What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

This thread is discussing what is and isn't science, and Buzsaw has provided us the example of Chris Miller, a geologist performing biology experiments in his basement. I'll now explain why what Chris Miller is doing is not science.Approaching something in a scientific manner is not the same thing as doing science. As others have already pointed out, Chris Miller's experiments, at least as described by Buzsaw, can never settle the issue he's set out to decide, but that's not why it isn't science. Even poorly conceived experiments can be science, though their contribution is more in the realm of showing what not to do.Chris Miller isn't doing science because his experimental results will never be placed before other scientists for review and replication. Chris can perform his experiments and talk about them before church groups for years and years, but his results will never become part of the fabric of science until they are validated by other scientists who by reading his papers are able to replicate his experiments and obtain the same results.Even if Chris does eventually go to the trouble of writing up his results in a technical paper and submitting it to a legitimate scientific journal, it would be rejected out of hand. It would never even reach the peer review stage. The first editor to see it would toss it out after only reading the abstract because the poor experimental design and the lack of any scientific framework surrounding the hypothesis would be all too readily apparent.This last issue is another key reason why what Chris is doing isn't science. Any trained scientist would quickly recognize that Chris's results, no matter what they turned out to be, could not be valid science because Chris was not hypothesizing about observed phenomena. He was hypothesizing based upon his own personal beliefs. Even worse, he doesn't seem to understand the theory of evolution that he's attempting to falsify, and he seems ignorant of the large body of research demonstrating the process of evolution. The only thing Chris really has going for him is a ready and attentive audience in the fundamentalist community.Interestingly, Chris is wrong even by creationist standards (and if Buzsaw's characterization is accurate, he apparently has the same misunderstanding of ID that Buzsaw has). But Chris seems to have forgotten that creationists do not deny speciation. Creationists readily admit speciation, a change from one species to another. What creationists deny is change from one kind to another. Chris's guppies will never become another species in his lifetime, any evolutionist could tell him that, but even if speciation did occur creationists would just point out that the new guppy species was still a member of the guppy kind - it was still just a guppy.In other words, Buz, you are giving credence to someone who not only doesn't understand evolution, but who doesn't even understand creationism.AbE: And this allows us to transition from why Chris Miller isn't doing science to why creationism in general does not do science. Because creationism does not possess the scientific qualities of review and replication, creation scientists can come in all different kinds of contradictory stripes and colors, as long as they're against evolution. They can never make progress toward any single viewpoint because they are united by religious perspective and by what they're against, instead of by a shared commitment to objectively follow and interpret the evidence.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar, plus a small amount of additional material at the end.

Usually people are judged by their body of work. You're offering Chris Miller as an example of a creationist performing legitimate science, and then when people ask about his body of work you're putting them off. Either you've seen Chris Miller's body of work and have judged it good science and are prepared to argue in an informed manner about the quality of his work, or you're not. Don't go accusing people of making "judgemental assumptions" when all they're doing is asking the exact right questions.The key issue here is, on what basis are you judging Chris Miller's work to be legitimate science. What if you had a guy in a track suit speak at your church about how he could outrun all the fastest track stars in the world. Would you believe him? Or would you want to see him in a race, or at least see articles about races he'd won? You'd want to see evidence, right?So what evidence do you have that you can make available to us here at EvC Forum that Chris Miller is a creationist doing legitimate scientific research into creationism? What papers has he written? What contributions has he made to his science? What are his accomplishments? What are the details of the science he is conducting? Where is his data published so it can inspected? What other scientists have replicated his results? How frequently are his papers cited by other scientists?Don't bother answering, it's already well apparent you have none of this information. Someone gave a talk at your church, and you liked what he said. It is now well past time to forget Chris Miller. Please do everyone a favor and don't post again until you can post on-topic about something in creationism that you believe is legitimate scientific research and that there is information about that can be obtained on the web. I suggest that you try ICR. Andrew Snelling's and Steven Austin's papers would make good candidates.--Percy

