Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
565 online now:
dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 559 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,334 Year: 4,446/6,534 Month: 660/900 Week: 184/182 Day: 17/47 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Two types of science
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 184 (716040)
01-11-2014 7:46 PM


Question: The Topic?
Marc, why are you no longer discussing the subject of your OP? Is it because you now realize your position on that topic is indefensible, or do you just have a really short attention span?

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 62 of 184 (716041)
01-11-2014 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by marc9000
01-11-2014 7:45 PM


Re: Same stuff, different day
If anyone interested in Intelligent Design has to be tied to the Wedge Document and the Discovery Institute, does it not logically follow that anyone interested in evolution must also be tied to Darwin, Huxley, and Herbert Spencer? If not, why not? Because ID is not as old as Darwin’s following? Evolution has moved on from much of Darwin's ideas (about the simplest forms of life for example) why is ID not permitted to equally move on from the Wedge Document?

They are certainly permitted to. But have they in fact done so? I have yet to read their recantation.

No, it's a code for "a political establishment of atheism", something forbidden by U.S. foundings every bit as much, if not more, than "separation of church and state".

You inadvertently said something true --- separation of church and state is not even slightly forbidden by "U.S. foundings" (bizarre phrase). You might want to go back and edit it so that it says something false.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by marc9000, posted 01-11-2014 7:45 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 63 of 184 (716042)
01-11-2014 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by PaulK
01-10-2014 1:58 AM


Re: Other sources of knowledge
Dembski is a creationist, and a leading light in the Intelligent Design movement. Odd how you forgot to mention that.

I think everyone who has ever posted at these forums knows that. I was more focused on what he said, not who he is. There are a few things that William Provine and Richard Dawkins say that I fully agree with. It's best to concentrate on what is actually said, not poisoning wells.

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.

"Evolution does much better", with no purpose, and no planning? That's no different than someone trying to open a combination lock with no knowledge of the proper numbers to use.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2014 1:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2014 7:53 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2014 2:55 AM marc9000 has taken no action

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 64 of 184 (716043)
01-11-2014 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Son Goku
01-10-2014 3:56 AM


marc9000 writes:

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.

Why does it need to be falsifiable by other means?

Because much complex falsification was required of Intelligent Design. The double standards are clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Son Goku, posted 01-10-2014 3:56 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2014 7:55 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 68 by Modulous, posted 01-11-2014 8:30 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 91 by Son Goku, posted 01-13-2014 5:45 AM marc9000 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 65 of 184 (716044)
01-11-2014 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by marc9000
01-11-2014 7:50 PM


Re: Other sources of knowledge
"Evolution does much better", with no purpose, and no planning?

Evidently so.

That's no different than someone trying to open a combination lock with no knowledge of the proper numbers to use.

Evidently not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 01-11-2014 7:50 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 66 of 184 (716046)
01-11-2014 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by marc9000
01-11-2014 7:52 PM


Because much complex falsification was required of Intelligent Design. The double standards are clear.

Clear to you, perhaps; the rest of us, who can't see the world in your head, would need to have it described to us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by marc9000, posted 01-11-2014 7:52 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 67 of 184 (716049)
01-11-2014 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Modulous
01-10-2014 6:46 AM


So the senses issue is a complete red herring. Understood. Do you have any others?

No, a way to get the thread started in a concise, readable way. And expound on it as the thread progresses. If I'd have stated everything all at once it would have been labeled a "rant" by a half dozen opponents. Personal attacks happen no matter what a non-evolutionist does.

So wait - you assert something is true, but instead of backing up your assertion you think the onus is on me to disprove it?

I asserted nothing about cosmological papers. I'll address, if I choose, what is directly presented to me.

Why is using long range viewing technology an inappropriate method for studying objects at long range?

I never said it was "inappropriate". Any study, or any activity involving long distances increases chances for error, and greatly weakens the possibility of meaningful testing, or falsification. I'm just comparing it to all the rigorous testing and falsification requirements that were demanded of Intelligent Design.

Should we dispute various microbiological ideas because they can only be verified or falsified using a microscope, for example?

No, because they don't involve long distances.

Is this the new criteria, number of instrument 'kinds' that can be used to verify the claims?

