What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

"Tentative" has degrees. Somethings are very tentative indeed. Any suggestions as to the nature of "dark energy" put forward today would have to be assigned a pretty high "tentative rateing". That general relavtivity is correct within a wide range of conditions has a very low "tentative rating".At some point the "tentativeness" is so extremely low that to continually refer to it gets to be silly. The sun WILL rise tomorrow morning. The measured flow of time DOES change at high relative velocities. Germs DO cause many diseases. The earth IS way over a billion years old.In addition, there is a very big difference between holding something as true with some small amount of tentativeness and showing with a very high degree of certainty that it is wrong.That more massive objects are accelerated by gravity more than less massive objects has been proven to be wrong. There really is no reason to be tentative about it.That a single, world covering flood happened a few thousand years ago is simple wrong.

It's not about what science says, it's about what the evidence shows.Also be aware that scientific knowledge is cumulative. Those fossils aren't just going to magically disappear from the equation. Nor is the atomic behavior of carbon going to change. Call it tentative if you insist. However, there is currently no physical evidence to support YEC and the evidence we do have directly contradicts it. This is what you really need to worry about....Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Um, Richard Dawkins is the senior professor of evolutionary biology at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, Oxford. He is tasked to teach "real science." Whether he does or not is a matter of debate because he's made it abundantly clear that he will not consider any other theory, which may be, at least in part, understandable. Afterall, it is a deeply ingrained faith and a strong dogma on which we are all raised from a tender age.The trend that distrubs me a bit is that the leading proponents of evolutionary thought all make their living purely from evolutionary theory. Its difficult to see how someone whose entire life reputation and livelihood were bound up with the theory could turn against it without some serious introspection. Nor would I expect his name or any other person to be specifically named in the text books. However, where do you think the information of the texts come from? Read the citations in the back of the book. It wouldn't be impossible to assume that Dawkins' research contributed to parts of the text. I think the fact that its been assumed true for so long that people accept on these grounds alone. If you haven't noticed, there has been a slow, but growing scientific exodus over the past 20 years. And as people are being introduced to other considerations, instead of being told what to believe, they can judge for themselves based upon the evidence presented by both sides and make an "informed decision"-- something that was never an option to them before recently. Macroevolutionary theory is absolutely theoretical, and has been for over 150 years. Parts of biology, astronomy, archeology, etc, are accredited by "direct observation." Upwards of 75% of evolutionary biology is purely theoretical, which, by definition, is non-scientific. It is within the realm of theoretical consideration just as ID. There are parts of evolutionary theory and parts of the design inference that are proven empirically, and parts, the largest portions, that are not.Because of this, perhaps we should remain tentative.

---

"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

Of course not. I gave no account whatsoever of how people come up with hypotheses; my account is of how to test them: by calculating their consequences and comparing them with observation. Nor did I say nor imply that these observations should be few or simple. Yes. What of it?It was meant to be an account of how we test hypotheses, not an account of advances in automative engineering. I should like to thank you for being so helpful and informative, not only on my own account, but also on behalf of everyone else reading this thread who would like to know the answer.

Away from evolution? Don't make me laugh.The only exodus away from evolution has come from brain-washed Bible-belters in the mid-west US.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.You had stated it as a comment on "the scientific method". In my opinion, the scientific method includes the developing of hypotheses and theories. It is that part, the developing of hypotheses and theories, that makes it difficult to precisely specify the scientific method.Testing is, of course, very important. And it is the part that creationists try to evade.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

As CS Lewis sardonically remarked, the proper response to someone who tells you that 2 + 2 = 4 is to reply that he is biased by being a methematician. No. However long a theory has been accepted as true, it is still possible to compare it to the evidence. I'm afraid someone has been telling you lies again.What's amusing is that the myth that scientists are giving up on evolution has been handed down through generation after generation of creationists.A creationist in 1894: "It is true that a tide of criticism hostile to the integrity of Genesis has been rising for some years; but it seems to beat vainly against a solid rock, and the ebb has now evidently set in. The battle of historical and linguistic criticism may indeed rage for a time over the history and date of the Mosaic law, but in so far as Genesis is concerned it has been practically decided by scientific exploration."A creationist in 1922: "The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time."A creationist in 1984: "Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time."They've been reciting this myth for over a century now, and it hasn't gotten any truer. Er ... there have in fact been creationists for the last 150 years. I suspect that if this was comprehensible, it would be wrong.The only sense I can make of it is that for some reason you think that macroevolution hasn't been confirmed empirically, in which case someone's been fibbing to you again.

