|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,359 Year: 3,616/9,624 Month: 487/974 Week: 100/276 Day: 28/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: XXXX Science | |||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3662 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
You mean non-peer reviewed "science" like Origin of Species or Newton's Laws? If they hadn't been peer-reviewed, we wouldn't be aware of them The referee-process of publication into journals is a very small part of the peer-review process. At least I sincerely hope it is given my own past role as a referee
|
|||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3662 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
but also the peer-review that happens when colleagues read and discuss the articles after they've been published and/or presented. It is this less formalized but oh-so-much-more-important part of the peer-review process by which consensus's are formed and by which we add to body of accepted scientific knowledge so that future scientific endeavors have an even higher and broader platform on which to build. I've been meaning to stress this exceptionally important point for some time in a thread on 'debating science' that I'd still like to get round to at some point. Journals are full of crap. The only way of knowing the crap from the gold is through communication with your peers and betters. Of course, one scientist's crap can be another one's gold...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5891 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Even if science were able to note the appearance of design (which it does not) that would not constitute evidence in support of spiritual beliefs. You and NJ both mentioned the "appearance of design" (and others have used the same phrase in other threads). Without getting too far afield from the topic, I'd like to point out that both creation science or ID science and legitimate science are all quite capable of detecting apparent design. However, after detection is where the non-science and science part company. Creation science (and ID science and whatever XXXX-rated non-science you'd care to name) immediately default to "apparent design = was designed for some usually-inscrutable reason by a designer for which no other evidence is available and whose capabilities and intent are unfathomable, and go no further. Science notes something that has the appearance of design and means something like "if we were to design something like this that is what it could look like, however well-understood natural processes can also produce the same result, therefore there is no reason to suppose they didn't in this particular case in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary". This is just one of the many reasons that ID/creation/XXXX-rated science isn't science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wepwawet Member (Idle past 6128 days) Posts: 85 From: Texas Joined: |
You and NJ both mentioned the "appearance of design" (and others have used the same phrase in other threads). Without getting too far afield from the topic, I'd like to point out that both creation science or ID science and legitimate science are all quite capable of detecting apparent design. However, after detection is where the non-science and science part company. Creation science (and ID science and whatever XXXX-rated non-science you'd care to name) immediately default to "apparent design = was designed for some usually-inscrutable reason by a designer for which no other evidence is available and whose capabilities and intent are unfathomable, and go no further. Science notes something that has the appearance of design and means something like "if we were to design something like this that is what it could look like, however well-understood natural processes can also produce the same result, therefore there is no reason to suppose they didn't in this particular case in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary". This is just one of the many reasons that ID/creation/XXXX-rated science isn't science.
I think I agree with you Quetzal. I should expand on my quote to avoid confusion though...perhaps it would be better if I had said something like: Even if science were to note the appearance of design, that would not constitute evidence of design without rigorous testing and even then can only qualify as evidence, not proof of design. I'd also add that I don't believe any test of nature can provide evidence in support of a supernatural entity. The way I see it, if a scientist sees apparent design in something under study they could form a hypothesis to that effect and devise ways of testing it. This is what we should see ID/Creationist "scientists" doing, but instead they stop at the appearance (assuming they didn't manufacture the appearance by cherry picking their data in the first place) and immediately assert a (typically god-like) designer. Scientists are supposed to be keen observers and any scientist who ignores a perceived pattern out of blind adherence to any dogma, be it religious or whatever, is doing humanity a disservice. The trouble with ID and Creationists as I see it is that they have all this great unshakeable faith that they are absolutely unwilling to test in any meaningful way. If they really believe God is the designer then put some chips in the pot and roll the dice with a few rational predictions or experiments. Call it yet another reason that Creationist Science and ID Science aren't science. When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. - Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5891 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Even if science were to note the appearance of design, that would not constitute evidence of design without rigorous testing and even then can only qualify as evidence, not proof of design. This is probably a pretty good formulation. It's like Dawkins wrote on page one of his book Blind Watchmaker:quote:Legitimate science (the only "true" XXXX science in my opinion - and the only real distinction necessary), strives to understand the workings of nature - and differentiate between "apparent" design and "purposeful" design. Unfortunately, I think we're getting too far off topic here. Suffice to say I agree with the rest of your post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
There is evidently a difference between XXXX as a term of description (e.g. biological science) and XXXX as an indicator of predetermined conclusions (e.g. creationist science)
The first describes the limitations of the questions that will be investigated.The second necessitates the limitations of the conclusions that can be formed. As a descriptive term it is useful for describing the area being studied scientifically.As a ideological term it implies a false science with preconceived conclusions and little respect for evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
If Huxley's "anagenic" grade(s) ARE existant and can represent vicariant geographies no matter the monophyly generalized it is not clear to me that predetermined CONCLUSIONS are any worse off than terms of endearing descriptions.
