What is science?

Almeyda,This is a topic I was going to start some time ago, since it applies not only to you, but nearly all creationists. The problem is that when a debate starts it becomes apparent that the creationist in question doesn't understand science & related logic well enough to piece together an argument consistent with it. This is why we get "evolution is religion", or "science can't prove XYZ", or "you can't have evidence of something of something that happened in the past", (& usually in the next breath claim they have evidence of a flood!).It is my hope that this thread will lay out what science is, how it works, & what is acceptable evidence to it. Moreover, by agreeing premises in advance, which is what should be done in any case, we eliminate any dishonest wriggle room for either side after the debate has begun. So, here are the important aspects of science & logic that must be adhered to & agreed upon in order for any meaningful scientific debate to take place:A/ Science uses a method known as the scientific method (which includes the hypothetico-deductive method). This involves making an observation via one of our five senses & inductively forming a hypothesis from it. This is an explanation for the observation.B/ The hypothesis must be knowable, & if false, that must be knowable, too. In scientific parlance this means the hypothesis must be deductively testable & also falsifiable. This is done by predictions being borne out, data that if found would support the hypothesis. Conversely, if data that contradicts the hypothesis is in evidence, then the hypothesis must be either rejected, or rewritten to accomodate the data. As in the hypotheses formation, evidence that constitutes the above criteria must be apparent to our five senses.C/ Nothing in science is "proven", assuming a definition of the word that involves absolute 100% surety on a given theory. All scientific hypotheses are tentative to one degree or another. A new hypothesis is highly tentative, the more predictictions that are borne out, that is, the more evidence it has in its favour, reduces the tentativity of that hypothesis. In highly supported hypotheses, which are known as theories (although the terms are interchangeable even in scietific circles, depending on context) the level of evidential support is high enough to render the theory so well supported that to withhold consent can be considered unreasonable. This is what is known as a scientific fact. In no way do evolutionists, or scientists in general, attempt to conflate a scientific fact with a definition that confers 100% knowledge.D/ Science may not, nor creationists for that matter, commit logical fallacies. In fact, a scientific hypothesis/theory must effectively be a logically valid argument were it to be espoused as such. The same is true of any argument made. A valid, evidentially supported argument is superior to an argument based upon incredulity, or any other logically fallacious argument.If you have any points of disagreement, please feel free to raise them. If not, please could you note your agreement here.Mark

Double postThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-17-2004 12:39 PM

Almeyda,Well three out of four's not bad!To the point of disagreement.... The "law of gravity" is an excellent example where science actually had it wrong, or at least not entirely correct. Einsteinian physics works better. This is a perfect example of why we should be tentative about all scientific conclusions.When you are sick, & you get better after taking a drug, how can you be sure it was the drug? Maybe you would have got better anyway & the drug was incidental? In fact this is a serious question that drug trials attempt to answer, often insufficiently. Why? Many drugs work on some people & not others. I get back pain & have been prescribed a fairly hefty opiate derivative, tramodol, to take in conjuction with ibubprofen & paracetamol. My doctor maintains that this is a powerful pain-killing coctail. For all intents & purposes it may as well be a placebo, yet it's pain killing powers are well established, yet has no effect on me. My wife takes the same drug for the same reason & gets excellent relief. So much for "proving" medicines. The best we can say is they work in the majority of cases. In scientific parlance we can say that testing shows these drugs to have an effect on the population at large that goes beyond what we would expect due to chance. That is not "proof", it is strong evidence.Furthermore, all science requires instruments to be working 100% accurately, when in fact no such thing exists. Take gravirty, for example, are you sure the instruments used to measure the accleration due to it were 100% accurate? Can you be 100% sure your senses haven't misled you, or you misinterpreted? No, of course you can't: this means we can not be 100% sure of the results, which means there is tentativity involved, which means the conclusions are not "proven".It doesn't matter what example you can give me, I can show you how your measurements may be awry. How can you form a theory that is 100% FACT when there are assumptions that can never be FACT? It may seem churlish, I agree, but there's more than one set of measurements that have put the kaibosh on subsequent conclusions. We simply can not be sure our measurements are correct.That all science is tentative is not my own personal view, pick up any book on what science is, & you'll get the same story.So, I'll ask you to agree point C again, please.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-19-2004 04:02 AMThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-19-2004 04:22 AMThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-19-2004 05:10 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Almeyda, But there are things that are observable that support macroevolution. Remember the colossal odds against evolutionary expectations matching the fossil record?Molecular (both amino acid & nucleotide sequences) phylogenetic analyses also corroborate, again at vast odds of occurring by chance, macroevolutionary theory. There is convincing evidence, I present it here. Moreover, it is only one line of evidence.It's interesting that you'll happily swallow medication with far less statistical support than evolution. 5.68*10^323:1, anyone? False, on so many levels, too.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-19-2004 08:26 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