..................................................

I hear that there are a bunch of creationists in the land of fruits and nuts.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

I think you can get your hypotheses any place you please. Kerkule famously saw the structure of benzene in a dream or reverie; Ramanujan had mathematical formulae dictated to him in dreams by his village goddess.Schliemann went looking for Troy on the basis of a poem full of pagan gods doing miracles; Bacon (Roger) was quite right to take Aristotles' statements as hypotheses and test them (just as he would have been quite wrong to take them as unquestioned truth); "creation scientists", too, may take their hypotheses from the Bible, and we can't complain of them on that score.Or we might imagine a computer trying to fit formula after formula to a set of physical data until it finds one that fits; that would be a "brute force" method of generating hypotheses.The commonest method of getting a good hypothesis is to study lots of relevant data (and irrelevant data, 'cos you don't know a priori which is which); think about it furiously; get nowhere; and then have the idea which makes sense of the data just appear in your head while you're relaxed and thinking about something else entirely.So whereas there is a formal method (logic, math) for getting from hypothesis to observation, there is (and can be, since a general hypothesis is always underdetermined by observation) no formal method of getting from observation to hypothesis.(This is, I suppose, why creationists like to turn the scientific method on its head and pretend that the theory of evolution is an "interpretation" of the data.)

Observation and replication of the results is required of science that have to be reconcilable with other previously well-established fact. If a theory is rested upon half-truths without direct observation, then it is still theoretical no matter who's trying to convinve you otherwise. And that's fine to still consider the possibilities. The problem is calling something "fact" when its only theory.

quote:

---

If you haven't noticed, there has been a slow, but growing scientific exodus over the past 20 years.

---

The proof is in the pudding. The mere fact that this topic is so hotly debated is sufficient in showing us that a paradigm shift is in the works, just as a paradigm shift occured after Darwin published Origins. Creationists were taken seriously for a number of years. Though they had been debating pro-evolution groups for some time, it never got much airtime, (so-to-speak). It wasn't until Denton and Johnson came along that it began to really stir the pot. It was a revitilization of what Kuhn and Grasse stated long ago. Traite De Zoologie, by Pierre Grasse, did not recieve much attention when it was publiushed, nor did Kuhn's works. But critics of the theory were out there, just not en masse.You also have to take into conisderation that a very large portion of the populace doesn't really care about the issue. I would say that people into this debate are not of the vast preponderance. The point of mentioning that is their testimony concerning the debate may be slanted because they don't really understand the details.

quote:

---

A creationist in 1894: "It is true that a tide of criticism hostile to the integrity of Genesis has been rising for some years; but it seems to beat vainly against a solid rock, and the ebb has now evidently set in. The battle of historical and linguistic criticism may indeed rage for a time over the history and date of the Mosaic law, but in so far as Genesis is concerned it has been practically decided by scientific exploration."

​

A creationist in 1922: "The science of twenty or thirty years ago was in high glee at the thought of having almost proved the theory of biological evolution. Today, for every careful, candid inquirer, these hopes are crushed; and with weary, reluctant sadness does modern biology now confess that the Church has probably been right all the time."

​

A creationist in 1984: "Despite all the bombastic books and articles, both by secular evolutionists and compromising evangelicals, which have opposed the modern literature on scientific Biblical creationism/catastrophism, the evidence is sound, and more and more scientists are becoming creationists all the time."

---

What's the "myth" you are referring to that doesn't get any truer? Chapter 6 and 9 of the Origin of Species is replete with instances of Darwin's own inability to wrap his mind around certain inequalities that he noticed. The very questions he asked so many years ago are still unanswered. Of those who've attempted to hypothesize on possible scenarios give, at best, an ad hoc or pro tempore attempt to reconcile those difficult questions. Those theories about possible explanations have managed to creep in the textbooks and some even remained "factual" long after it had been refuted. Is that "science?" Is that scientific? There have been creationists much longer than 150 years. Just saying so doesn't make it so. Present some unambiguous transitional forms and we'll go from there.

