Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


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 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

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 354 (130096)
08-03-2004 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Robert Byers
08-03-2004 4:33 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Robert Byers, posted 08-03-2004 4:33 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Robert Byers, posted 08-04-2004 2:58 PM Loudmouth has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 354 (130097)
08-03-2004 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Robert Byers
08-03-2004 4:47 PM


Re: science vs. method
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Robert Byers, posted 08-03-2004 4:47 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Robert Byers, posted 08-04-2004 3:05 PM Loudmouth has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 19 of 354 (130337)
08-04-2004 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NosyNed
08-03-2004 5:02 PM


Re: What is Science
You guys always want me define everything to its atomic detail. OK OK
I accept the defination of science that is always given out in text books and used against creationists to say we don't use (or understand) science.
As Pink Susquach said the more accurate term is the Scientific method.
Where this method is not employed in the subject then science has not occured.
The method is simply hypothesis- testing + falsification-theory.
It really is about a higher form of conclusive proof. (with all respect to future correction)
Regards Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 08-03-2004 5:02 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by AdminNosy, posted 08-04-2004 2:55 PM Robert Byers has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 20 of 354 (130338)
08-04-2004 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Robert Byers
08-04-2004 2:41 PM


Thank you Rob
Thanks for coming here with that so as to keep other things on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Robert Byers, posted 08-04-2004 2:41 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 21 of 354 (130339)
08-04-2004 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Loudmouth
08-03-2004 5:52 PM


Aha. There it is. This I submitt is the error in many peoples minds about what science is. What scientific evidence is.
Loudmouth you should not be asking this.
Scientific evidence IS not evidence like other evidence.
Scientific evidence is not another phrase for "very good evidence"
Scientific evidence is the successful result of the scientific method being applied to some matter.
Other journeys to accurate conclusions are valid. But not science unless it is.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Loudmouth, posted 08-03-2004 5:52 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 08-04-2004 3:13 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 24 by jar, posted 08-04-2004 3:30 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 26 by Loudmouth, posted 08-04-2004 5:46 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 22 of 354 (130341)
08-04-2004 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Loudmouth
08-03-2004 5:55 PM


Re: science vs. method
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.
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.
THIS IS NOT THE PRESENT STATE OF THINGS.
ROB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Loudmouth, posted 08-03-2004 5:55 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 08-04-2004 3:33 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 27 by Loudmouth, posted 08-04-2004 5:58 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 23 of 354 (130345)
08-04-2004 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Robert Byers
08-04-2004 2:58 PM


I'm confused. Are you objecting to the scientific method, or to the man-in-the-street's perception of the scientific method? If the latter, then join the club in bemoaning the scientific ignorance of the public-at-large.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Robert Byers, posted 08-04-2004 2:58 PM Robert Byers has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 24 of 354 (130360)
08-04-2004 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Robert Byers
08-04-2004 2:58 PM


Scientific evidence IS not evidence like other evidence.
Of course it is. Evidence is evidence.
Scientific evidence is the successful result of the scientific method being applied to some matter.
Nonsense. Evidence is evidence. It has nothing to do with method.
Evidence is the observation, the object. Evidence has no condition other than existing.
Evidence is evidence.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Robert Byers, posted 08-04-2004 2:58 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Robert Byers, posted 08-05-2004 4:46 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 25 of 354 (130363)
08-04-2004 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Robert Byers
08-04-2004 3:05 PM


Re: science vs. method
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.
Nonsense.
Creationism starts with the conclusion that something was created. Therefore it does not follow the scientific method. That is why it is pseudo-science and rightly, ignored.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Robert Byers, posted 08-04-2004 3:05 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 354 (130428)
08-04-2004 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Robert Byers
08-04-2004 2:58 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Robert Byers, posted 08-04-2004 2:58 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Robert Byers, posted 08-05-2004 4:59 PM Loudmouth has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 354 (130430)
08-04-2004 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Robert Byers
08-04-2004 3:05 PM


Re: science vs. method
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Robert Byers, posted 08-04-2004 3:05 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 28 of 354 (130758)
08-05-2004 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
08-04-2004 3:30 PM


Your wrong. As in a court of law it is the standard of evidence that is all the difference in conviction between a criminal and civil case.
Perhaps you have mixed up evidence with the word conclusion.
I mean origins subjects are about conclusions drawn from evidence. Evolution is trying to claim its conclusions are based on a scientific method approach/evidence to its conclusion
WHEN in fact (we say)its conclusions are just regular evidence gathering BUT not the special method of science (and following prestige and credibility)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 08-04-2004 3:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 08-05-2004 5:25 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 29 of 354 (130764)
08-05-2004 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Loudmouth
08-04-2004 5:46 PM


Indeed I think we again meet the rub.
You say "the transitional nature of a fossil is objectively measured (bones) and likewise stratigraphic location.
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.
Your saying that the theory is being measured but instead its only bones and thier place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Loudmouth, posted 08-04-2004 5:46 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 08-05-2004 5:32 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 32 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-05-2004 5:39 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 33 by Loudmouth, posted 08-05-2004 6:38 PM Robert Byers has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 354 (130774)
08-05-2004 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Robert Byers
08-05-2004 4:46 PM


I don't believe I am wrong because prestige and credibility have no place in science.
That is your problem.
Religion and law may well consider credibility but even in those areas prestige has no place.
You and the few other remaining Creationists can say anything you like, but that has nothing to do with fact.
Repeat after me.

Prestige and credibility have no place in science.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Robert Byers, posted 08-05-2004 4:46 PM Robert Byers 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