Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 537 of 614 (736743)
09-12-2014 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by NoNukes
09-12-2014 3:34 PM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
NoNukes writes:
How often do scientists even bother with the word proof?
Faith included "proof" in her blog title, but I don't think you often see that word in science writing unless it's about math. I'm thinking mainly about uses of the words "prove" and "proven" and "proving" in science writing, whether by scientists or science writers. Since I wince every time I see those words in a science article, I'd say they occur much more often than they should. Here's an example from Were the Dinosaurs Really Wiped Out by an Asteroid? Possibly Not:
Universe Today writes:
Gerta Keller of Princeton University in New Jersey, and Thierry Adatte of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, are set to publish this new work in the Journal of the Geological Society today, using data from the analysis of sediment from Mexico to prove the asteroid impact pre-dated the K-T boundary by as much as 300,000 years.
So what does O'Neill mean when he writes that Keller proved the asteroid impact occurred as much as 300,000 years before the K-T boundary? Using the definition I've offered it means that Keller has provided evidence sufficient to produce a consensus. Since I doubt he's done any such thing (since 5 years later the debate rages on), what O'Neill means is something slighter weaker, that Keller has provided strong evidence in support of his contention.
So when Faith says we can't prove anything about the "untestable past," then if she's using the word "prove" in the same way that science writers use the "prove" she can only mean that we can't provide strong evidence in support of our claims about the past. Of course that makes no sense, which is why Faith is now attempting to redefine the word "evidence."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2014 3:34 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2014 12:39 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 539 of 614 (736790)
09-13-2014 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 538 by NoNukes
09-13-2014 12:39 AM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
NoNukes writes:
Faith uses "prove" in the Ken Ham sense.
I don't know what the "Ken Ham sense" of the word "prove" is. A Google search didn't find anything that helped me find the answer.
My best guess of what you're saying is that because Faith believes nothing can contradict the Bible, evidence proving the Bible wrong cannot exist. Therefore we can have no such evidence, and therefore she's justified in claiming that we have no evidence. This is self evidently irrational, but as I said, that interpretation is just a guess.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2014 12:39 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by edge, posted 09-13-2014 11:06 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 541 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2014 8:02 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 542 of 614 (736852)
09-13-2014 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by NoNukes
09-13-2014 8:02 PM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
NoNukes writes:
Ken Ham says, no matter what you claim science implies, you weren't there.
Oh, sure, I know Faith believes that, but she's making up her own definition of "evidence", and then using that definition to misdefine "prove". You'd think she'd realize that when her beliefs force her to make up her own private definitions that something's amiss, but apparently not.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2014 8:02 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2014 11:50 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 544 of 614 (736859)
09-14-2014 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 543 by NoNukes
09-13-2014 11:50 PM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
NoNukes writes:
I disagree with this characterization. You've already acknowledged that there is a sense in which Faith is correct about the definition of evidence.
If you're talking about Faith's definition of "evidence" as that which correctly supports a claim (where evidence that doesn't support a claim isn't evidence), I hope I've been clear that I believe that definition wrong. It should be obvious that it is self-evidently wrong. Many claims can be made about what some particular evidence implies, and some will be right and some will be wrong. But the evidence doesn't toggle back and forth between being evidence and not being evidence as the various claims are considered.
And of course there is a mathematical definition of proof that is not really all that far from the definition Faith insists on.
The definition of "proven" that Faith is insisting on is something like "having strong evidence in support of a claim," which I agree with. Where we disagree is when she says there are things about the natural world that we cannot prove, in particular about the "unwitnessed past." Her argument is equivalent to saying that if evidence doesn't support the claim being made then it isn't evidence, and having no evidence we can make no claims. Echoing what I said before, that this is irrational should be obvious to most people.
Faith unequivocally denied that she's using the mathematical definition:
Faith in her blog writes:
I am not using the concept of proof in any mathematical sense...