If it were the criteria required for Intelligent Design, it should be a criteria for anything else in science.

It is legitimate to question any idea to see if it is tested or falsified. ID has failed. Cosmology has not. If you want to convince me otherwise, you should do the heavy lifting. I would do the same if this were a thread about ID.

There's no way to convince you otherwise. Evolutionists are every bit as closed minded as the religious people they criticize for being closed minded. If I get the attention of just one student who may happen to be reading here who isn't quite convinced yet to become a liberal atheist just because their science class encourages him to, then it's worthwhile for me to be here, however temporarily. My words will LIVE ON!!!! (if admin doesn't delete them)

I'm not sure how using natural history to hypothesize about oil locations or using an established theory of biology in epidemiology (etc) is 'blending' vague science with non-vague science.

In those cases, it may not be. Those blends are best detailed in popular books, such as "How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist", or "The God Delusion", both written by scientists, and receiving no notable objections from the scientific community or its followers.

Science has since it began been intended to weaken the hold of bad ideas that cannot strand up to scrutiny.

And that all changed with global warming. I wonder if that's the only subject it changed with.

I have no idea of any conspiracy to 'sweep Weinberg's remark under the rug'.

From message 2 of this thread;

admin writes:

could you please remove your last paragraph?


(the one that referred to Weinberg's remark)

Sure, there are scientists who would prefer the general population have a better understanding of the universe and who find religion gets in the way of this goal. Not all scientists though.

Just the ones who want to keep their jobs. "Religion gets in the way" good terminology! Gets in the way of Cloning, abortion, transplanting animal organs to humans, embryonic stem cell research, almost countless other morally troublesome things.

marc9000 writes:

I don't need to do that, I'm formulating a criteria solely by what I see on forums such as these

I see. So you are engaging in the philosophy of science by referencing laymen talking about science, not scientists performing science. Interesting tactic.

I'm engaging in the philosophy of science by noting what is actually going on in science education. They're often not performing actual science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 01-10-2014 6:46 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2014 9:42 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2014 11:12 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 83 by Modulous, posted 01-12-2014 6:44 AM marc9000 has taken no action

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 68 of 184 (716051)
01-11-2014 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by marc9000
01-11-2014 7:52 PM


falsifying ID
Because much complex falsification was required of Intelligent Design. The double standards are clear.

All I require is for ID to be falsifiable. I don't need it to be 'complex'. A big reason why ID isn't falsifiable is that it does not actually propose any mechanism of how the design gets implemented. Basically all ID says is 'at some time or times an entity that possesses intelligence designed life and implemented this design by unknown means'. That's not good enough. It's no double standard, other ideas have been also thrown out for being vague or otherwise ill-formed.

If the genome is complex and messy and thus unfathomable or at least stupendously challenging to humans: Proves there's a designer. If the genome is simple and orderly: Proves there's a designer. If life appears suddenly: ID, if it appears gradually in fits and bursts: ID. If it is a perfectly smooth transition: ID (events with random elements don't go smoothly, that requires a smoother).

When just about any evidence that comes out is seen as confirming and no evidence could falsify the idea - it is not a scientific theory and should therefore not be taught to children. Agreed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by marc9000, posted 01-11-2014 7:52 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 69 of 184 (716053)
01-11-2014 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by herebedragons
01-10-2014 8:21 AM


Re: There's only one type of science
In order for ID or YEC to be accepted as valid scientific pursuits they need to have models that actually work - that's it. It's not about belief or atheism or a scientific conspiracy - it is about what WORKS!

Human induced global warming hasn’t been proven to be true. The addition of MTBE to gasoline to cleanse our air wasn’t shown to work when it actually polluted ground water to a much more dangerous extent.

Do people make inappropriate metaphysical conclusions based on scientific inquiry? Yes, certainly they do. But that doesn't become metaphysical science, it is simply metaphysical conclusions that science is not intended to address.

If those who represent science make those conclusions, they need to address them when they enter the political realm in any way, whether it be science education, or major screw-ups like MTBE.

Your title made me think that you were going to talk about science and pseudoscience as the two types of science. Maybe that's what you mean by metaphysical science. However, rather than inventing a new term, you could just use one that already covers that issue.

