Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,839 Year: 4,096/9,624 Month: 967/974 Week: 294/286 Day: 15/40 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific Fact versus Interpretation
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4464 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

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4464 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 139 of 144 (296780)
03-20-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
03-20-2006 8:47 AM


quote:
I see my question was not thorough enough. That much I could already guess myself, no, not the details but the basic idea.
Hmm, why ask the question if you know the answer? Anyway...
quote:
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.
Well, whatever. You can have a problem with it if you want - just as long as you realise that, so far, it's the only explanation we've got that hasn't been falsified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 03-20-2006 8:47 AM 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