|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science: A Method not a Source | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If all you really wanted to ask whether someone is doing science if they propose a theory for which no tests are possibl That is not at all what I want to discuss. The topic is whether or not the use of the Bible and other historical literature for generating knowledge about the physical world can within the scientific method:
quote: Stop quibbling about your "hypothetical" and start moving the discussion forward. It would be wonderful if we could move along to some of the other points in the OP, but some have gotten caught up on a simple little example that was never intended to be an all-exhaustive story. So, it is completely up to the other participants whether or not they want to move to the other points of the OP. I would be glad to address any of them whenever they come up; I will also go back through the thread and check to see if I missed any posts relating to the other points in the OP and try to reply to them soon as I get a chance. Deal? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
there's no testing against reality. I assume you're talking about the empirical physical reality; in which case, how do we test against this type of reality in instances where no tools for testing exist?
the objection to the religious methodology So, how do you view the scientific method? What makes something the 'religious methodology' as opposed to the scientific methodology? In such an instance, do you believe the source of the information important? And if so, in what ways do you see this importance as creating the divide between these two methodologies? In other words, what of the scientific method do you see as being the discriminatoror, discriminating agentbetween different types or information sources? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
It is not scientific to uncritically accept what is written in some book as being history, even if it is presented as such. No one's advocating uncritical acceptance, though. Where else do we turn lacking any tools for investigating reality in a way that may answer our questions? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But we are not in fact lacking these tools. True. However, the matter was: if we lack these tools, how else do we gain knowledge of the world? It seemed as though you agreed earlier that science is perfectly capable of functioning in the absence of any of these tools (or so it appeared by some of your replies); is it true that this is your position? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
we wouldn't know what to make of it. Fair enough. So, you maintain that the scientific method is not applicable to certain forms of information? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
When you can explain how you determine which of two unfalsified theories best describes reality. One cannot make a determination given these options. If two independent falsifiable theories repeatedly stood the test of falsification, there would be no criteria by which to accept one of them over the other.
What we test and why has EVERYTHING to do with the scientific method. Because the things we choose to test are how we determine which of our competing theories most accurately reflects reality. Okay; the scientific method, you claim, is discriminatory in regards sources for informational inputs. If you could explain why that is and how it works, then I could understand your position better. And you are going to have to tell me how 'why' makes a hill of beans difference in the scientific method; if I study cancer treatments because I like to learn or because my parents both died from cancer, what on Earth difference does it make to the application of the method?
Are you really going to tell us that you consider some unfalsified explanation for an observed phenomenon to be on par with an explanation for the same phenomenon that results in a mass of specific and verified predictions? ... unfalsified, falsifiable explanation... Do I really need to keep correcting this?
Predictions are not things which are already known. They are how we test our theories and discover new phenomenon. I think it would be beneficial if you could explain the role you believe predictions to play in the scientific method. From what I gather, your understandings of 'predictions' are different than the ones laid out in the Scientific Method thread. Perhaps an explanation of how you see predictions in relation to the scientific method might help clear some things up. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
When following the scientific method, if your results lead to a particular conclusion you accept that conclusion. When following the religious methodology, if your results lead to the wrong conclusion (one which does not follow scripture, for example), you don't accept that conclusion. Okay, good start. May I ask how folk following the 'religious methodology' first come to their understandings of what conclusions do and do not 'follow scripture'?
Creation "science" is the opposite of real science. Then it's a really good thing we're not talking about 'creation science', eh? Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
This is incompatible with their belief in a young earth, Okay; here's what I am trying to get to. How is it they came up with the 'young Earth' belief? I do not recall any biblical passages mentioning a 'young Earth'. From what nooks of Scripture is this notion derived?
This illustrates the difference between creation "science" and real science. The folks who conducted the RATE Project refused to believe their own results, and instead fell back on prior belief based on scripture. It is certainly unscientific behavior for folk to reject application of the scientific method to understandings of certain evidences. In fact, any rejection to apply the scientific method would be, by definition, unscientific behavior. 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. 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. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
And it is this component of the scientific method which ... falsification only strategies are woefully lacking. I think you'll find little lacking in my presentment of the scientific method; but let's take a look at the issues you raise and see what can be said about them:
Jon writes: I think it would be beneficial if you could explain the role you believe predictions to play in the scientific method. The most famous example is the Big Bang theory Vs the Steady State Theory. One theory's acceptance over the other as a superior and more accurate portrayal of reality was a direct result of the predictions made.
