What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

So come up with your own evidence to support your own assertions. Again, show us some evidence to support this. Based on what evidence?It's really very simple, Buzsaw. Show us the raw data that clearly indicates your hypothesis and then you'll be "doing science".

This is specifically what I addressed in my first reply to you in this thread. Modern Science which is what is referred to as "science" has some pretty set methodologies.If one uses other approaches (i.e. methods) then one may be doing what was once considered science at another point in our history but it isn't anymore. ID authors pretty much discuss this openly in their texts. They do not like additions to the scientific method which occured during the enlightenment and want them taken back out.They have yet to explain why that would make any sense, except for the fact that it would allow what they do to be called science. ID isn't science according to modern definitions and practices. I might point out that it has nothing to do with "secularism". A theist can very well use the same methods.What has not been explained by creos and ID theorists, is why they should not avail themselves to the same modern methods. If their theories are true, it should be available in the evidence. If it does not emerge from the evidence then what is the practical use of the theory?I'd also put in a request that you clearly separate creo and ID. ID theorists generally do not support Flood or YE concepts, which you appear to do. Indeed that makes me raise the question why you treat them as compatible when ID accepts methodology regarding geology and age dating, rejecting creo methods?Edited by holmes, : tense

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Hey Buz, long post, no answer.you said What observations are the basis for that claim of likelihood.For this to be a scientific claim there has to be an observation basis for it. So the difference between 80% covered and 100% covered should change things significantly how? Again, what is the evidence?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The two sides in this discussion do not agree on the definition of science, therefore each side is declaring what is and isn't science on the basis of different criteria. Naturally they reach different conclusions.So it is hereby ruled that fundamental to this discussion is agreement on the definition of science. Do that first.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'm not sure if I should reply to this directly or not, but it will in part answer what you have called for, and raise a question about it. I think that people can generally agree on what the definition of science is. That is as long as one defines it based on what its goals are. The only potential difference would be whether conclusions in science reveal Truth versus "more accurate ways of concieving a natural phenomena".It seems to me the real difference is based on methodology. And that is because methodology has changed, even if what everyone did is called science.To be more clear, if the definition of science is based on methodology then very few people have practiced science. It would be limited to an area of time where specific methodology was used.I would feel uneasy claiming certain astronomers and alchemists were not doing science centuries or millenia ago, simply because their techniques had not become refined enough. Neither would I want to deny that modern astronomers and chemists were doing science because their methodologies are less flexible than in the past (something ID theorists argue).It seems to me they are/were all doing science as long as they were seeking the same thing, which is understanding the world around them.It is only in the colloquial sense that we use "science" as a stand in for Modern Science, which means science as it is practiced with current methodology, refined from examining the utility of methods across time.Modern Science would have a definition containing both goal and methodology.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

The hearkens back to what Holmes has been saying: Behe contends that ID is not science, and that if we wanted to call ID 'sciece' we'd have to include astrology. Panda's Thumb have had some interesting articles about the science of ID that is coming out of DI. IT follows a press release that they have spent $4,000,000 on ID stuff.Yet they didn't respond to the Templeton Foundation's generosity. It seems that the DI simply didn't hand any research proposals in, but they happily accepted the grants for debates and conferences.Debates and conferences - but no research proposals? Sounds like ID is big on talking and small on doing. (Source)So the question is: They've spent 4,000,000 dollars towards ID - what have they to show for it?

---

In summary, and tying it back to the topic at hand. Science has been defined - apparantly by secularists. Science should be secular of course - if science wasn't secular we'd find that astrology would be science.If that was the case, a secular discipline to get to the truth without referencing a belief system would be developed. It would be as succesful as science is now, but with a different name.Actually - we already have two different terms. Science is science and ID is philosophy. That isn't to say that ID is inherently wrong, but it isn't science. One day maybe, a rigorous science will be developed from it - but that is not the case yet - as confessed by Behe under oath.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Says who?

Says science.Regardless of what you believe is true, to do science you MUST be not just ready to abandon what you believed was true, you must try to prove what you thought true is false.Anything less is not science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You sound like the fellow who gets ejected from the Lions' Club meeting because he isn't a member. Your response is, "I am a member."The Lions' Club decides who's a member of the Lions' Club. Outsiders can't just proclaim their own definition of what the Lions' Club is and who is a member.My question is, "If you're not willing to abide by the rules of the Lions' Club, why do you want to call yourself a member?"

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

But that seems to say that knowledge through science sits above any other form of knowledge. That knowledge gained through science is prime.But if science gives only tentitive knowledge about things (for we do not know what we do not yet know) how can it know that it is the prime.Seems like there is a gap to be filled here

What I would suggest is that, WHERE IT APPLIES, it is sitting above any other form of knowledge.What would you suggest as an alternate approach for safely (safe from our poor perceptions ) knowing anything at all about the natural world?

Not quite, not at all. Science is a methodology for understanding the physcial world, and the physical interactions. It is only good for those things that can be examined and tested. There are things that are not subject to being examined or testing. Those things are not science.Ethics and morality are not science. Religion is not science.

I'm sorry but your response has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said.In case you have forgotten what I said, here it is. Let's try to stay somewhat close to the topic which is, in case you have forgotten, "What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That is not the claim. The method has just proven especially useful for determining some kinds of things. A valid description of it. False premise. See above. Abandon the false premise and the gap disapears. 'Prime' is a mischaracterization and 'sitting above' is your own metaphor. One could as easily say science sits at the base of knowledge: that is findings form a valid foundation on which to build structures that go beyond it. Or we could say that science stands as one pillar of knowledge; this would mean there are other pillars. Whatever.The scientific method just happens to be the best way to establish scientifically valid knowledge. This is true by definition.The strength of this method is that it yields findings that may be independently tested and verified. A number of benefits follow from this._Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Can you defy gravity if you jump off a building? We have observed that no massive body can do such a thing without sufficient means of suspension, but is it the truth?Care to test this "tentitive knowledge"?It matters not what you think we "know". Science is based on what is seen around us. End of story.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.