JP, Rubbish, what a load of illogical, goalpost moving misdirection!The ToE predicts that transitionals should exist along the following lines: a transitional is a form that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa.Prediction borne out. Pure & simple, mate. As you are so fond of saying; "go figure."The FACT that this prediction is borne out is not nullified by the fact we lack the DNA of the fossils, or that we can't say exactly what genetically occurred. It is, in & of itself a prediction borne out. Why would there be transitional fossils? Why, if you removed the feathers from Archaeopteryx would it be placed in a Therapodan taxon? As late as the 1980's Hoyle & his bunch of physicist buddies attempted to deny evolution & Archaeopteryx's avian status by claiming that the avian apomorphy (no longer), feathers, were fake, & it was a reptile after all. Yet creationists like to tell us it's a "fully formed" bird, despite all the bird & therapodan characters it possesses. What gives? Can't anti-evo's decide whether it's a bird or a reptile? Could it be because it's a classic transitional, & they have just as much trouble as the rest of palaeontology?Your argument would be like asking ID'ers how the ID made things? The inability to answer renders all "evidence" of ID null & void. A serious logical flaw & inconsistency in your thinking. You can't have it both ways. But cladistics & stratigraphy show a statistically good match, overall; against vast odds of it occurring by chance. So we DO have some (/irony) knowledge on how that record was formed. If only cladistic predictions mimicked that of the Biblical flood rather than evolution, then you'd have us up against the wall! But no, they contradict the biblical account rather than support it.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-21-2004 08:07 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

JP, Again, rubbish. Logic is about consistency, & you are holding evolution to a standard that you don't hold your own beliefs to. The reality, I'm afraid, is that the fossil record bears out evolutionary expectations to a colossal degree.

quote:

---

Mark24

​

Testing Cladistics & Stratigraphy

​

Given that the phylogenies under study are independent of stratigraphy, it is possible to compare the two to see how well they match. There are two main reasons for disagreement. 1/ The phylogeny is wrong, & 2/ the fossil record is so poor that the daughter species is found in older rock than the parent. Given that this is the case, we should expect a very low SCI (SCI is the ratio of consistent to inconsistent nodes in a cladogram) value if evolution were not indicative of reality. ie. Nodes (in complex trees) match by chance rather than signal. In other words, the null hypothesis is that the SCI value will be a low value.

​

Stratigraphic Consistency Index

​

The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3).

​

Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids.

​

SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), mammallike reptiles (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and mammallike reptiles. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), mammallike reptiles (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)."

​

Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how do you explain this significant correlation?

​

Given there is a clear signal of "evolution" in the rock stratigraphy & morphology combined, it therefore stands to reason that where these phylogenies would infer large scale morphological change (Cetaceans, basal tetrapoda, & basal amniotes, for example), evolution can be reliably inferred.

---

See above. Irrelevant, Archie DOES exist. It meets the standards of a transitional fossil. If we did have something prior to Archie you'd just ask what was before that, in the same way creationists did before Archaeopteryx was discovered. Nope, the fossil record matches the expectations of evolutionary cladistics in such a way that far exceeds what would be expected by chance. Like I say above, the null hypothesis has been falsified.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

John Paul, We've never seen anything design it, either, therefore you can't infer it. Right?What's good for the goose, & all that....Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

John Paul, I agree.Since my points here went unanswered, I'll make them again since this is the more relevant thread.If I could respectfully disagree with my evo counterparts for a moment. Science doesn't require a mechanism (although it is desirable) for any inferred occurrence, & so being the consistent creature that I am, I don't see why we should have to have a designer or indeed a mechanism for design, in order to infer design.If science is the inference (making of a hypothesis) from a given observation, then again, fairs fair, you CAN infer design from complexity if you so wish. But it all boils down to the testability of the hypothesis/inference (the important science bit). I could infer that because the grass on my lawn is lying flat this morning, a herd of ethereal wildebeest trampled it overnight. I couldn't test the inference, of course, which renders the hypothesis evidentially equal to fairies existing at the bottom of my garden, whom incidentally could also be responsible for the vandalism, but there you go.So the crux of the issue is, as I see it, that whatever observation you make & infer design from, you need to be able to test whether it was design, or not. Attempting to prop up the hypothesis with further arguments with exactly the same failing simply won't do. An analogy would be to notice a broken twig on the tree in my back garden that the wildebeest might have broken as they hurtled over my beloved back lawn.If ID is going to be credible science then it needs to have its inferences tested. Furthermore, if the hypothesis is wrong, it should be knowably wrong. Simply saying, "whoa, look at that complexity, I infer design from it", isn't good enough in & of itself to be considered valid science.Scientists speculate like this all the time, & they would be the first to admit speculation isn't science unless it is testable. But you can hypothesise a beaver built a dam & test that hypothesis. The point is that in any of the above endeavours hypotheses/inferences are formed/made, & tested. Is ID a valid scientific venue? No. Why not? Because it is an untested hypothesis.It takes more than the ability to make inferences from observations to be valid science. As stated above, I infer that wildebeest trampled my lawn. Until I test this, it is pure speculation. Same goes for ID.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

