What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I simply meant that a sense that something could be the case will not cut it as evidence, no matter how often or convincing that feeling is.I then went on to try to discuss how one gets past the feeling toward actual evidence, and the limits such evidence would have. Well I think it is clear that buz misunderstood the true nature (or extent) of what Miller was doing, even from Miller's own perspective. I do however see how there can be a sense of such limits, even within a strictly evolutionary framework (the Go board analogy). The devil is in the details of obtaining such evidence, particularly in a way that could impact the whole of evolutionary theory, or in any way advance ID or creationist concepts.I think people (such as Percy) are correct in pointing out how the scientific community have built up evidence which does not ultimately bar speciation, and in fact supports it. Also that people who traditionally try to buck that, do so by first ignoring much of the evidence which exists to create that model.This does not even cover the fact that there are alternate avenues for speciation, or introduction of new mutational sources, such as from symbiosis. Thus there seems to be an isolation from work within the field to concentrate on rebutting one aspect of a larger theory which is not in and of itself a pillar.Is that trying to understand a phenomena, or an attempt to argue we don't understand only in order to open the door for something wholly without supporting evidence (besides a book)?

---

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 should be obvious that it is not science. I am not sure how you can defend the possibility that it is science. At its best, and this would be granting too much, it would be fraudulent science for which any scientist would get hit pretty hard.It is possible for a scientist to undermine dating techniques by finding gross and consistent anomolies. Though any initial findings should be followed up with more work to uncover what is happening (and not just let it rest as a justification for another theory), that would in fact be science. That is clearly not what happened here.Don't you have any comment on the clear criticisms made at your source link?As far as your other post regarding discussion of hypothesis from a physics text. Note that it says any experiment begins with an hypothesis. That would be correct. The hypothesis forms a backbone of a subsequent experiment.However, straggler has already explained how a hypothesis is formed. There is work that comes before the hypothesis. Hypothesis is not synonymous with a frivolous or disconnected (arbitrarily held) assumption.While one could technically get away with starting a whole field of research from scratch, and so form new hypotheses which are different than others in the field, it is not valid to ignore all present data which would impact the area one is investigating. Neither would it be valid to pick any book off a shelf and say "let's go with what it says in here", and attempt to fit evidence to the hypothesis.Einstein might be a good example of both sides of this issue. While overturning longheld assumptions about physics (relativity), he did not just pick a novel assumption from the air. He did look at previous work and built from that, even if the solutions to problems faced was novel. On the flipside, there was a subject where he started with an arbitrary assumption (cosmic expansion), and it blew up in his face.

---

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

Why is it a waste of time for you? That is an honest question.You have asked questions and set out an example or two. In return you have been given generally honest as well as some excellently written responses and analyses.That they rebut your position well may make it hard for you, but should not make your time arguing against them wasted.And perhaps more importantly, if they are that challenging, maybe you are wrong and need to change your mind about some things? That is hardly wasted time.Contrary to your earlier statement, I don't believe creationists need to be kept out of science forums. It just means that creationists should understand the limits of what they are attempting to argue or accomplish within science. That they should not attempt to make statements about science from their own perspective, but learn and speak about it from a more accurate one.It may be that evolution and creationism are not equal in the realm of science and must instead be treated within purely metaphysical/broad epistemelogical or religious debate.There is nothing wrong, or wasted, in discovering that to be true. It might refine debate and allow creationists to accept science for what it is and make more accurate commentary within it, by not bringing in foreign elements.As a final note, I think it would be very sad if you felt like you were given no fair platform on this issue, and that your arguments were wholly sound. Miller essentially undercut your claims regarding his work, and the ICR example you gave was patently fraudulent. This should have been extremely valuable learning experience for you. And that is not meant meanly.I would actually encourage you to continue bringing up what you believe is legitimate science within that field, and listen to limits or problems which might be within them.Unless you believe you must be right and everyone else wrong, you will be gaining from the experience. And if you find something solid, then so will others.

---

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

While this is true, I was hoping I could encourage buz to realize that what has been going on is realistic and fair. I guess I am an eternal optimist (and not so realistic) that this kind of realization is possible. Between your and Percy's posts (both of which I nominated for POTM) I believe the general question of what is science has been adequately answered. But I thought that if buz (or other creos) still believe they have examples which count as science, and they are willing to listen to explanations on failures, this thread could still help them understand what particular cases are not science, and so see the criteria put forward applied specifically.

