Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9049 total)
92 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr, PaulK, xongsmith (5 members, 87 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,602 Year: 5,248/14,102 Month: 169/677 Week: 28/26 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Year In Intelligent Design
Stile
Member
Posts: 4042
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 42 of 50 (844658)
12-03-2018 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
12-02-2018 6:50 PM


Re: Creation Science vs Regular Science
Faith writes:

I can't guess how these differences would play out in a particular research project but it's pretty clear that they could lead to very different conclusions. Even from the same undisputed set of observations or facts.

Such an idea is impossible in Science.

If you have an undisputed set of observations or facts... then they only ever lead to one single Scientific conclusion.

The only other possibility is that you haven't done a test yet.
If there's no test - then there's no agreement on the outcome of that test - how could there be unless someone can read the future?

Many different scientists can have different ideas on what tests to do - and what the possible-outcomes of those tests may be.

But once a test is done - it's done for everyone.
The only way for Science to disagree on the conclusion of a test is to do the test again and show an error in the previous test (generally resulting in Nobel Prizes for catching an error.)
Which would still result in only 1 valid test - and only 1 valid conclusion.

Any differences scientists have are always on future ideas: possible-tests and possible-conclusions-from-those-possible-tests.
And all scientists know that without a test - you cannot claim that something "is known" to be a part of reality.

Therefore - if you have an undisputed set of observations or facts (aka "conclusions")... then, Scientifically, you always only have 1 answer that every honest person will acknowledge.

That's how you know that when a Scientist says something is part of reality - you know it's been tested and you know that all honest people agree.

When anyone-else claims something is part of reality - that's why they're always asked "what's your evidence?" (What's your test? What's your honest approach? What's your conclusion?)

When those questions are left wanting... so is the claim's veracity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 12-02-2018 6:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 12-03-2018 6:08 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 47 by NosyNed, posted 12-03-2018 9:59 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 49 by caffeine, posted 12-04-2018 12:07 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021