So if vicariance biogeography is to give way to panbiogeography such as to "stew" Gould's juices for a new name to the then no longer persisting heterodoxy that Kitcher leaves Genesis Creationism as dead for, no matter the ID, it may be that "creation science" of Mick's denoting may NOT be wrong or effectively dead sounding but only a limitation as you said EVEN IF IT has "conclusions" built in. It will depend on whether the conclusions go too far of course... Creation Science would have to have something practical beyond the organization of new ways to teach theology etc. The reason this second "if" may apply for me is that the phylogenetic disjunction in Huxley's sense that Gould wishes to "saltate" but may only be the praticum or purpose of future non-wrong creationist biology (and hence no difference for your "biological science" vs "creationist science") under the nonconclusive word "figure" detailed by LOGICAL restriction within anagensis that Gould simply OVERSTEPPED (both figuratively ,literally, and lingusitically/logostically) was where cladisitically (for me at least) the declination in illustatrations of Amphibian grades CAN NOT match Mammal or Bird Grades no matter the Fish in whatever the translation in space and form-making comparison. This would have to specify some specific biogeography AND the notion of BARAMIN would have to be practical where the word "species" would not thus then be (as artifical selection would have been applied and THEN IN CREATION BIOLOGY new hybrid decriptors enjoined while this would have to have been missed in a secular world of tomarrow land(whose to say how this will "pan" out..))... Otherwise Mick would be correct that "creation biology" is just 'wrong' but this would not be because it was only looking for conclusions in line with THE BIBLE but because the models worked on did not fill the place that continues to wrongly proliferate the plethora of biological XXXXes as Mick listed. I may be able to convince my self pretty quickly that creation biology is not going to be "wrong" in the sense that Mick implied but I do wonder whether the recent turn to biological research in creationism is going to help out where other seemingly non religious alternatives struggle for a voice...
quote: On this scenario I am attempting to forecast "ideology" would expand but 'belief' may not. You were throwing too large a net and only catching minnows. Mick swam right through. I have provided a link to SEBA at:http://axiompanbiog.com/panbioglnks.aspx Edited by Brad McFall, : phenotype(two excess letters)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5005 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
brad writes: So if vicariance biogeography is to give way to panbiogeography such as to "stew" Gould's juices for a new name to the then no longer persisting heterodoxy that Kitcher leaves Genesis Creationism as dead for, no matter the ID, it may be that "creation science" of Mick's denoting may NOT be wrong or effectively dead sounding but only a limitation as you said EVEN IF IT has "conclusions" built in. It will depend on whether the conclusions go too far of course... Creation Science would have to have something practical beyond the organization of new ways to teach theology etc. Indeed, but "something practical beyond the organization of new ways to teach theology" is precisely what creation science lacks, by definition. Creation science in its own words is nothing more than a new way to teach theology. This is why the discovery institute lists as some of its five year objectives:
quote: The limitation is self-imposed and it's definitional in the concept of creation science. The extra thing they would "have to have" is what is provided by one of the XXXXs in my list - a scientific approach rooted in an empirical research methodology. Those XXXXs are not just "endearing descriptions" as you call them, they are denotive of an empirical research methodology which is definitionally lacking in creation science.
brad writes: cladisitically (for me at least) the declination in illustatrations of Amphibian grades CAN NOT match Mammal or Bird Grades no matter the Fish in whatever the translation in space and form-making comparison. This would have to specify some specific biogeography AND the notion of BARAMIN would have to be practical where the word "species" would not thus then be (as artifical selection would have been applied and THEN IN CREATION BIOLOGY new hybrid decriptors enjoined while this would have to have been missed in a secular world of tomarrow land(whose to say how this will "pan" out..))... I think the importance of an empirical methodology is pretty well illustrated in the quote above. You make a claim about grades in fish, and hope beyond reason that a nebulous undefined and quite likely unnecessary concept (baramin) is (somehow) going to be of practical use. Perhaps if you had more of the XXXXs from my list in your armoury of research strategies you would have more success in describing and explaining differences within the vertebrate groups? Because as of yet I see nothing of interest or promise in the concepts or applicaitons of baraminology. It is merely a methodologically empty XXXX that creationists have invented, in order to cover up their ignorance. It is surprising that you would pin any hopes on it!