Sorry about referring to the man as your friend. I didn't mean anything by it. Also, you have taken me as being more critical than I actually was. All I was doing was noting what seemed unusual. Science has been done by people working outside their professional area, so it really isn't a bar to doing science. However one can legitimately ask if he might miss have missed some specific detail, especially as science has become more specialized (as schraf accurately pointed out). Again not drawing a conclusion, just raising an eyebrow.But I will say this about your current claim. I don't know of anyone, especially a credible scientist, who has ever learned enough to debate the whole science spectrum. And I have known some pretty bright people. You don't need to sell him so hard. I don't think this is getting into another topic. It seems we could use a more detailed explanation of the research he is doing, in order to discuss it as an example. I can't be sure from the general statement you made. That's not and insult to you or him, just a statement of fact.If you can't get more detailed info, that's fine, it just makes it hard to judge accurately whether he is doing science or not.

---

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

I'm sorry but I have to challenge this statement.I get what you are saying, that an isolated experimenter's work, if forever outside the knowledge of other scientists, will never be part of the "fabric of science", if we conceive of that as the body of scientific knowledge (RAZDs discussion of cumulative knowledge).But that does not make his experiments or his approach unscientific. I have already raised an example of an isolated experimenter or covert group of experimenters.Lets say a manned mission is sent to mars. A geologist goes to work on soil samples and well-logging to understand the nature/evolution of martian geology. For some reason all communication is lost with earth, and they are unable to return. We can even add that the earth has been destroyed. Does that mean that the geologist is no longer doing science because what he finds is no longer capable of being handed to other scientists for review?Or lets say a small team of scientists, let's say at los alamos, could have broken the atom and then figured out how to create a nuclear weapon. This research is never sent outside their group and after the bomb is created the group is killed and their notes destroyed so no one else can know what they did. They STILL did science didn't they?In the last case in specific it would be hard to argue when the bomb goes off that no one learned anything about the natural world, or that they did no science to achieve such results.Review and replication is incredibly useful. Its utility cannot be overstated with the exception of making it a mandate. Some scientists have toiled in obscurity with their work never having been seen, or if seen then rejected, until discovery many years after their death. That's when it entered the body of scientific knowledge. Yes their work was obsolete until it was recognized, but not necessarily flawed and not unscientific.I also don't think you can say how Miller's work would be treated. Buz never gave us enough to judge what he is doing. I admit it looks... fishy... but suppose buz is giving us a simplified version filtered through his own ideas regarding evolution/creation.It is possible the guy is trying something that could end up being accepted by journals. I do agree that creationists would not accept a "bad" result, but that is neither here nor there. The question would be if Miller is willing to accept such a result.I understand your enthusiasm. I just don't think you need to rail so hard against this specific example, until we actually know what is going on. And I have to take exception with your apparent demand that review and mass replication is necessary for science. Edited by holmes, : if seen then

---

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

I was thinking the same thing myself. At the same time though, I agree with the point Percy is trying to make, and I have little doubt that he's correct in his assessment of Chris Miller's work (namely that it will never be reviewed by scientists nor will the experiment be replicated). However, I feel that Chris Miller's experiment is unscientific not based on this sort of stuff, but rather solely on the hypothesis he stated (or, at least as stated by Buzsaw) which is: Now, the way I read that is that he's attempting to disprove an event that has yet to happen. How can he test whether or not a guppy can mutate into a "non-guppy"? It's impossible. That, in and of itself, removes his "experiment" from the realm of science. And of course I have completely ignored what his null hypothesis would be, or how he would define “species”, but to me none of that matters since, again, he is attempting to disprove future possibilities. There is no conceivable endpoint to his "experiment". It's total BS and is probably just set up to "disprove" evolution to his audience.

Buz, I suggest to you and your church that if you want to learn more about science, and wish to have someone come and deliver a "science seminar", why don't you contact the local community college (or even the high school)?I am sure that there are many capable, educated people in your community who would be able to give a talk on just about any subject, and who also are "bonafide, legitimate scientists", or at least have eduction credentials in science.Of course, you all would have to be willing to listen to someone who was just going to tell you about science and not include a bunch of ID or creationist stuff that you would rather hear mixed up into your science, but I am certain that you would learn more.

