Applying Science to Past Events

quote:

---

There have been a number of literalist posters who claim that science can't be applied to past events since "you weren't there".

---

And then in the same breath they will assert that Walt Brown's hydroplates make "more sense". It is strange that they will deny that science is able to describe the past, yet they try and make scientific arguments for creationism. It appears to me that their view of science is that theories are incorrect and misapplied if they don't meet preconcieved ideas, but theories that meet preconcieved ideas are more accurate. It is not the scientific method that they argue against, but the conclusions that the method requires given the evidence that is found.

quote:

---

But usually only once their "evidence" has been stuffed out of sight. It's like a plan "B" for them. Most creationists come here full of "evidence" for the bible, the flood, a young earth. Only when they have been well & truly refuted does the it's-in-the-past-so-you-can't-prove-it mantra get uttered.

---

This is accurate to the point of being creepy.

We could also look at how Histories are produced. The depictions of prior civilizations that we read in textbooks are not dreamt up whole cloth. There is not a group of crusty old men, smoking cigars, dreaming up stories about Roman civilizations. Instead, the histories we read are consistent with the evidence that these cultures left behind. In fact, Civil War battles have been reconstructed using evidence left behind in the form of cartridges and other things droppped by the soldiers on the battle field. They are even able to determine which gun fired each bullet by the markings on the casings. If we are able to do this in history, then science being history doesn't diminish it's capability of describing life on this planet in years past.

quote:

---

evidence leading to a persuasive conclusion is not the same as scientific evidence leading to a persuasive conclusion.

---

Could you define "evidence" and "scientific evidence" as it pertains to the two different kind of persuasive conclusions?

quote:

---

Whether evolution etc is a subject of history or science shoud not be in contention.

---

And it is not. The construction of scientific theories and the construction of histories both abide by the hypothetico-deductive method, also known as the scientific method. They are one in the same as far as methodology, they just differ on WHAT they study, not HOW they study the past.

quote:

---

Scientific evidence IS not evidence like other evidence.
Scientific evidence is not another phrase for "very good evidence"

---

Scientific evidence is objective evidence. This means that the evidence can be measured in a non-biased measure, such as the height of the Empire state building, the length of a femur, or the wavelength of light. Non-scientific evidence is subjective evidence, evidence that is judged by bias. For instance, Democrats are better than Republicans, or vanilla is a better ice cream flavor than chocolate. However, each of these subjective judgements can be supported by objective measure as such: Democrats offer more support for social programs, and vanilla is preferred by a larger percentage of the populace.In the case of fossils, the transitional nature of a fossil is objectively neasured. For instance, the ratios of bone length and bone width can be used, as well as other skeletal measurements. Also, the stratigraphic location of these fossils is also objectively measured, which was the point that mark24 is trying to make in other posts. That is, both phylogenetic relationships created objectively from skeletal measurements matches the objectively measured stratigraphic position of these fossils. These are two objective measures that agree with the predictions of the theory of evolution. Fossils are scientific evidence in every way being that we can objectively measure their characteristics and their position in the fossil record. It is the theory of evolution that then models these relationships in a way that is able to predict future finds and explain current finds. Creationism, on the otherhand, looks to discredit each find. This is not an effort to help explain why we find fossils in a certain order, but to discount a theory that goes against their preconcieved religious tenets.

quote:

---

Scientific evidence is the successful result of the scientific method being applied to some matter.

---

More accurately, scientific theories are the successful result of interpreting scientific evidence through the scientific method. Replace "scientific evidence" with "objective observations" and you have the definition of Science that scientists use.

quote:

---

Well this is the rub.
The conclusions of science and the conclusions of history are in the text books, in the acedemic world and in the public mind are conclusions drawn on a different standard and prestige of evidence.

