Two types of science

Ooh look, the fundies have made something else evil! That's a new one, isn't it? Pretty soon everything will be "morally troublesome" except tithing and voting Republican.

Just establishing the groundwork. Glad you agree that matching tree rings from the dead standing trees to the tree rings from the living trees produces valid, testable, reproducible chronologies. Easy: there is also a lot of dead wood lying on the ground. This wood would have floated away if there had been a flood.The pieces of dead lying on the ground wood can also be measured, and the pattern of ring thickness with ring count determined as was done for the living trees and the dead standing trees.So is there any problem with applying the same process of scientific information gathering to count the rings in these pieces of dead lying on the ground wood, to measure the thicknesses of the rings in these wood pieces, to determine the patterns of ring thickness as a function of ring count, and then to compare these patterns for each of the three living trees and the dead standing trees ... and by this process determine when these dead lying on the ground pieces fit into the chronology by matching their patterns with the three living trees and the dead standing trees ... ?When we do this, the pieces fit into a chronology that overlaps the rings from the living trees and the dead standing trees and other pieces of dead lying on the ground wood with plenty of overlap and plenty of corroboration from other pieces also matching for the same ring count... so the tree ring count would then reach back to 6,700 BCE, or 8,714 years into the past (2014)..So is there any problem with applying the same process of scientific information gathering to determine that these are also annual rings in the pieces of dead lying on the ground wood and thus conclude that the earth has been in existence at least as long as these trees and pieces of dead lying on the ground wood have been there, undisturbed by any cataclysmic event ... back to 6,700 BCE at least?The name for this field of science is dendrochronology. It is testable, reproducible and falsifiable.Again, based on this objective empirical evidence, I conclude that the earth is at least 8,714 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.(I'm not as interested in replying to the rest, so I'm stopping here for conciseness)

Wow. Are you being deliberately obtuse or is this natural for you?In those blocks up above there do you see the words in the first block?They read in part ...

quote:

---

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.

---

You see that reference to "the rest of the site"? That's important. If you can try to hold on to that and do try to remember.Then came ...

quote:

---

Thanks for telling me what I didn't read.

---

This isn't germane to the issue but, you're welcome.The next part asks you ...

quote:

---

Did you see their information on "Skepticism" and how it relates to these areas of knowledge you listed?

---

That ties rather directly into the "rest of the site" reference in the first quote. It isn't the least bit subtle or obscure. You do see this, yes?Then comes the most astonishing piece of obtuse reasoning I have seen in quite some time ...

quote:

---

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

---

Marc, We already know your links did not contain the word. That isn't the issue here. The issue is that you did not bother (or you did but chose to ignore) to look at the rest of the site where there was other information pertaining to your list.This right off the top of your response to me. With this rather shining example of your lack of ... what? Intellect? Ethics? Both? ... I'm not well disposed to respond to the rest of your drivel.But,I'll go just this one more. Yes, of course! I would have thought that also was quite obvious. Until something more powerful and productive than the scientific method comes along this is indeed the most mighty, the most great and the most powerful method of knowing ever devised. All others, Marc, all other methods of knowing are miniscule or non-existent in comparison.Your insistence that your poofoo voodoo majik super-skydaddy connections to the ultimate answers to the ultimate questions of life the universe and everything are real, while not once, ever, having been able to show anything productive that has ever come from such a knowledge source, is the surest sign of someone who has lost touch with reality and has nothing left but to piss and moan about something they are powerless to change.Science, all of it, however many different kinds you care to divide it by, is the 800 pound gorilla of all "knowing" in this world. Anything you care to put up on your "other sources" list are ants by comparison.This may sound like nothing but hyperbole to you but this is the reality.I take it back, you do have a chance to change this. Show us otherwise. Show us something real, something productive for society, something useful for humanity, something that all would agree is a wonderful nugget of knowledge brought to us by one of your poofoo voodoo majik super-skydaddy sources.Go ahead, Marc. Show us.

That's confused.The expression "blind, pitiless indifference" (as applied to nature) is a metaphor. Likewise "selfish gene" is a metaphor. Those terms have no implications for human emotions.There are scientists, such as research psychologists, who scientifically study human emotions.

