Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 82 of 303 (242582)
09-12-2005 1:27 PM


ON TOP OF IT
Whew. I caught up. Only 2 1/2 hours of firestorm.
"I've had worse"
I'm sure it'll start up later tonight again. Mod, Rahvin, hold down the fort for me!

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 86 of 303 (242589)
09-12-2005 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Rahvin
09-12-2005 1:33 PM


Re: Proposal
Sorry, I had missed it.
Haha well THAT's understandable.
Your suggestions look good, but I would prefer more specifics. In other words, a requiremnt that, if the Bible is to be assumed to be literally true, it must be stated in the OP, and debate alond Biblical lines is to be considered off-topic, with the possible exception of folks like Arach stopping by to point out different translations.
Good idea.
You should post this idea in the Suggestions forum.
Sure. I'll probably wait to sift through more comments, but it looks like we're coming up with something that may prove to be useful. So I'll do that within the next couple of days.
Cool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Rahvin, posted 09-12-2005 1:33 PM Rahvin has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 88 of 303 (242591)
09-12-2005 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Nuggin
09-12-2005 1:38 PM


Re: I don't buy it
I noticed the none of them took on my "Crack Pot" ideas thread, because they know that when faced with their techniques, all that can come is frustration.
If I said "two wrongs don't make a right", would you physically attack me?
For me, it's that old saying that I"ve been trained under. It's not a mental philosophy. So I try to do it because ... it;s just "what I am." (Trying not to use judgemental-sounding words)
I admit, if I want my point to be credible, then I need to back up my argument, but frankly I think this board needs some more of us Dark Side ToErs.
LOL!! In all seriousness... can you put that in your signature? That would make my day.
Honestly speaking, I really do understand. I'm the kind of person who feels bad doing soemthing I think isn't "right"; it's just my training, my upbringing. As I get older, I'm getting to be more practical. It's actually a little strange for me to see myself start such an "idealistic" thread, and try and fight fight fight to argue for "what is right."
I noticed the none of them took on my "Crack Pot" ideas thread, because they know that when faced with their techniques, all that can come is frustration.
I was disappointed too. All I'm trying to ask from people is a little self-realization. People who are religious HAVE to understand that their behavior is the same behavior we would expect from people if there's no gods and they're just making stuff up. I don't care about talking what's "right" or "wrong", but let's at least be honest.
It's one of the big areas where I have a lot of respect for jar. He's got his flaws, but I think he has a really realistic vision of who he is and the realities of his beliefs and positions. It's also what makes him a really good moderator. He pays attention to his own behavior.
This message has been edited by Ben, Monday, 2005/09/12 10:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 1:38 PM Nuggin has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 95 of 303 (242623)
09-12-2005 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by CK
09-12-2005 2:41 PM


Re: The forensic science analogy
Poster a: no that's an assumption based on your evolutionist methodology - you have no way to prove that. So let's move onto the next part of my theory....
The problem is clearly right here. I tried to talk about this in Post 60:
Those who reject models without attempting to replace them? I would say, there's no excuse for that type of behavior. Those who reject models while trying to replace them? They may be right or wrong, but I think it's important that we always allow that. I think in the history of science, we see what, 99.9% crackpots and 0.1% visionaries?
YECs have to be specific about exactly what they're rejecting. Simply rejecting without analysis doesn't work; like you said, if you do rejection without analysis, you're apt to reject something that you're actually using / assuming, like basic physics.
I would say the best way to approach that is actually for poster A to lay out the reasons for making his claims (not just a bare assertion). The YEC have to specifically reject one of those claims. If they cannot find a problem, then they will have to concede "I currently can't account for that data point."
At that point, can choose to move on, but we should keep track of the evidence that is not accounted for. But we should keep track of evidence anyway, as I'm sure it'll be easy to pile on various points of conflicting evidence in these posts. that's the way it goes when you're one person trying to reformulate hypotheses built on repeated observations of thousands of people.
This message has been edited by Ben, Monday, 2005/09/12 11:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 2:41 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 3:13 PM Ben! has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 101 of 303 (242639)
09-12-2005 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Jazzns
09-12-2005 3:17 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
YEC approaches to empirical science. Talk about a contradiction in terms. I mean, isn't that what Faith has finally come out and shown us all. There is no such thing as empirical science for YECs. There is the creation event, the flood, and that is the end of the discussion.
I think at the very least we've addressed that what YECs want does not follow the scientific method, but it is empirical. Man.. I really shouldn't have said "empirical science" inn the title--that goes against my own thought. That's sloppy.
I'd like to edit that out now... I hope nobody minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2005 3:17 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 3:37 PM Ben! has replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 106 of 303 (242648)
09-12-2005 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by CK
09-12-2005 3:37 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
Sorry, I should be more careful with words:
There is an empirical method available to YECs.
I think part of the problem is that YECs on the whole don't know how to do empirical investigation. Another problem is that people get the idea that science is the only empirical manner in which to proceed.
My point is to clear up what's available to YECs, point out the properties of the methodology, and to say HERE, go do your thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 3:37 PM CK has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 132 of 303 (242709)
09-12-2005 6:29 PM


"Suggestions" thread created.
I made a suggestion on how to move forward from this over at Forum Group for "Hypothesis Testing". CK, Rahvin, and nwr expressed interest in having a "suggestion" posted.
Please keep debate on the topic here. Let's use that thread for discussing with admin whether or not it's something they're willing to try and, if they are willing to try, the actual parameters they'd be willing to try it under.
Thanks.