---

History does rely more on eyewitness accounts, which have been shown to be faulty. However, among historians it is agreed that you must have agreement from multiple sources before a conclusion is trustworthy. I note that I said sources, not one account from one person relaying the accounts of multiple people. This is the weakness of history, relying on the biased writings of contemporaneous authors. However, archaeology is used extensively to test the writings of these authors. Therefore, historians construct a hypothesis based on eyewitness accounts and test the hypothesis by using objective data gathered through archaeology. If the archaeology and the predictions match, then a tentative conclusion is reached. However, this conclusion is not written in stone and can be changed at any time due to new finds.

quote:

---

If what you said was accurate then creationism which largely spends its time attacking the conclusions of others (as opposed to presenting new ideas) would be as valid in acedemia and the schoolroom as any critic.

---

If you have done any reading in other threads, creationists argue against evolution using information that is either faulty or attacking a faulty definition of evolution. Creationists have yet to bring forth data that falsifies evolution. This is the first criteria that creationists have to meet in order to be included in acedemia, evidence that what they are claiming has any merit.For instance, look at the "full lineage thread". First the claim is that "if evolution were true, then we should be able to find a full lineage in the fossil record". So, they show them one. Next "well, this one doesn't count because fossils are not evidence", or "they look too much alike," or "there is too much of a gap". Among the scientific community there is ample evidence of fossil lineages. It is only among creationists that you find nay-sayers, such as yourself, who will never be happy until every single species to ever lived is represented by 100 fossils each.

quote:

---

THIS IS NOT THE PRESENT STATE OF THINGS.

---

And for one very good reason. Assuming supernatural effects in the natural world has never yielded a single, reliable theory. Creationism and all other pseudoscientific claims are useless, have been useless, and will continue to be useless in furthering our knowledge of the natural world. Science can peer into the past, and creationism is still not able to reliably do the same.

quote:

---

In both points I would say it is not transitional or stratigraphy that is being measured but only some stuff in a field. Your trasitional/stratigraphy is a interpretation before any measuring was done.

---

Wrong, the rules for organizing fossils into phylogenies is set up before hand and relies on objective measurements of the fossils in question. The order of these fossils enters nowhere in the construction of the phylogeny. Let's slim this down to a very straightforward analogy. Let's pretend that we have three fossils with characteristics labelled with letters.Specimen #1: A, B, CSpecimen #2: A, B, C, and DSpecimine #3: A, B, C, and EWe would then theorize that Specimens 2 and 3 share common ancestory with specimen 1. Now, since these fossils are organized by just their characterstics and assuming common ancestory, according to you they shouldn't match up with how they are found in the ground. That is, specimens 2 and 3 should never be found below the oldest known specimen 1. Therefore, the observations/evidence are the test. Repeat with me now, the observations are the test. This is how evolution is tested, by evaluating new observations and testing whether or not they falsify the theory.

quote:

---

Your saying that the theory is being measured but instead its only bones and thier place.

---

EXACTLY!!! The theory states where we SHOULD find the bones. The test is seeing where the bones ARE. You have just proved that evolution can be tested, since we are able to test both the placement and the characteristics of the bones. Since evolution makes predictions about both of these measurements, then these measurements can test evolution.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-05-2004 05:38 PMThis message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-05-2004 05:39 PM

quote:

---

Ok the theory isn't being measured. Agreed.

---

Yes, you can't measure a theory. However, you can test a theory. Again, let's use mark24's example of cladistics and stratigraphy. The theory states that the daughter species should not be found below the parent species. Therefore, where we find these species in the fossil record tests that statement made by the theory. Therefore, evolution can be tested. Show me where my reasoning is wrong.

quote:

---

It is as you say the fossils in the field placement and nature? that are being measured.
And that is all that can be done with such data.

---

Let's switch to cosmology. Are you saying that I can not create a theory on the movement of celestial bodies by using the movement of the planets? This is in fact what you are insinuating. Are you also saying that the Germ theory is useless because all we can do is detect bacteria?How about this. Share with us one theory that you think is testable and maybe we can go from there.

quote:

---

As in a criminal investagation the evidence After the crime can be used,I guess to recreate the crime BUT it can not be used to test the hypothesis of the detective. It is raw remains and not applicable to be part of a repeatable nature.

