EvC Forum: Science: A Method not a Source

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Science: A Method not a Source

Jon

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 138 of 177 (589972)
11-05-2010 10:28 AM

Reply to: Message 136 by New Cat's Eye
11-05-2010 10:03 AM

Re: Religious science vs. real science

But I do like refuting your arguments.

You've yet to do anything of the sort.

Right. So it is all in your head.

Irrelevant.

Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
	Message 136 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-05-2010 10:03 AM		New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 140 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-05-2010 11:04 AM		Jon has not replied

Jon

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 139 of 177 (589975)
11-05-2010 10:36 AM

Reply to: Message 128 by Dr Adequate
11-04-2010 8:12 PM

Re: Religious science vs. real science

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.

So you believe science to be as much about the source as the method?

quote:
Jon in Message 1:

Is proper science about the methodology used and not the source of the inputs?

Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
	Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2010 8:12 PM		Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2010 11:35 AM		Jon has replied

Jon

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 143 of 177 (589997)
11-05-2010 12:02 PM

Reply to: Message 142 by Dr Adequate
11-05-2010 11:35 AM

Re: Religious science vs. real science

Jon writes:

So you believe science to be as much about the source as the method?

No, of course not, which is why I did not state or imply that in any way whatsoever.

quote:
Adequate in Message 128:

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.

When you say 'unevidenced', to what is it you are referring? It seems you believe science to be discriminatory in regards what counts as 'evidence'. If you don't believe it discriminatory, then in what way is the 'assumption that the Bible is completely true' unevidenced?

Jon

Edited by Jon, : -the

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
	Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2010 11:35 AM		Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2010 12:21 PM		Jon has replied

Jon

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 152 of 177 (590067)
11-05-2010 3:59 PM

Reply to: Message 144 by Dr Adequate
11-05-2010 12:21 PM

Re: Religious science vs. real science

Jon writes:

When you say 'unevidenced', to what is it you are referring?

Uh ... to the fact that there is no evidence that everything in the Bible is completely true.

Jon writes:

It seems you believe science to be discriminatory in regards what counts as 'evidence'.

No.

Jon writes:

If you don't believe it discriminatory, then in what way is the the 'assumption that the Bible is completely true' unevidenced?

In the sense that it is unevidenced.

You must be referring to specific types of evidence, because the claim that there is no evidence to support 'that everything in the Bible is completely true' is simply false.

Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
	Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2010 12:21 PM		Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2010 11:12 PM		Jon has replied

Jon

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 153 of 177 (590075)
11-05-2010 4:39 PM

Reply to: Message 145 by Straggler
11-05-2010 2:03 PM

Re: It's Simple... Really (Re: Testing BY Prediction)

I'm not sure I see how the things you say in this post have any relationship to the argument you have been trying to make that verified predictions vindicate theories and demonstrate them as 'being in accordance with reality'. But, let's go at them anyway and see where it takes us:

Jon writes:

Straggler writes:

Those that have made verified predictions are superior theories to those that have not.

Of course.

Well done for finally getting past your mantra of falsification.

Huh? Your statement had nothing to do with our debate on falsification/vindication; my agreement with it had no bearing on my adherence to my previous arguments regarding falsification/vindication.

If the logical consequences of one theory are verified to a high degree (as was the case with the Big Bang theory) then that theory will be considered superior.

But, of course, the opposite of this is not at all what I said in the quote, though I can see why you wish I had said it; it's easy to refute on account of being stupid.

quote:
Jon in Message 137:

If two competing theories, X and Y, both predict z, and z is found true, does this verify theories X and Y?

Both theories have had their 'predictions' (now 'logical consequences'?) verified. Your attempted rebuttal does nothing to address this problem with your previously-stated position. Why don't you try to address the actual points against your position instead of the crappier ones you wish I were making?

By the mantra of falsification which you have been adhering to up until this point a theory with a glut of verified predictions is no better or worse than any old unfalsified nonsense one can pluck from ones arse.

Again, not what I have said, and not at all an implication of my argument. Perhaps you can point out how my argument leads to these consequences; it'd delight me to no end for it to be falsified.

But just in case you are still insisting that the Cosmic Microwave Background is a falsification of the steady state hypothesis rather than a verification of the Big Bang theory - Have a look at this NASA page (it doesn’t even mention the steady state hypothesis)

I'm well aware of your propensity for citing the opinions of others as support of your own position, but I've yet to see anyone demonstrate that opinions are naturally true.

The fact is that verified predictions add considerable weight to a scientific theory ...

Of course they do. [ABE]But this has nothing to do with vindicating conclusions as accurate models of reality.[/ABE]

But it is incredibly difficult to construct theories that predict, and lead to the discovery of, new evidence and which can thus be demonstrated as being in accordance with reality.

Of course it is. [ABE]But this has nothing to do with vindicating conclusions as accurate models of reality.[/ABE]

But what have they actually discovered as a direct result of their theories and conclusions?

Lots of things; we've entire forums full of the kind of crap they discover. What's your point? Admin already asked that we toss the silly question-games aside; so if you've a point to make with these questions, make it.

And if the answer to that question is nothing I question whether what they are doing can accurately be called science at all.

On what grounds? That they might be wrong?

Jon

Edited by Jon, : clarity

Edited by Jon, : ABEs added for clarification per Admin's request.