quote: Note: It was not just the existence of the radiation that was predicted by BB theory but the precise value measured. A verified prediction that vindicated the theory exactly because of it’s specificity. But what had the Steady State Theory 'predicted' regarding CMBR? If we read on, we see more:
quote: 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. If two competing theories, X and Y, both predict z, and z is found true, does this verify theories X and Y? I think here is where you will find the error of your thinking, for if we follow what you say, then indeed the finding of informations consistent with a theory's predictions serves to verify these theories; in cases such as X and Y, the finding of z verifies two theories which cannot both be true. This approach, then, leads us to believe in the truth of a contradiction, and any method that so allows this, as the scientific method per your description does, is not worth its weight in air and should definitely not be regarded as 'reliable' in any sense of the term. Certainly, this is not what we want; you yourself have argued, often, the importance of a reliable method. Such a method, of course, does exist, but depends on falsification of falsifiables, not verification of verifiables. With such a method, we can find z true without creating a contradiction, as it does nothing in the way of verification, and we rest both our theories as yet unfalsified, a clearly non-contradictory stance that does not jeopardize the reliability of our scientific method.
But you devise a theory that directly predicts and leads to the discovery of new facts and you have every right to think you are onto something worth pursuing. Believing you have something worth pursuing is much different than having something that is 'accurate'. Clearly, proponents of both X and Y would continue pursuing further research to their theories, but simple logic tells us that at least one of them is false. Finding a theory to be 'worth pursuing' does nothing to 'vindicate' or 'verify' said theory.
I asked you why we make predictions and test them. I think we should drop the topic of 'why' someone participates in any aspects the scientific method; one's personal motives are completely unrelated to anything regarding the method's actual values and merits. Speaking about relationship to the arguments, I would hope that we can find a way to bring this discussion of 'predictions' back around to the topic of the thread:
quote: As I recall, this issue of 'predicitons' was brought up in discussing the hypothetical scenario in the OP. It has been decided that, to save all our sanities, we should switch from matters related to the OP's scenario to matters related to the OP's argument. If we cannot relate 'prediction' to the general topic of the thread, then perhaps it should be dropped or brought to another thread. So, how do 'predictions' relate to the general points of the OP? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Okay; here's what I am trying to get to. How is it they came up with the 'young Earth' belief? I do not recall any biblical passages mentioning a 'young Earth'. From what nooks of Scripture is this notion derived? That's for you and them to figure out. A young earth is their belief based on the bible, and how they got there is not my problem. So you are not aware of the methodology employed in retrieving the young Earth age estimates from the pages of Scripture?
They clearly reject science and the scientific method when it conflicts with their beliefs. And when it does not conflict with their beliefs? I agree, that it is certainly unscientific behavior for folk to reject application of the scientific method to understandings of certain evidences. In fact, any rejection to apply the scientific method would be, by definition, unscientific behavior. 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. 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. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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. Which method? I do not recall laying out any specific method in the OP. Perhaps you can quote the points to which you are referring.
By the terms of your argument we wouldn't bother to build particle accelerators, seek specific transitional fossils or make predictions at all. That is not my argument, Straggler.
So whether you like my arguments or not the fact is that you are refuted by the very actions of scientists around the world. I am not sure how any of the 'actions of scientists' you listed at all refute what I had said against your argument about verification and vindication of conclusions.
Those that have made verified predictions are superior theories to those that have not. Of course. What does this have to do with verification and vindication of conclusions?
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. If two competing theories, X and Y, both predict z, and z is found true, does this verify theories X and Y? I think here is where you will find the error of your thinking, for if we follow what you say, then indeed the finding of informations consistent with a theory's predictions serves to verify these theories; in cases such as X and Y, the finding of z verifies two theories which cannot both be true. This approach, then, leads us to believe in the truth of a contradiction, and any method that so allows this, as the scientific method per your description does, is not worth its weight in air and should definitely not be regarded as 'reliable' in any sense of the term. Certainly, this is not what we want; you yourself have argued, often, the importance of a reliable method. Such a method, of course, does exist, but depends on falsification of falsifiables, not verification of verifiables. With such a method, we can find z true without creating a contradiction, as it does nothing in the way of verification, and we rest both our theories as yet unfalsified, a clearly non-contradictory stance that does not jeopardize the reliability of our scientific method. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024