Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-24-2019 10:46 AM
32 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (6 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,996 Year: 7,032/19,786 Month: 1,573/1,581 Week: 395/393 Day: 29/90 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
CK
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 3 of 303 (242447)
09-12-2005 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ben!
09-12-2005 9:55 AM


I don't buy it
I just don't buy your forensic science analogue - would you like to give us an example of what you are thinking?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 9:55 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:47 AM CK has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 12 of 303 (242460)
09-12-2005 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Nuggin
09-12-2005 10:52 AM


Re: I don't buy it
How do you know it was a house? it's just your viewpoint it was a house - a conclusion coloured by your fallen nature.

I don't believe in burning - it's scientifically impossible - it says so in my book of faith therefore your explanation that burning had something to do with it is incorrect.

Maybe the chemicals used to produce this effect that is close to burning are just beyond your ability to detect with modern science - have you considered that?

No it didn't burn down - a different answer must be found.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 10:52 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 16 of 303 (242466)
09-12-2005 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ben!
09-12-2005 10:54 AM


Re: Forensic Science
Deleted - Life is just too short to get into this tail-chasing.

This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 10:59 AM

This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 10:59 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:54 AM Ben! has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 21 of 303 (242474)
09-12-2005 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ben!
09-12-2005 10:57 AM


quote:
I'm sure everybody will enjoy my next thread, in which I compare you to a schizophrenic and ask if you should be considered mentally ill.

Yes I think she is.

Well he asked.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:57 AM Ben! has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 39 of 303 (242498)
09-12-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:19 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
Ben - it's a nice idea it's just not going to happen.

A Criminologist may perfectly well understand the viewpoint of a murderer and how he constructs his reality but that does not mean that the criminologist is going to feel that viewpoint is valid or say to people "well it's horseshit of course".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:19 AM Ben! has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 43 of 303 (242505)
09-12-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:24 AM


Re: Forensic
But the dead body IS just data rather than the conclusion (or rather our tests upon the body provide our data). The conclusion is what we reach from putting together our data.

"This is a dead body" is not a conclusion - it is a starting point (and what that is offered further context by it's surroundings, the location of other people etc)

"white male 6"2 12 stone, toxicology work shows traces of..." is getting nearer to a conclusion.

Frankly your answers seem to be throwing darkness over the issue rather than any light or is that just me :)

This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 11:29 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:24 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:32 AM CK has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 59 of 303 (242532)
09-12-2005 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Modulous
09-12-2005 12:07 PM


Re: Forensic Science
We have to be careful not to conflate two seperate positions:

1) YEC is true because I can show this with science

2) Yes is true because God says so and I can show this with science

The positions are different

And of course the more usual position

2) YEC is true because God says so and because the evidence against OEC is........


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 12:07 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 12:51 PM CK has responded
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 12:55 PM CK has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 68 of 303 (242562)
09-12-2005 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Ben!
09-12-2005 12:51 PM


Re: Forensic Science
The literalist tried it with his "how did the flood happen" discussion but as per normal (for YECs not him in particular) when faced with an ever-mounting list of reasons why large aspects of his theory was impossible, we were answered with "well let's just assume that element is true somehow and move onto the next bit".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 12:51 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:07 PM CK has responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 74 of 303 (242572)
09-12-2005 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Ben!
09-12-2005 1:07 PM


Re: Forensic Science
But the problem was:

A gets us to B gets us to C gets us to D gets us to E gets us to F.

F being Rain (let's skip the rest). It rains therefore the flood is true THE END - it DOES invalidate the approach because there is no hope or even attempt of A,B,C,D either being explored or resolved (And with the flood A= The laws of physics being totally wrong as we understand).

quote:
In cognitive science, that happens ALL the time. For example, people are constantly dodging consciousness; very few people study it directly (at what level of processing does consciousness come from the brain?), and basically NOBODY confronts the "hard problem" (i.e. is it necessary that consciousness come from physicality? What are the conditions that are present which causes it to be necessary?)

