Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 5:07 PM
48 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx, vimesey (6 members, 42 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,597 Year: 3,634/19,786 Month: 629/1,087 Week: 219/212 Day: 34/27 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is "True Science"
kuresu
Member (Idle past 591 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 1 of 8 (497047)
02-01-2009 8:57 AM


So building off of:
Message 65

John 10:10 has come upon this distinction between science and true science. It would seem that true science is

John 10:10 writes:

Theories are just that, theories until they are proven to be true. Theories may be studied by scientific methods, but that does not make them "true science" in and of themselves. When they are proven to be true, then the theories and the science that proved them to be true may be considered true science.


Message 56

In message 65 (linked at the top), he has this to say:

John 10:10 writes:

I will correct my "opinion" on certain matters of how atoms work when we finally "discover" how they really work. Until then, I and most nuclear physicists rely on the things we do understand concerning how atoms work and have proved to a high degree of accuracy.

The same is true for most doctors. They may not know everything about how the human body works, but they rely on the things they have learned about the human body from doctors and sceitists who have gone before them and proven what works, and then old and new doctors continue the process of expanding that knowledge into even better knowledge of how the human body works. This they do in labs and in the field with real science as they help humans will all manner of illnesses, not with theories of evolution that cannot help an ameoba get any better.

It would seem to me that John 10:10's definition of true science is that which has practical application to improve something, regardless of any previous definition he has given (largely because relying on the definition that "true science" is science which has been proven is decidedly not usable, per Message 61).

It would seem that there is a disconnect between what it is science does and the effects of increased scientific knowledge in the world. That is, science can be said to be largely abstract, the goal simply being figuring out how something works. Applying this knowledge, then, leads to concrete, non-abstract, results. Knowing how nuclear fission and fusion happen leads directly to improved weapons and power generation. Knowing how hormones affect the human body leads directly to hormonal therapy. Knowing how evolution happens leads to a better understanding as to why we have super resistant strains of diseases and what we can do to slow their spread.

Edited by kuresu, : dbcode formatting

Edited by kuresu, : stupid dbcodes


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 02-01-2009 1:19 PM kuresu has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Blue Jay, posted 02-01-2009 8:35 PM kuresu has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 8 (497065)
02-01-2009 11:38 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 3 of 8 (497073)
02-01-2009 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kuresu
02-01-2009 8:57 AM


That is, science can be said to be largely abstract, the goal simply being figuring out how something works.

I totally agree.

I'm performing research into worry and the effect it has on people.

The findings may lead to a change in service provided by the nhs (i.e. the application of the knowledge gained through scientific inquiry) but the scientific method is only used as a method of understanding of what is going on when people worry.

I'm always worrying about the practical applications of my findings but that does not stop it being science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kuresu, posted 02-01-2009 8:57 AM kuresu has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 4 of 8 (497076)
02-01-2009 1:26 PM


"True" science
The use of the term "true" science by creationists is designed to cast doubt on the evolutionary sciences, or on any other sciences with which they disagree.

Once you have a dichotomy between "true" sciences and those other, "false" sciences, you can start to push to defund the "false" ones, and push to get school boards to either not require that they be taught or that they be balanced by something approved by the creationists.

In other words, the artificial dichotomy between "true" sciences vs. other sciences (e.g., evolutionary sciences) is a lie from start to finish.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by obvious Child, posted 02-01-2009 8:29 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2193 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 5 of 8 (497115)
02-01-2009 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
02-01-2009 1:26 PM


Re: "True" science
What is real interesting is how creationists use the term "true" science while ignoring the vast amount of commercial, tangible products that are direct or indirectly derived from the study of evolution. The notion that evolutionary science is "fake" yet results in a myriad of real products we use every day is merely a part of the larger lie that is YEC.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 02-01-2009 1:26 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 775 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 6 of 8 (497120)
02-01-2009 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by kuresu
02-01-2009 8:57 AM


Hi, Kuresu.

I think most creationists could be described as idealists who think their idealism is realistic.

Ideally, we would do as Ten:Ten says and prove our theories to perfection. Since this is the ideal, Ten:Ten and his ilk feel that this is what should be done, not even considering the possibility that the ideal is unattainable.

And, confirmation bias turns practicality of some theories into idealistic "proof," while parallel lines of evidence are not enough for other, unfavored theories.


-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kuresu, posted 02-01-2009 8:57 AM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Nighttrain, posted 02-01-2009 11:03 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2071 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 7 of 8 (497151)
02-01-2009 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Blue Jay
02-01-2009 8:35 PM


On t`other hand
Ideally, we would do as Ten:Ten says and prove our theories to perfection. Since this is the ideal, Ten:Ten and his ilk feel that this is what should be done, not even considering the possibility that the ideal is unattainable.

Bit rich when 10:10 insists on perfection in science, when he can`t give the provenance for the text-book he loves quoting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Blue Jay, posted 02-01-2009 8:35 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by bluescat48, posted 02-02-2009 9:13 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 8 of 8 (497177)
02-02-2009 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Nighttrain
02-01-2009 11:03 PM


Re: On t`other hand
Yes.

IAW the YEC ideology:

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Edited by bluescat48, : missing sig


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Nighttrain, posted 02-01-2009 11:03 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019