Faith has posted a new blog entry about "proof": Let's Bring "Proof" Back to Reality. I don't have time to read it now.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by NoNukes, posted 09-13-2014 11:50 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 547 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2014 2:31 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 545 of 614 (736870)
09-14-2014 9:52 AM


Faith has posted another response at her blog: Let's Bring "Proof" Back to Reality.
Faith writes:
It's just another way of saying that when you are dealing with the prehistoric past you can never be sure of your hypotheses because they aren't testable,...
This is as false as it ever was. Let's see what Faith offers to support it this time.
The argument about the difference between observational and historical/interpretive science is completely valid.
All science is observational and interpretive. If Faith thinks not then in her next blog post she can provide a few examples of fields of science that are missing one of these.
...but there is a legitimate argument here that is being evaded by all this abstract nitpicking.
But does Faith ever tell us that legitimate argument? After reading on to the end I find the answer is, "Apparently not."
The main argument I've made along these lines is that both Old Earth Geology and Evolutionist Biology make assertions about what they believe occurred in the distant past that they couldn't possibly PROVE, by which I mean all they have is their conjectures and hypotheses which they have no way of confirming, although they treat their conjectures about these things as if they were solidly proven facts.
As Faith knows, when she actually confronts evidence from the distant past she is unable to describe why we can't
analyze it, as here:
The structure of DNA for instance has been "proved" in a way you could never prove the scenarios concocted about the distant past that are palmed off on the public as fact.
The Denisovan's are an extinct species of Homo. Analysis of Denisovan mitochondrial DNA from 41,000 years ago shows they share genes with both Homo sapiens and Home neanderthalensis. If we didn't already know the structure of the DNA then we could have used 41,000 year-old Denisovan DNA to analyze its structure.
Evidence can degrade and disappear over time, but no matter how old, as long as some is left it can be subjected to scientific scrutiny to reach valid conclusions. Faith here attempts to describe why old evidence can't be used to reconstruct the past:
We can reconstruct a Stegosaurus from its bones, but when you go on to describe the supposed habitat of that animal, based on the other contents of the rock in which its bones were found, you are giving your hypothesis about those things. If you go on from there to talk about it as if it were known fact you are asserting theory as fact though it can't be verified; in a word you are committing fraud.
So Faith tells us that Stegosaurus fossils are valid evidence from the past, but that the surrounding sedimentary rock in which the Stegosaurus fossils are buried is not. But the evidence from that sedimentary layer tells us a great deal pretty conclusively, such as the age of the layer and the nature of the environment at that time. No one's "asserting theory as fact." Paleontologists are merely relating what the evidence leads them to conclude.
Looking for other kinds of examples of unprovables described in dogmatic terms I found the Wikipedia article on Stegosaurus where such unknowable/unprovables are asserted, such as when the creature lived:
They lived during the Late Jurassic period (Kimmeridgian to early Tithonian), some 155 to 150 million year s ago...
This is interpreted simply from the fact that it is found in a particular layer of sedimentary rock. This becomes a time period because that's what the theory says it is.
We knew the Jurassic was a time period after the one below and before the one above simply from the Law of Superposition (new sedimentary layers can only be deposited on top of older ones, not beneath them) and from the distinct flora and fauna even before radiometric dating allowed us to give it a specific age. There's evidence for everything science has concluded about the Jurassic and the Stegosaurus. There's nothing in science that is accepted "because that's what the theory says it is."
Faith quotes about the paleoecology of the Morrison Formation from the Wikipedia article on the Stegosaurus, then correctly summarizes:
Whatever has been found within that layer along with the bones of the Stegosaurus, goes to make up the interpretation of its "environment," the climate and the kind of vegetation that grew in that "time period."
But she dismisses this:
The Morrison Formation is a layer of rock. Here it is called an "environment." This is of course because the theory says each of the layers represents a time period.
Faith doesn't believe sedimentary layers contain the sediments, flora and fauna of the environment where they formed. She thinks the flood carried them from hither and yon and deposited them together into a single layer. She believes Stegosauri from anywhere in the world all came to be deposited in a narrow portion of the Jurassic period along with other unique flora and fauna that appear nowhere else. How can a flood do this? Well, it was a very special flood unlike any flood we've ever experienced, and it apparently can do anything Faith needs it to do.
