Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 12:33 AM
38 online now:
Dredge, DrJones*, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 35 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 0/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Author Topic:   Science: A Method not a Source
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 177 (589842)
11-04-2010 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Straggler
11-04-2010 6:25 PM


Re: Testing BY Prediction
jar writes:

Straggler writes:

And can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"?
I am struggling to see how this conclusion can have arisen without a healthy dose of human imagination thrown in- Can you enlighten me?

But imagination is part of reason, logic and reality.

So anything that is imagined is as reasoned, logical and real as anything discovered?

No, some things.

Being imagined doesn't have to mean being without reason, logic, and reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Straggler, posted 11-04-2010 6:25 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Straggler, posted 11-05-2010 8:02 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 177 (589843)
11-04-2010 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Jon
11-04-2010 3:24 PM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
Unless, of course, you find the source of the information crucial to the scientific method and can demonstrate which aspects of the scientific method so stipulate the nature of the informational source. This is what is at issue in this thread.

That's not even really important to the argument in your OP, so that stands as refuted by me.

As I said:

quote:
You are correct that it is possible for a creationist to employ the scientific methodology on Biblical evidence, and if someone implied that they weren't, by calling them unscientific, then they would technically be incorrect.

But, in this thread, I am not interested in looking at all the places where folk have rejected application of the scientific method; rather in looking at the places where they have used the scientific method and how it compares, sources notwithstanding, to other applications of the scientific method in form and process.

What, exactly, are you looking at? Are you seeing anything when you look at it?

Where are these people doing proper science but on this other evidence? I still suspect they're only in your head.

So you are not aware of the methodology employed in retrieving the young Earth age estimates from the pages of Scripture?

Oh yeah, its so scientific. I mean, their methodology is just great. Those big dummies calling them unscientific are totally wrong about that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Jon, posted 11-04-2010 3:24 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Jon, posted 11-04-2010 7:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 123 of 177 (589853)
11-04-2010 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Jon
11-04-2010 3:20 PM


CMB
If 'vindication' to you is simply failure to be falsified (despite being falsifiable), then so it is; I will not debate on your usage of words. I will say this, however: had both BB and SST predicted the nature of the CMBR as it was discovered, then its discovery would have added nothing to the debate; it was only in as much as the discovery of CMBR was inconsistent with the notions of SST that one theory was able to be 'tossed' while the other be 'vindicated'. It would, thus, appear, that the 'vindication', or 'verification', of theories is not a positive process, but rather a negative one that results when certain of competing (falsifiable) explanations are falsified. The discovery of informations pertaining to certain (falsifiable) predictions seems completely useless if it does not serve to falsify one of a series of competing explanations. Without falsification it is impossible to get anywhere in science.

I disagree. If there had been no such thing as the Steady State Theory, the nature of the CMB would still have been in line with the predictions of the BBT and would have increased out confidence in that theory.

What is needed for an observation to tend to confirm a hypothesis (call it hypothesis A) is not that it should tend to disconfirm another hypothesis (call it hypothesis B), but that it would have tended to disconfirm hypothesis A if we'd seen something different.

E.g. not finding the CMB when we had instruments good enough to detect it had it been there would have cast doubt on the BBT; therefore finding it rendered the BBT more plausible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Jon, posted 11-04-2010 3:20 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Jon, posted 11-04-2010 7:54 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 177 (589856)
11-04-2010 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by New Cat's Eye
11-04-2010 7:12 PM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
As I said:

quote:
You are correct that it is possible for a creationist to employ the scientific methodology on Biblical evidence, and if someone implied that they weren't, by calling them unscientific, then they would technically be incorrect.

Good. It appears we agree on this point.

What, exactly, are you looking at?

quote:
Jon in Message 114 & Message 117:

... looking at the places where they have used the scientific method and how it compares, sources notwithstanding, to other applications of the scientific method in form and process.


Where are these people doing proper science but on this other evidence?

I'm trying to avoid talking about people here; I'd like to keep the discussion focused on methods.

Jon writes:

So you are not aware of the methodology employed in retrieving the young Earth age estimates from the pages of Scripture?

Oh yeah, its so scientific. I mean, their methodology is just great. Those big dummies calling them unscientific are totally wrong about that.

Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?

Jon


Check out Apollo's Temple!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2010 7:12 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-05-2010 9:45 AM Jon has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 125 of 177 (589860)
11-04-2010 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Jon
11-04-2010 3:24 PM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
So you are not aware of the methodology employed in retrieving the young Earth age estimates from the pages of Scripture?

Step 1: Assume without evidence that what is written in some book is completely true ...

At which point they have already left the scientific method far behind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Jon, posted 11-04-2010 3:24 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Jon, posted 11-04-2010 7:57 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 177 (589861)
11-04-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Dr Adequate
11-04-2010 7:36 PM


Re: CMB
If there had been no such thing as the Steady State Theory, the nature of the CMB would still have been in line with the predictions of the BBT and would have increased out confidence in that theory.