Percy is a conspiracy all by himself? Cool. Can we all be collective nouns? I'll be a cabal, RAZD can be an association of like-minded individuals, and you can be an angry mob.

quote:

---

As I said, he probably said it several times, turns out he did. Here's what he said at another time, in its complete context;

---

Even so, it still doesn't add up to an official document, Weinberg is not in a leadership position, and there are still very many religious scientists.

quote:

---

As we can clearly see, he intends for it to be an on-going process. There's evidence that it is. Do you have evidence of any mainstream scientists who have taken any notable action to oppose his position on this?

---

In fact we still haven't seen any evidence of anything untoward going on within science. Of course if you're referring to books written for the general public, you know perfectly well that religious scientists are writing popular level books to put their beliefs forward.

quote:

---

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?

---

Of course it does not. The Discivery Institute is and always has been the centre of the ID movement. Behe, Dembski, Wells, Axe etc. are all associated with the Discovery Institute. If ID has moved on from the Discovery Institute, who are the major promoters today who are NOT associated with the Discovery Institute?

quote:

---

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".

---

By which you mean it is science you hate and lie about and wish to suppress.

quote:

---

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.

---

If you want to use someone as an authority, then it is rather important to note their biases.

quote:

---

"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.

---

Of course it isn't. And if you understood evolution at all you would know that. Dawkins explains it rather well in The Blind Watchmaker. I really suggest that you read it.

You asserted that 'what's going on hundreds or thousands of light years away' can only have the scientific method vaguely applied. That's a claim about the scientific method in use in cosmology (saying it is vague or only partially applied). I'm asking you to back up this claim that you made. Fortunately most scientists had already learned how to calculate error when they were in their teens. By the time they graduated they probably had a good idea how to design tests that overcome the error in the measuring equipment sufficiently. The only designer that ID supporters generally support is one that is outside of the known universe. I'm pretty sure that makes it more difficult to be scientific and more prone to errors than things a few million light years away.If you want to do a genuine comparison we'll need two papers addressing similar topics. One from ID and one from cosmology. Then we can see if the reason the ID one fails as science also fails the cosmology paper. Or maybe you can suggest a better test? After all, you are going on about testing and falsification - so you should do the same of your own ideas right? Can you be more precise?
Are you saying that only being able to use one particular instrument, one particular sense and having to magnify light is bad in cosmology but not in chemistry or biology? That seems like special pleading. Other than the arbitrary criteria of distance, how is using a single class of instrument, and a single sense OK in microbiology but not OK in cosmology?Why does long distance somehow make it intrinsically only possible to vaguely apply the method? The only criteria I know of in science related to this is that there must be at least one way to observe the phenomena or entity postulated. ID has no way of doing it, which is a reason it fails. Can you show how ID is expected to do more than science is? In my experience, I have changed more evolutionists minds on matters of evolution than I have creationists. My own view of evolution changes year on year, I'm constantly learning things that are counterintuitive (or counter-what I thought I knew). If you don't think I am capable of changing my mind on something - but you think someone out there reading might be 'shepherded' - then what I said still stands: ID has failed. Cosmology has not. If you want to convince anyone otherwise, you should do the heavy lifting. I would do the same if this were a thread about ID. OK, well I have a copy of the God Delusion here. Could you provide an example of this blending? Could you try to make your comments specific? What are you talking about here? When you say global warming, are you referring to climate change?
It seems like you are saying that because the overwhelming majority of scientists and published scientific tests confirm climate change this means they have changed the idea that weak ideas should be rejected?
Is climate science also vaguely applied? That's not a conspiracy it is one individual trying to keep a thread on one topic. And Percy is a Deist making him not a metaphysical naturalist to begin with. Can you show a conspiracy (ie a group of people cooperating to sweep these comments away)? I was talking about religion getting in the way of science education. Obviously it also gets in the way of political decisions surrounding the things you mentioned too. Well no, they aren't. They are teaching about actual science. People tend not to do 'actual science' until university and maybe not until they start their pHD.I notice how you've changed now. You originally said you basing it 'solely by what I see on forums such as these' now you are saying you are basing it on what is actually going on in science education. It makes it difficult to discuss with you when you change around like this and assert this was what you were saying the whole time.So what is going on in science education that is relevant to the philosophy of science?

