Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-21-2019 8:34 PM
23 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, PsychMJC, Theodoric (5 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,765 Year: 6,802/19,786 Month: 1,343/1,581 Week: 165/393 Day: 98/50 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 61 of 303 (242537)
09-12-2005 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
09-12-2005 10:50 AM


Faith writes:

It is entirely a battle of plausibilities and the most convincing supposedly win. But in reality all the accepted plausibilities are on the side of the Science establishment, and the science side will think they've made the best case no matter what, and discount any explanation YECs come up with.

YEC's have never come up with explanations that fit the totality of the evidence. They take individual pieces of evidence and try to give an alternative explanation -- ignoring the fact that the explanation is not in keeping with other evidence; and ignoring the fact that their alternative explanation is not in keeping with other of their alternative explanations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 10:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 12:32 PM DominionSeraph has responded

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 78 of 303 (242578)
09-12-2005 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Ben!
09-12-2005 12:32 PM


Ben writes:

There could be the Brad McFall: YEC version out there; someone who is working independently (I think Brad is) and who hasn't finished his/her work yet.

Accounting for all the supervolcano eruptions within a YEC timeframe would be a toughie. I can't think of a way to do it without killing pretty much all life on Earth. And I'm pretty sure that accounting for all the Ice Ages would require boiling the oceans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 12:32 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:26 PM DominionSeraph has responded

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 90 of 303 (242593)
09-12-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Ben!
09-12-2005 1:26 PM


Ben writes:

I think it's really easy to start debating the positions, rather than the methods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

"In inductive inference, confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. To compensate for this observed human tendency, the scientific method is constructed so that we must try to disprove our hypotheses. See falsifiability.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweight evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis. As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence."

Better?

(edit to include the first paragraph of the entry, as that addresses how science compensates.)

This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 09-12-2005 01:57 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:26 PM Ben! has not yet responded

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 99 of 303 (242637)
09-12-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
09-12-2005 3:15 PM


Re: Forensic Science
Faith writes:

it's a matter of the one point of view demanding that the other give up its very reason for being.

Yes, YEC does demand that those who hold a scientific position ignore the totality of the evidence, thus taking away the reason that it's held -- because it accounts for the totality of the evidence.

This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 09-12-2005 03:32 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 3:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 3:33 PM DominionSeraph has responded

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 104 of 303 (242642)
09-12-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
09-12-2005 3:31 PM


Re: A direct question
Faith writes:

Even so, I think OE proponents in general aren't much more likely to concede because in the first place incontrovertible evidence just doesn't happen in this subject matter

It doesn't happen in any.
As Nuggin pointed out, we could be in the Matrix. Waking up in a pod would pretty effectively invalidate all evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 3:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 109 of 303 (242658)
09-12-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
09-12-2005 3:33 PM


Re: Forensic Science
Faith writes:

Yes, you think "evidence" trumps God Himself.

No. I just don't care.
What might be true is irrelevant. I only seek to explain what I see.
If the evidence has been faked by God, I don't care. Being deceived by a god wouldn't put a dent in my ego.
If the true relationship between the evidence is too complex to unravel, I don't care. Old-Earth works. And if a god set up the universe so that a 99th percentile human can't recognize that the Earth is young, I can take being set up for such failure in stride.
If my eyes are deceiving me, I don't care. Again, I only seek to explain what I see. I don't care what might exist in some hypothetical world that I cannot see.

I'm a pragmatist. I go with what works, and reject that which doesn't. And YEC doesn't work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 3:33 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 4:35 PM DominionSeraph has not yet responded

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 205 of 303 (243328)
09-14-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Ben!
09-13-2005 3:22 PM


Ben writes:

I think there's a good chance it leads to better methodology.

A methodology which doesn't compensate for confirmation bias isn't a better methodology than science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 3:22 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 1:06 PM DominionSeraph has responded

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 207 of 303 (243342)
09-14-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Ben!
09-14-2005 1:06 PM


Ben writes:

The point of the thread is to say, it's the ONLY method available to them. The scientific method is out for them. With that in mind, let's really analyze the method available, see the weak points, see where people often make mistakes, and let's try to move forward with an understanding of it.

I already have.
They use a method that doesn't work, so I ignore them unless they assert/imply that their method does work.

As long as they say, "The Earth is young, but I'm talking out of my ass here," I'm fine with it.

This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 09-14-2005 01:43 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 1:06 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 1:59 PM DominionSeraph has responded

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 212 of 303 (243355)
09-14-2005 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Ben!
09-14-2005 1:59 PM


Ben writes:

Can you suggest another methodology that would work better for this problem?

Science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 1:59 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 3:04 PM DominionSeraph has responded

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 214 of 303 (243359)
09-14-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Ben!
09-14-2005 3:04 PM


Ben writes:

Can you describe how science can be applied to YEC?

Run the YEC hypothesis through the scientific method. The hypothesis will be falsified. Switch to a hypothesis that accounts for the evidence.

Pretty simple.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 3:04 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 3:34 PM DominionSeraph has responded

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 223 of 303 (243437)
09-14-2005 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Ben!
09-14-2005 3:34 PM


Ben writes:

Take the flood hypothesis. How do we run it through the scientific method? I guess that would mean, take observations and see if they agree with there being a flood XXXX number of years ago?

Yup.

Ben writes:

More technically correct would be to say "The hypothesis will be shown to be incompatable with current scientific theory."

Nope. It's incompatible with what we observe. And the YEC hypothesis is obviously different than scientific theory, since the YEC hypothesis is not compatible with what we observe about reality, while scientific theory is.

Ben writes:

In the same way, demanding YECs to drop their faith is unreasonable.

As their faith is incompatible with reality, they must drop it if they want to reference reality.

Ben writes:

YECs ask to gather data from different sciences, in order to re-interpret them and investigate the possibility of there being other fundamental theorems that also explain the data.

I haven't seen anyone try to work on an underlying framework. The fact that their alternative explations are incompatible with each other, and incompatible with other evidence, seems to be a rather insurmountable obstacle.

Ben writes:

If you accept the simple fact that faith is not based on evidence, then your suggestion doesn't work.

I accept that, but all it means is that those who are talking about things they take on faith are talking out of their asses.

Ben writes:

Can you give a suggestion that works with the knowledge that faith is not based on evidence?

They add to their signature: "I am talking out of my ass."

This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 09-14-2005 05:45 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 3:34 PM Ben! has not yet responded

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2891 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 238 of 303 (244047)
09-16-2005 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
09-15-2005 9:39 PM


Re: Fact versus interpretation/theory
Faith writes:

WHAT "empty space above it?"

The ocean.

Faith writes:

WHAT "filled space to the sides?"

The seafloor.

If you shake up an open bottle of champagne, do the sides explode? Seems to me that the pressure takes the path of least resistance -- it comes out the top.
If the magma was under enough pressure to move continents, it would rocket out the top, as that's the weak spot.

This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 09-16-2005 03:54 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 09-15-2005 9:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 09-16-2005 9:31 AM DominionSeraph has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019