I completely agree. But how is 'confidence' related to 'verification'?

E.g. not finding the CMB when we had instruments good enough to detect it had it been there would have cast doubt on the BBT; therefore finding it rendered the BBT more plausible.

I completely agree. But how is 'rendering ... more plausible' related to 'verification'?

Jon


Check out Apollo's Temple!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2010 7:36 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 177 (589862)
11-04-2010 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dr Adequate
11-04-2010 7:52 PM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
Step 1: Assume without evidence that what is written in some book is completely true ...

Are you sure that is really part of the methodology? Are you saying to read through the Scripture and calculate an age of the Earth based on what is written is only possible if you first 'assume without evidence that what is written in some book is completely true'?

At which point they have already left the scientific method far behind.

Why?

Jon


Check out Apollo's Temple!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2010 7:52 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2010 8:12 PM Jon has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 128 of 177 (589867)
11-04-2010 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Jon
11-04-2010 7:57 PM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
Are you sure that is really part of the methodology? Are you saying to read through the Scripture and calculate an age of the Earth based on what is written is only possible if you first 'assume without evidence that what is written in some book is completely true'?

Without that assumption one could calculate what the age of the Earth would be if the Bible was completely true. Indeed, I have done so myself.

But that unevidenced assumption that the Bible is completely true is necessary in order to believe that one is calculating the age of the Earth by following that method. Which is where creationists are going wrong.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Jon, posted 11-04-2010 7:57 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 10:36 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 129 of 177 (589941)
11-05-2010 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by jar
11-04-2010 6:38 PM


Re: Testing BY Prediction
jar writes:

I'm not sure.

How many years have you spent participating on science based debate forums? And yet when asked why prediction is a key component of the scientific method you seem rather bewildered by the question. So I'll ask it again in a different way:

Jar - Why do you think prediction is a key component of the scientific method?

Speaking as one regular participant on science debate forums to another I would strongly reccommend that you consider this question.

And when you have I would be delighted to hear your thoughts.

Straggler writes:

And can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"?

I am struggling to see how this conclusion can have arisen without a healthy dose of human imagination thrown in- Can you enlighten me?

jar writes:

But imagination is part of reason, logic and reality.

Straggler writes:

So anything that is imagined is as reasoned, logical and real as anything discovered?

jar writes:

Nope, doubt that was what I said.

Then what did you say that has any relevance to the question asked? Can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"?

Or not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 11-04-2010 6:38 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by jar, posted 11-05-2010 11:22 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 130 of 177 (589942)
11-05-2010 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by New Cat's Eye
11-04-2010 6:59 PM


Re: Testing BY Prediction
CS writes:

No, some things.

Being imagined doesn't have to mean being without reason, logic, and reality.

Obviously.

So let's put the question in context shall we?

Straggler writes:

And can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"?

I am struggling to see how this conclusion can have arisen without a healthy dose of human imagination thrown in- Can you enlighten me?

jar writes:

But imagination is part of reason, logic and reality.

Straggler writes:

So anything that is imagined is as reasoned, logical and real as anything discovered?

CS writes:

No, some things.

Being imagined doesn't have to mean being without reason, logic, and reality.

Right. So how does this relate directly to the question asked?

Can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"?

Or not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2010 6:59 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-05-2010 9:59 AM Straggler has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 131 of 177 (589946)
11-05-2010 8:25 AM


Moderator On Duty Soon
It's been two days since I last posted as Percy, so beginning tomorrow I'll begin moderating this thread. I've become concerned that cryptic Socratic questions might have begun comprising too great a proportion of the contributions. As an occasional riposte, fine, but as a steady diet, no. If you have a point or a rebuttal to make then please state it directly and clearly.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 132 of 177 (589952)
11-05-2010 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Jon
11-04-2010 3:20 PM


Re: It's Simple... Really (Re: Testing BY Prediction)
A theory makes specific testable predictions. The prediction is tested. If the prediction is verified the theory is vindicated as being an accurate model of reality. This is how science progresses Jon.

We have already considered the Big Bang but let's have a quick look once again at what has been said about that.

Big Bang

quote:
After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some version of the Big Bang scenario must have occurred.

quote:
For a while, support was split between these two theories. Eventually, the observational evidence, most notably from radio source counts, began to favor the latter. The discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964[28] secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos.

Or we could consider the Standard Model

quote:
The Standard Model (SM) predicted the existence of the W and Z bosons, gluon, and the top and charm quarks before these particles were observed. Their predicted properties were experimentally confirmed with good precision. To give an idea of the success of the SM, the following table compares the measured masses of the W and Z bosons with the masses predicted by the SM:

quote:
Currently, there is one elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model that has yet to be observed: the Higgs boson. A major reason for building the Large Hadron Collider is that the high energies of which it is capable are expected to make the Higgs observable.

That is a lot of expense to go to in order to achieve something you are arguing is pointless.

