What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

I received an email response from Chris Miller and he corrected me regarding his guppies in that he artificially selects them for variations. I believe he made the point that there was a limit or boundary to how many variables he could come up with. I took this as a means of communicating to us that there is a limit to which the natural process can go within the species and mistakenly used the term, mutation. I have emailed back to ask him if he regards this as doing science and to ask also if there are any of his activities which he considers to be actually doing science relative to the evo/creo issues.He says he never mentioned zebras or the arctic ice. I do view creation science programs on Sky Angel TV occasionally and perhaps I attributed the ice/zebra thing to the wrong source. I apologized to Cris for getting things wrong and apologize to you folks for the mistakes regarding him also. I will wait for his answers to my other questions and apprise you of anyting new.As for creationism science I have also cited the work of ICR scientists and archeologists and do stand by my claims that ICR does do science relative to the creo/evo debate. I know most of you consider their science as poor science but I remind you that this thread is not a debate on who's science is considered good or poor science by members but rather whether what is being done is doing science. It is my contention that the English language dictionary should have a major bearing on what is defined as science. Refusal to admit that standard allows for biased groups to claim their preferred hypotheses and theories to dogmatically and exclusively dictate what is science and what is not to advance their own science ideological agenda. I will do some more searching on specifics before going further with this debate so far as my participation goes. 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

The following is a segment of an ICR report which serves to substantiate the qualification of ICR's science graduate school department heads and as well to explain problems they (abe: have had in the past) regarding the state relative to what we are debating in this thread, i.e. what is science. A Unique Creationist School of Science (V: ICR, For Such a Time as This) | The Institute for Creation Research 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

Exactly buz.They are unable to get honest accreditation and so turn to the mockery called TRACS.They are NOT doing science.They are a sham and a fraud.Only the most gullible cannot see that they are but a con game.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thatr answer doesn't addess any of the serious concerns (to list three examples: lack of input from knowledgable sources at the time the experiment was designed, test for speciation, timescale). It just looks even more as if the experiment is a waste of time and doesn't really attempt to engage evolutionary theory. Whatever results he get will have no significance to the question the experiment was supposed to address.So you can stand by your opinion all you like, but without evidence its still just an opinion.

He doesn't have a testable hypothesis. What he is doing may be fun and interesting but it is most certainly NOT science. Thus far you have provided one example of what you consider to be scientific research that, as it turn out, is not actually scientific research at all. Can we perhaps get another example?

I agree with you. I didn't call his approach unscientific. In the paragraph just prior to the one you quoted I said, "Approaching something in a scientific manner is not the same thing as doing science."Science is a collective activity. Individuals and teams can perform scientific experiments, but they cannot do science by themselves because of the requirement of replication.Many essential qualities derive from the simple requirement of replication. Objectivity springs from distributing the assessment of scientific results among many individuals with all their unique backgrounds, biases and perspectives. Confidence in scientific theories derives from the resulting consensus, and the consensus serves as a foundation for future research.Because creationism is not doing science they have no shared perspective, no consensus, and no cohesive theory. Nor are they making any progress in these areas. This is because their goal is not to do science. Science is not what interests them. Whatever you want to call what they do, they do it out of the perceived scientific threat to their religious beliefs.The primary philosophical difference between creationists and true scientists is that creationists are certain they are right, while scientists are certain they may be wrong.We cannot use Chris Miller as an example of creationist research because, other than Buzsaw, there is no source of information about his work.--Percy

You and Holmes are wrong. Please read my immediately previous Message 201 which explains this clearly. If you'd like more detail you can reread my earlier posts, Message 181 and Message 182.Please move on from Chris Miller. There is no information about him anywhere. I suggest you seek examples of creationist research at ICR. CRS is another possibility.--Percy

Hi Buz,Please stop using the Chris Miller example. Other than you, there is no source of information about his work. Not in this thread you haven't. Yes, we know. You keep repeating this, but this thread represents your opportunity to provide suppporting evidence and argument for your viewpoint. Repetition of your starting premise doesn't accomplish this. If this were a race then you'd be running in place at the starting gate. And for that you need to offer examples of their science for consideration. You were on the right track with Chris Miller, but as I keep saying, you can't use him because there's no source of information about his work. I again suggest you use examples from ICR and CRS. Yes, Buz, we know. You keep saying this. But you ignored almost all my detailed characterization of science in Message 144. You can't ignore the particulars of rebuttals and just keep reiterating your position. In addition, your views that the scientific establishment is systematically excluding the creationist approach to science is not the topic of this thread. It no big deal to mention this in passing, but you shouldn't keep repeating it. If you'd like to discuss it then open a new thread.--Percy

This is not on-topic.--Percy

It suddenly occurs to me that there may be different interpretations about the topic of this thread.I'm assuming that this thread is about the process of the science, from hypothesis through experiment and on to replication and theory.I'm wondering if some people view this thread as examining what constitutes a valid scientific experiment, which is much more limited.If I'm discussing the wrong topic someone please let me know.--Percy

