I don't get it. A topic isn't science or not (roxrkool's claim); it's the methodology behind the topic. Faith takes an unscientific methodology; so she's not bringing science into the non-science forums. She's taking a faith-based empirical investigation, more akin to "data dredging" than anything else. Why is it wrong for her to post that way in the faith forums?
If anybody's bringing science to the faith forums, seems like it's the scientists who are so intent to rebut Faith's arguments. I'd suggest 2 methods to these scientists: 1. Challenge Faith to support DATA (not rebut theory) by providing empirical evidence that seems to work against her "theories." 2. Just let it go! Don't engage her.
I find that people usually provide evidence for Faith to explain, and when she explains it, they use scientific theories to "show" her that her explanation is simply not possible. Instead of bringing science into the faith forums, why not extract the data from the scientific theories, and bring these to the faith forums? If Faith's constructions don't hold up, then there will be evidence she can't "explain away." If they do hold up, then I don't see what the problem is. If she chooses to simply ignore evidence, then that's when moderation should step in.
Why is this so hard? And for those to whom it's so difficult, why not just exit stage left? What does arguing with Faith buy you anyway?
P.S. I was unsure whether to post this in Admin mode or not. Since I'm asking questions rather than making statements outlining moderation policy or my moderation approach, I thought non-admin mode is more appropriate.
This message has been edited by Ben, Friday, 2005/09/09 12:26 PM
Step 1: Choose your faith-based hypothesis. Step 2: Collect data Step 3: Come up with an explanation that fits both the data and your hypothesis.
Repeat until all data are fit.
In this case, no experiment necessary--there's tons of geologic data readily available. But once you have a model (see step 3), you can make predictions for further data.
Science isn't the only way to go about creating theories. It's just shown to be a better way to make progress and model the data--it's incremental and falsifiable, both strong points when you don't know what the actual "truth" you're aiming for is.
Faith is clearly doing empirical investigation. She's not doing it scientifically. Who ever told you science was the only way to find a correct hypothesis given a set of data?
Nobody cares if the hypothesis is a priori or not; it's whether it's RIGHT OR NOT (i.e. models data) that we care about. And that's simply seeing if the observed data fits within the model, and to see if the predictions the model makes hold in the future as well.
No crack necessary pappy. Only crack going on here is the one between my ass cheeks.
suggesting a different way of arriving at something that has a reasonable chance of being correct
I didn't say anything about having a reasonable chance of being correct. I think the reason people do science is because done what other methodologies have not--it's produced results, time and time again.
But what does it matter? If Faith wants to use her time to try find find a theory that matches evidence to Biblical stories, why so many people get angry and yell? Let her do it! If she succeeds, great for her! If she does not, then you can all say "told you so."
In the meantime, stop trying to engage her with science. Faith doesn't do science, and y'all are beating your heads against a wall. It's stupid. Go away and do some real science, like roxrkool is.
Get on with it. Get over it. (I'm talking more to CK, roxrkool, Nuggin, deerbah, et al. more than you Ned.)
If you still think this would be fruitful being discussed within a "Is it Science" forum topic, then I'll put something up there. But I wanted to make sure I clarified what I'm saying first.
It was supposed to be a discussion of the methodologies available to YECs in investigating whether or not known observations can be reconciled with YEC / a literal interpretation of the Bible. Things such as, what are the methodologies, what are the limitations / dangers of such methodologies, and how those methodologies relate to the scientific method. Things like that.
Besides the discussions you mentioned, I felt discussion moved into discussing specific ideas about resolving YEC with science (gravity... marsupials... etc). I also felt that discussion about suggestions of how to make things work had run its course, and I had already opened a thread in "Suggestions and Questions" about it, so talk about practical means to make things work could continue there anyway.
Re: D.H.R. expresses concerns over special consideration.
if the moderators don't make special allowances for people who do not judge based on evidence, and warn/ban for unsupported assertions, then we essentially don't have a debate.
This probably doesn't belong here... but I'm not sure where to go.
There's a time and place for logical thinking and evidence. And there's a time and place for working outside of that. The debate is not about TruthTM but a lot less than that, and a lot more than that.
Your post sounds to me like you think creation vs. evolution is a debate only about scientific theory and the history of life. I don't think so. Because of that, it IS possible to have both scientists and non-scientists here, just as it is possible to have both believers and non-believers. The purpose, in my eyes, is to find the boundaries of what kind of thinking and what kind of knowledge is applicable where and when, and to find ways to deal with each other.
the scientific community doesn't have a debate -- they all know where the evidence stands. if we have the same standards here, we won't have very many religious posters.
Like I said, I think this takes a really narrow view of what's going on here. I don't think this is the case. And I don't think admins have to compromise as much as you think.
I think the biggest compromises made by admins are not because of scientific vs. faith debates, but because people get edgy during debate. To deal with this, I think we compromise. On the whole, I don't see that we allow people to post non-science in places where science is the language.
The reason I respond, arach, is because I think this is a really key perspective in facing the debate. Key both for what to expect out of admins, but also key in facing where a possible resolution lies. I just didn't get that sense from your post, and I thought it was appropriate to bring up.
I hope it makes sense how this fits into how admins work, what compromises are made, and how (at least one) admin(s) strive for resolution to the debate.
Re: D.H.R. expresses concerns over special consideration.
well, i think you misunderstood what i meant.
I wasn't sure. I know you usually have very fair viewpoints, so behind my words I assumed you had some pretty reasonable and thoughtful position. I couldn't figure out how to read your words though. I thought it would be useful to elaborate.
So, I'm glad to hear we're in agreement.
i think they have to compromise more. i've noticed a lack of fundamentalists and evangelicals on the board lately. haven't you?
I can't address this concisely. All I can say is, I think there are ways to better interactions, and none of them involve such a compromise. My job right now is to commit my thoughts to writing, so that I can get feedback on them.