|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Two types of science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
"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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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? 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.
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? 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)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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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. 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 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: This isn't germane to the issue but, you're welcome. The next part asks you ...
quote: 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: 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.
... 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
I know what Dawkins says about the "blind, pitiless indifference" of nature, the obvious beliefs of naturalists that human emotions are not scientific.
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.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
From message 2 of this thread;
admin writes:
could you please remove your last paragraph? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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: 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: 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: By which you mean it is science you hate and lie about and wish to suppress.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: If you want to use someone as an authority, then it is rather important to note their biases.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I asserted nothing about cosmological papers. I'll address, if I choose, what is directly presented to me. 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.
Any study, or any activity involving long distances increases chances for error 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.
I'm just comparing it to all the rigorous testing and falsification requirements that were demanded of Intelligent Design. 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?
No, because they don't involve long distances. 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?
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.
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?
Evolutionists are every bit as closed minded as the religious people they criticize for being closed minded. 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 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. 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.
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. OK, well I have a copy of the God Delusion here. Could you provide an example of this blending?
And that all changed with global warming. I wonder if that's the only subject it changed with. 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? I have no idea of any conspiracy to 'sweep Weinberg's remark under the rug'. From message 2 of this thread; 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)?
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. 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.
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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Wow. Are you being deliberately obtuse or is this natural for you? 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.
Marc, We already know your links did not contain the word. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No, I just BUSTED a lying atheist. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2869 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Sure, but I'd have to see how it's defined - if there's any trickiness involved in just what the principle of falsification is. No trickiness marc, it's straight forward enough.
For something to be considered science, it is supposed to be something that the scientific method is applicable to. Here's the first paragraph at Wikipedia that defines the scientific method; quote:The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3] Scientific method - Wikipedia 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.
I think it's a difference in character, when the number of angles of exploration is so low that testability and falsifiability become weakened to the point of non-existence. After all, that is the reason the concept of Intelligent Design has failed in court cases. 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."
I think it's relevant because if the application of the scientific method is weak enough, then other sources of knowledge (like mathematical improbability, or historic writings) would become comparable.
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.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Why do you say he's not a YEC? It seems unlikely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2869 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Your utter contempt for the truth is one of the things that gives you away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member
|
quote: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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024