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 145 of 303 (242869)
09-13-2005 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by PaulK
09-13-2005 2:41 AM


Re: No Catch 22
PaulK,
So basically you are now demanding that debate must have a built-in clause which guarantess you victory. You demand that your theology must be accepted as factually correct. i.e you demand that the rules are completely stacked in your favour.
I don't understand why it "guarantees victory". I think Faith will be hard pressed to make the observable facts fit with flood theory, for no reason other than developing solid theories is hard! Furthermore, if Faith is actually able to do it, all she's shown is that the Bible can be made consistent with observed facts. That's all. It doesn't make a statement that the Bible is true.
So I still don't see how this type of debate is "stacked" at all. I simply removes the need to discuss whether the Bible is true or not. We have all sorts of Forums for that. To non-believers, the debate being proposed is, "Assuming (some interpretation of) the bible is true, can we resolve it with observations made about the world?"
(Yes, Faith, I understand in your perspecitve, the debate is "How do we resolve the facts in the Bible with the flood?")
Anyway, I don't see how that makes things "stacked at all." It seems like a fair question to ask and answer. Some people find it interesting, others do not.. but I still think it's a fair question to ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 2:41 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 9:32 AM Ben! has replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 148 of 303 (242879)
09-13-2005 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by PaulK
09-13-2005 9:32 AM


Re: No Catch 22
She's perefctly entitled to that view, but she isn't entitled to demand that anyone else accepts it or to insist that it must be taken as a given in a debate.
I don't think anybody is entitled to demand that other people make demands about what is and is not "true" in this sense. But for the purposes of debate, I think it's well reasonable to demand that everybody recognize something as an unquestionable starting point in the debate. I take it as Faith insisting that you understand she takes the Bible as literally true. I don't see that she's demanding to have your agreement to that--just that you don't question it in the thread. I think she's demanding that you know her starting point, and allow her to work under it.
I could be wrong. That's been my take.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 9:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 9:53 AM Ben! has not replied
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:01 AM Ben! has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 173 of 303 (243001)
09-13-2005 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by PaulK
09-13-2005 12:20 PM


Re: No Catch 22
The idea that certan debates should have preconditions of the sort you suggest is not unreasonable - if it is stated upfront - but it can't be what Faith means.
Dude, check out post 151 and the top of 163. How is this not exactly what you said is "not unreasonable"?
For a start Faith doesn't restrict herself to threads with such conditions. And if it isn't stated upfron hten Faith has no right to impose it on others.
I agree 100%. But up until now, we've forced any debate into the science forums, where NO presuppositions would occur. Do you think that any thread which had such a presupposition would get promoted into the Science forums? Hell no. There's just no place to put them.
That's why I've suggested creating a forum where such presuppositions are stated up front.
So it can't be what Faith means in her claim that the deck is stacked against her. Her comments only make sense if she means that she wants her belief that "God said X" to be accepted as a valid arguemnt for X.
It's like you're trying to force words into her mouth. Even if this is what she felt before, she's stated twice on this thread that it's not the direction she wants to go now. Why ignore that in favor of making your own interpretations of past events?
PaulK to Faith writes:
Your presuppositions are not excluded from the debate - they are part of what is being debated. That is why they cannot be used as arguments IN the debate.
What happened to making presuppositions as being "not unreasonable" ? What's the point of making a presupposition if it's questioned?
You've never heard an argument starting with the statement "ASSUME THAT X IS TRUE." ? That means, don't question the truth of X.
Essentially your precondition for a "real" debate is that your opponents should agree to surrender without a fight. Can't you understand that omitting such a condition is hardly stacking the deck against you ?
Yes it is. By refusing to allow a precondition, you're not allowing any person, YEC or not, to ask the question "Does the known observations of our world show evidence of a global flood?" Forget if it came from a "Bible" book, if Faith had a dream about it, or a bottle found in an ocean suggested such a thing. When you don't allow presuppositions, you don't allow explorative questions.
You can find the question not interesting, or not worth asking. That means, don't participate in the debate. But not allowing somebody to ask a question about interpreting data is "stacking the deck against them" in my view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 12:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 3:31 PM Ben! has replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 175 of 303 (243005)
09-13-2005 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by DBlevins
09-13-2005 11:00 AM


