Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Limits of Science
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 81 (303100)
04-11-2006 3:59 AM


(Is it science area)
Empirical evidence, and testibility, and observation I like. These deal with things in the present, and several thousand years in the past. Of course it also only deals in the natural, as science does. The assumption is that the past and the future also will be physical only as this present is. They say the present is the key to the past.
I propose that this assumption is not science. We do not know. If I believe that the bible indicated a past and future that included the spiritual, altering the state of matter, and fabric of the universe, I claim science has nothing to say about it. This is of course true.
Therefore it is NOT science to make claims about the future or far past using an assumption it was physical only, unless that could be solidly supported!
It cannot. I challenge anyone to do so.
This message has been edited by simple, 04-11-2006 04:00 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 10:09 AM simple has replied
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 04-11-2006 10:13 AM simple has replied
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2006 10:25 AM simple has replied
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 04-11-2006 12:30 PM simple has not replied
 Message 7 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-11-2006 1:38 PM simple has not replied
 Message 8 by 1.61803, posted 04-11-2006 2:56 PM simple has replied
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 04-12-2006 3:34 AM simple has replied
 Message 17 by cavediver, posted 04-12-2006 5:38 AM simple has replied
 Message 18 by Larni, posted 04-12-2006 5:39 AM simple has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 81 (303156)
04-11-2006 10:01 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3 of 81 (303160)
04-11-2006 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by simple
04-11-2006 3:59 AM


This is a science forum thread.
So the first thing you will need to provide is the scientific evidence for your alleged spiritual state, or that there was ever some altered state of matter. Then you will need to provide the scientific evidence that the past or future were not simply material.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by simple, posted 04-11-2006 3:59 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 3:14 AM jar has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 81 (303164)
04-11-2006 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by simple
04-11-2006 3:59 AM


quote:
These deal with things in the present, and several thousand years in the past.
Only several thousand years in the past? That seems rather arbitrary.
Actually, science only deals with things in the present. Science is based on evidence, which can only be phenomena that occur right now. However, we can infer the past from observing the present. Not every concievable past is possible given what we know about the present.
It so happens, that the geological and biological sciences are full of evidence, today, by which we can reach reasonable conclusions about the past. The possibilities of what the past could have been like are contrained by the actual conditions we see in the present.
This involves making assumptions about the past, of course. However, the remarkable thing is that it leads to a very consistent history of the earth and the universe. There is no reason to expect that any assumption about the past will not be supported by some evidence and contradicted by other evidence. The assumption that the earth is only 6000 years old, for example, or that there was a global flood about 4500 years ago is contradicted by evidence we see today.
By recognizing that we understand the geologic processes that formed the statigraphic layers in the geologic record, scientists have reconstructed a reasonably detailed account of the history of the earth. This history, unlike the Genesis account of the creation of the world, suffers from no contradictions in the evidence. That these assumptions that we understand how these processes operated are consistent with all the evidence that we have is remarkable -- it would an amazing coincidence that nature is such that we could reconstruct such a detailed, consistent, yet wrong history of the planet.
Added by edit:
These issues were also discussed in this thread, or at least in the portions of this thead in which I participated.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-Apr-2006 02:20 PM

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by simple, posted 04-11-2006 3:59 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 3:32 AM Chiroptera has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 81 (303167)
04-11-2006 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by simple
04-11-2006 3:59 AM


Therefore it is NOT science to make claims about the future or far past using an assumption it was physical only, unless that could be solidly supported!
It doesn't matter if science is absolutely correct as long as its predictions hold true.
It cannot {be solidly supported}. I challenge anyone to do so.
I cannot. And I don't think your gonna find someone who can. It isn't necessary.
The assumption is that the past and the future also will be physical only as this present is.
Why would SCIENCE assume otherwise?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by simple, posted 04-11-2006 3:59 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 3:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 6 of 81 (303205)
04-11-2006 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by simple
04-11-2006 3:59 AM


simple writes:
Therefore it is NOT science to make claims about the future or far past using an assumption it was physical only, unless that could be solidly supported!
Don't you yourself make predictions about the future? Let's say you're going on trip and have to drive 300 miles. You know you can average 60 mph. Don't you predict that it will take 5 hours of driving time to get there? And don't you then call your friends at the other end and say, "I'm leaving at 10 AM, so I should be there by 3 PM?"
Of course you do. Because your experience tells you that the world will behave tomorrow just as it does today.
The Europeans just had a probe reach the planet Venus earlier today. They accurately calculated the velocity and timing needed for a spacecraft launched from Earth 5 months ago to reach the present location of Venus.
And why is the past okay for science, but not the far past? Do you have any evidence for a boundary between the past and far past? Do you know how long ago that boundary occurred, or what caused it?
If the physical laws of the universe were not reliable and consistent then we would have evidence of it. We don't.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by simple, posted 04-11-2006 3:59 AM simple has not replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 7 of 81 (303232)
04-11-2006 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by simple
04-11-2006 3:59 AM


