SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.

But I am not claiming more certainty for this than anything else.Like every falsification, it is subject to the possibility of us daydreaming: "Maybe there's some mechanism --- even if we can't think of it right now --- maybe there's some mechanism which makes the hypothesis still true, but just makes it look false. Maybe the elephant is in the room, but something, who can say what, is making it invisible. Maybe the lower strata did three back flips and a double somersault under the upper strata, and the upper strata stayed flat and level for reasons beyond our ken, as a result of forces and mechanisms I can't even think of."We can always think like that about anything. Absolute, complete certainty must therefore always lie beyond our grasp. And because this is always true of everything, it is not particularly an objection to propositions about geology.

Ah. So when it comes to the theory of gravity, we have evidence, which convinces people of our reasoning, whereas when it comes to geology we merely convince people of our reasoning, by pointing out the evidence. That is not the same thing.Wait, that is the same thing.

In science, nothing is set in concrete. But why isn't the double helix open to being wrong? Chemists have, after all, made mistakes in the past. And scientists have, after all, questioned the structure of DNA. Now, if you mean to maintain that by looking at a photograph like this: ... we can be absolutely certain that DNA is a double helix, then I should like you to expound on your reasoning. But it turns out, when you tell us what these weaknesses are, that they're just the same problems that apply to any claim --- that they're the same weaknesses attendant on the methodology of finding out whether there's an elephant in the room by looking in the room.

But you remember how this turned out to be bollocks?

If you're going to admit that geologists can reconstruct past events from present data, this is excellent news which you should share on all the other threads you're posting on.

Agreed. And the thing that is knowable is, clearly, a sequence of events in the prehistoric past. He goes from saying what the rocks look like to saying what happened to them.

The events he describes are not recorded in history. This is why his inferences are based on the arrangement of the rocks, and not on documentary evidence or eyewitness testimony.

Clearly. I can present you with the facts, I cannot make you smart enough to understand them. The most I can do is show you the facts again.So let's do that. In petrophysics post, he writes, among other things:* It is obvious that whatever deformed/bent A did the same to C.* Therefore C clearly filled in the thickness variations in B.* There are really only 2 possibilities here. Either B was mounding up while it was being deposited creating the highs and lows or it was eroded away and I am looking at an unconformity with topography on it creating the highs and lows.* So the B formation was eroded awayThese are all reconstructions of the past history of the strata, and not merely descriptions of what they look like now. Petrophysics has concluded that A was deposited, then B was deposited, then B was eroded, then C was deposited, and then A, B and C were deformed. This is historical, it is not descriptive.If you are now prepared to admit that these inferences about the history of the rocks are legitimate, that's great. If you aren't, you could try to argue for that. But what you want to do, it seems, is admit that they're legitimate but deny that they're inferences about the history of the rocks. This is the stupidest thing you've done since the last stupid thing you did.

That may be what you mean by it, but it is not what is meant by it. Reconstucting the history of the deposition, erosion, and deformation of the rocks is by definition historical science and in particular historical geology. If you want a special term meaning "those facts about the histories of rocks which Faith wishes to deny", then I suggest that you invent one. The term "Historical Geology" is taken --- geologists are using it --- and the term "historical science" is pretty much self-defining, and cannot at your whim be redefined to mean only-those-aspects-of-historical-science-that-Faith-has-taken-a-dislike-to.

Well yes, of course. Historical science works by interpreting the evidence in the present by means of events in the past. This is exactly what petrophysics did which you approved of so much. This is what we do when we interpret (as you agreed we could) the fossil of a stegosaurus as the bones of a once-living animal. This is what we do when we ascribe a footprint to a foot or a gunshot wound to a gun. This is all fine by you until historical science tells you stuff you don't want to hear.You will, therefore, have to come up with some criterion for ignoring the facts other than the word "interpretive", since that also describes the method for discovering facts that you don't wish to ignore.