---

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

Buz, I think your charges are unfair and unwarranted. If you don't like how some people post then you should ignore them. Modern scientific methodologies were in place before evolutionary theory came about. Geological tenets, which created the background for deep time which was necessary for evolution, were discovered/founded by people that believed in the Bible and were not inherently opposed to the Flood.I don't understand why you will not admit or accept this truth. You are correct that there is a broad definition, a more archaic definition, under which some ID and creo research may be called science. But you have yet to explain why it was inappropriate for the definition to have changed/narrowed before evolutionary theory emerged.And you do not explain why ID/creos cannot change their methods to work within the modern methods and so definition of science?I realize that it will make work a bit harder, and at the outset most of the models are in challenge. But if they are right, why can they not use a tighter methodology? It would all come out in the end... right? If not, why not?Finally, I am sad that you are not taking the time to address valid issues which have been presented to you on the specific examples. Your own source, Miller, has written to counter your original claim. This cannot be an evolutionist problem. Why not swallow your pride and deal with the ramifications openly?

---

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

In reviewing the list of papers, I found 2 which I could agree there is some science being done, even by today's standards. It is not well done science and I'd have criticism regarding methods and conclusions... not to mention lacing a research paper with quotes from the Bible... but that is besides the point.They were both by Baumgartner and managed to stay within science in that, no matter what else he argued and was not science, he attempted to test the validity of assumed static decay rates by testing products of decay. He limited the scope of his inquiry to some apparently valid questions regarding products given steady state activity for billions of years, and actually attempted to test them.Now don't get too excited. First, the studies were problematic (at least one involved a subject I am personally familiar with... zircon as a metamict mineral), though I will not discuss that explicitly unless you want to. Second, and more important, just because someone can do science does not mean all others, or even most, are doing science. As others have pointed out some of these don't even involve experimentation. Many of them that I looked at were merely theorizing on why something might not be impossible, using other theories as philosophical justifcation. That is not science... not even under the broad definition you argued for.The fact that you ask others to look through the list to find the evidence you seek, should indicate to YOU that there is a problem, and it is not with the opposing side.The fact that others manage to find numerous errors, and some errors are found by creationists themselves (yet many creos continue to list them as valid studies), should indicate there is a weakness in creo approaches to science.The one thing I found refreshing in Baumgartner's papers were some admissions of error as well as discussing (at least in part) the limits of his findings.

---

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 don't think ID theorists and Creos are incapable of doing science. And it is possible that some have done science. I have just said that I found two papers where I believe science has been done, even if not done well. But this does not settle the issue.More importantly, can you admit that two out of the rather large list of papers you pointed to, indicates that there is a problem with your claims of how much science is being done by these people, as well as the quality of research being produced?For the record, of the two I found, there was much nonscience wrapped up in those papers, and what I call science is based on the descriptions of science given in posts #144 and 233 within this thread. Those posts were not personal or arbitrary discussions of scientific criteria or methodology. It is disappointing that you will not address the points within them, other than to label them as inherently biased.If you approach this topic with hubris, that you are right and everyone else must be wrong, then YOU lose a chance to learn. If science is important, perhaps you should listen to why its methodology has changed and a narrow definition produced.That the narrow definition denies much (nearly all) work by ID theorists as well as creos, should not automatically count out the narrow definition. It is that same narrow definition which denies adherents of other religions or philosophies from making easy cases, which you would not agree with either.In asking for science to open the door wider, do you understand that events such as the Flood will receive just as much scientific support as Pagan mythological Atlantis, or manifestations of intergalactic/extradimensional beings?Instead of facing one model with lots of evidence against creationist doctrine, one would then have innumerable models with lots of evidence against creationist doctrine.Exactly how would that help your case? Would you feel then that science had been improved in that state?I don't.The narrow definition did not come about to help OE geologic or evolutionary theory. It came before them. While the uniformitarian concept emerged as an explicit concept along with OE geology, it was not meant to support it. After all they could not possibly have anticipated radioactive dating and the like.The narrow definition tightened the screws on everyone equally, so as to focus research to the most fruitful locations first, as well as ensure more longstanding credibility of any claim by making it harder to make one's case in the first place.Arguing that the strict definition is unfair, suggests that your theory is in jeopardy and you do not want to admit that perhaps you are wrong, OR... assuming your theory must be true... that you want the work to be easier than it actually should be.