Physical constants in the past
There are a number of ways to directly measure certain physical constants from the past.
The main one that springs to mind is the study of distant stars and galaxies.
We can measure the light frequencies and a number of other properties that tell us without a shadow of a doubt that when the light was emitted from the distant star/galaxy, it was created under identical physical conditions to the ones we see today on Earth.
This light is reaching us in the present but was created in the distant past so it fulfills all the criteria.
Of course you have to accept that these stars and galaxies really are millions of light years away and aren't simply painted on the inside of a giant sphere that surrounds us (or some other such strange concept). And also that the laws of physics apply equally to all parts of space at any given time.
I am not an expert in cosmology though. There are some here who could explain it better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by simple, posted 04-11-2006 3:59 AM simple has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 8 of 81 (303263)
04-11-2006 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by simple
04-11-2006 3:59 AM


The British Empiricist
Hi Simple.
Gotta love them empiricist. They were the ones that came up with the concept that causality can not be linked to observations of events. More than 250 years ago. Just because I drop an anvil above my foot does not mean it will fall on my foot and break it. The two events are separate. I drop the anvil. My foot is broken by it. But I do not know this will happen. I can only draw conclusions based on what happened before and what I know about gravity and mass and the fragility of my flesh and bone. I see the sun rise each morning and conclude it will rise tomorrow. I do not know for a fact that it will. I am simply assuming it will rise as it does each day based on it's past performance. So technically you are correct. We can not know anything except that we can not know everything. But as others have pointed out it is superfulous to doubt evidence on the bases of our inablility to measure. If that were the case we would never learn anything. IMO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by simple, posted 04-11-2006 3:59 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-11-2006 7:48 PM 1.61803 has not replied
 Message 14 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 3:45 AM 1.61803 has replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 9 of 81 (303349)
04-11-2006 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by 1.61803
04-11-2006 2:56 PM


1.61803 writes:
Gotta love them empiricist. They were the ones that came up with the concept that causality can not be linked to observations of events. More than 250 years ago. Just because I drop an anvil above my foot does not mean it will fall on my foot and break it. The two events are separate. I drop the anvil. My foot is broken by it. But I do not know this will happen.
And we solipsists do it one better: You don't know that either the anvil or your foot exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by 1.61803, posted 04-11-2006 2:56 PM 1.61803 has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 81 (303424)
04-12-2006 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
04-11-2006 10:09 AM


Re: This is a science forum thread.
As much as you will need to provide is the scientific evidence for your alleged present in the past state, or that there was never some altered state of matter. But I think we know that this is beyond the limits of natural science. Hence the thread, thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 10:09 AM jar has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 81 (303428)
04-12-2006 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chiroptera
04-11-2006 10:13 AM


No evidence exists
quote:
Only several thousand years in the past? That seems rather arbitrary.
Recorded history has limits. The history of science has limits. Science has limits.
quote:
Actually, science only deals with things in the present. Science is based on evidence, which can only be phenomena that occur right now. However, we can infer the past from observing the present. Not every concievable past is possible given what we know about the present.
Thank you!!! perfect! Infer, assume, believe. This is the bottom line when science of today is attempted to be applied to the future, or even far past!
quote:
This involves making assumptions about the past, of course. However, the remarkable thing is that it leads to a very consistent history of the earth and the universe.
So what? I have another. Absolutely.
quote:
There is no reason to expect that any assumption about the past will not be supported by some evidence and contradicted by other evidence.
Finish the line of thought here, let's be honest. 'There is no reason to expect that any assumption about the past will be supported by some evidence and contradicted by other evidence'
quote:
The assumption that the earth is only 6000 years old, for example, or that there was a global flood about 4500 years ago is contradicted by evidence we see today.
False, it is supported only by assuming the past was the same as the future, which has no emphirical evidence at all!
[quote] By recognizing that we understand the geologic processes that formed the statigraphic layers in the geologic record, ...[/qyote]
No, in no wat whatsoever! We understand the processes that NOW form the statigraphic layers. We cannot say it was exactly the same, only assume and that is not science.
See, I assume the laws of physics then did not apply, but the universe was also spiritual, like the future of the bible will be. You can assume otherwise, but you also need to prove it. At least solidly support it. How do you know there was gravity, decay, present light, and present physical only matter?? This is the question.
quote:
That these assumptions that we understand how these processes operated are consistent with all the evidence that we have is remarkable -- it would an amazing coincidence that nature is such that we could reconstruct such a detailed, consistent, yet wrong history of the planet.
And amazing it is! Cause what we see is exactly what is expected as well if the spiritual was seperated from the physical.
Now, assumptions aside, and belief, what does the actual evidence tell us? In the present, it is clear, we are in (what is now) natural universe, or physical. It, however DOES NOT tell us that it will be so in the future or far past. That is puny, irelevant, mere assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 04-11-2006 10:13 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Chiroptera, posted 04-12-2006 8:21 AM simple has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 12 of 81 (303429)
04-12-2006 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by simple
04-11-2006 3:59 AM


