What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

Issues concerning moderation and the Forum Guidelines has been raised several times, so I will attempt to address these in one brief post.What is and isn't science can only be decided by measurement against the definition of science. If the evolutionists in this discussion agree, and if they see a correct definition of science as being advantageous to their argument, then it is hard to understand why they're doing such a piss-poor job of defining science.The criticisms against creationism as science advanced in this thread appear to be:

1. There is no evidence that they would consider as falsifying.
2. They don't do peer review.
3. They ignore evidence.

I've seen no answer to the first about falsification.The answer to the second about peer review that has been proffered is that creationists publish quite a bit, but to the public, which is the whole point. Peer review is about putting your research results before peers, not before the public. Peer review is essential to the process of replication, a key quality of science.The above comment should not be interpreted as taking sides in the debate. Moderators should strive for neutrality, but that quality does not include feigning ignorance. Peer review does have a definition, and it does have a clear function. I know what it is and what it's for, and I will moderate any discussion involving peer review with that knowledge firmly in mind.The third question about ignoring evidence has been poorly argued by both sides. There have been general assertions that creationists ignore evidence, and general assertions that creationists gather and interpret evidence.All in all, a pretty poor job by both sides with some occasional high points, e.g., Straggler's last post.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I hesitate to reply when you post in admin mode, but you raise issues in your posts which themselves suggest repliability... It is not so hard to understand why scientists (or proscience people anyway) are having a hard time defining science, because it has a variety of definitions and certainly no set one. One can see this in dictionary definitions of science as well as following the history of science.It has started with a broad meaning, and has progressively developed narrower meanings, specifically based on evolving methodologies by practitioners. As I pointed out and modulous has shown, ID theorists are attempting to popularize a wider meaning. They are not wrong in refering to their work as science, but they are inaccurate in that it is not modern science, that is they do not practice the methods of contemporary scientists.While methods can be included to reach a narrow definition regarding modern science, there is a problem in that not all methods are necessary, and new ones may emerge over time... as they always have.I am not a big creo studier, but have spent some time on ID in specific. They specifically deny Occam's razor as a valuable tool as well as try to validate arguments from ignorance (arguing that to reject arguments for ignorance may itself be a fallacy). This goes a long way in undercutting modern scientific methods. While incredibly valuable to scientific progress, and it is suspicious when anyone actively avoids peer review, indeed one is not taking part in mainstream science community without doing so, it is not NECESSARY for fulfilling any definition of science that I am aware of.If that was true then individuals in remote or isolated locations would be considered not doing science, despite treating data according to modern scientific methods, and obtaining practical results.This could also provide a problem for isolated groups of scientists, which engage in work that they cannot release for larger review due to security concerns. Essentially creos and IDists can appeal to that model, arguing that they do engage in small scale internal review. They'd have a point, even if one raises an eyebrow for not sharing their data further professionally and instead delivering it straight to the lay public (they aren't dealing with national secrets after all).Real criticism of not engaging in modern science, the narrow definition of science, should fall on the nature of hypothesis construction and treatment of data as it effects the ability to test one's hypotheses, and deliver practical conclusions.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Isn't there usually a section in a scientific paper which addresses the problems with the research and includes alternative explanations for the evidence?

quote:

---

That is the philosophy of empiricism at work. But who says science is defined by one particular philosophy about science.

---

It is true that there is a certain amount of variation in what various philosophers of science consider "science".However, there are certain core concepts that everyone who does science agrees upon.

Hi Admin. If you had posted as Percy I would have some things to respond to. Since you're speaking as Admin, it appears I have nothing to add. You've shot down most of my high points as administratively unacceptable, so what more can I say. I'm saying that here rather than in private so my thread counterparts will understand why I'm backing off from my more agressive stance.

There is another issue -- anyone can do bad science.Bad science is fraught with errors, poor experimental structure, poor hypothesis, poor tests, etc.The real question is what makes science better - how do you control things so that bad science is reduced, how do you check the results?Peer review - to judge the quality of the science
Replication by others - trying to get different results

---

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.