---

"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

... then I would be the first to say so.The theory of evolution, on the other hand, has been confirmed by repeatable observations. No, it shows that there are still fundies prepared to climb on the soapbox.If it was hotly debated among scientists, you'd have a point. That would be the same Denton who abandoned his creationist beliefs, right? Michael Denton? The man who wrote, in the introduction to : "Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies." Oh, and Phillip Johnson, a lawyer. The absurd creationist pretence that scientists are abandoning evolution. No. Yes, my point is that people have been able to hear creationists banging on about the theory of evolution ever since it was first published. Of course not. I was merely trying to explain to you why scientists accept the theory of evolution. It should be obvious to you that they wouldn't do so if it hadn't been confirmed empirically. This is completely off-topic, but since you ask, here are some unambiguous intermediate forms. Enjoy.Now, since you seem to be stuffed to the gills with creationist nonsense, I suspect that this article will make you want to recite the usual dreary mass of incomprehension and falsehood creationists trot out on this subject.If you must, then be a good chap and start a new thread in order to do so.

You'd have to first define what evolution is before you can answer that with any measure of truth. Parts of the theory are absolutely true. Others are unconfirmed. And that's putting it mildly.

quote:

---

The proof is in the pudding. The mere fact that this topic is so hotly debated is sufficient in showing us that a paradigm shift is in the works

---

Are you joking? What's the name of this very forum? This is just one example of the debate and its a small beachhead in a sea of controversy. It is hotly debated. Even if you don't agree with your opponents interpretations it doesn't detract from the fact that its a hot topic for a reason. Abandoned his creationist beliefs? He never was a creationist. That's why his detractors refer to him as an 'Anti-evolutionist.' They don't know how else to refer to them. And what are you?He's a retired professor of law at Berkley. He wrote his first book on Darwinism in 1990, which means he's been grinding at the mill long before his first book. Like him or despise him for his beliefs, Johnson did his homework. Some of them have defected. What was confirmed empirically is the existence of natural selection, isolation, and mutation acting upon a species that can cause new traits to develop and so arrive at a sub-specie. What it hasn't proven is that one specie or genus can arrive at another through these mechanisms. This part, which is obviously the bulk of the theory, has never been presented with empiricism.

quote:

---

Present some unambiguous transitional forms and we'll go from there.

---

How typical. Alright. 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

quote:

---

Um, Richard Dawkins is the senior professor of evolutionary biology at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, Oxford. He is tasked to teach "real science." Whether he does or not is a matter of debate because he's made it abundantly clear that he will not consider any other theory, which may be, at least in part, understandable. Afterall, it is a deeply ingrained faith and a strong dogma on which we are all raised from a tender age.

---

Again, are you referring to his popular press publications or his actual scientific findings?He is, indeed, a very outspoken Athiest and expresses it in his popular press work, but his Atheism is irrelevant to his scientific work. Similarly, Paleontologist Rev. Bob Bakker's Christianity is irrelevent to his scientific work.Do you suggest that we were all raised with the "deeply ingrained faith" and "strong dogma" of the Germ Theory of Disease from an early age?

quote:

---

The trend that distrubs me a bit is that the leading proponents of evolutionary thought all make their living purely from evolutionary theory. Its difficult to see how someone whose entire life reputation and livelihood were bound up with the theory could turn against it without some serious introspection.

---

You mean like Einstein "turned against" Newtonian physics?Yeah, he really hit rock bottom when he did that, didn't he?To overturn dominant paradigms is the rock n roll dream of every ambitious scientist. It's why we know the name Bakker, Gould, Einstein, and Darwin.

quote:

---

Nor would I expect his name or any other person to be specifically named in the text books.

---

Many specific people were mentioned in the textbooks, actually, especially regarding specific research findings and quite frequently throughout all of the materials used in The Nature of Scientific Inquiry course.

quote:

---

However, where do you think the information of the texts come from? Read the citations in the back of the book. It wouldn't be impossible to assume that Dawkins' research contributed to parts of the text.

---

I still own the two excellent textbooks used in the above-mentioned course, The Game of Science-5th Edfition, by McCain and Segal, and Science and Unreason by Radner and Radner.Dawkins is not mentioned or referenced at all in either book.I think you are under the misapprehension that Dawkins is thoroughly embraced by the entire scientific community, but this is simply not the case.

quote:

---

I think the fact that its been assumed true for so long that people accept on these grounds alone.