---

In the US, how do we convict criminals who commit crimes that were not witnessed by anyone? By evidence left at the crime scene and other places such as the suspect's home. Are you now saying that we should set all of these criminals free who were convicted with scientific evidence? How about this. Let's create a fictitious crime scene and we can walk through this together. Hopefully throught his example you can start to understand the scientific method.Crime scene:
--The murder victim, found in a hotel room, was killed by a cut to the throat.
--Objects around the victim are broken or strewn around the room.
--The victim has $300 dollars in his wallet.
--Investigators find two types of blood, the victims and someone elses.
--There is no sign of a forced entry.Hypotheses formed from the evidence:The crime was probably committed by someone the victim knew. This is supported by the fact that the door was not forced open. Also, none of the victim's money was taken, which makes robbery a less likely cause. The condition of the room indicates that there was a struggle. Most likely, someone that the victim knew entered the room after knocking and being let in by the victim. There was then an argument during which a fight ensued. During this struggle, both the victim and the suspect were cut with the victim's cut being fatal and intentional.Now, this hypothesis is consistent with the evidence. A hypothesis that someone picked the lock and killed the victim in their sleep for their money doesn't add up since the room is strewn with objects and there is money in the victim's wallet. However, it is possible that a theif did pick the lock and was startled by the person in the room. After the theif killed the victim he lost his appetite for taking his money.So how do we TEST which theory is correct? The unidentified blood is the key. Also, the weapon was never found so whoever still possesses the weapon is probably the murderer.First test of the hypotheses: Find out if anyone the victim knew had motive for killing the victim.As it turns out, the victim was sleeping with his friends wife.Second test of the hypotheses: Search the suspect's house and property for the weapon.As it turns out, they find a knife with traces of blood. The blood matches that of the victim.Third test of the hypotheses: Test the suspect's blood with the blood found at the crime scene.As it turns out, they match.Now, have we absolutely proved that the friend killed the victim? Nope. Have we proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Oh yeah. Would you agree that it is very probable that this man killed the victim even though the crime was never witnessed? If you answer yes, then you agree that the past can be investigated through evidence and hypothesis testing, and that measurements can be used to test a theory.

quote:

---

For you seem so confident. Most supporters of evolution under serious criticism buckle under pretty fast. Believe it or not.

---

You might want to read more of the old threads on here. The attrition rate for creationists is quite high.

quote:

---

If I may the criminal case is off my way of thinking and anyways would force one to accept a detective is a practicing scientist. Most would say no.

---

That is strange, since they are called forensic SCIENTISTS!!

quote:

---

Yes you can make a theory about movement of celestial bodies. For they are NOW moving. It is a present event. It could be tested.
However a past movement of same bodies that is not occuring now is impossible to be tested and so not a subject of science but history.

---

And here is where you make a fatal error. If a body is still moving we CAN make judgements of it's course in the past using the measurements we make today. The same with evolution. We observe evolution happening TODAY. We observe new beneficial mutations spreading through populations, we observe changes in allele frequence, and we observe speciation events. Therefore, we are able to apply it to past events in the same way as we are able to peer into past events within the cosmos. In fact, evolution has one better, it has a written record of past events called the fossil record. Therefore, we are able to extrapolate back using this record and current day observations to make predictions about future data. And guess what? Those predictions are fulfilled. This is why evolution is accepted alongside every other scientific theory, because it is based on objective, measurable data unlike the oral histories that you rely on.

quote:

---

But when you say present movements can be used to make a theory of past and gone events as a sciecticic method thing then I must insist NO.