It seems this question surfaces at least once a month and the answers tend to show some contrasting views and some even contain an element of duplicity.Scientific theory is tentative and should always be viewed as such until there is absolutely no reason to assume that there will ever be any fact that is irreconcilable. As William Dembski has duly noted, "No scientific theory withstands revision for long, and many are eventually superseded by ideas that flatly contradict their predecessors. Scientific revolutions are common, painful, and real. New theories regularly overturn old ones, and no scientific theory is ever the final word." Whether you find yourself in agreement with his views or not I think that point, if nothing else, stands supreme.I think if we were to truly simplify science we'd have to go back to its roots. The derivative of the word 'science' in Old English is usually rendered "scire," which literally means "to know." But even this lacks the understanding it deserves because I think we would all agree that every part of science has a pro tem value attached to it as it gathers more evidence to support any given hypothesis.I think it was RAZD that put it most eloquently, listed in an easy to follow, stepwise formula. Science is the study, testing, and observation of evidence. That, in and of itself, could mean a myriad of things with a definition of such brevity. Nontheless, that is the standard criteria foir science.Therefore, perhaps the real question, or more applicable one, doesn't ask what is science, but rather, what isn't?That being said, what are ther qualifiers or disqualifiers of creation theory, intelligent design, or evolution?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Hey Buz.I think one of the things to include in this discussion is the philosophy of science -- for example see
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia It's not just the definition of science you've been talking about.One of the critical issues of science is validity of the results, and how to derive valid results.Another is social accountability, the openness of science to having others reach the same results.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.

Hi Holmes,I'm moderating this thread, not participating in discussion. If you have moderation issues then please take them to General discussion of moderation procedures - Part . If you find my moderator feedback useful then please apply it in your replies in this thread, but as I'm not participating in discussion in this thread there's not much point in replying to me.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You appear to be seeking an excuse to drop out of this discussion. No points were ruled "administratively unacceptable," and you're as free as ever to argue your point of view.I posted to this thread for two reasons. First, I thought the discussion needed guidance. Second, on several occasions you raised issues regarding debating in good faith and discussing constructively. I gave the thread a careful second reading and concluded that it was having a lot of trouble coming to the point. Neither side has demonstrated a clear understanding of how legitimate science is conducted, and some characterizations of science have been woefully off-target.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

Some prominent members are continually alleging that ID and creationism is not science, implying that IDists and creationists who arrive at alternatives to mainline secularist science theories and hypotheses, including IDist scientists are not being scientific.

---

This will continue to be brought up, until the following conditions are met by ID'ers.1) What predictions does I.D. make that we can test that is no already covered by the Theory of Evolution.
2) What testable statement, if proven true, falsifies I.D.
3) What is positive evidence FOR I.D. that is not the logical fallacy of personal incredibilty, or merely an attack on evolution.

Hey Ramoss.Your three points distil it down very well, but it think you mean "logical fallacy of personal incredulity".I like your turn of phrase though...

Questions 1 can be consolidated into question 2. Testability covers a gamut of questions because confirmation, predicability, and explanatory power will naturally fall within the criteria. Specified complexity alongside irreducible complexity in biology is what seperates intelligent design from any other theory. In this it uses "Darwins Wager" as a basis for its own case. For instance, if it could be shown that biological systems that are complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual process, then ID would be falsified on the grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. That would be sufficient to falsify ID.As far as its predictibility goes, it stands to reason that any biological system it looks at will prove that it could not possibly had derived from chance mutations and selections. ID claims to be telic, something far easier to detect on the 'bullshit radar' than what prognostications evolution can surmise.If you notice, evolution makes no real predictions, nothing that can be meted out with any semblance of veracity. The extent of evolution's predictions are, "things will change." That's hardly a prediction, especially when its adherents quip how obvious evolution is. However, if some scientist looking at the genome of any given organism made a prediction about its progenies morphology based on the progenitors current sequence, and based its argument on its probalistic chances due to its enviornment, or whathave you, then that would really be something a bit more praiseworthy. What? 85% of the theory is based on positive evidence. What do you think IC is about? If IC undermines what Darwin espoused in the process, so be it. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Please be careful here IC and associated ideas are NOT the topic here. Try not to get dragged down that rabbit hole.There are a number of threads on the topic. Any one who wants to point out to NJ that IC and specified complexity are rather poorly founded should us those threads.

This thread is not about evolution versus ID. It is not about taking as many shots at the other side as possible. It is about what is and isn't science. This means talking about the criteria of science and providing examples of how well various ideas meet those criteria. While evolution and ID are valid examples of such ideas, this is not a debate about evolution and ID.I notice that NosyNed has already posted the same thing. Please listen to him.