brad writes: Otherwise Mick would be correct that "creation biology" is just 'wrong' Now, let's disentangle your post and see what you're getting at here. According to you, in order to be of any use, creation science/baraminology must a) "have to have something practical beyond the organization of new ways to teach theology" b) "have to specify some specific biogeography" c) "have to be practical" d) must create "new hybrid decriptors" Since, by your own admission, it has none of these things, and since any assessment of the published works of the DI must agree with you, then it seems that you think I was correct when I said that creation biology is just wrong. Fine.
brad writes: I do wonder whether the recent turn to biological research in creationism is going to help out where other seemingly non religious alternatives struggle for a voice... I doubt it strongly. First of all, as you document, there has been no turn to biological research in creationism; second, the creationist movement is clearly far more highly america/western-oriented than the academic community. The suggestion that the likes of the discovery institute are interested in promoting third world access to scholarly journals is frankly laughable. Perhaps they will give out knock-down prices for pandas and people maybe?
brad writes: On this scenario I am attempting to forecast "ideology" would expand but 'belief' may not. What makes you think that biogeographers in central america have any interest whatsoever in the ideologies of creationism or intelligent design? Do you mean that the discovery institute might be able to "buy converts" by targeting poor countries, or what? Mick Edited by mick, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote:SEBA is, at least for me, an extension of TAXACOM http://listserv.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A0=taxacom&D=1&... but made more specific in focus. Croizat wrote much his later works especially in SPANISH and Latin American Countires have an interest thus in his work that is not appreciated philosophically between the difference of “analysis and synthesis”. Panbiogeographer John Grehan spoke “for” creationism in the sense that evolution is too much theory or as in this thread there are too many XXXXbiologies etc Here are three posts that contexualize separate creation in “historical” biogeography and later special creation was foiled against Darwin’s view in “Panbiogeography: Tracking the History of Life.” quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: NOW - quote: quote: So, if there IS an operational issue that biogeographiers are attempting to solve and if creationists can operationalize their academy AT THE PLACE that vicariance and separate creation speak of THE SAME disjunction (but different potential when not actual barriers) then indeed we are at the place of asking either with you that creation biology is wrong or is providing an alternative mode of thought capable of distheorizing evolutionary thought long enough for it to improve in the same phenotype. The issue HERE sans genetics is over Croizat’s “recombination” of characters. Some accused Croizat of willingly accepting polyphyly but if form not only would be coincidentally the same for better analytic biogeographers than we have synthetic biologists then the recombination of characters across space may have implications for non-US biogeograhers who insist that North America be divided into west and east AND creationists who find the baramin IN THE SECULAR accusations against polyphyletic operationalism. My reference/claim to grades of amphibians vs mammals divides in this possibility but as I have suggested a full biogeography of the turtle genus Clemmys should resolve the whole c/e issue for me at least. Next, one needs to operationalize the genetic elements of creationism and recombination of characters but this work I did not do nor did I look lately for creationist work that may assist. Different definitions of “hybrids” based on DNA may help and though without this or some such evidence about what ICR is doing with GENE I DO agree with you that creation science is wrong. It is not that creationists would get “converts” by buying photocopiers for the research station on Lac Tumba in Zaiire (I was there, they have very very little) but that comparative biology of the new space, time and form begun in New Zeland and Latin America may expand to its proper sphere in US and EU science as the comparisons are tried operationally beyond simple science to include the nair fictional ideas of creationism secondly falsified but with beliefs of those doing the work remaining intact. I find that Gould's writings are immiscible with this possiblity even though on specific points I think his discontinuty with past adapationism etc are more valuable than simple reductionist XXXXes.I am indicating that the dichtomy of "descent" OR "design" (as the non-John poster of Taxacom said,)would be widened not constricted or hardened on my sythetic view. There may be design without baramins if creationsist can not do better than Huxley's "chalk" but the board may remain as blank as SEBA if people like Kitcher(in "Living with Darwin") attempt to rephrase seperate creation in terms of cave insect morpholgy in Europe vs the US(and elite's like Provine are not reading this material etc) as THIS IS the temporality that these biogeographers CAN SPEAK towards but may not be creation wise contrary to the divarication between design and descent that artifical orthoselections may empirically support in the future. I for one was stopped from becoming an evolutionist not by any oppression for or against thinking about evolution (or creationism0 but by preventing me from operationalizing my thoughts - no degree, no paper, no job... There is no doubt (I doubt this would be questioned) that I give as much or more thought to biological change and form-making than many biology graduates. ICR is just now operationalizing a new on-line technical journal. Perhaps in the near future the result will not be to read some speculative scenario by me on EvC or SEBA but here with actual changes having already occurred regardless of the ideology (in or out of 'science'.)