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
	Message 145 by Straggler, posted 11-05-2010 2:03 PM		Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 157 by Straggler, posted 11-06-2010 7:36 AM	Jon has replied
	Message 159 by Admin, posted 11-06-2010 8:12 AM	Jon has not replied

Jon

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 163 of 177 (590167)
11-06-2010 12:46 PM

Reply to: Message 154 by Dr Adequate
11-05-2010 11:12 PM

Re: Religious science vs. real science

The one which supplies no evidence for the unevidenced story about the unevidenced snake talking in an unevidenced way to unevidenced people about an unevidenced magic tree for which there is no evidence?

But there is evidence:

The Bible.

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
	Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2010 11:12 PM		Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 164 by bluescat48, posted 11-06-2010 12:49 PM	Jon has not replied
	Message 167 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 3:06 PM	Jon has replied

Jon

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 165 of 177 (590174)
11-06-2010 1:15 PM

Reply to: Message 157 by Straggler
11-06-2010 7:36 AM

Re: Competing Theories

Jon writes:

Both theories have had their 'predictions' (now 'logical consequences'?)...

Yes Jon. That is how scientific predictions are constructed. If you don't understand this

Jeesh; I argued umpteen posts ago that 'predictions' are merely 'implications'. What in God's name would make you think I did not believe this to be the case aside from your glaring unwillingness to read the posts to which you are responding?

quote:
Jon in Message 76:

As far as science is concerned, a 'prediction' is just any given implication of a scientifically-derived conclusion

I suspect that this is because you are foolishly taking the words "vindicated" and "verifed" to pertain to some sort of proof that a theory is true.

Actually, you were requested to address this several posts ago, but never did:

quote:
Jon in Message 116:

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.

A misunderstanding of your position on the matter was unavoidable given your unwillingness to actually attempt clarification of your own position.

But we are not talking about proving that theories are true. We are talking about verifying that our theories are accurate models of reality and the method by which we we can determine which of our theories is the most accurate.

Huh? Then what in the hell do you mean by 'accurate models of reality'?

If two theories (e.g. Newtons theory of gravitation and Einsteins General Relativity) both predict the same verified observation then all you have learned is that both of these theories are more accurate than a third theory which is unable to make such predictions. To distinguish between Newtonian and GR theories of gravitation you need to find a prediction on which they disagree or which only one is capable of making.

Which part of this are you struggling to comprehend?

I've never made any claims against what you have said. In fact, I have repeatedly argued this pointthat we cannot get one theory in front of the other without falsifying one of them. Are you intentionally trying to avoid understanding my argument?

Jon writes:

Straggler writes:

The fact is that verified predictions add considerable weight to a scientific theory.....

Of course they do.

Right. So not all unfalsified theories are equal are they?

Jon writes:

Straggler writes:

Those that have made verified predictions are superior theories to those that have not.

Of course.

Right. So not all unfalsified theories are equal are they?

I have never argued anything that would imply my position to be that all unfalsified theories are equal; in fact, as with the other arguments you make, I've repeatedly said exactly the opposite of what you think I have.

Jon writes:

Straggler writes:

When you can explain how you determine which of two unfalsified theories best describes reality.

One cannot make a determination given these options.

How do you square this with you answers above?

Huh? In what way does it even need to be squared except in the mind of someone who is obstinately illiterate?

Jon writes:

Lots of things; we've entire forums full of the kind of crap they discover.

Such as?

Jon writes:

Straggler writes:

And if the answer to that question is nothing I question whether what they are doing can accurately be called science at all.

On what grounds? That they might be wrong?

No. On the grounds that discovery is a natural long term consequence of the correct application of the scientific method.

None of this addresses the questions presented to you, nor does it help to clarify your position.

Anyway, Straggler, this will be my last reply to you; I've no interest in attempting to continue a discussion with someone who, in all apparent willingness, misrepresents my position and refuses to read in even the most cursory manner the posts to which he is responding. Perhaps if you can go back and actually address some of the issues raised against your position, I can come through and attempt to understand what you are getting at. After three threads of this same nonsense with you, though, I've realized you're likely to remain a dead-end when it come to mutual understanding through productive discussion. You've simply no intention of being understood. I've no intention of continuing to try to understand you.

Jon

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
	Message 157 by Straggler, posted 11-06-2010 7:36 AM		Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 168 by Straggler, posted 11-06-2010 4:14 PM		Jon has not replied

Jon

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 170 of 177 (590230)
11-06-2010 10:29 PM

Reply to: Message 167 by Dr Adequate
11-06-2010 3:06 PM

Re: Religious science vs. real science

I think in normal usage a statement isn't considered evidence for itself.

Well; we can look within the Bible if you'd like. Or outside of it, lot's of folk have written about things in the Bible. So, there's more evidence if you are not fond of using statements to evidence their own truth.

Still think there's no evidence?

Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
	Message 167 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 3:06 PM		Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 10:39 PM		Jon has replied

Jon

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 172 of 177 (590279)
11-07-2010 11:14 AM

Reply to: Message 171 by Dr Adequate
11-06-2010 10:39 PM

Re: Religious science vs. real science

Well, where is it?

In the writings of thousands of religious folk. Their writings seem to back up a lot of the statements in the Bible.

In ordinary English as it is usually understood, the fact that someone has made a statement is not in and of itself considered evidence for that statement.

The book of Genesis is not evidence for the book of Genesis. It's the very thing that we want to have evidence for or against.

Okay; so, we have found that some things aren't allowed to serve as evidence: statements as proof of their own truth.

I think we're starting to get somewhere.

Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
	Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 10:39 PM		Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 173 by Admin, posted 11-07-2010 11:36 AM	Jon has not replied
	Message 174 by Straggler, posted 11-08-2010 1:31 PM	Jon has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

3 online now:	PaulK, Phat, Tangle
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0