What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

This thread is not about theory and prediction. As I said they address the date problem which could falsify and counter that with their own assessment of it. That's just one example. I would assume people like National Geographic's marine archeologist Dr. Ballard should be taking a look at those acclaimed chariot wheels in the Gulf of Aqaba and publishing it in peer reviews. LOL Again, you're off topic asking that. You're dodging. Again I ask, Are they then doing science? Put another way, is it science they're doing? Yes or no, and if no, why not?

---

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

Putting your information out in front of your peers is part of doing science. ICR does NOT do that. Okay. LOL. That's fine buz. You are welcome to your opinion. But that has nothing to do with what science is. So you assert buz. But it is not rejected by claims but rather because it does not stand up to peer review.Evidence is not saying some atmosphere must have been different. Evidence is not saying that there was some time without a rainbow. Evidence is not saying that there was some vapor canopy.We are trying to address what science is. As Lith once said to me, "Excluding data relevant to the study (positive or negative) is a big no no."That is what ICR and Wyatt and the rest of the pseudo-science crowd do.To do science ICR must start with the position that things like the flood MUST be abandoned if the evidence shows it did not happen.AbE: buz, maybe we can step through the definition one small step at a time? Would you like that?Edited by jar, : add suggestion

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes it is: it's about science. The question of whether flood geologists have reasons for their assertions is relecvant to the question of whether they're doing science. While you refuse to answer my questions, I cannot tell you whether or not they are doing science. But that fact that you refuse to answer them suggests that they are not.

You dodging my question. Please answer my specific question or I'm going to tell the teacher on you. You know the rules of the class It's directly relative to the debate. That's not the topic, which is, is it nevertheless doing science and please document why it has to be in a peer review perse to be science? The topic is not the quality of evidence as in your opinion. Part of the science is study and application of effects any given hypothesis might imply. I repeat, we're not here to discuss the quality of the study. Is it science or is it not and if not please show why. You are evading that by this stuff that as ususl drives your counterpart debate members up a wall. Either debate as per the guidelines or I'm gonna call for admin action. Bull! What good would microspecting it further do when in fact you refuse to address the specifics at hand in good faith? You're maddening, Jar, and they complain about Faith.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

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

Did you read Admin's admonition and what about science is to be addressed? Surely you're aware a whole lot of off topic stuff is about science. I believe the answer to that is clearly implied in what I've said. The specifics of those reasons are not the topic however. You're acting like Jar and I'm not going to do my own moderating as administrator on either of you. Have a good night.

---

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

Yes. The concepts of theory and prediction are highly relevant to the question of "what is science?" in the same way that the concept "four" is relevant to the question "what is two plus two?" I believe that the answer "no, it isn't science" is clearly implied by your refusal to answer any questions on the subject. So, you're not going to answer any of my questions?

You said: I was not discussing the quality of evidence. I said no evidence was presented. Making wild assertions is not evidence.You made an assertion, that there was a flood.The scientific method can be described as: So in this case, would you agree that the first step would be to identify the problem you want to solve, specifically, was there a world-wide flood within the period of recorded history?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To answer that, we need to know three things.* Do they have a hypothesis?
* Have they used logic to deduce the consequences of this hypothesis?
* Are they testing these consequences against observation?For example, do they have a hypothesis as to how a worldwide flood would skew all dating methods? What are the consequences of this hypothesis? Have they tested this hypothesis against observation? Did the results support their hypothesis?If you refuse to tell us these things, then we, for our part, cannot tell you whether their claims about dating methods are scientific, or merely a wish-fulfilment fantasy dreamed up by a bunch of reality-dodgers frightened by the facts.The fact that you are unable or unwilling to answer any such questions strongly suggests the latter.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you are having problems with others, perhaps you should address those who are sticking to the topic. If for some reason you have an issue with me, you could at least address what Modulous posted which went to the same point.The definition of science, as you seemed to be trying to get to with your dictionary quote, is not necessarily bound to specific methodology.But that is different than categorizing current research as science or scientific. When we say that something is or is not "science", we generally mean Modern science, which involves methodology. What counts as science at one time does not in another, based on improving methodologies.ID theorists themselves bring this up in their literature, and as Modulous has shown have admitted such under oath in court.You asked about peer review. I will disagree with others that that is essential to "doing science". One can certainly do science, even modern science, without engaging in peer review.The issue then would be how good your results are. As Percy and I wrangled over, but generally agreed, having others doublecheck your work is pretty useful. A single scientist looking at his own data, may be doing science, but increases the chance for personal error to creep in. In short they may do science without peer review, but they may not be doing it well.AbE: Note I will be gone for the next 3-4 days, so maybe you should address modulous. In any case, please try to consider my argument in further discussion.Edited by holmes, : note