quote: quote: Edited by Brad McFall, : letter "n" Edited by Brad McFall, : logical adjustment Edited by Brad McFall, : personal disclosure Edited by Brad McFall, : ICR link
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ICR is just now operationalizing a new on-line technical journal. Well we can all look forward to that!! If the ICR undertake research with predetermined conclusions which pick, choose and adapt evidence to support these conclusions then is this scientificaly valid in any way at all? If they are undertaking their research without this creationist bias (i.e. whereby they could make evidence based conclusions that are contrary to a biblical account of creation) then how is this 'creation science' and not just......science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I will be looking for some sort of resolution between the "ecological" difference of Price and Clark
I am not sure where in here Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense is quote: and perhaps something about biology and creation NOT dependent simply on how organisms drown at varying depths. Something more about the creationist observation that plants and animals "go extinct" IN DIFFERENT HORIZONS. If they relate baramins (FORM) to hybrids (FORM MAKING)to differences in the relation of gene combinations per individual vs gene frequencies in (sub)species within a kind(TRANSLATION IN SPACE) based on genomics they may FIRST be able to resolve purely logical puzzles Kant put forth on a syllogism on the matter or form of the “soul” which when telescoped throughout a specific purpose and math of symmetry might torque restrictions ON THE PROXIMITY (of Gould’s “bush” of life) TO MAIN MASSINGS rather than to as is current (statistical differences in arbitrary allometry). Thus they may be able to cash out arbitrary anatomy for a matterless soul. The details as I have them I have just uploaded at:http://www.axiompanbiog.com/steps.aspx (diagram of main massing contrary to Gould's "proximate") The problem with special creation is about islands NOT being populated by immigration vs. extinction (island biogeography) but migration vs. recombination according to the "science" I am looking forward THROUGH but because Price and Clark differed I have not seen since Sherwin got to ICR that this issue was focused on and thus if for instance Creationists focused on recombination before (the) fall and "migration" after the flood/catastrophe they might be able to raise the tenor of general discussions on biogeography of "spatial logic" to where say simple assumptions about long-distance dispersal to Hawaii are not simply assumed as is standard today. The effect of creationism may not "hit" its principle 'target' but a third party instead. This is currently confounded by temporality that reaches back beyond the Eocene but rarely is it possible to be even THAT confident about difference(s) between the Cretaceous and Jurassic as one might be in the dismissive of Agassiz's glacial periods(LOL). If creationists start to become hyper logicians and realize that the 2nd wall problem of evolution coming from within secular universities need not be a target of technical discussions perhaps we will see two birds (or clines) killed with one stone. I mean that quite literally where "call" might substitute for the cultural war term "kill". By the way, I really only wanted to know if Mick agreed with your dichotomy or not, not what I thought the future would betray. It would not be science not because there is no science in it but by the way the science is developed. If it could be otherwise I would prefer but I have no confidence in that. Edited by Brad McFall, : upload finished!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Do you set out to be utterly incomprehensible??
I am afraid that I have no idea what most of your post is about. This could be because what you are saying is completely over my head. It could be because it is rampant nonsense. Or it could be that you are just a woefully bad comminicator. Can you summarise in a more user friendly manner?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Yes but I probably would need to scan some material to cover "the bases" (and I still have not uploaded the pages I just worked up this afternoon).
