|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC approaches to empirical investigation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1398 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
The question is, is it possible for YECs to do science at all?
At http://EvC Forum: Attention Faith: Geological data and the Flood -->EvC Forum: Attention Faith: Geological data and the Flood ,
paisano writes: It's your thread, but IMO, this debate is impossible. Faith begins with a particular unfalsifiable ideology about scriptural interpretations, and all conclusions and inferences are subject to that ideology. She has made her position quite clear on this point. However, this sort of epistemology is vastly different from a scientific epistemology. In a scientific epistemology, every assertion must be falsifiable, even (perhaps especially) assertions about the proper interpretation of religious texts and scientific implications thereof. Here is simply too wide an epistemological gap to be bridged, IMO. I disagree. This is (approximately) how some forensic science works. You have some data, and you have a known conclusion. You work at determining what's in between. I think you're talking more about experimental science. Like you said, that's not close to what Faith's doing. But that's not an appropriate approach for YECs. Of course, take this statement with a big grain of salt. In forensic science, you don't question the foundations of the sciences that you're investigating with. Faith has to do that. But I don't think it's in principle a different approach than what happens in forensic science. "Is it Science" please. (edited to turn off email notifications)(edited to replace 'science' with 'investigation' in the title) This message has been edited by Ben, Monday, 2005/09/12 10:54 AM This message has been edited by Ben, Monday, 2005/09/12 12:33 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
I just don't buy your forensic science analogue - would you like to give us an example of what you are thinking?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
This is (approximately) how some forensic science works. You have some data, and you have a known conclusion. You work at determining what's in between. Well, let's look at this analogy. If by "known conclusion" you mean - "we've got a dead guy here" and the work is determining how he died, then I would agree. But I would argue that what the YECs are saying is more akin to "this was murder, now let's prove it". Additionally, in forensics, they assume that damage done was done the same way it is in the real world. ie if the flesh is burned, someone probably applied heat or chemicals to it. For the YEC doing foresnsics, you can't take anything for granted. If the body was burned, they must figure out if that fits their "this was murder" model. If it does, terrific. If it doesn't, then it obviously wasn't burned. If it could be shown conclusively that the cause of death was a heart attack (however you show that), the scientist would be pretty much done at that point. The YEC now has to figure out how the murderer caused the heart attack. Was it an undetectable poison? Was it some undetectable heart attack ray guy? This is the problem with working with your conclusion already known. It's why YEC is not science, nor can it ever be science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I get your point and it is no doubt the best defense that can be made of what YECs are attempting to do here, but it will fail because our known conclusion is not recognized by our opponents. We know the Flood happened for instance, but that is exactly what is in dispute. We DO proceed from this premise however, as you describe, from this known conclusion, so you are accurately describing our method. But since the premise/known conclusion itself is disputed it won't solve the problem we are discussing. What we have here is a true conflict that is not resolvable.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 10:39 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Let me give a forensic example.
There is a suicide note found and a dead body. The question is to determine what happened. The note says that the person killed himself by drowning but the body shows no water in the lungs. Now, do you believe the note or do you believe the evidence of the body? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1398 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Unshakable conclusion: A house is burned down.
Evidence:- it wasn't burning yesterday. - it's a small town. - no chemical traces of explosives - no witnesses Something like that. Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The only way the conflict about our premise could conceivably be resolved is if we are permitted to argue from it freely to show that we have good alternative explanations to evolutionist explanations of biology and OE explanations of geology.
In fact you seem to anticipate that eventually our position might be falsified even by allowing us to pursue our method, but since we are working with explanations and interpretations and NOT doing experimental science there is really nothing finally testable or falsifiable, and therefore no end to the argument. It is entirely a battle of plausibilities and the most convincing supposedly win. But in reality all the accepted plausibilities are on the side of the Science establishment, and the science side will think they've made the best case no matter what, and discount any explanation YECs come up with. All a YEC really hopes for is to show that there ARE reasonable alternative interpretations of the data. There's really not much more we can do. But in this atmosphere of outrage and ridicule at our very premise that's impossible here too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
You example wont quite work Jar. The note needs to be from a third party observer and be signed:
-God No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Unshakable conclusion: A house is burned down. YEC conclusion: The house was burned down by God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1398 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
If by "known conclusion" you mean - "we've got a dead guy here" and the work is determining how he died, then I would agree. But I would argue that what the YECs are saying is more akin to "this was murder, now let's prove it". Nuggin, you're looking at this from your own perspective. Get outside your own skinbag and see what Faith sees. Faith sees data where you see insanity. From Faith's perspective, it's a dead body. Some faith, belief, is so strong, it doesn't change in the face of evidence. It's like when somebody believes their child is still alive, when all signs point to her death. You turn over every stone looking for the child. The fact that science is inductive knowledge suddenly becomes crucial; it gets questioned because it CAN be questioned. The possibility for success in any one spot is low. But you have to try. Faith's looking at data. It's data in her mind, and you need to understand that. You can't force somebody to take your own viewpoint Nuggin. You can disagree with Faith, but at least take the time to understand and accept. Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
How do you know it was a house? it's just your viewpoint it was a house - a conclusion coloured by your fallen nature.
I don't believe in burning - it's scientifically impossible - it says so in my book of faith therefore your explanation that burning had something to do with it is incorrect. Maybe the chemicals used to produce this effect that is close to burning are just beyond your ability to detect with modern science - have you considered that? No it didn't burn down - a different answer must be found.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Let me give a forensic example. There is a suicide note found and a dead body. The question is to determine what happened. The note says that the person killed himself by drowning but the body shows no water in the lungs. Now, do you believe the note or do you believe the evidence of the body? You're a riot, jar. You really think you can resolve this conflict by pre-empting the position of your opponents in favor of your own assumptions/conclusions. Well, of course that is exactly what I'm saying IS the position of EvC. Our view that God's word IS God's word is disallowed. You insist it's a human work, and in this example you are simply insisting that we accept that too. Sorry, this is a genuine conflict BECAUSE our premise is that the Bible is God's word, not a suicide note.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
everyone would welcome such an event.
Faith writes: The only way the conflict about our premise could conceivably be resolved is if we are permitted to argue from it freely to show that we have good alternative explanations to evolutionist explanations of biology and OE explanations of geology. The key point is to have good alternative explanations. If YECs could present any such explanations, then they would be listened to. But as hard as people have tried, and they really did try, the reality of the universe is such that every explanation so far has failed. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1398 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Hi Faith,
My purpose isn't to resolve it. It's just to push others to try and take your perspective. If I can get people to do that, then it's a small success. And if I can't, then... I'm really disappointed. Perspective-taking is SUPPOSED TO BE one of those "special" human qualities... I'm sure everybody will enjoy my next thread, in which I compare you to a schizophrenic and ask if you should be considered mentally ill. Prepare yourself for that one. If you want me to just drop this, I can do it. But in my eyes, this is the line upon which YEC and experimental science must find peace. At the very least, I got discussion out of the Geology thread... hopefully that can continue with less noise. Ben
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024