|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Two types of science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
How many of your five senses can detect carbon monoxide or neutrons, or radio waves? Does that mean that the branches of chemistry and physics that studies those things are some other kind of science than the one that tells you about how to freeze ice cream? Of course not. Your opening post is fraudulent. It was only an opening post, intended to be brief and readable. Your questions allow me to go into more detail about my position. I'm not saying that anything that is only observable by one human sense cannot be scientific, I'm saying that if something is observable by only one human sense, and ALSO involves millions of years in the past, hundreds of light-years away, or conflicts with the basics of Christianity or U.S. foundings, then it may become too vague to be thoroughly enough analyzed by the scientific method. Testability and falsifiability are the two key words. They were established only to shout down the concept of Intelligent Design, so they should apply to other forms of science as well.
What you describe here is not the reason why you dismiss astronomy. Instead we are getting your your post dismissal rationalization of your refusal to accept some of the things that are established beyond all reasonable doubt using the scientific method. "Reasonable doubt"? Who is doing the reasoning? We'll be exploring that as the thread moves along.
To be clear, it is true that we can know less about distant stars and/or solar systems than we do about our own sun and solar system, but it is possible to know more than enough about distant astronomical objects to poke fun at your understanding of the subject. Then you should be able to have lots of fun showing me just how that knowledge is tested, and how it could be falsified.
marc9000 writes: but their naturalistic worldview, their desire to "weaken the hold of religion" as they've been instructed to do by Nobel prize winner Steven Weinberg More of the same old atheist conspiracy theory nonsense. I'm not an atheist. I just went to the Intelligent Design forum here, and randomly picked out three topics, and before getting very far, (6 or 7 posts) the term "Wedge Document" came up in two of them. It's seldom possible to discuss Intelligent Design without the Wedge Document becoming front and center to the whole discussion. What Weinberg said about "weakening the hold of religion" is very comparable to the wedge document, actually even more of an issue with science than the wedge document is to Intelligent Design, or any non-naturalistic worldview. I'll briefly compare them, to make that clear. There seem to be slightly different wordings of what Steven Weinberg said, but they all pretty much say the same thing; (he probably said it several times)
quote: Steven Weinberg - I think one of the great historical... The Wedge Document was written by one man, Phillip Johnson, a lawyer, not a scientist. Weinberg is, of course, an award winning scientist. There's no indication that Intelligent Design, has, or possibly could, succeed with its "wedge strategy" as it described. Yet there's every indication that weakening the hold of religion really is a priority of much of the scientific community. The evidence is in the fact that there is so much metaphysical science going on in universities and even high school textbooks today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4452 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
marc9000 writes: The evidence is in the fact that there is so much metaphysical science going on in universities and even high school textbooks today. Could you give us some examples please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Really? What does the behaviour of crows taste like? What does the swing of a pendulum smell like? What is the texture of the prevalence of criminality in dense populations? What sound does a laser beam travelling through a vacuum make? Draw me a picture of gravity (not a representation or diagram). This should have been answered for you in message 16.
Show me an example of the scientific method only vaguely being applied in a cosmological paper. As one against many, I'm not going down rabbit trails - searches for cosmological papers. It would be more appropriate for you to show me how any detailed conclusion about something outside our solar system is testable or falsifiable, by means other than repetitive study by telescope.
As you quoted, the scientific method is systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. I don't see anywhere mentioned the number of senses that can be brought to bear on the question. Maybe you can show that this isn't just something you made up yourself? I DID think of it myself, but since Intelligent Design is declared not science because it doesn't measure up to the rigors of the scientific method, or is too vague to be tested or falsified, then it's legitimate to inquire if other things have that same problem.
marc9000 writes: Naturalists like to blend them, to make them appear as virtually the same thing. Do they? Do you have an example? Can you show that they are not talking about he same thing? Yes, I've been seeing them lately in other threads that I've participated in. I'm told that if we didn’t believe in a billions of year old earth, we wouldn't be able to explore for oil. If we didn't believe in common ancestor atheism, we wouldn't be able to cure disease, etc. Claims like this are everywhere in todays science. Years ago on another forum, someone actually told me that if we didn't believe in a billions of year old earth, we wouldn't be able to purify and distribute clean water!
What is your debate, exactly? The existence of two types of science? Yes, actual science, and metaphysical science. Metaphysical being the kind that can't meet the standards that were set for ID, the kind that generally interests no one except atheists, the kind that seems to only have one purpose, to "weaken the hold of religion".
