|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science: A Method not a Source | |||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
jar writes: Straggler writes: And can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"?I am struggling to see how this conclusion can have arisen without a healthy dose of human imagination thrown in- Can you enlighten me? But imagination is part of reason, logic and reality. So anything that is imagined is as reasoned, logical and real as anything discovered?
No, some things. Being imagined doesn't have to mean being without reason, logic, and reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Unless, of course, you find the source of the information crucial to the scientific method and can demonstrate which aspects of the scientific method so stipulate the nature of the informational source. This is what is at issue in this thread. That's not even really important to the argument in your OP, so that stands as refuted by me. As I said:
quote: But, in this thread, I am not interested in looking at all the places where folk have rejected application of the scientific method; rather in looking at the places where they have used the scientific method and how it compares, sources notwithstanding, to other applications of the scientific method in form and process. What, exactly, are you looking at? Are you seeing anything when you look at it? Where are these people doing proper science but on this other evidence? I still suspect they're only in your head.
So you are not aware of the methodology employed in retrieving the young Earth age estimates from the pages of Scripture? Oh yeah, its so scientific. I mean, their methodology is just great. Those big dummies calling them unscientific are totally wrong about that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If 'vindication' to you is simply failure to be falsified (despite being falsifiable), then so it is; I will not debate on your usage of words. I will say this, however: had both BB and SST predicted the nature of the CMBR as it was discovered, then its discovery would have added nothing to the debate; it was only in as much as the discovery of CMBR was inconsistent with the notions of SST that one theory was able to be 'tossed' while the other be 'vindicated'. It would, thus, appear, that the 'vindication', or 'verification', of theories is not a positive process, but rather a negative one that results when certain of competing (falsifiable) explanations are falsified. The discovery of informations pertaining to certain (falsifiable) predictions seems completely useless if it does not serve to falsify one of a series of competing explanations. Without falsification it is impossible to get anywhere in science. I disagree. If there had been no such thing as the Steady State Theory, the nature of the CMB would still have been in line with the predictions of the BBT and would have increased out confidence in that theory. What is needed for an observation to tend to confirm a hypothesis (call it hypothesis A) is not that it should tend to disconfirm another hypothesis (call it hypothesis B), but that it would have tended to disconfirm hypothesis A if we'd seen something different. E.g. not finding the CMB when we had instruments good enough to detect it had it been there would have cast doubt on the BBT; therefore finding it rendered the BBT more plausible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
As I said:
quote: Good. It appears we agree on this point.
What, exactly, are you looking at? quote: Where are these people doing proper science but on this other evidence? I'm trying to avoid talking about people here; I'd like to keep the discussion focused on methods.
Jon writes: So you are not aware of the methodology employed in retrieving the young Earth age estimates from the pages of Scripture? Oh yeah, its so scientific. I mean, their methodology is just great. Those big dummies calling them unscientific are totally wrong about that. Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So you are not aware of the methodology employed in retrieving the young Earth age estimates from the pages of Scripture? Step 1: Assume without evidence that what is written in some book is completely true ... At which point they have already left the scientific method far behind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If there had been no such thing as the Steady State Theory, the nature of the CMB would still have been in line with the predictions of the BBT and would have increased out confidence in that theory. I completely agree. But how is 'confidence' related to 'verification'?
E.g. not finding the CMB when we had instruments good enough to detect it had it been there would have cast doubt on the BBT; therefore finding it rendered the BBT more plausible. I completely agree. But how is 'rendering ... more plausible' related to 'verification'? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Step 1: Assume without evidence that what is written in some book is completely true ... Are you sure that is really part of the methodology? Are you saying to read through the Scripture and calculate an age of the Earth based on what is written is only possible if you first 'assume without evidence that what is written in some book is completely true'?
At which point they have already left the scientific method far behind. Why? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Are you sure that is really part of the methodology? Are you saying to read through the Scripture and calculate an age of the Earth based on what is written is only possible if you first 'assume without evidence that what is written in some book is completely true'? Without that assumption one could calculate what the age of the Earth would be if the Bible was completely true. Indeed, I have done so myself. But that unevidenced assumption that the Bible is completely true is necessary in order to believe that one is calculating the age of the Earth by following that method. Which is where creationists are going wrong. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: I'm not sure. How many years have you spent participating on science based debate forums? And yet when asked why prediction is a key component of the scientific method you seem rather bewildered by the question. So I'll ask it again in a different way:
Jar - Why do you think prediction is a key component of the scientific method? Speaking as one regular participant on science debate forums to another I would strongly reccommend that you consider this question. And when you have I would be delighted to hear your thoughts.
