|
Author
|
Topic: Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
Message 12 of 188 (375283)
01-08-2007 9:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 9:11 AM
|
|
Re: Scientific method is not sacred
quote:
Would you like to take a shot at telling us what this standard methodology is and how you know it's reliable?
From the wiki:
The scientific method involves the following basic facets: Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry. Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry). Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment. Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias. Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases. Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding: Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent. Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects. Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time. We know it is reliable because of the tenets of prediction and replication. If we are able to make accurate predictions, and if we are able to get the same results when many different scientists attempt to replicate results, then we can reasonably consider the method reliable.
quote:
And why does it change? Is there something more reliable than the scientific method that tells us when it needs to be modified?
The basic scientific method, outlined above, may be modified if further (it has evolved over time) if it is discovered that the modification leads to greater reliability (as explained above) of results. In other words, the scientific method is as it currently is because it works very well.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 9:11 AM | | TheMystic has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 19 of 188 (375303)
01-08-2007 10:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 9:49 AM
|
|
Re: Scientific method is not sacred
quote:
Here's the dictionary.com definition of tenet: "any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., esp. one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement." So we know the scientific methods of prediction and replication are true because they are held by the scientific community? (Whatever that is!)
Would you like the word "parts" or "aspects" better? I am not particularly married to "tenets". OTOH, if we were talking about football, and the official NFL rules of the game, and I described those rules as the "tenets of the game", would you think anything of it?
quote:
Yes, discovered how? Does the scientific method check itself?
Against observed reality. Pretty simple.
quote:
If so, it is unproven by the scientific method's own standards. If by some other method, what is that method?
The above makes no sense to me, sorry.
quote:
Reliability in the commercial world is generally defined as the ability to meet some pre-defined criteria. If you make the same mistakes each time you'll probably get the same results, so this isn't a very useful definition of reliable.
Well then, isn't it good that the commercial world's definition isn't the same one used by scientists, as I already outined in my previous message, and that you apparently ignored?
quote:
This really isn't a very useful definition either. It really doesn't mean anything more than 'i like the results'.
I am sure that the scientists who claimed to have demonstrated cold fusion a few years ago "liked their results", but no other labs were able to replicate what they had done. As much as the physics world would have loved to herald in a new world of endlessly renewable, waste-free energy, it quickly became clear that the positive results of one lab were not much more than wishful thinking. Replication, in fact, neatly counteracts the "I like my results" phenomena, since unless others can repeat what you did or what you observed, what you "like" about your results is irrelevant, since your results are clearly worthless.
quote:
It produces useful products perhaps, or something like that, but it doesn't speak to science being in any sense 'true'.
How can it "produce useful products" on the one hand, if it isn't also capable of discovering something "true" about nature?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 9:49 AM | | TheMystic has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 22 of 188 (375306)
01-08-2007 10:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 10:10 AM
|
|
Re: Scientific method is not sacred
OK, so if I wanted to study why a certain disease afflicts some people and not others, how can I use your method to figure out why this is happening?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 10:10 AM | | TheMystic has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 42 of 188 (375333)
01-08-2007 11:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 10:44 AM
|
|
Re: Scientific method is not sacred
OK, so if I wanted to study why a certain disease afflicts some people and not others, how can I use your method to figure out why this is happening? quote:
Oh, and would you make people sick on purpose so you could replicate your experiments and call it the scientific method?
Er, no, but I might make rats sick on purpose. The point is, you said that you have a method that is different from the scientific method that Creationists use to understand nature. How can I use it to try to solve the problem I stated above?
quote:
See, the method must fit the question. You might make animals sick but on the humans you'd try to decipher the existing data.
How would we use the non-science, Creationist's method to address the question? Can you lay it out for me in a basic, step by step form?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 10:44 AM | | TheMystic has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 44 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 11:16 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 43 of 188 (375334)
01-08-2007 11:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 10:55 AM
|
|
Re: Scientific method is not sacred
quote:
No, my point is that there is no such thing as the 'scientific method'. I have to overstate the case a little because it definitely is a religious thing to a lot of you guys.
Yes there is, and I already provided an overview of it in this thread.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 10:55 AM | | TheMystic has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 45 of 188 (375336)
01-08-2007 11:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 10:55 AM
|
|
Re: Scientific method is not sacred
quote:
If you're going to dispute me, please argue from outside of science, since science is the question here (to me - I don't believe in it).
You don't believe in science?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 10:55 AM | | TheMystic has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 63 of 188 (375390)
01-08-2007 2:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 12:30 PM
|
|
Re: Scientific method is not sacred
quote:
If we have to argue whether creationism is science we at best waste our time because science, as I'm vainly trying to demonstrate, has no hard definition.
Sure it does.
source Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in order to understand them. We think we understand empirical phenomena when we have a satisfactory theory which explains how the phenomena work, what regular patterns they follow, or why they appear to us as they do. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena, although science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural. Science is also the organized body of knowledge about the empirical world which issues from the application of the abovementioned set of logical and empirical methods. Science consists of several specific sciences, such as biology, physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy, which are defined by the type and range of empirical phenomena they investigate. Finally, science is also the application of scientific knowledge, as in the altering of rice with daffodil and bacteria genes to boost the vitamin A content of rice.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman "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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 12:30 PM | | TheMystic has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 64 of 188 (375392)
01-08-2007 2:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 1:32 PM
|
|
Re: Scientific method is not sacred
quote:
Proper Science? Who is the central authority of science that decides what this is?
There is no central authority of science. Science is a consensus activity. OTOH, one could say that "reality" is the final arbiter of what proper science is, because only that science that allows us to make accurate predictions of reality that are able to be replicated by others is useful and allows science to progress.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman "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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 1:32 PM | | TheMystic has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 66 of 188 (375394)
01-08-2007 2:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 2:01 PM
|
|
Re: Repeat after me
So, would you consider starting a new thread describing what you believe the Theory of Evolution states, and how you believe that Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists are conspiring to deceive everyone else?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 2:01 PM | | TheMystic has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 70 of 188 (375398)
01-08-2007 2:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 2:21 PM
|
|
Re: Scientific method is not sacred
So, will you start that thread so you can explain what you believe are the mechanisms of the ToE and how they cannot explain the observations of nature? If you really have ovoerturned the ToE, you will be renowned as a great scientist and will likely get the Nobel.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 2:21 PM | | TheMystic has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 71 of 188 (375399)
01-08-2007 2:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 2:26 PM
|
|
Re: Repeat after me
So great, strat that thread and show us the evidence.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 2:26 PM | | TheMystic has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2