The conspiracy of naturalists? Yes again, the conspiracy to try to sweep Weinberg's remark under the rug, as if it's irrelevant to what's going on today. There is evidence that it's a major desire of today’s scientific community and its followers.
Perhaps I can help you out with a clue, as it is an established creationist argument, but you've made such a hash of it you may be trying to invent it yourself. The "hash" I've made of it all fits together, if I'm permitted to present it. That's the reason I couldn't allow my o/p to be more narrowly focused.
Go to your favourite creationist source and search for 'historical science' and 'observational science'. Then at least you might have a chance of formulating a criteria of differentiation of these 'two types' a little more clearly. I don't need to do that, I'm formulating a criteria solely by what I see on forums such as these, combined with what I see in the news, and writings by those on both sides of the creation/evolution controversy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It was only an opening post, intended to be brief and readable. Your questions allow me to go into more detail about my position. I'm not saying that anything that is only observable by one human sense cannot be scientific, I'm saying that if something is observable by only one human sense, and ALSO involves millions of years in the past, hundreds of light-years away, or conflicts with the basics of Christianity or U.S. foundings, then it may become too vague to be thoroughly enough analyzed by the scientific method. Or not. So it would be sensible in any given case to find out whether it is or not, rather than saying "this is a proposition that can most easily be expressed in light-years rather than inches, and it's about something that I can't smell, so it may be too vague to be thoroughly enough analyzed by the scientific method", and leaving it at that.
Testability and falsifiability are the two key words. They were established only to shout down the concept of Intelligent Design ... While I condemn the knavish chicanery of evolutionists in doing this, I have to feel a sneaking admiration for their ability to travel backwards in time. Creationists can't do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: Science isn't the only source of knowledge, and I'll be glad to detail other sources of knowledge as the thread progresses. Here are some of the other sources of knowledge. Let me know which ones you prefer: Magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, reading entrails, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff. Me, I'll stick to science. Of your list, I prefer "public opinion" the most. (Public opinion is also very important in how U.S. founders intended for the U.S. to be governed) The public can get its knowledge from several sources, such as; PerceptionReason Introspection Memory Testimony Here is where that list comes from, with a paragraph of detail about each one. So you'll disregard all that and go with only one thing, science, being reported to you by a special interest, led by the National Academy of Science, (about 93% of whom are atheists).
Here’s what another link has to say about knowledge;
quote: More detail on all this later, as it's requested, but it's immediately clear that knowledge other than science goes far deeper than "Bible stories" as I was told in another thread. To show that there's a difference between Bible stories and Christian teachings, here's a brief quote from a daily devotion I receive by email, called "Word For Today". This came to me two days after I proposed this thread;
quote: Concerning the part I bolded, I wonder if those 33 research scientists lost their jobs? Possibly not, but one thing's for sure, those findings never will make it anywhere near a science textbook, because it could clash with what atheist prophet Dawkins said about selfish genes. I don't think Chuck Colson is a scientist, does that mean we should completely disregard what he said?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It would be more appropriate for you to show me how any detailed conclusion about something outside our solar system is testable or falsifiable, by means other than repetitive study by telescope. Yeah, how can we reach conclusions by means other than looking at all the available evidence? He's got us there. After all no-one's ever smelled the Lesser Magellanic Cloud, so it probably doesn't exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Concerning the part I bolded, I wonder if those 33 research scientists lost their jobs? Possibly not, but one thing's for sure, those findings never will make it anywhere near a science textbook, because it could clash with what atheist prophet Dawkins said about selfish genes. No it couldn't. But perhaps we should stick to the epistemology here, if you don't understand Dawkins I guess that would be a completely different topic. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
He gave these in his OP;
quote: Until he gets more detailed I will assume he is talking about: 1. Non-mathematicians with no experience at probabilities speaking of watches in forests and 747s in tornados. Here is some more detail for you. William Dembski is a mathematician. While he doesn't directly apply the following to anything in particular, it shows anyone with an open mind that increased complexity can increase astronomically the improbability that something can happen without purpose, without any planning for future function;
quote: The 5 direction, 0 to 99 lock isn't billions of times more complex than the 3 direction, 0 to 39 lock. Other than having a few more moving parts, it's virtually identical. But it helps show that recent biological discoveries like DNA, the bacterial flagellum, etc. have less probability of falling together by purposeless natural processes. This means nothing of course, to naturalists. But they're ignoring another source of knowledge, and it isn't a Bible story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But it helps show that recent biological discoveries like DNA, the bacterial flagellum, etc. have less probability of falling together by purposeless natural processes. No. --- In general, it should be pointed out that math per se can't be a source of knowledge about the universe, just about math. The question of whether a particular bit of math models some particular bit of the universe is, can you guess what sort of question ... that's right, a scientific one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Public opinion has no role in science.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Concerning the part I bolded, I wonder if those 33 research scientists lost their jobs? Possibly not, but one thing's for sure, those findings never will make it anywhere near a science textbook, because it could clash with what atheist prophet Dawkins said about selfish genes.
