Two types of science

For something to be considered science, it is supposed to be something that the scientific method is applicable to. Here's the first paragraph at Wikipedia that defines the scientific method;

quote:

---

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

---

Scientific method - Wikipedia"The scientific method is a body of techniques" - The purpose of this thread is to show that some science, such as deep space speculation, age of the earth speculation, etc. have a much smaller "body of techniques" available to study them, than do current day applications of science, such as medical study, or any present day workings with present day materials.When working in present day time and activity, all 5 human senses can be used to do all the empirical testing, measuring, and falsifying required by the scientific method to come to conclusions that can overcome personal beliefs and worldviews. Other things that are considered science, such as conclusions about what happened millions of years ago, or what's going on hundreds or thousands of light years away, the scientific method can only vaguely, or partially be applied. Little more than the sense of sight, for example, can be used to come to conclusions about space exploration.There are two distinct differences in some types of science versus other types. Naturalists like to blend them, to make them appear as virtually the same thing. Sometimes they are successful, but their naturalistic worldview, their desire to "weaken the hold of religion" as they've been instructed to do by Nobel prize winner Steven Weinberg, causes them to claim evidence that isn't always accepted by everyone of all worldviews. Science isn't the only source of knowledge, and I'll be glad to detail other sources of knowledge as the thread progresses.

Hi Marc,The title of your thread is, "Two types of science," but if someone assigned me to read your message and then list your two types, the best I could come up with would be that one type of science has a larger body of available techniques and is observable by more human senses than the other. Is that all you meant? This is a difference in number and not in character and doesn't seem a very meaningful difference. And what happened to Faith's claims about the "unwitnessed/prehistoric past" being unamenable to study because of lack of witnesses from the past?Also, worldviews and other sources of scientific knowledge would be a different topic - could you please remove your last paragraph?

Yes, but if one is limited to fewer human senses, the scientific method, in some peoples' opinions, could become too vague to draw conclusions worthy enough to become politically established in a diverse society. I think it's a difference in character, when the number of angles of exploration is so low that testability and falsifiability become weakened to the point of non-existence. After all, that is the reason the concept of Intelligent Design has failed in court cases. I'm not Faith, if she said that unwitnessed past is totally unamenable to naturalistic study, then I would disagree with her. My opinion is that it could be partially possible to study it from a naturalistic standpoint, but not thoroughly enough to be considered scientific in the public domain. I think it's relevant because if the application of the scientific method is weak enough, then other sources of knowledge (like mathematical improbability, or historic writings) would become comparable. That's the only way I'm willing to discuss it, and it's not important to me if it's in one of the science forums or not. If you won't promote it that's fine, but it may indicate that what Boulder-dash opened this thread with could have some merit.

in other words, you're not willing to engage in a give and take with moderators, and if they refuse to promote your thread proposal precisely as submitted then they're fascists.I'm trying to give your topic a clear and precise focus. Work with me.

Thread copied here from the Two types of science thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi marc9000,Let me focus on one aspect of your topic while I let others take care of the rest. I will start with three trees growing in the Sierra Nevada, White mountains in California, all Bristlecone Pines:http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm

quote:

---

Notes on dates:
* tree is still living as of 2012; age given is additional years since it was first sampled when this is known.
** tree is dead; age is at time of death.

Tree species	age	type	ID	Location	Collector(s), Dater(s), Reference
Pinus longaeva	5062*	XD	-	White Mountains, California, USA	Ed Schulman, Tom Harlan
Pinus longaeva	4845*	XD	"Methuselah"	White Mountains, California, USA	Ed Schulman, Tom Harlan
Pinus longaeva	4844**	XD	WPN-114,"Prometheus"	Wheeler Peak, Nevada, USA	Currey 1965

---

Can you tell me what process of scientific information gathering cannot be used to count the rings in these three trees, to measure the thicknesses of the rings in these trees, to determine the patterns of ring thickness as a function of ring count, and to compare these patterns for each of the three trees?Can you tell me what process of scientific information gathering cannot be used to determine that these are annual rings and thus conclude that the earth has been in existence at least as long as these trees have been alive, undisturbed by any cataclysmic event?I conclude that the earth is at least 5,064 years old this year based on this objective empirical evidence. If you don't reply, that's fine, but it may indicate that you have no answer to this set of questions.I await your reply.