Re: I don't buy it
It takes hard work to find and read what others have proposed, to go around observing the tops of mountains, or working in the lab. Most humans have the basic intelligence required. A common methodology is needed for others to understand and test your ideas. If you are not honest to yourself and others, your ideas are likely to be invalid or untestable.
I agree, and that's kind of the point of this thread. To find a way of debate where YECs can focus on the data, do investigations, and see truly what the state of the evidence is.
I think there's a good chance it leads to better methodology. Let YEC run it's course through the data. If the current data can't support YEC or a flood, a YEC will be DRIVEN to search for new data (just as you described). I think it would be great to have YECs involved in field work. People who have an internal motivation to do research turn out to be really hard working, in my experience. And if the current data CAN support YEC or a flood... then we should all be aware of that interpretation.
I believe if we open up a place where YECs are allowed to make presuppositions and to examine the data by forming alternative hypotheses, there's a better chance that better understanding and examination of the facts will happen. When all debates degrade into arguing about presuppositions, no progress can be made. The data is going to speak one way or another. The point is to open up a way for that to happen.
The only other option is to kick YECs out, to have no place to have interactive discussion, and to allow the culture of YECs who are not well educated in science to develop theories in isolation. I'd rather promote education in emprical methods by exposing YECs to data, and to let them try to work through the data themselves. In an interactive debate environment, if we structure it well, it will be impossible to run from any evidence. Either an interpretation works with the evidence or it doesn't.
I think it's at least worth a try. Certainly what we have going on here doesn't work.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting post. I think it illustrates the benefit of exposing people to raw data. People want to get this stuff right. Even if the data opposes them it may not lead them to different conclusions, but it would lead them to search harder for supporting evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by DBlevins, posted 09-13-2005 11:00 AM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-14-2005 1:00 PM Ben! has replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 176 of 303 (243006)
09-13-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
09-13-2005 12:07 PM


Re: I don't buy it
Faith,
Let's try and steer this discussion as a discussion about methods, not a discussion about observations, data, or whatnot. If the thread gets away from the main point, it's just going to be a huge mess.
I'm in the middle of trying to draw it back to some semblence of order.
Thanks,
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:07 PM Faith has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 180 of 303 (243012)
09-13-2005 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by PaulK
09-13-2005 3:31 PM


Re: No Catch 22
I'm sorry if I wasn't careful and mixed ideas. It's simple:
Have one place where YEC interpretation of the bible can be challenged (is this not "The Bible: Acurracy and Inerracy" or "Bible Study" ?)
Have another place where YEC interpretation of the Bible can be taken as a presupposition, and see if the existing data can be fit with that.
I'm sorry for being confusing. I really don't see this to be a difficult issue. It's even independent of what Faith's intentions or beliefs are. If we want YECs here, and we want to subject YECs to dealing with evidence, I think this division is more constructive than forcing YECs to go into a science forum. Questioning science at the level YECs are asking to question it simply doesn't fit into our idea of debate in science forums. YECs need room to explore and to face the evidence themselves.
That's not to say all YECs need it. I'm sure some YECs can debate, and want to debate, straight science. But there's definitely a clear population that need such a place. I think turning them away is a disservice to everybody.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 3:31 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by CK, posted 09-13-2005 4:01 PM Ben! has replied
 Message 184 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 4:17 PM Ben! has replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 183 of 303 (243022)
09-13-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by CK
09-13-2005 4:01 PM


Re: No Catch 22
Ben does the fact that, even at this advanced stage, that people don't actually understand what you are suggesting trouble you?
What are you, reading my mind?
If we cannot understand it - how is it suppose to operate?
I think PaulK understands the proposal, but he's arguing about whether or not Faith's intentions are within the scope of it.
It's a good point though. I'm hoping that if we can get something started up, those people who read the rules and still don't understand will get moderated out of that area. And hopefully by sitting on the sidelines and watching, the people who don't understand can start to understand, and participate if they like.
I'm not saying it'll work. I'm saying, I think it has the potential to do good, and I think it's possible it could work. We even have similar systems already in place here.
But yeah, it's a concern. It was a concern before even starting this thread. I'm still interested to move forward and try. I'd rather set something up and have everybody get kicked out or choose not to participate than see the same discussions start up and fail for the same reasons over, and over, and over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by CK, posted 09-13-2005 4:01 PM CK has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1389 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 185 of 303 (243027)
09-13-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by PaulK
09-13-2005 4:17 PM


Re: No Catch 22
I understand. I'm dropping it.
I want to focus on analyzing methods available to YECs and in providing ways to allow YEC discussion to proceed in a more fruitful manner.
Thanks for your comments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 4:17 PM PaulK 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