Let me make clear I agree with the point he's trying to make, and my guess is his guess is probably accurate regarding Miller's work. My point on Miller's work was more that we ought to cut him some break since we don't actually know what he is doing.No offence to Buz, but would you trust him to accurately portray your work to EvC after a single seminar? Heheheh... you are so right. The first thing I was wondering was how long he was expecting to run this experiment to come to a conclusion about evolution.That's not to mention even if he ran it till the end of the world and found 0 mutations in his guppies, that would not mean no other species could have accumulated enough mutations over time to be classified as a new species.I suppose the one thing he could hope for is that a new species would emerge from parents wholly incapable of producing that offspring from any plausible mechanical process, or simply poofed into existence sans parents altogether.Given Buz's description it sounded like a very poorly thought out experiment, but I want to reserve total judgement until I know more about it.

---

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

Razd you're trying to turn this thread into assessing the quality of science. That's not what the title or the OP address. It's about what is and is not science. That's it. If you want to discuss what different folks consider is good or bad quality science it should be another thread topic.Let me again remind everyone what motivated me to open this thread. Folks were alleging that there's no creo science and implying that ID cannot be a factor in science so I opened this thread to debate that issue and that alone.

---

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

Tell ya what, Schraf, melady, I make you a deal. You get our man into your school and we'll get your man into our church, both doing a bonafide science lecture.

---

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

quote:

---

Tell ya what, Schraf, melady, I make you a deal. You get our man into your school and we'll get your man into our church, both doing a bonafide science lecture.

---

Great!We'll have some professional scientists who's expertise is relevant review the content of each seminar and whatever passes muster as legitimte science can be included in either seminar.

Buz, you can't really want the guppy man to stand as your example of creo science; can you?? It is, at best, at a grade 7 science fair level. You can't want that to be your example, right?So why not just withdraw that and find some better examples. You should NEVER have mentioned him. Not ever: the technical term for this is a mistake.

Thanks Holmes. Thanks very much! This is essentially what I've been trying over and over to get across from the title of this thread all the way here to page seven.I've just finished emailing Chris and hoping he will find time in his busy schedule to apprise me/us on some specifics of some of the science he is doing regarding the guppy/mutation research and other stuff he does. He also uses core sampling from bedrock, plate tetonics, et al which is an integral factor in his oil related work as well as integral to the creo/evo science issues having him in an occupational science which apprises him on stuff other scienists are not engaged in.

---

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

Ned, I'd have left off with the guppies way back upthread if I could've, but you people are the ones who are blowing this up to a major thing. That's why I likened it to "straining at guppies and swallowing whales." I figured I'd given enough on it from the gitgo for anyone to consider it as science, no matter what evaluation you people have as to the quality of the science being done. Again, this is suppose to by my thread and my OP and title says it's not about quality of science being done, but that it is covered under the definition of science.Too many people here in this thread are trying to debate, as Holmes has so susinctly stated, that nothing is science that doesn't include every single aspect of a total science thesis all the way from hypothesis to peer review. Well, as Holmes correctly argues along with me, that's just not true. Doing science can be any segment of science activity in any given project or research. I thought I made that crystal clear a long way back in this thread, but it appears that only Holmes is listening to what I've been trying to get across. 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

Strange. It has seemed to me that you are blowing it up. You are claiming that he is doing creo science, but thus far we have no evidence of it.From your description, it sounds to me as if he has a tank of guppies for about the same kind of reason that many other people have tanks of guppies in their homes. He just happened to mention it to make a rhetorical point (perhaps intended as a joke).

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Ok, for now Buz. It's just that bringing up an example that may well be (as several of us have agreed with you and disagreed with Percy) science but an example of such poor quality science seems to be a bad idea for you.However, how about focussing on the actual topic then.What do you think is the minimum that is needed for a process to have a resonable chance of producing somewhat trustworthy results? I don't care if it's called science or not.I don't recall that you answered the question about whether you think there is a better process than the scientific one.I hope you can get to this while I'm gone for a few days (a present for me-- an upgrade that I don't really need).