---

Juggs, the Modern Synthesis has only existed since the 1930's. Do you really think that a mere 7 decades is a "long time" in scientific terms?And nobody ever "assumed" it to be accurate.Did you simply ignore what I wrote above about the predictive power of the theory? If the predictions made employing the theory didn't work, it wouldn't matter how much andybody "assumed" it to be correct, much of the life sciences simply couldn't have proceeded at all.Don't you understand yet?All current science is built upon past science. If the science of the past is riddled with errors or simply assumed to be correct while not actually being correct, current predictions will not be borne out.

quote:

---

If you haven't noticed, there has been a slow, but growing scientific exodus over the past 20 years.

---

An exodus by whom?

quote:

---

And as people are being introduced to other considerations, instead of being told what to believe, they can judge for themselves based upon the evidence presented by both sides and make an "informed decision"-- something that was never an option to them before recently.

---

Nonsense.People were much better informed regarding science and Biology in the past because public education in the sciences (particularly after Sputnik was launched in the 50's) was made a priority.The reason the public's acceptance of the ToE is less now is the same reason their belief in things like Astrology and Alien Abduction and Psychic ability is increasing; US public education in critical thinking and the sciences is atrocious. Similarly, people don't read anywhere near as much as they used to. Now they just watch TV.People are more ignorant of science now than they were 20 years ago.To dovetail nicely with this increase in ignorance is a rise in the presence of Fundamentalism in the US, which encourages their followers to avoid, and indeed deeply mistrust, all kinds of intellectual understanding and instead trust in their religious teaching.

quote:

---

Macroevolutionary theory is absolutely theoretical, and has been for over 150 years.

---

The theory of a Heliocentric Solar System is even more "theoretical" than the ToE. Nobody has ever observed the entire solar system at the same time. It is entirely by inference that we know that the sun is at the center of our solar system.Do you consider it mere dogma that we accept this theory?

quote:

---

Parts of biology, astronomy, archeology, etc, are accredited by "direct observation."

---

Nobody has ever directly observed an atom.Our knowledge of the atomic nature of matter is entirely inferred.Do you consider the Atomic Theory of Matter to be merely dogmatically held?Nobody has ever directly observed the Milky Way, theorized to be a spiral galaxy.Do you consider it only dogma to accept the inference that the Milky way is a spiral galaxy?

quote:

---

Upwards of 75% of evolutionary biology is purely theoretical, which, by definition, is non-scientific.

---

Wha??Did you really want to write this utterly meaningless statement?

quote:

---

It is within the realm of theoretical consideration just as ID.

---

Do you really need to have the definitions of "theory" as scientists use the word and the layman use of the word "theory" explained to you again?Apparently so.From the wiki:

quote:

---

There are parts of evolutionary theory and parts of the design inference that are proven empirically, and parts, the largest portions, that are not.

---

This is untrue.Through your words above, I am dismayed to find that you do not seem to understand how science works at all. Edited by AdminNWR, : topic warning

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

Always a pleasure to read your well-written posts, Schraf.

quote:

---

People were much better informed regarding science and Biology in the past

---

My impression also. When I embarked on a career in science, scientists were revered as the most intelligent people in our society. No more, it would seem.Now, the putrid clergy of so many religious mythologies have corrupted public opinion to the point where scientists are not to be trusted....While truly educated people never lost sight of the fact that it was the clergy who were not to be trusted.What's next under the Faith-based Initiative? Will they give the cursed Christian right permission to sell indulgences on the internet...? I hope you saw the NYT feature on how religious "non-profits" are now experiencing all kinds of special priviledges that disenfranchize legal businesses. If not, I can link it. To me, this goes entirely counter to the principles of our constituion, becuase the state is giving religious organizations competitive economic advantages over secular ones.

quote:

---

US public education in critical thinking and the sciences is atrocious. Similarly, people don't read anywhere near as much as they used to. Now they just watch TV.

---

...and TV dotes on the lowest common demoninator and the shortest attention span, as driven by advertising revenue. No wonder we're breeding a nation of idiots.

quote:

---

People are more ignorant of science now than they were 20 years ago.

---

Sad, but true. It's become virtual national domination by the Jesus-freaks - born-again zombies eating the brain of the country.Denounce science! Up with JESUS! Can I have an AMEN?Why are people so f***ing brain-dead that they refuse to question crap they are told by other people and believe in things just because they were told them by their parents - even when there exists SOLID data contridicting their myths?. I don't care WHERE I had been born, or into what religion, I would have questioned any such dogmas foisted upon me. And they all fail a stringent cognitive analysis.