Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Applying Science to Past Events
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 7 of 354 (128729)
07-29-2004 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
07-27-2004 9:03 PM


science vs. method
a number of literalist posters who claim that science can't be applied to past events since "you weren't there".
Ned, perhaps part of the problem is nebulous use of the term "science". In most people's minds I would guess that "science" conjures up ideas of an academic class or department across campus from what they would think of as "history". Attempts to explain how history can be a science are thus met with ridiculous comments because many see that two as essentially different, black and white, based on academic preconceptions. Since in simple terms history is the study of the past, the literalist problem you cite is carried over to geology, evolution, etc...
In my mind, "science" is happening any time the scientific method is correctly being applied to a problem. I recently tried to use auto repair as an example of this (and was essentially laughed at by my opponent) - the idea being that though auto repair is generally not considered "science", the scientific method could be used to analyze a novel problem arising with an automobile. Indeed, the scientific method is sometimes used to investigate accident scenes, which brings us around to Crash's example of criminal forensics.
"History" is only a science when the scientific method is applied to its subject - but then it is a valid science, as Mark's quote explains in the OP.
Just as "history-vs-science" is bogging down other threads, so is "misunderstanding-the-nature-of-scientific-method".
Perhaps use of the term "scientific method" or similar should be used in place of "science", which conjures up academic preconceptions in non-academics... however, this would require those same people actually understanding the method behind science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 07-27-2004 9:03 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Robert Byers, posted 08-03-2004 4:47 PM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 15 of 354 (130085)
08-03-2004 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Robert Byers
08-03-2004 4:47 PM


Re: science vs. method
Auto repair and its doers are not engaged in science. Otherwise everything (even creationism) could be said to be science.
Imagine if, instead of going to an "auto-repair-mechanic", you went to "the-fan-belt-is-loose-mechanic". No matter what your car's problem, even if the engine was on the ground and in flames, the mechanic would explain to you that your fan belt was simply loose, and then went on to give you speculation as to how the loose fan belt alone was causing your car not to run. When asked for evidence to support his theory, the mechanic simply states that the problem is obviously not the muffler, so it must be the fan belt. Seems ridiculous, no?
This is why "creation science" is not science. The conclusion comes first and is unchangeable, regardless of evidence. And creation scientists seek justification of this conclusion by trying to disprove an unrelated theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Robert Byers, posted 08-03-2004 4:47 PM Robert Byers has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 16 of 354 (130086)
08-03-2004 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Robert Byers
08-03-2004 4:47 PM


Re: science vs. method
deleted double post
This message has been edited by pink sasquatch, 08-03-2004 04:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Robert Byers, posted 08-03-2004 4:47 PM Robert Byers has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 32 of 354 (130780)
08-05-2004 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Robert Byers
08-05-2004 4:59 PM


Your saying that the theory is being measured but instead its only bones and thier place.
Correct a theory cannot be "measured", so the placement of fossils is what is being measured.
The placement and nature of fossils can be measured objectively (if they are not measured objectively, it is no longer science).
These fossil measurements are evidence that can either confirm of contradict a theory.
When you say...
Your trasitional/stratigraphy is a interpretation before any measuring was done.
That is a serious charge of unethical behavior - do you have any real evidence for it, or are you just thinking stuff up again?
Most of us have tried to explain to you how true science works, but you still seem to be arguing from some bizarre preconception you have about the scientific method...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Robert Byers, posted 08-05-2004 4:59 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Robert Byers, posted 08-06-2004 4:53 PM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 36 of 354 (131094)
08-06-2004 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Robert Byers
08-06-2004 4:53 PM


science notes, part 1,056
Robert,
Some constructive criticism:
Your inability to understand or accept the nature of scientific inquiry is hampering your ability to debate in every thread in which you take part. If you have something important to say, it is not getting across because you are arguing against your incorrect preconception of science.
Many threads get led astray because people try to explain 'science' to you - in fact, I believe that this thread was started because of misconceptions you have.
I tried to find an on-line reference written in layman's terms that you would potentially find helpful. Please check out the following site:
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html
An excerpt:
How can evolution be scientific when no one was there to see it happen?
This question reflects a narrow view of how science works. Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented on. Archaeologists study past cultures by examining the artifacts those cultures left behind. Geologists can describe past changes in sea level by studying the marks ocean waves left on rocks. Paleontologists study the fossilized remains of organisms that lived long ago.
Something that happened in the past is thus not "off limits" for scientific study. Hypotheses can be made about such phenomena, and these hypotheses can be tested and can lead to solid conclusions. Furthermore, many key aspects of evolution occur in relatively short periods that can be observed directlysuch as the evolution in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics.
There is much more information there, and though evolution is a focus, it covers general science in a way I hope you find helpful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Robert Byers, posted 08-06-2004 4:53 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Robert Byers, posted 08-07-2004 5:42 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 45 of 354 (134759)
08-17-2004 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Robert Byers
08-17-2004 4:29 PM


Robert, do you accept DNA-based paternity testing as valid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Robert Byers, posted 08-17-2004 4:29 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Robert Byers, posted 08-21-2004 4:23 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024