This is the case whenever we do historical science. When petrophysics tells me the order in which the strata were laid down, I can test and verify this for myself by looking at the structure of the rocks. When he tells me the dates at which the strata were laid down, I can test and verify this for myself by looking at the isotopic composition of the rocks. Sure, the bones are real physical things. So are the sedimentary structures in a rock. So is the isotopic composition of a rock.However, when we infer a living stegosaurus from the bones, we are making an inference about something we've never seen --- a living stegosaurus --- about events we've never seen --- a stegosaurus dying and decaying --- we are talking about HOW the fossil came to be: that a stegosaurus lived, it died, its soft parts decayed, its skeleton was mineralized, etc. Assertion is not argument.So far you have not managed to express any principle that would divide the facts you're prepared to admit from the facts that you want to deny. Until you can do so, the fact that you deny only those facts that contradict your religious dogmas suggests to me that this is the basis on which you're operating, and that the confused and self-contradictory verbiage that you offer up as a rationale is a smokescreen to conceal the actual basis of your practice. In saying so, I am not implying that you are insincere, I imagine that the first (and last and only) person you've deceived with this nonsense is yourself. But how is that distinct from things you're prepared to admit? I see the fossil of the stegosaurus, I interpret it as being the lithified relics of a living stegosaurus (which you admit). I would say that seeing the fossil is the test and the verification of this proposition; if not, then there is certainly nothing else I can look at.In the same way, I look the sedimentary structure and composition of aeolian sandstone and interpret it as being the lithified relics of aeolian sand dunes (which you deny). I would say that seeing the rocks is the test and the verification of this proposition; if not, then there is certainly nothing else I can look at.Now on what conceivable principle can you distinguish between the two cases? Well, the actual principle is plain: one contradicts fluddism, so you don't like it and you're going to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and talk nonsense. But can you think of a rationale that distinguishes between them and which is not based on your whims and prejudices?(If anything, the advantage is with the geological inference over the paleontological one. No-one's ever seen a living stegosaurus, but we've seen lots of aeolian sand dunes.)

Er, yes, you try to do that. (Or you could save time by adopting the principles of the scientific method, but you wouldn't enjoy that at all.) But until you have a principle, you should stop pretending that you are acting on the principles that you do not in fact have. Perhaps in between trying to acquire some principles, you could find out some stuff about sand and sand dunes and aeolian sandstone.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I'm thinking talking snakes would come high on that list.But nothing in geology is going to. You know why not? Because it's practiced by scientists. They're not allowed to arbitrarily make stuff up. The other scientists would notice. And point and laugh.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Faith, if such claims "cannot be verified or proved in any way" then how do you suppose scientific consensus is reached? If what you're saying was true, then you'd get one guy saying that a stratum represented a time 100 million years ago when there were dinosaurs but no trilobites, and another guy could say that it represented a time 1 million years ago when leprechauns roamed the Earth, and a third guy could say that it represented a time 4,000 years ago when a magic flood was caused by an invisible genocidal wizard who lives in the sky; and scientists wouldn't believe any of them, 'cos of the lack of proof and verification.Obviously the scientific view does have proof and verification. You seem dimly aware of this yourself, since immediately before you denounced science as "pure fantasy that cannot be verified or proved in any way" you admitted that it was "based on what has been found in particular rocks". Looking at the rocks is the proof and verification.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I mean, to expand on my point, are we really supposed to imagine a scene like this?"Welcome to the Twenty-Seventh International Geological Congress. First on the agenda, as you are aware there are some things we just can't find out about the past. I therefore propose that we make them up. I've invented this great fairy-story about this thing called the 'Mesozoic era', you'll love this, it's totally implausible ... yes, is there a question from the floor?""Wouldn't this involve lying?""Well, yes. I was assuming everyone here is evil. If anyone's not evil, could they leave now?""But ... but we're scientists. We've spent our whole adult lives in pursuit of the truth about geology.""Exactly. Your whole adult lives. You deserve a break.""And this fantastic, grotesque, implausible lie, what good will it do?""I'll bolster the theory of evolution.""What's that?""Beats me, it won't be invented for the next fifty years. Any more questions?""Um ... apart from the moral difficulties, aren't people going to notice that we're making claims for which there isn't a shred of evidence?""Well, there's this one woman called Faith I'm a bit worried about ... but apart from that, I'm sure we'll get away with it. In particular, no-one who actually studies the rocks and the fossils will ever question what we're saying, because for some inexplicable reason they'll all be really stupid."Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.