YEC approaches to empirical investigation

Ah, NOW I understand your "confirmation bias" comment.Yes, I totally agree. I've tried to outline here (somewhere) that I don't think the methodology used by YECs is better than science. I've tried to state explicitly, it's MUCH WORSE. Confirmation bias is one reason.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. YEC investigation is not science, but it still can use empirical methodology.The only post I can find that's related is post 47. But I'm not looking very hard...Anyway, I think it's an excellent point about the methodology. It's prone to confirmation bias. What I meant is that, by critically examining and explicitly allowing the methodology YECs must use here at EvC, I think it leads to better methodology by YECs. Not compared to scientists, but compared to ... themselves.Hope that clears things up.

Can you suggest another methodology that would work better for this problem? I'd be interested to hear other ideas.If so, I would appreciate if you can be very specific about how it is to be applied to YEC (maybe give an example?), and also why you think it's a better methodology for this problem.

...Can you describe how science can be applied to YEC? If not, then suggesting using the scientific method is ... worthless.

It's like pulling teeth. I'll try again. 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? More technically correct would be to say "The hypothesis will be shown to be incompatable with current scientific theory." Anything else is too strong. We take it that current scientific theory tells us truth. The simple existence of "Occam's Razor" shows that that is not necessary; it's possible that more than one generalization can fit the same data.Usually I wouldn't bother making this distinction, as it's usually fine to ignore this fact. Here, the distinction is critical, so we have to be precise where we normally can get away with sloppiness. Now... you need to start understanding that faith is not based on evidence.* To make such a suggestion is to fail to recognize something fundamental to a person in your community. If you were frustrated with your crying baby, I wouldn't suggest you to shoot it. I know that it's not an acceptable solution to you.In the same way, demanding YECs to drop their faith is unreasonable. IN THAT LIGHT, how can a YEC proceed with science?Normally, when applying the scientific method and developing theories, we build off of the theoretical work before us. Sometimes we don't; sometimes we fundamentally change paradigms. But by and large, we stick with the theories we have, in order to "see farther" by "standing on the shoulders of giants."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. Reinterpretation of data is NOT fundamentally unscientific. You are right, there is a threat of "confirmation bias." It is up to the community to solve this, for those who do not have such a bias to review and comment on the theoretical work done.The bottom line is, your suggestion doesn't work. If you accept the simple fact that faith is not based on evidence, then your suggestion doesn't work. Given that, I've laid out what I see as the clear consequences of that.Can you give a suggestion that works with the knowledge that faith is not based on evidence?

---

*Clearly for some people, faith IS based on evidence. For those people, their faith changes when they apprehend science. I'm talking about those whose faith does NOT change DESPITE the fact that they've apprehended science. Clearly such people exist, and I submit that they are the ones which use "YEC methodology."Edit: Changed subtitle to change the word "science" to "empirical investigation". I'm not interested in discussing labels.This message has been edited by Ben, Wednesday, 2005/09/14 12:35 PM

I'm trying to put it to the test in the IRH thread.In the meantime, I'm trying to address people, individual by individual. If DS replies to posts without addressing arguments made earlier in the thread, then what can I do but repeat them and ask them to be responded to?I'm workin on Jazzns in IRH's thread. I'm either going to get kicked out by IRH, Jazzns is going to get pissed off and refuse to do what I'm asking for, or Jazzns is going to do what I want. We'll see what happens.By the way, I'm hoping that actually ACTIVELY looking for a solution is going to avoid having 97 geology threads that disintegrate into bickering over meta-issues. I want to see the ACTUAL issues, the EVIDENCE addressed. This is coming from somebody who is TIRED of having to sift through masses of pointless, repeated "discussion" when trying to keep track of posts 'cause he's an admin. I don't care about geology, I am not YEC. Just like you, I want to see some REAL debate. Or silence. Either one is fine by me, but let's try the "REAL debate" option first.You have no idea how much I hate debating META issues like we are in this thread. I'm hoping to pay the cost up front so we reduce costs in the long run. I'm a practical guy; just ask my girlfriend.Ben

CK,It's a good point. Thanks.I'll ask for some suggestions in the admin forum. I want to run things by everybody there before putting this into action as an admin.In the meantime, my first thought is that IRH's thread is similar, and will take up the focus for now. I think waiting until that thread finishes is better then. In the meantime, I can run this thing by adminland, and solidify everything behind the thoughts here via writing.Ben

I think IRH's point is that DISAGREEING about the timeframe isn't good enough. You have to build an alternative theory, consistent with known empirical evidence, that supports your position.I think the reason IRH says "start from scratch" is because the theories that YECs have proposed so far have questioned and contradicted very basic theories in the physical sciences, that you're forced to go back to scratch. It's definitely to your advantage NOT to start from scratch, and to work with existing theories. It's hard to "see far" without "standing on the shoulders of giants."But I think it's really unfair to contradict scientists, who have done the work to come up with a theory that accounts for the existing data, by an assertion and not by evidence. Contradiction of purely empirical claims require empirical arguments. But THIS part is heading into another topic...It takes time, lots of questions, lots of learning to put together empirical theories that work. I am really happy to see that you're giving it your best, working through the data, and working through possible explanations of how things work. I think the questioning mind, regardless of the motivations of the questions, is the one that ultimately gains the best understanding of the WHATs and WHYs of the scientific theories they study.Keep up the good work.

Jazz,I never got a chance to thank you for being patient and so willing in your explanations and breaking down of ideas into bite-size pieces. Like I said earlier in this thread, interacting with those outside of a field requires either lots of your time, effort, patience, and (in many cases) breaking things down ultimately to the raw observational data, or a lot of time (asking somebody to read and understand the topic on their own).Thanks for working with this, and thanks for sharing your knowledge. I hope that we're starting to understand each other on this. Judging from the way you're responding on this thread, I think we are. The interaction and process looks like an ultimately fruitful one to me.Just wanted to (finally) post my thanks up.BenAbE: Edit out of AdminMode. That was an accident.This message has been edited by Ben, 09/16/2005 10:35 AM