---

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

Calm yourself and think about this very carefully. How could the definition have been narrowed to eliminate ID and creationism, when it was narrowed when ID never existed and by people that at the time did not doubt claims regarding the creation?In fact, ID itself is a recent phenomena which is a reaction to the definition.There is no question that it focuses investigation to components of the natural world, however that is for practical reasons and not secular ones. If nonsecular claims regarding the world are true, then a narrow definition will hurt the secularist all the same. That is unless there is no sign in natural (read observable) world. I can agree that some criteria used by people here have been a bit overzealous. However, I have not seen anybody denounce any specific piece of work as nonscience without good cause. That is they may throw in some extra zingers they don't need to, but the case is already made well enough.They would be right that where nonscience is encountered and the focal point of a paper, then it is not science. In addition, and this is something you have not dealt with, just because a paper includes charts or lists scientific references, that does not mean one is looking at a science paper. It does not mean that science is being done.I am honestly telling you that many of those papers I looked at were simply philosophical essays, creating theories based on a collection of evidence and references, with no actual science being done. No investigation = no science being done. No one here is arguing that these subjects cannot be discussed, or even believed. The question here is if there is any support for such theories in the specific field of science, and whether practices of creationists claiming to be doing science are actually science.You would be correct that secularization of public educational institutions is happening. I happen to agree with that myself, as secular does not mean antireligious. A person can receive a secular education and be highly religious. They are not incompatible. The reverse cannot be said.There is an interest in not dumbing down science, by suddenly broadening its definition to fit religious interests, but that is actually separate from secularization of public education. Sure they may cross lines here and there, but highly religious people who want faith taught in schools might still want science to maintain a narrow definition.You did not answer my point that a broad definition would open a floodgate to not only Biblical concepts but many others as well. For example biology course could start being packed with all sorts of New Age, or Earth Mother concepts... and it would be considered scientifically valid. Would that be an improvement?

---

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 wrote my reply to Buz before Percy posted his final statement. This will be my concluding statement, as per his request.Post 144 was an excellent overview of what makes up science. Posts 152 and 159 by RAZD and myself, give some additional (useful) tweaks, though are not necessary unless more in depth discussion on the topic is desired.Post 233 gives an excellent discussion of the differences in how scientists and creos (or at least buz) understand, construct, and use hypotheses within investigations. It is a perfect companion piece to post 144 for those who do not understand much about science, to understand its core (or foundational?) elements.On the evo side, there has been disagreement regarding some specific criteria for what constitutes "doing science", as opposed to running a scientific experiment, or perhaps taking part in science. Ultimately this was immaterial to assessments of whether ID theorists and Creationists have been doing science as they have admittedly failed regardless of those contended issues anyway.However, I will restate that peer review, no matter how useful (and it is exceedingly useful) is not necessary in order to "do science". Such a definitional requirement leads to absurd logical conclusions regarding what is and is not science. It is an invaluable tool one is a fool not to use... when possible... but it is not a definitional requirement.On the creo side, I believe Buz was correct in pointing out that there is a broad definition for science that would encompass ID/Creo work. However he never explained or defended why the older/broader definition should be used, or why the newer/narrower definition was inadequate. All he did was complain that it was unfair, and inaccurately asserted it was created to hinder ID/Creo work, and advance evo theory.He offered studies which were clearly shown to be nonscience, and to some degree fraudulent. Worse still his own claims regarding some creo work were proven inaccurate by the person he was referencing. Sadly Buz ignored these problems to insist that evos were the ones displaying bias.In defence of his general point, I will say that it is possible for ID theorists and Creos to do science, and I do believe a couple of the papers (in the long list of nonscientific papers he gave) showed work that fit that criteria (even if portions of the papers were not, and the actual science work flawed). I think it is errant to claim that they inherently cannot do so.I think a more accurate statement is that for the most part ID theorists and Creos have never done science, and that is because they choose not to do science. This would not be a problem except that they continue to claim that is what they are doing. Worse still they attempt to disrupt and discredit those who choose to do real science.My remaining question, and one I have had since I discovered ID, is why they don't want to work within the parameters of modern science? If their theories are true then they will come out in the end. That it might take longer should not be an issue, if they have faith their theory is real.It seems to me the likely answer is that they understand their theory is untrue and do not want to engage in a field where one of the tenets is admitting when one is wrong. If things were rolling in their direction evidence wise they wouldn't mind the narrow definition at all. But evidence is not in their theory's favor, so... since their theory must be right... it must remain untested.As long as they choose not to test their theory, they choose not to do science. That has largely been the history of ID/Creationism. Their only... rare... forays into science have been limited to attempts at testing other theories.Edited by holmes, : specified peer reviewEdited by holmes, : general fix

---

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