John Paul, You most certainly can OBJECTIVELY test the ToE. A single for example, that cladistic analyses match stratigraphy as well as they do, for example. I mentioned this in this very thread, post 84. What & what?You are required to make your own argument in your own words. Cite if you wish, but I'm not arguing against books or websites. I made my argument in my own words regarding the fossil record & cladistics, & cited the relevant study in support, as per forum guidelines, you need to do the same.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

John Paul, 1/ The fossil record is full of OBJECTS, it is not subjective. Stratigraphy is also objective, & so is cladistics. That the fossil record matches cladistic results is an objective statement brought about by objective methodology.2/ It doesn't have to say anything about the mechanism, it has to support the ToE's predictions.3/ Let's not descend into hypocrisy. If you don't have to produce a mechanism for ID, then neither does anyone for the ToE. You can't have it both ways. I've rarely heard such a weak excuse. What problem do you have with paraphrasing other peoples work that no-one else has? Nevertheless I could say the same, yet I still went to the effort to offer an explanation, despite it being someone elses work. It's not like I'm plagiarising, is it? A "design explanatory filter" appears to be missing from your link. And a "design explanatory filter" is not evidence either.Could you link me to one, please, & perhaps take me through it so that I may more clearly understand the level of objectivity vs. subjectivity inherant to the method?Thank you.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

John Paul,No, it's your job to provide evidence it's your argument. And like you say, your claim is worthless without substatiating evidence. In assuming SC is always the result of design without actually knowing it commits the logical fallacies; untestability, composition - "Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property".Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

John Paul: Do you understand what is meant by "objective" as it relates to subjective?The fossil record consists of objects known as fossils, not my subjective opinion, it is an objective fact. Good grief.Stratigraphy is not subjective opinion, either. Layers can and are cross correlated over large areas. This is based upon the observation, not subjective opinion, that sediments are deposited sequentially on top of each other rather than the other way around.Therefore, finding different flora & fauna in different layers represents objective data. It says of the mechanism that the underlying principles assumed by cladistics are borne out. Your argument is of the form, there is design so there must have been a mechanism, if there was a mechanism it was design. This logically fallacious; affirming the consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A.In other words, design cannot be the mechanism of design. It should be patently obvious, but there you go. It's like saying the way a Spitfire MkII was designed was by design. It says nothing, which is why its a fallacy. Moreover, it says nothing of the mechanism of construction, which is implicit to ID, & is what I & Loudmouth are really asking for when we ask for a mechanism. I explained my test, I want you to explain yours.Could you link me to one, please, & perhaps take me through it so that I may more clearly understand the level of objectivity vs. subjectivity inherant to the method?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

John Paul, At best you are being evasive, at worst you are lying. You have not presented any evidence whatsoever in support of the claim, everything that displays SC must have been designed. YOu have merely asserted it. It is what you are trying to show, after all, it's circular to assume your conclusion in your premise. No it isn't, that's your assertion, the conclusion you are attempting to reach. It is circular to assume your conclusion in your premises. Moreover, you have not rebutted the contention that you are guilty of making multiple logical fallacies in your attempt to test design.In assuming SC is always the result of design without actually knowing it commits the logical fallacies; untestability, composition - "Because the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property".In stating, "the reality is that EVERY time we see specified complexity it is ALWAYS the result of an intelliegent agency." you make a circular argument at best. See above. Er, no, you cannot safely deductively test ID without committing multiple fallacies.Furthermore, & this has been my point since the beginning, your "test" is actually an inference, not an objective test at all.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-16-2004 03:14 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

John Paul, It is not my job to falsify something so that you can't talk about it like a fact, it's your job to show it to be a fact in order that you may use it as a premise in your argument.Given that you haven't shown that everything that displays SC has been designed, I request that you stop talking about it like a fact.If DNA displays SC, then I want you to show me what intelligent agency made it, exactly. If you can't do that (& I'm not interested in your strange idea that your untested inferences are actual tests) then you cannot make the claim that "specified complexity it is ALWAYS the result of an intelliegent agency". Period. This is very simple reasoning. Stephen who?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-16-2004 03:37 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

AdminNosy, Backtrack.....Was this addressed to me?Mark