The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)

quote:

---

This was the sixties, you understand. Kuhn's research was before us, as well as the amazing progress of statistical research, and the pressures of the cold war. Did Diogenes ever find an honest man, we wondered? Who could we trust? Why?

---

I am sorry that the sixties affected you this way. The same thing almost happened to me. I was quite cynical about life until I reached bottom and then found that I loved science.

quote:

---

I spent the next forty years testing and refining these lessons, and present them here because, so far, I have found them trustworthy.

---

As have most of us, though I don't remember formal introduction to such principles and methods.

quote:

---

That is, the science I did based on them has been extraordinarily successful.

---

Interesting. What did you study? Was it related to evolution or creationism in any way?

quote:

---

I agree with the architect of the Matrix: denial is the most predictable of human responses. We are all in trouble, and only adherence to some tried and true methodology will protect us from our self-delusion.

---

Not sure what you are getting at here. Who is in denial? Who is not in denial? Don't be afraid, you can tell us what you really think around here.

quote:

---

By these criteria, of course, almost no scientific studies of evolution are good science.

---

I don't quite understand what you mean by this. Most of the science I see out there is really not directed at evolution per se. Are you saying that most of biology, geology etc. are poor science? Exactly why?

quote:

---

It is, indeed, rare for someone defending the theory of evolution to even show any understanding or use of the three standards of excellence in science that I was taught.

---

Again the only problem I see here is that, as far as I know, there is no one actually doing science to defend or 'prove' evolution. That was done ages ago. What you see now is simply a debate that occurs largely outside of the scientific arena and, indeed, it is often unscientific.

quote:

---

Scientific creationists are not much better.

---

But they are better? Why is that? Could you go down your list of principles and give us examples or some kind of evidence that 'scientific creationist' are better at science than mainstream scientists?

quote:

---

But, evolutionary biologists do not seem to be interested, as they ought to be, in the objective, Bayesian, plausibility of the God as creator idea. They thus neglect all three of the standards I was taught made one a true scientist.

---

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps they considered the plausible alternative and then rejected it long ago for lack of evidence? It seems to me that you are committing an error common to YECs in that they think history began with them.

quote:

---

So, it's not about being Christian. It is about being just. The whole evolution/creation controversy is energized by the underlying fact, that if Jehovah created and sustains us and biologic diversity, we justly owe Him what He asks, for the life He is giving us.

---

And this means that evolution is bad science in what way? Are mainstream scientists unjust? I'm not sure where this thread is going.

quote:

---

Schraf: Since when does any science address any kind of philosophical "meaning"?

​

Science began as "natural philosophy" ...

---

Actually, science began as a search for knowledge. It just turned out that naturalism gave the best results in virtually all areas of study.

quote:

---

...and evolution was originally proposed as an answer to the theologically relevant question, "Are species immutable?"

---

No. That question came later. It was an answer to how did the diversity of life originate.

quote:

---

If we are created beings, our purpose or meaning in life is determined by our creator.

---

An unsupported assumption. What if we were given free will to choose our own purpose or meaning? What if the creator created us simply as a passtime?

quote:

---

This "creator" is proposed to be a god, named Jehovah, ...

---

Or any of a hundred other beings.

quote:

---

...who sets before us the scientific challenge (Malachi 3:10) "prove Me now in this."

---

And we have proceeded to do so. However, I do not necessarily take your word on this. I see little in this command to do science, per se. There could be hundreds of other pursuits. You make another assumption here and fail to consider alternatives.

quote:

---

...setting up an experimental proceedure that we can use to prove or disprove Him.

---

Please elaborate. Where do you read a scientific method or procedure into this?

quote:

---

His "creator's manuel," the Bible, ...

---

Or any of a hundred other books.

quote:

---

...is full of directions for a scientific method, one which has been independently proven by historians and philosophers of science to be very, probably most, effective.

---

Please elaborate. Where does the bible mention reproducibility or experimental methods? I think you are being a bit credulous here. Do you read Jeanne Dixon as well?

quote:

---

Schraf: So, please elaborate upon which well-established scientific methods have validated any supernatural anything.

​

The first post in this thread answers this question.

---

So, you are not going to elaborate as requested?

quote:

---

These methods were used to predict and find statistically improbable Bible Codes, for example, validating the claim to supernatural authorship to at least part of the Bible.

---

Or a clever person. Or perhaps just chance. I am not convinced.

quote:

---

Schraf: So, are you saying that because we have not examined all evidence we cannot use the evidence we do have to reach tentative conclusions? We do not have perfect knowledge, and never will, so we can never know anything at all?

​

I am saying that because you have not examined all evidence, you cannot state that evidence that might refute your point does not exist.

---

Few say it does. WE only say that it has not been discovered and that evolution actually works.

quote:

---

You can state that, to your knowledge, you are unaware of any such evidence. But, as some is brought to your attention, you ought to fairly examine it according to scientific standards

---

Actually, this has been done. That is why creationism was abandoned years ago. You continue to commit the error of thinking that history started with modern YECism.

quote:

---

(Did the study follow sound scientific methodology? Can it be replicated?

---

Actually, you have replicated nothing here.

quote:

---

Has evidence been ignored that does not confirm stated predictions from the hypothesis being tested?

---

No YEC has yet brought us such information. Are you holding out on us?

quote:

---

Are the predictions tested a priori implausible? Are they contradictory to, or consistent with competing theories?)

---

Frequently, yes. This has been pointed out on numerous threads on this board. If yo have something new, we'd love to hear it.

quote:

---

The absence of "perfect knowledge" does limit our dogmatism and arrogance. We are forced into statements of plausibility, and away from statements of certainty.

---

It does not, however, limit the dogmatism of YECism, because YECs preach perfect knowledge. And I see that you have a problem with certainty. Does not knowing everything bother you?

quote:

---

...I have described in many postings here personal experiments.

---

You mean NOT repeatable experiments? Why should we accept them? What was your methodology? Who were the control population?

quote:

---

Since knowledge of God is a personal matter, I regard any reticence on evolutionist's part to personally collect such evidence in their own experience as an example of injustice and hypocrisy.

---

And I consider it an injustice and hypocrisy for YECs to hold evolution to a standard that they cannot meet themselves.

quote:

---

Not, therefore, the best science.

---

You mean, not PERFECT science, which is what you want. Preferrably one that agrees with your preconceived notions.I am sorry, Steve, but I don't follow, or accept your grandiose, sweeping statements presented throughout this thread. YOu have obviously preselected what is science, good science, the best science and rationalized your own notions; which, I might add, are partly what you criticize in generations of scientists before you. I submit that you, yourself, have refused to consider alternatives that are available to you, as well.

quote:

---

First, can you state, out loud to yourself or to someone you care about, that you choose with whatever free will you have, to search for the truth by examining ideas with plausibilities ranging from above zero to below one?

---

I don't get this. Are you saying that anyone who does not have the time, inclination or means to examine EVERY possibility, regardless of history or degree of plausibility, is guilty of poor science? If so, it indicates that you enjoy numerous luxuries in your pursuit of truth.

quote:

---

I didn't say EVERY, or even every. I could have said "any" though. The point is to commit to "anything is possible, nothing is certain."

---

Nonsense. If one lives in an ivory tower, I suppose this is a valid philosophy, but most of us have to be a bit more practical. I have to make concrete decisions in my profession. I'd be eaten alive by my competitors, my contractors and my clients with your approach... This is getting sillier by the post.

quote:

---

Yeah, I keep imagining I am addressing an audience that cares about trustworthy authority. I should know better, given the casual, non-professional way evidence is thrown around here.

---

Do you have this problem often?