Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific Fact versus Interpretation
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 121 of 144 (296647)
03-19-2006 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
03-19-2006 4:59 PM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
It may seem very reasonable from the evidence, from a certain appearance of a rock, say, to guess that it went through the stresses of mountain building or started life on a sea shore millions of years ago
Is that your guess as to how geologic assignment is done, or do you know how it is done?
And your "guess" statement reintroduces the scenario edge gave you earlier regarding finding ash and determining it to be volcanic, or my scenario regarding the police with dna and fingerprint evidence linking a person to a crime no one actually saw him do. Is it just guessing?

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 03-19-2006 4:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 122 of 144 (296668)
03-19-2006 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
03-19-2006 4:59 PM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
In the case of the ToE and OE there is no opportunity to test an interpretation because it's all about one-time events in the distant past.
Nonsense, geologists are always looking for independent verification of an hypothesis. There are many ways of doing this. One would be radiometric dating. Another would be fulfillment of a prediction. Another form of evidence might be isotopic. You are blowing smoke here. I remember a course in which my professor tested by asking what lines of evidence would support a statement. It appears that you could use such a course.
It may seem very reasonable from the evidence, from a certain appearance of a rock, say, to guess that it went through the stresses of mountain building or started life on a sea shore millions of years ago, but since ALL you have is your guess about this one time ancient event, it should never be called fact.
Perhaps you have a different definition of 'guess' than most of us. But when evidence corroborates a hypothesis it is considered more than a coincidence. In fact, we then test the hypothesis further by actually treating it as a fact (a premise). If it is wrong, we will shortly know. The point is that despite what you say we do test ideas and they are, by definition, not simple guesses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 03-19-2006 4:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 03-19-2006 10:22 PM edge has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 123 of 144 (296670)
03-19-2006 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
03-19-2006 4:59 PM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
Crash, there are a million ways to TEST those results and that is why they are accepted in courtrooms.
Test how? I mean, these techniques are literally the sole evidence that is putting people in jail. There's no other test possible than the PCR-RFLP process I've described above>
Exactly what results do you think can be tested? If we come upon a rape-murder and the only evidence is semen, and we bag the suspect on his DNA and convict, but he never confesses, exactly what do you think we can test?
In the case of the ToE and OE there is no opportunity to test an interpretation because it's all about one-time events in the distant past.
But that's exactly what's going on here. We're using this one single proceedure to come to an interpretation - that a suspect committed a crime in the past - and there's no other way to test it. We just have our guess about this one-time event, and it's enough to put a man in jail forever or put the needle in his arm.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-19-2006 09:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 03-19-2006 4:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 03-19-2006 10:19 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 140 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 11:11 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 124 of 144 (296673)
03-19-2006 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by crashfrog
03-19-2006 9:47 PM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
It HAS BEEN tested millions of times with KNOWN people and situations.
It is NOT "exactly the same thing" at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2006 9:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2006 10:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 125 of 144 (296675)
03-19-2006 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by edge
03-19-2006 9:01 PM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
How do you test whether or not a rock was formed in mountain building or a marine or desert environment? I KNOW how you HYPOTHESIZE that it was, I want to know how you CONFIRM your hypothesis.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-19-2006 10:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by edge, posted 03-19-2006 9:01 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Silent H, posted 03-20-2006 7:39 AM Faith has replied
 Message 132 by IrishRockhound, posted 03-20-2006 8:42 AM Faith has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 126 of 144 (296676)
03-19-2006 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
03-19-2006 10:19 PM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
It HAS BEEN tested millions of times with KNOWN people and situations.
You're taking this on faith, or what? What testing are you referring to? If you put a guy in jail based on DNA evidence, how do you verify that the testing was valid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 03-19-2006 10:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 03-19-2006 10:31 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 127 of 144 (296677)
03-19-2006 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by crashfrog
03-19-2006 10:28 PM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
YOu do it on the basis of what you KNOW from millions of OTHER situations where you KNOW the circumstances, the donor of the DNA, etc etc etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2006 10:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2006 10:43 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 129 by Mammuthus, posted 03-20-2006 7:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 128 of 144 (296680)
03-19-2006 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
03-19-2006 10:31 PM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
YOu do it on the basis of what you KNOW from millions of OTHER situations where you KNOW the circumstances, the donor of the DNA, etc etc etc.
I still don't understand. Can you be clearer? What do all those "millions" of other situations have to do with this specific situations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 03-19-2006 10:31 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 129 of 144 (296735)
03-20-2006 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
03-19-2006 10:31 PM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
So if millions of experiments show identity by descent (which is what a forensic test is based on) and why you are admitting..why again is the creationist "interpretation" of the data that different populations composed of individuals who pass on genetic traits the same way, species which pass on traits the same way etc. are not showing identity by descent? Why in the case of forensics do you make an exception to your rule about us evil scientists and our propaganda? Seems you should be campainging to stop the use of DNA based forensic evidence in criminal cases if you wish to remain consistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 03-19-2006 10:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 130 of 144 (296740)
03-20-2006 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Faith
03-19-2006 10:22 PM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
How do you test whether or not a rock was formed in mountain building or a marine or desert environment? I KNOW how you HYPOTHESIZE that it was, I want to know how you CONFIRM your hypothesis.
Here is a link to a paper which should answer your question to some degree, if directed at the people in your OP. Is there a reason you cannot deal with it, and resort to incredulity as your only defense?

