Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 4:34 PM
25 online now:
FLRW, kjsimons, marc9000, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,997 Year: 5,034/19,786 Month: 1,156/873 Week: 52/460 Day: 52/91 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 1 of 303 (242434)
09-12-2005 9:55 AM


The question is, is it possible for YECs to do science at all?

At www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=173&m=29#29 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=173&m=29#29">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=173&m=29#29,

paisano writes:

It's your thread, but IMO, this debate is impossible. Faith begins with a particular unfalsifiable ideology about scriptural interpretations, and all conclusions and inferences are subject to that ideology. She has made her position quite clear on this point.

However, this sort of epistemology is vastly different from a scientific epistemology. In a scientific epistemology, every assertion must be falsifiable, even (perhaps especially) assertions about the proper interpretation of religious texts and scientific implications thereof.

Here is simply too wide an epistemological gap to be bridged, IMO.

I disagree. This is (approximately) how some forensic science works. You have some data, and you have a known conclusion. You work at determining what's in between.

I think you're talking more about experimental science. Like you said, that's not close to what Faith's doing. But that's not an appropriate approach for YECs.

Of course, take this statement with a big grain of salt. In forensic science, you don't question the foundations of the sciences that you're investigating with. Faith has to do that. But I don't think it's in principle a different approach than what happens in forensic science.

"Is it Science" please.

(edited to turn off email notifications)
(edited to replace 'science' with 'investigation' in the title)

This message has been edited by Ben, Monday, 2005/09/12 10:54 AM

This message has been edited by Ben, Monday, 2005/09/12 12:33 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 10:32 AM Ben! has responded
 Message 4 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 10:34 AM Ben! has responded
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 10:38 AM Ben! has responded
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 10:50 AM Ben! has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 11:01 AM Ben! has responded
 Message 47 by nwr, posted 09-12-2005 11:36 AM Ben! has responded
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 11-15-2005 12:59 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 303 (242444)
09-12-2005 10:26 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
CK
Member (Idle past 2234 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 3 of 303 (242447)
09-12-2005 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ben!
09-12-2005 9:55 AM


I don't buy it
I just don't buy your forensic science analogue - would you like to give us an example of what you are thinking?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 9:55 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:47 AM CK has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 599 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 4 of 303 (242449)
09-12-2005 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ben!
09-12-2005 9:55 AM


Forensic Science
This is (approximately) how some forensic science works. You have some data, and you have a known conclusion. You work at determining what's in between.

Well, let's look at this analogy.

If by "known conclusion" you mean - "we've got a dead guy here" and the work is determining how he died, then I would agree. But I would argue that what the YECs are saying is more akin to "this was murder, now let's prove it".

Additionally, in forensics, they assume that damage done was done the same way it is in the real world. ie if the flesh is burned, someone probably applied heat or chemicals to it.

For the YEC doing foresnsics, you can't take anything for granted. If the body was burned, they must figure out if that fits their "this was murder" model. If it does, terrific. If it doesn't, then it obviously wasn't burned.

If it could be shown conclusively that the cause of death was a heart attack (however you show that), the scientist would be pretty much done at that point.

The YEC now has to figure out how the murderer caused the heart attack. Was it an undetectable poison? Was it some undetectable heart attack ray guy?

This is the problem with working with your conclusion already known. It's why YEC is not science, nor can it ever be science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 9:55 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:54 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 303 (242450)
09-12-2005 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ben!
09-12-2005 9:55 AM


I get your point and it is no doubt the best defense that can be made of what YECs are attempting to do here, but it will fail because our known conclusion is not recognized by our opponents. We know the Flood happened for instance, but that is exactly what is in dispute. We DO proceed from this premise however, as you describe, from this known conclusion, so you are accurately describing our method. But since the premise/known conclusion itself is disputed it won't solve the problem we are discussing. What we have here is a true conflict that is not resolvable.

This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 10:39 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 9:55 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 10:44 AM Faith has responded
 Message 15 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:57 AM Faith has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 6 of 303 (242453)
09-12-2005 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
09-12-2005 10:38 AM


Oh, it's resolvable.
Let me give a forensic example.

There is a suicide note found and a dead body.

The question is to determine what happened.

The note says that the person killed himself by drowning but the body shows no water in the lungs.

Now, do you believe the note or do you believe the evidence of the body?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 10:38 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2005 10:50 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 10:55 AM jar has responded
 Message 20 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:02 AM jar has responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 7 of 303 (242454)
09-12-2005 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by CK
09-12-2005 10:32 AM


Re: I don't buy it
Unshakable conclusion: A house is burned down.

Evidence:
- it wasn't burning yesterday.
- it's a small town.
- no chemical traces of explosives
- no witnesses

Something like that.

Ben


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 10:32 AM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 10:52 AM Ben! has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 303 (242456)
09-12-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ben!
09-12-2005 9:55 AM


The only way the conflict about our premise could conceivably be resolved is if we are permitted to argue from it freely to show that we have good alternative explanations to evolutionist explanations of biology and OE explanations of geology.