We're getting to it, we're getting to it, everyone's so impatient! There are several terms that represent metaphysical science, This link seems to describe them very well, and yes, I realize it's not a conservative Christian link. Pathological science, junk science, hoax science, fraudulant science, scientific misconduct. Or even "bad science". They can come from all worldviews, including atheism.

However, pseudoscience is actually an unfortunate term since the word "science" doesn't really belong in the term at all. The reason these practices get put into this category is that they try to pass themselves off as science. I mean, just read through the list and see some of the ridiculous ideas that have been passed off as science. And why have these ideas been rejected as unscientific? Because 1) they do not have working models, 2) they rely on knowledge from non-empirical sources and 3) they cannot be subjected to adequate scrutiny and possible falsification (or they have already been falsified and continue to be promoted as science).

This has largely happened with global warming. A few years ago, an intercepted email from a professor at the Climate Research Unit in England to a professor at the University of Pennsylvania warned him; "Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act", and urged the American professor to delete any emails he may have sent a colleague regarding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change.

When a private business accused of fraud begins shredding its memos and deleting its emails, the news media are quick to proclaim these actions as signs of guilt. But after a destruction of evidence by global warming advocates, the big television networks went for days without reporting it, or commenting on it. Very little is widely known about it or discussed about it yet today. The problem is, politicized science has too big of a stake in the global warming hysteria to let it become properly scrutinized, or falsified by actual science. This is only one example of the second type of science that is the topic of this thread. It's not a simple problem to reverse, as isn't the problem with atheism that's become rampant in science education.

Are you trying to show that Evolution, Cosmology and whatever other sciences conflict with your worldview are not scientific because they do not follow the scientific method?

Not because they conflict with my worldview, because they conflict with the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Or are you suggesting that science can be informed by "other sources of knowledge" and still be legit?

It is now, but only partially- only by the naturalist worldview.

Or is your point that people make metaphysical conclusions based on physical data and those metaphysical conclusions are being passed off as science? Or ... ???

In some cases, yes.

Why didn't you just present your case in the OP? What's stopping you? Are you still making it up?

To keep from being accused of a "rant". To help keep the responses more focused. (I don't think that worked too well )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by herebedragons, posted 01-10-2014 8:21 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by herebedragons, posted 01-13-2014 9:07 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-13-2014 9:54 AM marc9000 has taken no action

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 70 of 184 (716055)
01-11-2014 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
01-10-2014 8:33 AM


Re: tree rings and the age of the earth
Again, based on this objective empirical evidence, I conclude that the earth is at least 7,060 years old this year (2014) .

If you don't reply, that's fine, but it may indicate that you have no answer to this set of questions.

Again I await your reply.

7060 years? Not a problem, you’re two for two. But you've only made a progression of 2000 years, it will take you.....let’s see.....2 1/4 million more messages to get to 4.5 billion years at that rate? Is that right? Sorry, I plan on summarizing before you have time for that. Could you step up the process a little bit?

From your later messages;

And this evidence shows that no cataclysmic event disturbed the growth of those trees during that time. No flood reached that location in this time.

How could the tree rings tell you if those trees (alive or dead) were simply surrounded by water for a period of 40 days?

These particles are objective empirical evidence that we observe directly. Their direction gives an idea of the location for the source. And these measurements and angular references are repeatable and testable.

Repeatable and testable, but are they falsifiable at those great distances?

Thus we can collect and record the photons that come from SN1987A, and we can measure the angle between the star core and the ring, and we can measure the time delay between light bursts from the star nova event directly, and from the ring when 'lit up' by the bursts and then traveling to earth. This information gives us all the information needed to determine the distance to this star.

Unless we're getting light bursts from some other source at those great distances. If your faith in scientific precision is strong enough, I guess that's all that’s needed for naturalists.

The Vangard 1 satellite is one of the oldest still in orbit around the earth. Here is a partial paragraph from Wikipedia describing it;

quote:
...Original estimates had the orbit lasting for 2000 years, but it was discovered that solar radiation pressure and atmospheric drag during high levels of solar activity produced significant perturbations in the perigee height of the satellite, which caused a significant decrease in its expected lifetime to only about 240 years.