No, I just BUSTED a lying atheist. Sometimes it does come natural, and it's always fun. Watching you dance is fun too, but it's also rather sad. YOU knew that, but you were hoping some of your buddies would read what you said, and get their chuckles without bothering to check for themselves and see that those words weren't in the links I posted. The links I posted were complete enough to initiate a discussion among people who are not blind with rage, but I guess my hoping for that type of discussion at this place is only wishful thinking.

We can see what actually happened, and that it has nothing to do with your dishonest ravings. In particular we can see that AZPaul's post clearly referred to "the rest of the site". And everyone reading this thread can see that. You're not going to deceive anyone, marc.Why do you lie when you know that you're going to get caught? Perhaps your peculiar religion has deprived you of all moral scruples about lying, but doesn't the absolute certainty of being caught trouble you?

No trickiness marc, it's straight forward enough. The bolded parts refer to falsification. So, to be considered science an idea has to be falsifiable by definition. So out with creationism and/or ID as science. It's not by definition. Why does the number of angles matter in falsification. All it requires is one. ID has none, zero angles of falsifiability. If someone is accused of rape and a DNA analysis clears them, they are cleared. The prosecutor doesn't come back with, "Yeah, but that is evidence from just one angle." If the application of the scientific method isn't applicable then there really isn't any other source of knowledge that is going to add anything to our knowledge base of what happened in the past. Chemistry happens based upon the nature of the elements and molecules involved in reactions, the intrinsic forces of nature of matter. Misapplications of probability also result from considering the outcome of evolution to have been "the goal" of the process. Historic writings disagree with each other just like various versions of creation science. You're welcome to pick and choose and believe what you like but it isn't going to be scientific. You are not a YEC so I assume you refer to evolution rather than the age of the earth. So let's tentatively accept you viewpoint and consider it. We have the creator placing animals upon the earth or fashioning them from the dust, whatever your particular view is, while the continents slowly divide and move about causing the raising of the ocean floor and subsequent changes in the environment. This causes some animals to go extinct. But rather than those which are able to survive evolving into various new forms, you have God coming down again to create new animals and spread them about. As time passes and the environment changes and more extinctions occur God continues to do this again over eons of time. To what end? Why? God could have created the earth in the final desired state and created appropriate animals to inhabit that environment from the start. Faith's world view makes more sense than your own.What has happened light years away is visible to the eye so I take it that it is the purported distances you dispute? How old do you take the universe to be marc? You have to answer that before I can comment further. For example if the universe were 6,000 years old Adam and Eve would have looked up into the night sky and would not have seen any stars. The starlight had no time to reach them yet. At the end of the first millennium the light from stars up to 1,000 light years away would be reaching the earth. At the end of the 2nd millennium the light from stars up to 2,000 light years away would reach earth. New stars would constantly be popping into view.

Why do you say he's not a YEC? It seems unlikely.

On my thread he said he didn't accept the age given by science but neither the short age demanded by ICR, that that was an area where he believed they were in error. He never committed to a specific age though that I am aware of.

quote:

---

No, I just BUSTED a lying atheist. Sometimes it does come natural, and it's always fun. Watching you dance is fun too, but it's also rather sad.

---

Your utter contempt for the truth is one of the things that gives you away.

quote:

---

Other things that are considered science, such as conclusions about what happened millions of years ago, or what's going on hundreds or thousands of light years away, the scientific method can only vaguely, or partially be applied. Little more than the sense of sight, for example, can be used to come to conclusions about space exploration.

---

The scientific method is not 'vaguely' or 'partially' applied. The scientific method is a logical idea regarding the necessity of evidence to constrain knowledge of the structure or behavior of things. You are conflating this with the availability of tools to acquire the data necessary to do this task. Regardless of the thing studied--whether supernova, interatomic forces, or Archean plate tectonics--the logic of scientific appraisal is the same.I am not sure you fully appreciate the fact that science operates on (tries to say something about) what is unknown, not what is known. The collection of things which we can say are known from observation allow us to do science, but these things are not really what scientists are most interested in.Edited by TrueCreation, : No reason given.