---

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

Which was what not I was asking you to about of course. You said any and all beliefs must be open to being abandoned (presumably in the light of evidence accululated in accordance with scientific methodology about which conclusions are drawn). I would presume you would include the 'pre-cursor' step of modifying ones beliefs in the light of such evidence/conclusions.This makes beliefs sound very much like scientific theories: if the evidence doesn't fit the belief then the belief must be modified to suit or abandoned. Beliefs are made (by you) subject to confirmation/denial by empirical evidence. Now this might be the way in which your own beliefs are formed (forever tentitive) but not mine (some aspects are tentitive, others are not)That is the philosophy of empiricism at work. But who says science is defined by one particular philosophy about science. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Surely beliefs that contradict reality are false beliefs, and should be abandoned. Any other approach is neither science nor honest.Edited by Woodsy, : spelling correction

I will use the example of flood Vs conventional geology but am aware that the thread is "What is science and what is not science?". The points apply to any rival theories.I think the error that is being made here is that you are effectively asking the currently established theory (conventional geology for example) to take account of an opposing INTERPRETATION (e.g.Flood geology) of the same evidence rather than finding any actual new evidence that opposes the established and independently corroborated theory.IF there were new evidence predicted as a direct result of flood theory and consequently discovered by flood gelogists that opposed the expectations of, or could not be adequately explained by, conventional geology then this would warrant the sort of respect and investigation you seem to be suggesting flood geology deserves of the mainstream.However in the absence of any new evidence it is up to the flood geologists to demonstrate that their interpretation of the physical evidence at hand is equal or superior to the established interpertation/theory.This is done by effectively trying to falsify your theory by making logical predictions as to the consequences of your theory and then looking for new evidence that will either verify or refute the conclusions of the theory in question. If predictions are consistently verified by physical evidence in the form of discoveries or experiments and these can be repeated/verified by others working in the field then you may be onto something!
If in addition the wider conclusions of your theory (e.g. the age of the Earth for example) can be corroborated by other completely seperate buy equally tested and verified theories (e.g. radiometric testing) then you have a full blown scientific theory with a body of evidence on which it is based.As far as I am aware "creationist scientists" have only ever offered alternative interpretations to existing evidence with no deduction of logical consequences, prediction or falsification to speak of.
All established scientific theories have undergone this process and repeatedly passed the test .Until creationists can demonstrate that the logical consequences of their theories result in the discovery of new evidence that contradicts the established theory or have a body of tested, verified and independently corroborated evidence that rivals the established theory, there is absolutely no reason to take their interpretations seriously.

Your packing some words there which would need some uppacking. What is belief/reality/science?There is a thread looking at what science is running at the moment. Clear cut is is not.Globally the divide seems to be: belief subject to science. vs science a subset of belief. The athiestic, materialistic view vs. the believers view.Edited by iano, : change "science subject to" to "science a subset of"

Do you therefore hold that it is proper to believe something that is patently false?
(Personally, I do not understand how one could do this. I suppose one could still claim to believe whatever it was.)

There is a difference between making small methodoligcal or mathematical errors in your work that could lead to erroneous conclusions and not employing the methodology in a correct manner at all.If a drug company paid a research team to find results that confirm the drug is safe, and the research team found that the drug sometimes works but is often riddled with horrendous side effects. The research team publishes the paper that says that the drug is perfectly safe, as long as the taker has good karma or plenty of good joss. I would not regard this as science.Likewise, if a forensic science team found that the murder must have been comitted by a demon, even though the evidence indicates that the murderer is the lead scientist. I would not regard this as science.Using the same method of judgement ICR has yet to engage in science. The reason is straight forward. They sacrifice the rigour demanded by science so that they can reach the conclusions they wish to reach. They aren't the first to do it, they won't be the last.One can engage in pseudoscientific research as a means to pursuing truth, but that doesn't make it science.