Straggler writes: And can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"? I am struggling to see how this conclusion can have arisen without a healthy dose of human imagination thrown in- Can you enlighten me? jar writes: But imagination is part of reason, logic and reality. Straggler writes: So anything that is imagined is as reasoned, logical and real as anything discovered? jar writes: Nope, doubt that was what I said. Then what did you say that has any relevance to the question asked? Can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"? Or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: No, some things. Being imagined doesn't have to mean being without reason, logic, and reality. Obviously. So let's put the question in context shall we?
Straggler writes: And can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"? I am struggling to see how this conclusion can have arisen without a healthy dose of human imagination thrown in- Can you enlighten me? jar writes: But imagination is part of reason, logic and reality. Straggler writes: So anything that is imagined is as reasoned, logical and real as anything discovered? CS writes: No, some things. Being imagined doesn't have to mean being without reason, logic, and reality. Right. So how does this relate directly to the question asked? Can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"? Or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
It's been two days since I last posted as Percy, so beginning tomorrow I'll begin moderating this thread. I've become concerned that cryptic Socratic questions might have begun comprising too great a proportion of the contributions. As an occasional riposte, fine, but as a steady diet, no. If you have a point or a rebuttal to make then please state it directly and clearly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
A theory makes specific testable predictions. The prediction is tested. If the prediction is verified the theory is vindicated as being an accurate model of reality. This is how science progresses Jon.
We have already considered the Big Bang but let's have a quick look once again at what has been said about that.
Big Bang quote: quote: Or we could consider the Standard Model quote: quote: That is a lot of expense to go to in order to achieve something you are arguing is pointless. Or we could consider General Relativity quote: Or Anti-matter quote: Then we have one for evolution. The prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik quote: All positive evidence Jon. All examples of verification through prediction. By the terms of your argument we wouldn't bother to build particle accelerators, seek specific transitional fossils or make predictions at all. And yet strangely scientists continue to make predictions and get very excited when verified predictions suggest that our theories are strongly in accordance with reality. So whether you like my arguments or not the fact is that you are refuted by the very actions of scientists around the world.
Jon writes: Without falsification it is impossible to get anywhere in science. Nobody here is disputing the importance of falsification. But not all unfalsified theories are equal. Those that have made verified predictions are superior theories to those that have not. Which part of this are you struggling to comprehend?
Jon writes: So, how do 'predictions' relate to the general points of the OP? You asked how the method outlined in the OP differed from the scientific method. It differs in it's lack of testing conclusions by prediction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What, exactly, are you looking at? quote: Oh, I saw that. Where are these places!? I'm asking you for examples of the scientific method being used on other sources. I don't think there are any that are any good in their method.
Where are these people doing proper science but on this other evidence? I'm trying to avoid talking about people here; I'd like to keep the discussion focused on methods. Being the master debater that you are, of course you'd avoid anything that would hurt your position. I contend that there aren't really any creationists doing sound science but on Biblical sources, and that this is all in your head as a hypothetical possibility. That there could be a creationist that is scientific. BFD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I contend that there aren't really any creationists doing sound science but on Biblical sources, and that this is all in your head as a hypothetical possibility. That there could be a creationist that is scientific. Let's keep the people themselves out of the issue. Whether or not we can find individuals employing the scientific method on historical literature sources isn't relevant to whether or not there are such applications possible. If you believe that we cannot find any examples of the scientific method being used with historical literature sources, and so believe that this debate has no relation to anything you can point to immediately in the real world, and so decide it is not worth your time participating, then you are free to withdraw. I have no desire to force you to debate a point you may feel is irrelevant. Jon Edited by Jon, : Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Jar was saying that imagination is one of the components of reason, logic and reality. You asked how they could come to it without imagination. His point is that even with just reason, logic, and reality, you would still be with imagination.
Can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"? Or not? I dunno, I suppose I could, but that one's wierd. The Rain Dance would be easier, and its kinda the same point. Although, would using post hoc ergo propter hoc count as using logic to you, even though its bad logic? If the indian notices that it rains after he does some dance, and he concludes that the dance is causing the rain, and then whittles out this Rain Dance, I would say that he did use some reason, logic, and reality to come to the conclusion of the Rain Dance. Being wrong doesn't mean he didn't use them. And of course there's some imagination in there, but that doesn't mean he didn't use them either. Why do you think he didn't?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024