In fact you seem to anticipate that eventually our position might be falsified even by allowing us to pursue our method, but since we are working with explanations and interpretations and NOT doing experimental science there is really nothing finally testable or falsifiable, and therefore no end to the argument.

It is entirely a battle of plausibilities and the most convincing supposedly win. But in reality all the accepted plausibilities are on the side of the Science establishment, and the science side will think they've made the best case no matter what, and discount any explanation YECs come up with.

All a YEC really hopes for is to show that there ARE reasonable alternative interpretations of the data. There's really not much more we can do. But in this atmosphere of outrage and ridicule at our very premise that's impossible here too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 9:55 AM Ben! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 10:56 AM Faith has responded
 Message 61 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-12-2005 12:24 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Rahvin, posted 09-12-2005 1:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2018 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 9 of 303 (242457)
09-12-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
09-12-2005 10:44 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
You example wont quite work Jar. The note needs to be from a third party observer and be signed:

-God


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 10:44 AM jar has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 599 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 10 of 303 (242458)
09-12-2005 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ben!
09-12-2005 10:47 AM


Re: I don't buy it
Unshakable conclusion: A house is burned down.

YEC conclusion: The house was burned down by God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:47 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 10:54 AM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:03 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 11 of 303 (242459)
09-12-2005 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Nuggin
09-12-2005 10:34 AM


Re: Forensic Science
If by "known conclusion" you mean - "we've got a dead guy here" and the work is determining how he died, then I would agree. But I would argue that what the YECs are saying is more akin to "this was murder, now let's prove it".

Nuggin,

you're looking at this from your own perspective. Get outside your own skinbag and see what Faith sees.

Faith sees data where you see insanity. From Faith's perspective, it's a dead body. Some faith, belief, is so strong, it doesn't change in the face of evidence. It's like when somebody believes their child is still alive, when all signs point to her death. You turn over every stone looking for the child. The fact that science is inductive knowledge suddenly becomes crucial; it gets questioned because it CAN be questioned. The possibility for success in any one spot is low. But you have to try.

Faith's looking at data. It's data in her mind, and you need to understand that. You can't force somebody to take your own viewpoint Nuggin. You can disagree with Faith, but at least take the time to understand and accept.

Ben


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 10:34 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 10:58 AM Ben! has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:01 AM Ben! has responded
 Message 24 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 11:07 AM Ben! has responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2234 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 12 of 303 (242460)
09-12-2005 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Nuggin
09-12-2005 10:52 AM


Re: I don't buy it
How do you know it was a house? it's just your viewpoint it was a house - a conclusion coloured by your fallen nature.

I don't believe in burning - it's scientifically impossible - it says so in my book of faith therefore your explanation that burning had something to do with it is incorrect.

Maybe the chemicals used to produce this effect that is close to burning are just beyond your ability to detect with modern science - have you considered that?

No it didn't burn down - a different answer must be found.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 10:52 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

Faith
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 303 (242463)
09-12-2005 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
09-12-2005 10:44 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
Let me give a forensic example.
There is a suicide note found and a dead body.

The question is to determine what happened.

The note says that the person killed himself by drowning but the body shows no water in the lungs.

Now, do you believe the note or do you believe the evidence of the body?

You're a riot, jar. You really think you can resolve this conflict by pre-empting the position of your opponents in favor of your own assumptions/conclusions. Well, of course that is exactly what I'm saying IS the position of EvC. Our view that God's word IS God's word is disallowed. You insist it's a human work, and in this example you are simply insisting that we accept that too. Sorry, this is a genuine conflict BECAUSE our premise is that the Bible is God's word, not a suicide note.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 10:44 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 11:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 303 (242464)
09-12-2005 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
09-12-2005 10:50 AM


Believe it or not ...
everyone would welcome such an event.

Faith writes:

The only way the conflict about our premise could conceivably be resolved is if we are permitted to argue from it freely to show that we have good alternative explanations to evolutionist explanations of biology and OE explanations of geology.

The key point is to have good alternative explanations. If YECs could present any such explanations, then they would be listened to. But as hard as people have tried, and they really did try, the reality of the universe is such that every explanation so far has failed.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 10:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:09 AM jar has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 15 of 303 (242465)
09-12-2005 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
09-12-2005 10:38 AM


Hi Faith,

My purpose isn't to resolve it. It's just to push others to try and take your perspective. If I can get people to do that, then it's a small success.

And if I can't, then... I'm really disappointed. Perspective-taking is SUPPOSED TO BE one of those "special" human qualities...

I'm sure everybody will enjoy my next thread, in which I compare you to a schizophrenic and ask if you should be considered mentally ill. Prepare yourself for that one.

If you want me to just drop this, I can do it. But in my eyes, this is the line upon which YEC and experimental science must find peace.

At the very least, I got discussion out of the Geology thread... hopefully that can continue with less noise.

Ben


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 10:38 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 11:02 AM Ben! has not yet responded
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2005 11:08 AM Ben! has responded
 Message 28 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 11:11 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019