---

And you would be completely wrong for saying NO. As pointed out by Percy, we can predict when solar eclipses have happened in the past and check them against ancient writings.To evolution, we test present day measurements to the past. Take for instance HERV insertions. These are failed viral infections that leave viral genes in an organisms genome. When this happens in a germ line cell (sperm or egg) then every cell of the child from that germ line cell will have this insertion. Given enough time, these viral genes may become ubiquitous within the population. Now, if speciation occurs then the new species will carry the same viral fingerprints as the parent species. Also, the new species will acquire new viral fingerprints since the new species has created it's own gene pool. This is exactly what we see when looking at the DNA and fossil relationships between chimps, orangutans, gorillas, and humans. We see a pattern of viral insertions that mimic the fossil record.Therefore, by looking at these viral fingerprints today we are able to decipher what happened in the past. We check these predictions from viral fingerprints with the fossil record and cladistics, just as we check predicted historical solar eclipses with written accounts. Guess what? The DNA and the fossil record/cladistics match up. Therefore, just as in cosomology, we are able to make predictions within evolution about the past that are testable and verifiable.

quote:

---

made (a good point I think if not deadly) that the motions of planets today can not be a test of motions of the past or future. Yes predictions can be made past or future But not tests.

---

I will show that this statement is patently false.Observation: The moon has a measured orbit around the earth.Prediction: The current orbit is indicative of past and future movement of the moon around the earth. Therefore, solar eclipses should have occurred on certain dates in the past.Test #1: The predicted solar eclipses are recorded in historical documents.Test #2: The predicited solar eclipses for the future have, to this point, been accurate.Falsification: Solar eclipses occur on dates substantially different than those predicted.QED

quote:

---

It's a Bizarro world lately. I yearn for a normal discussion.

---

Perhaps it would be useful to start a thread focused on how science is practiced and what qualifies as science. I know that it is touched upon in numerous other threads, but I think a thread that is not focused on the EvC debate but does focus on scientific methodology might be very adventageous. Also, it might be advantageous to have a thread on how to construct a logically sound argument. I am trying to figure out a way to start such a thread but it just isn't coming to me. My only thought would be to use the scientific method to investigate a non-controversial subject and contrast this with non-scientific methods of investigation. The only requirement is that no one is allowed to use the words "evolution" or "creationism" anywhere in the thread.I wouldn't say that it is bizzaro. It is closer to being outright frustrating.

quote:

---

The error Loudmouth is that both tests were not tests.

---

You will claim anything to deny the truth. This has become very apparent.Let me restate the theory. I am theorizing that the moon follows an orbit determined by the laws of gravity. I am also theorizing that the same laws were in effect in the past and will continue to be in effect in the future. I am arguing that the orbit of the moon is constant and consistent with the laws of gravity. In order to test the theory I must first make predictions of the position of the moon, both in the past and future, as calculated using the laws of gravity. If my theory is wrong then either the laws of gravity are incorrect or non-gravitational force is acting on the moon. To test my theory of the constancy of the moon's orbit I compare the predicted position using the laws of gravity and compare them to recorded solar eclipses in the past. I can also test my theory by predicting future solar eclipses using the same calculations.Therefore, there are three things within this theory: the theory itself (the reasoning), predictions, and data.

quote:

---

The historical documents info are not tests of the hypothesis occuring in the present. You have not tested the past event or tested anything to indicate the past event.

---

The historically recorded eclipses are not a test, they are the data. The test is how the data (past eclipses) compare to the predictions. Since they match up, the theory passes the test.

quote:

---

You have simply been assured by witnesses something happened. In fact maybe they were wrong. In fact one might say the historical info wasn't a test of the past but a present observation at the time.

---

This is why science is tentative, because the data can not be trusted outright. For instance, alien motherships painted like the moon could have occluded the sun to mimic a solar eclipse. However, I would think that a solar eclipse is hard to mistake for any other natural phenomena. Your incredulity is stressing fairness.

quote:

---

The second "test" is not such because the prediction is not proven at this momment but only takes effect when the future event occurs.

---

And those future events have occured since the time that the theory of the constancy of the moon's orbit has been accepted by a vast majority of astronomers. The prediction of future solar eclipses has been done and has passed the test. Do you disagree with this?

quote:

---

Again it is not a test of the future but a observation of the present that is true only when the event takes place.

---

So what happens when future predictions become the present? Is that then a test?

quote:

---

This is a good example of where the error takes place about the scientific method being applied to the past or future can happen.

---

No, your argument is a perfect example of why creationists are not allowed into public school science classes. They wouldn't know what the scientific method was if it hit them on the side of the head.