consistency
Therefore it is NOT science to make claims about the future or far past using an assumption it was physical only, unless that could be solidly supported!
It cannot. I challenge anyone to do so.
Its been addressed above, but I think its an important point - consistency of the evidence. There are only three reasons that spring to mind for the evidence to consistently point to the history that science has accepted:
1) Its real.
2) Its a coincidence.
3) Its deception.
Science rejects coincidences of this level, they are just so damn unlikely to be true. It could be true, which means the theory is still falsifiable, but every piece of evidence uncovered makes the coincidence explanation less and less likely.
No evidence has been uncovered that would indicate deception.
I'm wondering though, have you ever taken part in scientific practice. When I was studying physics the first thing I would have to do given any particular problem is to state my assumptions. You could fill half the page up with assumptions on a simple problem involving just a pulley system - are you suggesting that assumptions mean something is not scientific?
The assumptions are supported by the evidence and not rejected by any of it. Thus they are kept until such a time as they are rejected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by simple, posted 04-11-2006 3:59 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by simple, posted 04-12-2006 3:53 AM Modulous has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 81 (303431)
04-12-2006 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2006 10:25 AM


Pony Up
quote:
It doesn't matter if science is absolutely correct as long as its predictions hold true.
.
The bible predictions hold true, are they science also? My predictions hold true as well, what we see is what is expected if there was a seperation of spiritual and physical. I predict the geological column is a YEC phenomena. Mostly laid down pre flood. It does matter if science predicts something in the future it cannot prove that is opposed to the bible, and teach children that. --Like the sun will burn out, or the earth, or our galaxy crash into another one day. It matters if they predict the past was the same but can't prove it.
quote:
I cannot. And I don't think your gonna find someone who can. It isn't necessary.
Says you. I say you are wrong. You make a claim and call it science you must back it up. Really.
quote:
Why would SCIENCE assume otherwise?
Why would it assume it was physical only? If it assumes the tooth fairy placed the universe in a speck, and waved it out, that is fine as an unproven, and baseless assumption. If it claims it as MORE than an assumption, it had darn well better pony up the evidence-period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2006 10:25 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2006 12:35 PM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 81 (303432)
04-12-2006 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by 1.61803
04-11-2006 2:56 PM


quote:
....But as others have pointed out it is superfulous to doubt evidence on the bases of our inablility to measure. If that were the case we would never learn anything. IMO.....
I do not doubt evidnce in any way, I doubt assumption and baseless belief as relateds to the future, or far past. No foot was there to drop things on. We don't even know there was gravity as we know it here, now do we? Prove it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by 1.61803, posted 04-11-2006 2:56 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by 1.61803, posted 04-12-2006 1:19 PM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 81 (303433)
04-12-2006 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Modulous
04-12-2006 3:34 AM


Re: consistency
quote:
There are only three reasons that spring to mind for the evidence to consistently point to the history that science has accepted:
1) Its real.
2) Its a coincidence.
3) Its deception.
Depends on how far back you mean. If you mean last week, yes we know all about that. We have witnesses, records, history, etc. If you mean pre flood, or about 4500 years ago, that is a different story.
quote:
No evidence has been uncovered that would indicate deception.
This means nothing, except we are unable to detect more than the physical now, and have been since science started. Nevertheless, most of the world acknowledges a spiritual in one form or another. Who can say it will not be a closer part of the physical universe one day, or was not in the past, this known quantity?
quote:
are you suggesting that assumptions mean something is not scientific?
The assumptions are supported by the evidence and not rejected by any of it. Thus they are kept until such a time as they are rejected.
If the assumptions involve the observable, and present, and testable, no. If they are baseless ideas of the future or past that just assume a universe that is not temporal, as the bible says this one is, and that the present is the be all end all, yes, they are not in any way science!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 04-12-2006 3:34 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 04-12-2006 4:32 AM simple 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