariant across all time and space. Last time I checked, 1066 AD existed within all time and space. Therefore if water boils at 100^oC at one atmosphere pressure today, then we tentatively accept that it boiled at 100^oC at one atmosphere pressure in 1066 AD.--Percy

Actually, you've got this wrong. The engineers designed the catwalks properly. It was the construction people who made the substitution without referring back to the architects to see if reanalysis was necessary.But you're absolutely correct to say that engineers and scientists can miss things. That's because they're human. As are you. Now you're adding jerk refrigerator repairmen to the list? Are you sure it isn't just that you resent anyone who's had some sort of training?--Percy

It must be so hard for you to soar like an eagle when you have to work with all those turkeys. I think perhaps you've got an attitude problem and a chip on your shoulder. Translation: I find it easier to think better of myself if I can denigrate others. If your performance on the test problems from Crash and Lam is any indicator, I wouldn't recommend this. And most jerk scientists have had 10 more years of practice at test taking than you.There's an online supposed IQ test if you want to give it a try at Tickle's IQ Test. Maybe people here know of some better ones.--Percy

You are incorrect, and let me give you my favorite example of geological history's importance to oil exploration. I first learned of this in a book by John McPhee, but the information is available on the Internet. This is from the Conodonts webpage at the Natural Resources of Canada website, but you can find the same information at many websites: You see, oil forms only under certain very specific conditions of temperature and pressure, and conodont fossils are a key indicator of whether the necessary temperature was present in the past. So when an archeologist unearths ancient pottery, this is evidence from the present? But when a paleontolgist unearths a Coelacanth fossil, this is evidence from the past? Given the contradiction inherent in your position, perhaps you want to think about this some more?--Percy

I sure wish you'd answer my question about your background. I'd like some clues about where your misconceptions come from. You critisized the 3rd step of the scientific method, which I restate here:

3. Make some predictions based upon that hypothesis.

Then you say: 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 provided the entire scientific method, Robert. Where does it say anything about a "higher standard of competency"? 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. You'd be wrong again.--Percy

Does what you said make sense, even to you?The difference between hypothesis and theory is only one of degree. They are basically the same thing, a general rule derived from observation and experimental data. Probably the biggest difference is the degree of support and acceptance. One refers to hypotheses that have a lot of support and acceptance as theories. Hypotheses that haven't yet been tested, or that have been tested but not replicated by other scientists, or that perhaps are controversial, remain referred to as hypothesis. And it's not even as simple as that, because terminology preferences follow no precise rules. But other than the degree of support and acceptance, there is no difference between hypothesis and theory. You remain confused, and making things more complicated is that I can't tell what in the above quote is something you understand but have expressed poorly in English, or if it instead reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. So I'm going to address everything you said above, even though parts of it may be correct.Examining you phrase, "your hypothesis failed but it still qualifys as the Method." First, an hypothesis and the Scientific Method are two different things. An hypothesis cannot "qualify as the Method." An hypothesis is not a method. It is an hypothesis.Second, there is no requirement that the hypothesis succeed. You can follow the method and still end up with a failed hypothesis. This possibility is part of the method. Let's look at the method again:

1. Make observations and gather data.
2. Form a hypothesis.
3. Make some predictions based upon that hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis by checking the predictions.
5. If necessary, modify the hypothesis and return to step 3.
6. If the tests pass, then the hypothesis is verified, but still must be replicated by other scientists before it can be considered accepted theory.

Notice steps 4 and 5: test the hypothesis and check the predictions. If the predictions were wrong, then you return to step 3, form a hypothesis.And that's what I've been doing with regard to traffic on Route 3. I observe that there are often traffic jams on Route 3 (step 1) So I form the hypothesis that if it rains, there will be a traffic jam on Route 3 during rush hour (step 2). I predict that if the hypothesis is true, then when it rains, Route 3 should be jammed 9 or 10 times out of 10 (step 3). I test this prediction by recording the level of traffic on Route 3 the next ten times it rains (step 4). I find that Route 3 traffic is jammed when it rains during rush hour only 5 times out of 10. The hypothesis does not better than flipping a coin, and the prediction fails (step 5). So now I return to step 3. I've been following the method perfectly.Now lets examine where you say, "Yet if the hypothesis failed then the method failed to bring theory so any theory you have isn't based on the Method."Just because I never got to the last step doesn't mean I didn't follow the method. I may never work out a satisfactory hypothesis, there may just be too many variables. But I still followed the method.Think about what you're saying. If I play a game of chess and lose, does that mean I didn't follow the rules? Of course not. Well, it's the same thing for the scientific method. If I use the scientific method to try to develop a hypothesis, but never arrive at a satisifacory hypothesis, does that mean I didn't follow the method? No, of course not. Robert, repeat after me: "I am the only one who is confused." This reads like you're contradicting yourself, so I have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you saying that you now accept that the scientific method can be used on past events?Added by edit: You have a reply over at Message 189.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 10-03-2004 11:42 AM