What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

The attempt to prove what you thought is true is certainly an important factor in science, but just because one fails to do that or hasn't yet gotten around to that aspect of science does not necessarily mean the science one IS doing is not science being done.According to my 1913 leather bound, gold embossed, unabridged India paper fat & heavy Miriam Webster dictionary, the following:SCIENCE
1. Knowledge; Knowledge of principles or facts.
2. Specif. accumulated and accepted knowledge which has been systemized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or true operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available to work, life or the search for truth, comprehensive, profound or philosophical knowledge.
3. Esp. such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and it's phenomenon, called also natural science.It goes on to include skills or trades as a player in unusual science.So as per the above can we all agree that this definition pretty much generally identifies what science is or have the modernist revisionists sought to change all that?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

No. Again, you simply show that you do NOT know what science is and love to misrepresent what others post.What I said and you even quoted was: To do science you must try to prove your assumption WRONG.But don't worry, the folk that were here from WAR didn't have a clue what science was either.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No matter how you dress it up or what archaic definition of science you manage to track down -Concluding a "fact" from the bible or any other uncorroborated written account and then setting out to "prove" it by picking and choosing compatible physical evidence and rejecting or ignoring incomaptible physical evidence is the very antithesis of science in every conceivable way.The posters on this forum know it, anybody undertaking any form of real science knows it and frankly all but the most blinkered creationists know it too.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I agree. My point was part of a query addressed to Jar when he said that this about what science (or better: what a central element in what science is) is. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Yup, iano. Even our belief in the scientific method must be challenged and abandoned if a better method is demonstrated.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm not sure I completely agree with this restatement of Popper's Rule of Falsification, although I've heard a lot of variations similar to this one. In science, any claim must at least potentially have a way of being false. For example, even something as simple as "The sun will rise tomorrow" can - at least potentially - be falsified if the sun didn't rise tomorrow (it went nova, a massive comet struck the earth, the Vogon Constructor Fleet ended the experiment, etc). The claim that no human lifespan can exceed 130 years can be falsified by any one person living to age 131, etc.On the falsification front, the difference between pseudoscience/non-science and science is that the former can not be falsified. The claims are either ambiguous ("Certain crystals can realign your energy center" - okay, so how do you tell if it is realigned? or out of alignment in the first place?), or they are invulnerable because they are inherently unfalsifiable (sometimes called the multiple out - an inexhaustible series of excuses that explains away evidence that would tend to falsify the claim - creationists are past masters of this type - think of the unevidenced claim of a "special environment" in the past that renders all dating methodology incorrect by 100's of orders of magnitude).However, I've never met any scientist who deliberately sets out to disprove his own research claim (other peoples' definitely). In essence, then, I disagree with your formulation.

OK I'll agree that that's an integral part of science. So when ICR goes out and studies the layering of the Grand Canyon sediment, taking samples, photographing significant portions, documenting and publishing the results, proving it wrong is an integral aspect of the science since they are looking for the pros and cons relative to their study. They may also give reasons for the possibility of error in modern dating methods factoring in the possibility of a pre-flood undermined amount of certain elements in the atmosphere on the counterpart interpretation. Are they then doing science?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Does that give it more authority? Let's look at some modern definitions and see (taking the first 3 for brevity eh):Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)

quote:

---

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

---

American Heritage Dictionary

quote:

---

1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.

---

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary

quote:

---

knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

---

Seems overall pretty similar to me. There seems to be more emphasis on observation and testing - but is that really absent from yours? A classification system is a way to systemize and formulate relationships between organisms, but it has to be based on observations of those organisms to have general acceptance eh?Can you check these in any way without testing? How do you know what the true operation of general laws is without testing?Whaddyathink?

---

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.

Jar is quite right. If you are not prepared to abandon a theory when it doesn't fit the facts, you are not doing science. This is why the dictionary definition of science says "knowledge", not "wilful ignorance"; and "general truths" not "known falsehoods".

Sorry but ICR does not do science. They do NOT publish their studies in peer reviewed journals. Period. Sorry, but unless they can show there was some pre-flood environment they are not doing science.They are free to try to do science, and personally I wish they would. If they did they would have abandoned the idea of some world-wide flood long ago.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi Staggler. Welcome and glad you joined us.1. I certainly didn't suggest that anyone I'm talking about concludes anything from the Bible regarding science subjects like the Grand Camyon study et al.2. But we/they do address the stuff counterparts regard as uncompatible, as I've stated, giving reasons to question the dating methods, for example.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

As I have pointed out, you have not given any reason to question the dating methods. This is one of the many things which distinguishes flood geology from science.

Yes, they are doing science, but not with pure hearts. They are taking known anomalies and using them to show that (a) they are in fact anomalies, and (b) that they can convince gullible people this is important evidence that everything that is NOT anomolous is wrong.Gosh, do you think I could find something at the bottom of the grand canyon that would date very young if I knew what to look for? Perhaps relatively recent volcanic action? Something that fell from the upper levels?It's like radio carbon dating a modern bible to show that {the bible} can't be 2000 years old -- you know you'll get false results before you even start.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.

So what observations do they say would falsify flood geology? What exactly is their theory, and what does it predict? They "may"? Oh good. What are these reasons? If I wear a ten-gallon hat and say "Howdy pardner", am I a cowboy?

1. Can you document any conclusive definition of science that requires the publication in peer reviewed journals, perse when in fact they do publish for the public all the important data researched?2. Imo, the peer reviews and mainline secularist mainstream are not honestly trying to falsify when they deny alternative science findings and hypotheses from being included in their curricula? They do in fact show evidence of pre-flood environment which is rejected by the counterpart claims. Both do that, so why aren't both doing science. Just because the hypothesis is considered flawed does not mean that science is being done. We're not here to debate the claims. We're here to determing what is or isn't science. Not all science being done is good science. You people have shown that to be the case among yourselves, but you sure don't then say the erroneous work of other scientist wasn't science being done as you are falsly and buligerantly trying to do regarding ICR's scientists. You're just being stubborn and condescending, jar. You're not debating in good faith. You're implying that the only science being done is that which you approve of when in fact approval of a method is not addressing the thread topic of what is science and what is not. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28