While I can accept that as a functionally valid definition, and use it if you want, it is a personal definition (or criteria) you are using.It is one that I am not familiar with, and most scientists I have known and spoken to on this very subject (over the years and during prep for doc on ID) have not used such a criteria.It leads to some unusual implications as I have already noted and you did not address, except to assert the above. Potential for replication is necessary to be science, replication is vital for continuance of a theory but not for previous work to be considered science.I mean according to your definition, if we store all data ever collected on electrical media, and in some freak accident it is all destroyed, the result would be that no one did science in the past because their work can no longer be known or replicated.I am totally on board with how useful it is to science, one could even say critical to the maintenaince of any theory within the body of scientific knowldge. You are making that point exceedingly clear. The problem, to my mind, is in the hairsplitting between approaching something in a scientific manner and doing science based on that criteria. I agree with that assessment. However there have been many people who did not share common perspectives, did not find consensus (till well after their death), and had some gaps within their theory... yet were scientists. I think your last two sentences above are the more important issue to whether they end up doing science, as opposed to simply piss poor science.If Galileo or Newton never published, or never got published, despite having done all the same work and wrote the same papers on the same subjects, would you really maintain they never did science and only approached things in a scientific manner? Absolute agreement. I think we are simply separated by one issue within the criteria for science, and that it must be collective. As useful as it is, and as part of everyday practice as it is at this time, I just do not recognize it as mandatory to the defining any specific research as science.Do you maintain that your criteria is a commonly held concept? If so, can you point to where that has been advanced? I agree and am not meaning to be critical of your asking him to present something else from ICR or whatever. I just thought if he wanted to use it, he would at least need to supply something from this guy before he or anyone else can talk about it seriously.BTW, buz seems to be taking my position a little bit far the other way now. Its not that I'm solidly arguing for his position, I'm just not completely against it. I think he has a point that science can be used more broadly, and what some do today has been considered science in the past.Only he must realize that common convention and intent is something much more narrow for the same reason, definitions change over time... modern science which is what we refer to in science education follows criteria which your outline in 144 provided admirably.It seems to insist on using a more archaic or broad version, needs to be explained. ID theorists have tried and their explanations found wanting.

---

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

Hi Holmes,I'm not going to reply in any detail because I think you're primarily seeking clarification of the boundaries of the definition. If that becomes germane to an example of science in this particular thread then I'll gladly get into it, but right now I won't be spending any time clarifying at just what point science becomes no longer science. Just at what exact particular point the bay becomes ocean may be a point of debate, but it doesn't mean that bay and ocean don't have clear definitions. Science, indeed all terminology, has the same issues with boundaries, but science does have a clear and definite definition.Yes, my view is traditional scientific philosophy, but it's a very complex topic so I'm of course simplifying. One can do the same thing to scientific philosophy that creationists do to evolution by pointing to internal controversies to imply that the science is hopelessly confused and useless, but naturally that's a misrepresentation.We can't use an example of science where the only source of information about it is one of the participants in the discussion.--Percy

I saw your post 205 after I posted my longer reply. I think you hit on something which may be key to the subdiscussion we are having. I will deal with that last... Okay I can agree with this somewhat, but the problem is science does not have a set definition. That is to say at any one point in time what fulfills the current definition will not at another point. There are some common criteria which you did an excellent job of pointing out. However methods and practices do change thus affecting what counts as science.In the specific case of replication I do not believe disqualifying Galileo's work as science- if his papers had been collected and hidden away forever by the church- is a matter of defining a difference between where the bay ends and the ocean begins. I think Galileo's work is CLEARLY a "spot in the ocean", and to consider it debatable is a problem. Get as complex as you want. This is part of my background education as well as part of my professional work. I can keep up with it, or I'll tell you when I can't.I'm not sure if you are referring to the mandate of communal activity "traditional scientific philosophy". There are many camps with different concepts of how science works. Scientists themselves do not necessarily agree with all labels/standards philosophy applies.I am not a creationist and am not interested in pointing to internal controversies. I thought your review in 144 was almost 100% dead on with the most common features to most philosophies of science/scientific method. I just don't believe that to do science requires communal effort.Okay with all this in mind, you stated in 205 that perhaps some were discussing scientific experimentation, rather than science. That was an interesting point and I thought about it. While I don't think that's exactly the right way to look at the issue, let me throw something else out and see if you'd agree.It seems to me that there is a difference between doing science, and taking part in science/scientific endeavour. A person can do all the science they want, but if they are in any way cut off from the mass of other people in the field, then they and their work are not (or not yet) contributors to common scientific knowledge (which is communal and cumulative). Thus they are not "taking part" in science.This joins well with not only what RAZD said, but what you said earlier about how creos approach science. Whether they want and actually manage to do science within any specific research would be besides the point, as they have no interest in taking part in science (ie by being contributors within the process). In fact they pose themselves as antagonists to scientific endeavour.Edited by holmes, : clarity

---

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

It sounds like we're as much in agreement as people usually get on this issue. For example, while I can't agree with this, I can see why you might think so: I think it does, but even for those who see much ambiguity, as far as creationism goes, there is no significant variant of scientific philosophy into which it fits. Science is like Christianity - sure there are lots of different ways of philosophizing about it, but it has a fundamental core set of criteria that creationism simply does not meet. It has nothing to do with you but with me. While wandering through the valley of project hell I accidentally entered both phone menu hell (3 hours with Dell, 1 hour with Maxtor) and computer hell ("hang 10" is my new PC's middle name, the units of the integer is times/hour). My main computer is running a disk diagnostic right now that should take 24 hours because Maxtor is such a wonderful company. I'm a little distracted and a lot short of time.--Percy

Maxtor is the devil! Seagate shall be your salvation!

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)