I am of course emphasizing the rock=time period equation because it is so absurd...
Faith possesses the infinite ability to declare things absurd while exhibiting no ability to actually demonstrate it.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 546 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-14-2014 11:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 551 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2014 5:14 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 548 of 614 (736897)
09-14-2014 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by NoNukes
09-14-2014 2:31 PM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
NoNukes writes:
I'm referring to the formulation that Taq provided.
Oh, okay, you're referring to Message 534. The full exchange went like this:
Percy in Message 534 writes:
Taq writes:
Evidence is a set of observations that satisfies the hypothesis and disproves the null hypothesis.
Expressed this way, it's consistent with what Faith is saying. Putting it in your terms, she's saying that evidence that does not satisfy the hypothesis and does not disprove the null hypothesis is not evidence.
What Taq said is consistent with what Faith is saying, but it isn't all of what she is saying, which was the point of my second sentence. Faith knows what evidence is, but she puts a qualifier on it that evidence that doesn't correctly support a claim is not evidence. She needs an excuse for ignoring inconvenient evidence, so she makes up a definition of evidence that serves that purpose.
And even with Taq's definition, Faith is still wrong with regard to whether or not we have evidence. Because the facts we refer to do distinguish between Faith's position and yours. So they are evidence.
Yep.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2014 2:31 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2014 3:51 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 550 of 614 (736908)
09-14-2014 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 549 by NoNukes
09-14-2014 3:51 PM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
NoNukes writes:
Perhaps the difference lies only in what we think are Faith's motivations for what she does. I think she is sincere but wrong, your position is that she is just making excuses.
I agree that Faith is sincere, and I don't think she's all that aware that what she's doing is making up definitions and excuses. Faith has demonstrated time and again that she has no aptitude for introspection or self awareness.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2014 3:51 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 552 by NoNukes, posted 09-14-2014 5:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 555 of 614 (744550)
12-12-2014 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 553 by kishan
12-12-2014 5:26 AM


I rewrote this slightly to say what I think you meant:
kishan writes:
Historical science can only be observational.
All science is observational. Observations are how we gather data. Some fields of science lend themselves well to controlled experiments for generating data (physics, chemistry), others must gather much of their data from events that happened long ago (paleogeology, cosmology) or over which we have no control (meteorology).
Perhaps what you meant to say is that in some fields of science it is impossible to construct experiments, so we're forced to observe whatever happens in nature. Supernovae are an example. Telescopes scan the night skies looking for supernovae to observe because we'll never be able to construct our own supernova upon which to conduct experiments.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by kishan, posted 12-12-2014 5:26 AM kishan has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 561 of 614 (745999)
12-31-2014 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 560 by William Rea
12-31-2014 4:45 AM


Re: To recap...
Fundagelical - I like it. Hadn't seen it before, but Googling it I see it's apparently been around a while.
But it doesn't really roll off the tongue. I'd prefer "fundgelical", which I see has also been around a while but isn't as widely used.
Randomly now, while Googling I came across this image:
This is, of course, from promotional material for the AIG ark that is still seeking funds in Kentucky. Raised as I was surrounded by Christian imagery this image evokes one heck of an emotional response, but a modern crane made out of wood? Really? I think we should debate how strong that boom could be. Obviously if a wooden boat the size of the ark could exist, so could that boom.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by William Rea, posted 12-31-2014 4:45 AM William Rea has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 562 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2014 10:51 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 563 by William Rea, posted 12-31-2014 11:09 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 564 by NoNukes, posted 12-31-2014 7:01 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 569 of 614 (746112)
01-02-2015 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 568 by ringo
01-02-2015 11:23 AM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
Wrong issue. The problem isn't wooden cranes. Of course wooden cranes are real. The problem is that boom (see Message 561: "I think we should debate how strong that boom could be."). It's open structure is a little hard to see without magnification, so here's a magnified image of the boom:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by ringo, posted 01-02-2015 11:23 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2015 3:29 PM Percy has replied
 Message 577 by ringo, posted 01-03-2015 10:45 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 571 of 614 (746120)
01-02-2015 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 570 by RAZD
01-02-2015 3:29 PM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
RAZD writes:
What are the loads?