Your question seemed to me to be, "How can ICR's new on-line journal be science if they continue to do Bible Based "research" OR how can it NOT BE SCIENCE if that is what the journal is to produce?" It seems like a catch-22 question, one that no 5th grader could answer! And it was 'deftly' crafted across a "line-break" to boot. If that leaves you wanting let me know that I misunderstood your question, please. It seems to me that one can DO whatever it is that creationists DO in purely "logical" frame of mind. What one often finds justly criticizable on EVC and elsewhere in blogs etc is when rationality is substituted for simple belief. I was trying to point to an issue in evolutionary theory where I feel that more rigor is needed (and I can rewrite the "science" part for you over$over again if that is necessary) and how technical creationism may out of sheer opening of more on-line discussions provide an expandable horizon that non-creationists are desireous to fill and could or should if in so doing Biblical Creationists knocked off some current standard evolutionary theory for the heterodox depauperization in the wings. Creationists would make further theological hermenutics no doubt that pays for evoltionist advance and so yoked we may have a better creation science and science without creationists. This has always been my point on EVC. I see no reason why creation and evolution generically can not work together to further biology where technical expressions overreach.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It seems to me that one can DO whatever it is that creationists DO in purely "logical" frame of mind Well that is the question. Can they? It sems to me that "whatever it is that creationists DO" is in fact seek out evidence that is cosistent with biblical creationism and ignore or misinterpret evidece that does not spport this view. Can that be done logically? Or, in your view, is this not what creationist science does?
Your question seemed to me to be, "How can ICR's new on-line journal be science if they continue to do Bible Based "research" OR how can it NOT BE SCIENCE if that is what the journal is to produce?" It seems like a catch-22 question, one that no 5th grader could answer! And it was 'deftly' crafted across a "line-break" to boot. If that leaves you wanting let me know that I misunderstood your question, please.
I don't think I am being as clever as you credit me. The question is basically this - If an investigation is being undertaken where conclusions are based on the physical evidence EXCLUSIVELY using the methods of conventional science then, even if the hypothesis being evaluated is biblically based (the possibility of a worldwide flood - for example) is this "creationist science" or just science? I would say science. The creationist in "creationist science" relates to the (predetermined) conclusions not the area of question or hypothesis. The same is true of any XXXX science in terms of the OP. I have no problem with challenges to established scientific thinking (this is after all how science progresses) but faith based irrationalities that provide no new evidence, make no testable predictions and explain no new phenomenon and which amount to (often quite bizzarre) alternate explanations that are obviously objectively infereior to the established theory seem unlikely to bear fruit in terms of discovery and scientific progress.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
If this is a question about being a genius or crazy then perhaps it should be part of the All About Brad 2 thread in the Coffee house...
else, Are you familiar with the "two model" distinction rasied early in ICR history and continuing now-a-days when creationists will speak about, "given the evolutionary model..." or "following creation...."? Do you recognize this difference or is it part of your question where you ask IF they can be logical and if what is done is it not science simplicter?? I can dig up a few examples if you like, but on any reading of creationist literature one finds pretty readily these "different hypotheses". What Mick is saying is that the creationist ones are simply 'wrong' rather than being simply specialized, as occurs amongst the numerous domains of secular science so-called. Phillip Kitcher calls them "dead" such that no resurrection man can raise. Hence why the Taxacom discussion said "there is no creationist research program". ICR however seems day by day to be changing in this regard. I was suggesting that "irrational" faith based extensions of the denotable syntax of science can serve a needed logical extension even if whatever it may hypothesize is falisfied secondarily, as a scientist's inuition might percolate. It seemed that Mick's list caused you speak of "description" vs "preconclusive" and I simply challenged THAT back towards the OP. I think that the extension IS MOSTLY or ALL on the creationist side so I find that the burden IS on them, which is why I cited the need for a working praxis as well as any newer theology. Mick was challenging that THIS can exist. But if the extension is done in a purposive way directed to specifically possible natural products the side effect may indeed be a change in science itself. I base this on a decided difference of opinion with Bertrand Russell on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason's transcendental asthetic NOT being dismantled with non-euclidean geometry where geometry relates to spatial logic in biogeography(admittedly not available to Russell in his time), but that may be peculiar and so far isolated to me. Edited by Brad McFall, : couple sentences Edited by Brad McFall, : adverb
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024