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 03-19-2006 10:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 03-20-2006 8:29 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 134 by NosyNed, posted 03-20-2006 10:00 AM Silent H has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 131 of 144 (296747)
03-20-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Silent H
03-20-2006 7:39 AM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
You can't require me to read an entire article, holmes. I've merely been trying to get out of this conversation since it started, simply having to answer a few things here and there as briefly as possible. I'm not involved in it really. And I'm not going to read a whole article on geological technicalities. All I wanted to say has been said, and what people have been doing with it is irrelevant. That's my view of the situation. Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Silent H, posted 03-20-2006 7:39 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Silent H, posted 03-20-2006 10:24 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 141 by nator, posted 03-20-2006 11:11 AM Faith has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 132 of 144 (296752)
03-20-2006 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Faith
03-19-2006 10:22 PM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
quote:
How do you test whether or not a rock was formed in mountain building or a marine or desert environment? I KNOW how you HYPOTHESIZE that it was, I want to know how you CONFIRM your hypothesis.
Allow me, Faith, to explain this for you.
Hypothesis: this rock was formed in a marine environment.
a) Confirmation: the rock is grey or yellow, which means it was not exposed to the air as the ferric minerals in it have not oxidised.
b) Falsification: the rock is pink or red, which means it was exposed to the air as the ferric minerals in it have been oxidised.
If (a) is the case, our hypothesis has been confirmed by the evidence, so we go to another line of evidence and start again. If (b) is the case, our hypothesis has been falsified by the evidence, so we must discard it or modify it.
So: let's say (a) is the case, and we can continue with our hypothesis. We could move on to:
c) Confirmation: the presence of in-situ marine trace fossils
d) Falsification: the presence of in-situ terrestrial trace fossils
And so on.
Let's say (b) is the case. We must now discard our hypothesis - the depositional environment cannot have been marine if the sediments were oxidised. We can now postulate a new hypothesis - that the depositional environment was subaerial instead - and off we go again.
And that's how we test and confirm a hypothesis. We can have a lot of different ones at the start, but the only one that matters is the one that, once we have looked at all the available evidence, has not been falsified at the end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 03-19-2006 10:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 03-20-2006 8:47 AM IrishRockhound has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 133 of 144 (296753)
03-20-2006 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by IrishRockhound
03-20-2006 8:42 AM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
I see my question was not thorough enough. That much I could already guess myself, no, not the details but the basic idea. What I'm really objecting to is the idea of a whole scenario of a sea that once existed for millions of years. That a rock can be shown to have been once in a marine environment I really don't dispute. It's the whole OE scenario I have a problem with. Sorry about my lack of clarity.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-20-2006 08:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by IrishRockhound, posted 03-20-2006 8:42 AM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by IrishRockhound, posted 03-20-2006 10:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 134 of 144 (296763)
03-20-2006 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Silent H
03-20-2006 7:39 AM


Another hit against Faith thesis too
I note Holmes that the summary of that paper is yet another refutation of Faiths idea about "interpretations" being offered as "fact".
In about 5 sentences we see:
quote:
... that are commonly interpreted as suture zones...
quote:
...suggest that fabrics related to assembly...
quote:
... the agreement between these data sets suggests that...
quote:
... and may record assembly of...
quote:
...geochronologic data suggest that...
quote:
...we propose that ... may have involved a complex...
This reaally puts the lie to the kind of nonsense that some here are spouting.
And then we have this wonderful line!!! Worthy of a lite POTM and really caps off the entire debate:
Faith writes:
You can't require me to read an entire article, holmes.
Oh dear, an entire article.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Silent H, posted 03-20-2006 7:39 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Silent H, posted 03-20-2006 10:27 AM NosyNed has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 135 of 144 (296768)
03-20-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
03-19-2006 4:59 PM


Re: Interpretation as Fact
Faith
It may seem very reasonable from the evidence, from a certain appearance of a rock, say, to guess that it went through the stresses of mountain building or started life on a sea shore millions of years ago, but since ALL you have is your guess about this one time ancient event, it should never be called fact.
I think this hits the nail on the head Faith. Facts, in science, are not proof of an event occuring. They are the most likely scenario to explain the evidence of that which we investigate. A theory ,in science, is not a proof either but a overarching model that combines the facts of science.
As Einstein said
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong."
The concept of evolution is simply the best model that explains the facts of the investigation that we perform. Greater and greater credence is lent this model the more we investigate. We find that many different fields of endevour support the model and this also lends weight to the theory.
So my impression is that your are seeking proof in science which is not what science does.Better go check the math department and argue your case there.
This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2006-03-20 09:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 03-19-2006 4:59 PM Faith 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