Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Scientific Method For Beginners
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 51 of 138 (520999)
08-25-2009 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Arphy
08-25-2009 7:00 AM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
Arphy writes:
Are there really any creationists on this forum who believe that God directly creates each and every species? Please show me, as I have not seen or heard of any.
While I think they would substitute the word "kinds" for "species," this type of creationist is very common here. You don't find too many creationists who argue that speciation is impossible, but most do argue that "kindiation" is impossible, and that God directly created each and every kind. This appears to be what you believe.
Putting this in the context of the scientific method, presumably we all believe in speciation because that is what the evidence suggests. The belief of some of us in "kind" boundaries that define the limits of evolutionary change is not suggested by any evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 7:00 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 9:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 62 of 138 (521151)
08-26-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Arphy
08-25-2009 9:27 PM


Re: Creationists Versus The Scientific Method
Arphy writes:
quote:
The belief of some of us in "kind" boundaries that define the limits of evolutionary change is not suggested by any evidence.
The problem here is that we view the process differently. We do not say that there are limits to evolutionary change but that this change is degenerative rather then producing more and more complex organisms and systems.
Again, this view of evolutionary change is not suggested by any evidence. The term "degenerative" is especially not descriptive of the mutational and selection processes of evolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Arphy, posted 08-25-2009 9:27 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 71 of 138 (521211)
08-26-2009 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Dr Adequate
08-26-2009 1:33 PM


Use of the word "prove" in its various forms is problematic in debates like this. Claiming that something has been proven connotes removal of uncertainty, and this can never be the case in science. No finding in science is ever either proven or unproven. There can only be a scale of certainty or uncertainty, depending upon how you want to look at it.
Scientists use words like prove and proven all the time, but they only mean "supported by a convincing and persuasive amount of evidence," and they don't mean to imply certainty. It complicates language to stop using the word prove, and maybe a disclaimer similar to one Gould claimed for the word fact could be employed where proven would mean, "Supported by evidence to the point where it would be perverse to withhold at least provisional assent," which is what I think your position is.
But such uses of the word prove are probably best considered informal. Where precision is required, being explicit and clear about the degree of evidential support is perhaps best.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2009 1:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2009 2:03 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 73 of 138 (521249)
08-26-2009 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dr Adequate
08-26-2009 2:03 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
In plain English, I can prove that I have two legs, I can prove that the Earth is more than 6000 years old, and I can prove that I have a common ancestor with monkeys.
Informally, sure. And when conversing with those who in large measure agree with you this is fine, but in discussions like this it helps to be clear that you can only support these positions with evidence. You can't prove things that are only tentatively true. Proving things is not within the provenance of science.
I can also explain why there is a philosophical question-mark over all these statements, and I shall be happy to do so.
Tentativity isn't mere philosophy. It's foundational to science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2009 2:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2009 5:33 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 77 of 138 (521285)
08-26-2009 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
08-26-2009 5:33 PM


In science certainty can never reach 100%. This may feel like a philosophical nicety to you when counting legs, and if you want to claim that your observation of having two legs has 100% scientific certainty then I doubt anyone cares, but you're going to get consistent objections to claims of scientific certainty concerning creation/evolution issues from many on both sides of the debate. Even our facts are tentative.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2009 5:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2009 2:15 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 83 of 138 (521377)
08-27-2009 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dr Adequate
08-27-2009 2:15 AM


Hi Dr Adequate,
I don't think I can add anything to what I've already said, and Kbertshe has been pretty clear on the matter, too. You can't claim proof of things that are only tentatively true. Even visual observations, such as of canals on Mars or N-Rays, are tentative. Science doesn't consider things proven until disproven. It tentatively accepts things to varying degrees according to the evidence as measured by a consensus within the relevant scientific subcommunity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2009 2:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2009 11:40 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 84 of 138 (521378)
08-27-2009 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dr Adequate
08-27-2009 6:40 AM


Re: Trial By Jury
Dr Adequate writes:
Me: Well, actually, I'm kind of interested in epistemological philosophy. So it might be a more accurate statement of my position to say that we are obliged to regard it as proven.
People accept that you have two legs because of the supporting evidence, and in an informal sense we might say that you have proven you have two legs. But in a scientific sense we can only say that we provisionally accept that you have two legs.
Your choice of terminology is a problem. You're attempting to incorporate the principle of tentativity by saying that we're only "obliged to regard it as proven," but science regards nothing as proven. "Provisionally proven" is a scientific oxymoron.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2009 6:40 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2009 11:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024