This is a wrong-headed example - for this to be an analogue, the calcuation of say..how much water it takes to cover the mountains would have to be beyond us and would continue to be so for the near future. We are not talking complex stuff - we are talking about throwing out everything we know about physics at the most basic level. We are not talking about small fine detail we are talking about throwing out whole disciples to make the conversation work. It's just nonsense to expect people who work and study the sciences to proceed on that basic - it's totally unrealistic.

We might as well just post strings of nonsense!

This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 01:18 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:07 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:22 PM CK has responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 79 of 303 (242579)
09-12-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Ben!
09-12-2005 1:22 PM


Re: Forensic Science
But I've never SEEN a YEC case that does not require that!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:22 PM Ben! has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 93 of 303 (242616)
09-12-2005 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by nwr
09-12-2005 1:59 PM


Re: The forensic science analogy
quote:
1. No questioning the premises based on Faith (that's for the Faith and Belief boards)
2. All faith-based hypotheses must be stated up front (no pulling a "well, God could have done XXX" random, unsupported-by-the-bible assertion to "work through" a problematic empirical observation). Allowing such assertions would completely undermine the "empirical" part of the enterprise.
3. No dodging evidence
4. Showing alternative hypotheses is not an argument. Extract the data / observations from the hypotheses, and show those.

Take 3: No dodging evidence

quote:
Poster a: How do you explain radioactive decay rates?

Poster b: well you are assuming that they have always been the same - I would suggest that is not the case.

Poster a: But we know that if decay rates were accelerated, then it would superheat and destory the earth.

Poster a: no that's an assumption based on your evolutionist methodology - you have no way to prove that. So let's move onto the next part of my theory....

Poster b: what a F&*king minute...

and so on..


Is that dodging the evidence?

what about Carbon-dated ? is that to be considered a defacto faulty method?

It would seems that every debate will stall within the opening stages but there will be no common framework to operate with. This is compounded by the fact that creation science is pseduo-science so it does not even provide an internally coherent framework for us to work with.

I honestly don't understand how this is suppose to work besides encouraging flaky science?

This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 02:44 PM

This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 02:47 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by nwr, posted 09-12-2005 1:59 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 2:54 PM CK has responded
 Message 122 by nwr, posted 09-12-2005 5:29 PM CK has responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 96 of 303 (242630)
09-12-2005 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Ben!
09-12-2005 2:54 PM


Re: The forensic science analogy
Well the logical course would be to run a thread under those conditions and see what happens.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 2:54 PM Ben! has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 103 of 303 (242641)
09-12-2005 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Ben!
09-12-2005 3:32 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
quote:
I think at the very least we've addressed that what YECs want does not follow the scientific method, but it is empirical.

Em..no we haven't.. you have made that claim, I don't see that many people accepting it - you seem to base this on the idea that because they think their belief=data then it is empirical in that sense - it's not.

Anyone feel that YEC work in some empirical manner*?

* as in consistantly empirical rather than "a dash of X, A dash of Y and let's throw the rest in the bin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 3:32 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 3:48 PM CK has not yet responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 108 of 303 (242656)
09-12-2005 4:07 PM


Well let's put up or shut up
We can discuss those meta issues forever - let's see the practical outcome of trying this methodology.

I suggest one thread and a limited number of people - why don't we re-run an existing thread and see if the outcome differs in some significant manner from it's previous version?


CK
Member (Idle past 2267 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 123 of 303 (242693)
09-12-2005 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by nwr
09-12-2005 5:29 PM


Re: The forensic science analogy
Well we might as well just open a pseudo-science forum and be done with it.

I don't understand how those "theories" will develop without recourse to some elements of science (the bits they like) and the ability of others in the thread to use science to rebutt them.

This makes less and less sense to me as we go along.

Is anyone willing to start a thread so we can see how this would actually work - we can get nowhere just taking about it - we need to see it in action.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by nwr, posted 09-12-2005 5:29 PM nwr has not yet responded

1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019