Or we could consider General Relativity

quote:
That light appeared to bend in gravitational fields in line with the predictions of general relativity was found in 1919 but it was not until a program of precision tests was started in 1959 that the various predictions of general relativity were tested to any further degree of accuracy in the weak gravitational field limit, severely limiting possible deviations from the theory.

Or Anti-matter

quote:
In 1928 Dirac took an important step towards bringing quantum physics into conformity with Einstein's special theory of relativity by devising an equation (now called the Dirac equation) that could describe the behaviour of electrons at any speed up to the speed of light. This equation provided a natural explanation of one of the electron's intrinsic properties - its spin.

Taking the mathematical form of his equation seriously, and searching for a way of interpreting it, Dirac was led, in 1931, to propose that there should exist a class of 'anti-electrons,' particles with the same mass and spin as the electron but with the opposite electrical charge. By correctly predicting the existence of these antiparticles, now called positrons, Dirac became recognized as the 'discoverer' of antimatter - one of the most important discoveries of the century.

Then ... in 1932, a professor at California Tech - Carl Anderson - proved Dirac's prediction about antimatter was accurate. While studying showers of cosmic particles in a cloud chamber, Anderson saw a track left by "something positively charged, and with the same mass as an electron."


Then we have one for evolution. The prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik

quote:
What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a fishopod, beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.


All positive evidence Jon. All examples of verification through prediction.

By the terms of your argument we wouldn't bother to build particle accelerators, seek specific transitional fossils or make predictions at all. And yet strangely scientists continue to make predictions and get very excited when verified predictions suggest that our theories are strongly in accordance with reality.

So whether you like my arguments or not the fact is that you are refuted by the very actions of scientists around the world.

Jon writes:

Without falsification it is impossible to get anywhere in science.

Nobody here is disputing the importance of falsification. But not all unfalsified theories are equal. Those that have made verified predictions are superior theories to those that have not.

Which part of this are you struggling to comprehend?

Jon writes:

So, how do 'predictions' relate to the general points of the OP?

You asked how the method outlined in the OP differed from the scientific method. It differs in it's lack of testing conclusions by prediction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Jon, posted 11-04-2010 3:20 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 10:26 AM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 177 (589963)
11-05-2010 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Jon
11-04-2010 7:48 PM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
What, exactly, are you looking at?

quote:
Jon in Message 114 & Message 117:

... looking at the places where they have used the scientific method and how it compares, sources notwithstanding, to other applications of the scientific method in form and process.


Oh, I saw that. Where are these places!? I'm asking you for examples of the scientific method being used on other sources. I don't think there are any that are any good in their method.

Where are these people doing proper science but on this other evidence?

I'm trying to avoid talking about people here; I'd like to keep the discussion focused on methods.

Being the master debater that you are, of course you'd avoid anything that would hurt your position. I contend that there aren't really any creationists doing sound science but on Biblical sources, and that this is all in your head as a hypothetical possibility. That there could be a creationist that is scientific.

BFD.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Jon, posted 11-04-2010 7:48 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Jon, posted 11-05-2010 9:55 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 177 (589965)
11-05-2010 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by New Cat's Eye
11-05-2010 9:45 AM


Re: Religious science vs. real science
I contend that there aren't really any creationists doing sound science but on Biblical sources, and that this is all in your head as a hypothetical possibility. That there could be a creationist that is scientific.

Let's keep the people themselves out of the issue. Whether or not we can find individuals employing the scientific method on historical literature sources isn't relevant to whether or not there are such applications possible. If you believe that we cannot find any examples of the scientific method being used with historical literature sources, and so believe that this debate has no relation to anything you can point to immediately in the real world, and so decide it is not worth your time participating, then you are free to withdraw. I have no desire to force you to debate a point you may feel is irrelevant.

Jon

Edited by Jon, : Jon


Check out Apollo's Temple!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-05-2010 9:45 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-05-2010 10:03 AM Jon has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 177 (589966)
11-05-2010 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Straggler
11-05-2010 8:02 AM


Re: Testing BY Prediction
Jar was saying that imagination is one of the components of reason, logic and reality. You asked how they could come to it without imagination. His point is that even with just reason, logic, and reality, you would still be with imagination.

Can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"?

Or not?

I dunno, I suppose I could, but that one's wierd. The Rain Dance would be easier, and its kinda the same point.

Although, would using post hoc ergo propter hoc count as using logic to you, even though its bad logic?

If the indian notices that it rains after he does some dance, and he concludes that the dance is causing the rain, and then whittles out this Rain Dance, I would say that he did use some reason, logic, and reality to come to the conclusion of the Rain Dance.

Being wrong doesn't mean he didn't use them. And of course there's some imagination in there, but that doesn't mean he didn't use them either.

Why do you think he didn't?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Straggler, posted 11-05-2010 8:02 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Straggler, posted 11-05-2010 2:18 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019