2000 years all the way down to 240 years? Some pretty serious perturbations? Is there a chance that perturbations could also be present in light bursts over a distance of 168,000 light years? Or is there no chance, because naturalists don't want there to be a chance?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2014 8:33 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2014 10:05 PM marc9000 has taken no action
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2014 9:08 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 71 of 184 (716057)
01-11-2014 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by herebedragons
01-10-2014 9:37 AM


Re: Other sources of knowledge
A lot of creationists and ID proponents claim to have theories about different aspects of their ideas. While they don't meet our strict definition of theory, there is no law against attaching the term theory to any idea (ie. hyroplate theory, hydro-sorting theory). So they can then say, "well we have theories about how this or that can happen." "We are all dealing with the same facts." OK, but what they utterly lack is a unified, working model.

Ultimately, these arguments are philosophy of science arguments and need to be approached from that direction. No working model ... no science.

Is there a unified, working model that humans cause global warming?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by herebedragons, posted 01-10-2014 9:37 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by herebedragons, posted 01-13-2014 8:46 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 99 by NoNukes, posted 01-14-2014 12:49 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1346 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 72 of 184 (716059)
01-11-2014 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by marc9000
01-11-2014 7:45 PM


Re: Same stuff, different day
No, it's a code for "a political establishment of atheism", something forbidden by U.S. foundings every bit as much, if not more, than "separation of church and state".

"Atheism" is the absence of religion.

It is not a religion and no amount of creationist claims will make it into one.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by marc9000, posted 01-11-2014 7:45 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1279
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 73 of 184 (716060)
01-11-2014 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by AZPaul3
01-10-2014 12:07 PM


Re: Data Inputs
So typical. You find a list about "knowledge", do not bother to read the rest of the site and end up with no idea what they are actually talking about.

Thanks for telling me what I didn't read.

Did you see their information on "Skepticism" and how it relates to these areas of knowledge you listed? No.

The word "Skepticism" doesn't appear on either of my links I put in message 20.

Not only did you not consider this you did not consider that what they were talking about is that this list of yours are ways to gather "knowledge" as in "information", not "knowledge" as in some universal TRVTHTM. These are the sources of data; data inputs for ... wait for it ... the scientific method!

You are really obsessed with science if you think all other forms of knowledge are just little sub-catagories of knowledge that lead up to the mighty scientific method, the great and powerful end all of knowledge.

Can you even fathom where data from "introspection" could possibly be used in a science of some sort somewhere?

Not in a science, but to determine if a science is actual science or is psuedoscience, junk science, etc.

You really think this puts some kind of chink in the scientific armor? You really have no conception of what it is you are reading, do you. You are so bent on finding something, anything to use as a weapon against science you throw thin air at it.

Not a weapon against actual science, a weapon against metaphysical science. Other forms of knowledge can be used to analyze actual, relevant science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by AZPaul3, posted 01-10-2014 12:07 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by AZPaul3, posted 01-11-2014 11:05 PM marc9000 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6653
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 74 of 184 (716061)
01-11-2014 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by marc9000
01-11-2014 7:30 PM


Re: Other sources of knowledge
"Any process at all", including random mutation and natural selection?

As I said in my message, nothing in biology just "fell together" by this or any other process. Any biological system you care to mention did, however, evolved through this process of mutation/selection from other precursor systems.

What was plain in my message was that your contention that these complex systems just "fell together" in a random process is BS.

And yet you did not respond to that. You chose to misrepresent what I said. Or are you going to claim you did not understand the obvious?

Regardless, either your reading comprehension or your personal ethics require work.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by marc9000, posted 01-11-2014 7:30 PM marc9000 has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 645 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 75 of 184 (716062)
01-11-2014 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
01-11-2014 7:32 PM


Re: Other sources of knowledge
Without purpose and a plan, anything complex had to have come together by pure randomness.

Don't be silly.

The plan of living organisms is to survive ... they expend a lot of resources to follow that plan.

The purpose of living organisms is to reproduce as often as possible ... this too is pursued with the expenditure of a lot of resources.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-11-2014 7:32 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022