---

Edited by RAZD, : splgEdited by RAZD, : .

Perhaps you should have accepted Percy's help in formulating your proposal. This would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say if you were a five year old. But even a quick reflection ought to be enough to understand that this is not the way even you think.How many of your five senses can detect carbon monoxide or neutrons, or radio waves? Does that mean that the branches of chemistry and physics that studies those things are some other kind of science than the one that tells you about how to freeze ice cream?Of course not. Your opening post is fraudulent. What you describe here is not the reason why you dismiss astronomy. Instead we are getting your your post dismissal rationalization of your refusal to accept some of the things that are established beyond all reasonable doubt using the scientific method.To be clear, it is true that we can know less about distant stars and/or solar systems than we do about our own sun and solar system, but it is possible to know more than enough about distant astronomical objects to poke fun at your understanding of the subject.Perhaps I'll bother taking on the other half of your object, namely the use of indirect evidence to study the past, but I'm sure someone else will do just as well with it as I. More of the same old atheist conspiracy theory nonsense. I'm not an atheist.

You're making a distinction between "science" and "applications of science". If the applications work, that's an indication that the science is sound. If we can send a probe into (relatively) deep space and have it go where we expect it to go, that suggests that the deep space "speculation" is accurate.

And you can start with determining the distance to SN1987A.How Good Are Those Young Earth Arguments?: Supernova SN1987A and the Speed of Light

Really? What does the behaviour of crows taste like?
What does the swing of a pendulum smell like?
What is the texture of the prevalence of criminality in dense populations?
What sound does a laser beam travelling through a vacuum make?
Draw me a picture of gravity (not a representation or diagram). Show me an example of the scientific method only vaguely being applied in a cosmological paper. As you quoted, the scientific method is systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. I don't see anywhere mentioned the number of senses that can be brought to bear on the question. Maybe you can show that this isn't just something you made up yourself? Do they? Do you have an example? Can you show that they are not talking about he same thing?What is your debate, exactly? The existence of two types of science? The conspiracy of naturalists?Perhaps I can help you out with a clue, as it is an established creationist argument, but you've made such a hash of it you may be trying to invent it yourself. Go to your favourite creationist source and search for 'historical science' and 'observational science'. Then at least you might have a chance of formulating a criteria of differentiation of these 'two types' a little more clearly.

Here are some of the other sources of knowledge. Let me know which ones you prefer:

Magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, reading entrails, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.

Me, I'll stick to science.

He gave these in his OP;

quote:

---

... other sources of knowledge (like mathematical improbability, or historic writings) ...

---

Until he gets more detailed I will assume he is talking about:1. Non-mathematicians with no experience at probabilities speaking of watches in forests and 747s in tornados.C. That collection of hundreds-of-years-old oral myths embellished at each telling scratched onto parchment by zealous mystics some 3500 years ago then embellished with each redaction. I believe it's called Genesis.But then he may surprise us and choose one from your list. You never know with these people.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Right. For example, I've never smelled, tasted, touched or heard the sun. So I guess "the scientific method can only vaguely, or partially be applied" to the question of whether it exists.Either that or the scientific method is what scientists think it is and not what you think it is.

I don't think the 5,064 figure conflicts with the book of Genesis, or any western worldview for that matter, so in this case you,ve demonstrated actual science.If you want to go into some other things that go a little deeper into attempted falsifications of Genesis, or global warming, etc. go right ahead. Make them as detailed or concise as you like (I prefer concise myself) and I'll apply some other sources of knowledge to them, and we'll see how it all goes.

Hi marc9000,
Do you believe in the principal of falsification of a theory?