I guess you never did understand what Dawkins meant by "selfish genes." But thanks for the laughs.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So you'll disregard all that and go with only one thing, science, being reported to you by a special interest, led by the National Academy of Science, (about 93% of whom are atheists). You don't care whether scientists are atheists or not. In reality, you only care that they come up with conclusions that dispute your religious beliefs. From your quote:
How can we determine which facts are true? As human beings living in the 21st Century we are surrounded by a wealth of information but not all of it is trustworthy, so we must find a way to double check fact-claims. We must learn some-how to screen out the fictions but let in the facts. On what criteria can we decide what are facts and what are false claims? From a list of definitions I put together many years ago: Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact. From this, we see that facts are observations that can be confirmed by others and "truth" has no role in science.
How can we determine which facts are important? However, it is not enough to simply determine which facts are true, we must also consider which facts are useful. A correct catalogue of the size and shape of every blade of grass on my lawn may well be factually true but it will not be as useful as knowing that my lawn is on fire and about to engulf my house. Given the overwhelming number of facts available to us, what criteria can we use for deciding what is more important, what less? Theory! That's what we use to organize and explain facts! As Heinlein noted:
And more from my definitions: Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws. So, to answer your question about which facts are true and which are useful--we don't use either term in science. Rather we ask, does a theory explain the relevant facts? All of the relevant facts? Are there any facts that contradict the theory, or as we say in science, disprove it? The problem creationists have is that the facts are not on their side, and the theories explaining those facts contradict religious beliefs. This is why creationists are trying to dispute the definitions used by scientists, and are trying to say things like, "They're both theories." In other words, creationists have to distort science to try and make it come out as they want. That is why creation "science" was invented in the 1980s--to provide a different kind of "science," one that made things come out as creationists wanted. Bah!Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
But it helps show that recent biological discoveries like DNA, the bacterial flagellum, etc. have less probability of falling together by purposeless natural processes. Then it is a good thing that no one, except creationists looking for a straw man, posits that DNA, the flagellum or any other biologic object just "fell" together by any process at all. Poof is only an explanation in religion. It does not work in evolution. There are always precursors, plenty of them, over more time than your religious fantasies wish had occurred. Edited by AZPaul3, : oops
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Marc, you're really making your agenda obvious. There's nothing about conflicting with "Christian" beliefs or the "Christian" Right's version of American origins that would make any conclusion "vague".
quote: Of course, testability goes back to the origins of modern science, and falsifiability was given prominence by Karl Popper who published it in 1934. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. English publication of that work was in 1959, and even that date is well before the Intelligent Design movement gained any sort of prominence.
quote: That would be a pretty difficult thing to show.
quote: So, an individual says that science has weakened the hold of religion and describes that as a good thing. He does not suggest that weakening the hold of religion is or even should be a goal of science. He has no more than his prestige to support him - and there are many religious scientists who would oppose him. So your evidence of any "problem" in science is pretty damn weak.
quote: Johnson's scientific credentials are hardly relevant His position as the leader of the Intelligent Design movement at that time would seem rather more important. Also the fact that the Wedge Document was written as an official document of the branch of the Discovery Institute that is the ore of the ID movement, describing it's aims.
quote: That the ID movement would likely fail in its strategy hardly indicates that they were lying about their objectives. And indeed the fact that when the strategy failed, they settled for what the Wedge Document calls "indoctrination" rather than following the path of genuine science only indicates that they were MORE dedicated to their objectives than they were honesty.
quote: I guess that - just like the last time a creationist raised the idea of "metaphysical science" here - it really is just a code for "science creationists refuse to accept."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Dembski is a creationist, and a leading light in the Intelligent Design movement. Odd how you forgot to mention that. Dembski's argument deals only with purely random assembly. We know that evolution does much better than that - and so does Dembski. So your whole point is a a strawman when talking about any supposed product of evolution.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024