The boom sprang from a creationist's imagination and is an impossible fantasy. It couldn't support itself, let alone loads. I guess it seems possible to you, but I can't guess why. If you know of examples why not post a few images? Here's an image of a crane with a wooden boom, but of solid wood and at an acute angle:
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2015 3:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 572 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2015 6:26 PM Percy has replied
 Message 574 by William Rea, posted 01-03-2015 5:27 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 575 of 614 (746133)
01-03-2015 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 572 by RAZD
01-02-2015 6:26 PM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
RAZD writes:
Or from looking at steel cranes used in construction. It is not an impossible fantasy, just not done because we have steel to use.
What about in Greek, Roman or Medieval times? If you check out on-line articles on cranes there are lots of images of drawings of ancient cranes. Not one uses a non-solid boom.
You apparently have some expertise in this area, but just as one doesn't require any other training besides living in reality to recognize the problems in Escher drawings, one doesn't need any engineering expertise to tell that a wooden boom like that would have one property overwhelming all others: incredibly weak and rickety. You can't weld wood, and every joint would be a point of extreme weakness.
Again the issue is the loads lifted --- I do not see any major loads for normal boat construction that could not be met with a relatively simple crane.
It wasn't the possibility of a crane that was raised as an issue, though the one pictured in the AIG drawing is far too modern. It was that ridiculous boom. Examine the magnified image again:
Besides the sheer flimsiness of it for its length, look at those square trusses. Without triangular units they'll collapse.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2015 6:26 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 583 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2015 1:50 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 578 of 614 (746142)
01-03-2015 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 577 by ringo
01-03-2015 10:45 AM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
ringo writes:
It's a non-problem. The crane doesn't have to lift very heavy loads. The pieces of the ark are no bigger than the pieces of the crane.
Such a boom couldn't even support itself. Lifting pieces of the ark, no matter how small, would be out of the question.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by ringo, posted 01-03-2015 10:45 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 579 by ringo, posted 01-03-2015 11:11 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 580 of 614 (746151)
01-03-2015 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 579 by ringo
01-03-2015 11:11 AM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
ringo writes:
You're taking issue with a drawing.
It was a comment made in passing about the silliness of such a crane boom, made to emphasize the absurd nature of the creationist recreation of a mythical event in that drawing. I can't believe anyone thinks that boom could exist in the real world.
You're taking issue with a drawing. Maybe the drawing has the wood a little too thin but there's nothing wrong with the principle.
I didn't say anything about principles. I'm saying that that specific boom in that specific drawing is impossible.
I've used wooden A-frames much like that myself.
Maybe we're looking at different parts of the image - here's the close-up again:
There are no A-frames in the boom, so now I think it's possible we're looking at different parts of the image.
But the absence of A-frames isn't why the boom is impossible. Wood is just too fragile, especially at all the junctions. Steel hasn't always been available, but such wooden booms seem to be absent from history. Even today there are plenty of places throughout the world where economics would drive people to cheaper materials such as wood, but such booms are absent from the present, too. If it were possible to construct such booms out of wood instead of steel then it would have been done sometime and someplace.
But evidence isn't necessary. Just look at that boom. It's self-evidently impossible. I can't believe you and RAZD give it any credence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 579 by ringo, posted 01-03-2015 11:11 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 581 by ringo, posted 01-03-2015 12:06 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 582 of 614 (746155)
01-03-2015 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 581 by ringo
01-03-2015 12:06 PM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
ringo writes:
As I said, I've used 'em.
Great, post an image.
AbE: That boom seems as self-evidently impossible as this Dr. Seuss building:
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by ringo, posted 01-03-2015 12:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 598 by ringo, posted 01-05-2015 10:41 AM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024