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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   XXXX Science
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1 of 96 (376689)
01-13-2007 3:56 AM


What actually is 'creation science'?
What is 'Christian science'? Islamic science? Hindu science? Is there such a thing as 'atheist science'?
Is there conceivably such a thing as 'socialist science'? 'Fascist science'?
Would 'socialist science', for example, necessarily conclude that we are all born equal? Would 'fascist science' necessarily conclude that there is a genetic elite of some sort?
Does the very need to prefix the word science with a label that indicates predetermined conclusions indicate a complete lack of objectivity and therefore make the "science" in question wholly unscientific?
Is XXXX Science actually a contradiction in terms?
(where XXXX is any ideology or belief system you care to think of)
Given the nature of this forum my target is obviously 'creation science'.
If creationists want to claim that 'Evolutionary science' is a belief based science here AND can make a case for it then I would like that to be considered on topic - AS LONG AS - they also address the main question -
Is XXXXX Science a contradiction in terms where XXXXX is ANY ideology or belief system?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ramoss, posted 01-13-2007 11:10 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 5 by anglagard, posted 01-13-2007 11:44 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 01-13-2007 12:15 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-15-2007 11:12 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 55 by mick, posted 01-17-2007 10:38 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 4 of 96 (376706)
01-13-2007 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by ramoss
01-13-2007 11:10 AM


What About -
Yes I agree with all of that (which suggests that we are going to need a creationist or two to get this debate off the ground).
However I am also interested to know (and I would guess from your post than the broad answer will be yes) if you think any XXXXX Science (where XXXXX is ANY ideology/dogma/faith/belief system) is the antithesis of science for the very same reasons you detail?
Science is science. I don't see how you can have XXXXX science without it being inherently unscientific.
That obviously includes "creation science"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ramoss, posted 01-13-2007 11:10 AM ramoss has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 6 of 96 (376709)
01-13-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by anglagard
01-13-2007 11:44 AM


Re: Prefixed Science
The Jewish science and Aryan science examples you mention are very interesting.
Did the Naziz actually actively preclude themselves from using Jewish science or did they just ignore it to their detriment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by anglagard, posted 01-13-2007 11:44 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by anglagard, posted 01-13-2007 12:38 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 9 of 96 (376719)
01-13-2007 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by anglagard
01-13-2007 12:38 PM


Atheist Science - What is it???
So we have had forms of fascist/aryan science and socialist science as well as christian/creation science.
In the absence of any creationists to get to grips with....
I was wondering what you, and anybody else, might think 'atheist science' might be like.
Would it be different to science as we normaly mean it in any way at all??
If not is that part of the reason why creationists and the like have such a problem with science??
Edited by Straggler, : Atheist Science?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by anglagard, posted 01-13-2007 12:38 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 01-13-2007 1:34 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2007 1:47 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 12 of 96 (376734)
01-13-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by anglagard
01-13-2007 1:34 PM


Re: Atheist Science - What is it???
Atheism alone lacks a reason to attack science so far as I know. Therefore athiest science would be indistinguishable from actual science.
I think it is more complex than that.
'Atheist science' would necessarily preclude the role of any sort of creator or designer, on principle, when forming it's conclusions.
Conventional science does not have any role for a creator but does it consciously preclude the very concept or is it strictly down to the fact that there is no evidence to suggest a creator/designer?
IF the evidence did support it, would the inclusion of a creator or a designer be a valid scientific conclusion?
If the answer is No then are we effectively undertaking 'Atheist Science'?
Whether in practice 'atheist science' happens to be indistiguishable from conventional science does not detract from the principle.
I would say that a creator/designer has to be a potentially valid conclusion for us to be doing non-prefixed science.
Don't get me wrong I am no IDist. There is no evidence for any such thing but I do think thre is an issue in principle.
If we are actually conducting 'atheist science' when undertaking scientific investigation then, as wrong headed as they are in many other ways, I might have some sympathy with the creationists complaints of exclusion from mainstream science.........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 01-13-2007 1:34 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by anglagard, posted 01-13-2007 2:26 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 13 of 96 (376737)
01-13-2007 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
01-13-2007 1:47 PM


Re: Atheist Science - What is it???
So is the existence of a creator/designer a valid scientific conclusion then??
I think it has to be a potentially valid conclusion otherwise, in some ways, we would be acting as unscientifically as the creationists by limiting the conclusions before the investigation has even begun.
'Porn science' eh? Let me know if you find any.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2007 1:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 01-13-2007 2:35 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2007 2:53 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 17 of 96 (376757)
01-13-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
01-13-2007 2:35 PM


Re: Atheist Science - What is it???
Only if the evidence supported such a conclusion.
Oh absolutely!
The term potentially valid conclusion really has no meaning. Conclusions come after the evidence. When you start off with the conclusion firmly in hand, you have stopped doing science.
Again I agree. I think you misunderstod me.
By the term 'potentially valid conclusion' I mean that it is not disregarded as impossible before any evidence has even been investigated.
As you say scientific conclusions must be evidence based. If you have your conclusions before you have your evidence, even if it is concluding something as impossible, then it is not science.
I believe Percy has argued elsewhere that science is the study of the natural world, the role and nature of any sort of creator/God is supernatural and therefore any conclusions that invoke any form of God are by definition unscientific.
I am not sure I wholly agree with this for exactly the reasons stated above. No conclusion can be discounted without evidence.
I may be misquoting him so I will try and find the post I am referring to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 01-13-2007 2:35 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 01-13-2007 4:50 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 18 of 96 (376758)
01-13-2007 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
01-13-2007 2:53 PM


Re: Atheist Science - What is it???
Philosophically I think that it is important that science not rule out anything before hand -- thus it must be agnostic or it is not science, and "agnostic science" should be (and is, imh(ysa)o) redundant.
I think science is, and should be, agnostic in nature as no conclusion should be disregarded out of hand.
I don't understand your last point about "agnostic science" being redundent? What do you mean by that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2007 2:53 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 19 of 96 (376761)
01-13-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
01-13-2007 2:53 PM


Re: Atheist Science - What is it???
Philosophically I think that it is important that science not rule out anything before hand -- thus it must be agnostic or it is not science, and "agnostic science" should be (and is, imh(ysa)o) redundant.
I think science is, and should be, agnostic in nature as no conclusion should be disregarded out of hand.
I don't understand your last point about "agnostic science" being redundent? What do you mean by that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2007 2:53 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 21 of 96 (376914)
01-14-2007 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
01-13-2007 4:50 PM


Re: Atheist Science - What is it???
Thankyou for clarifying your position and apologies if I misrepresented your view earlier.
In summary - No conclusion can be necessarily discounted by science BUT all scientific conclusions must be formed on the basis of physical evidence alone.
It seems we all agree.
My question now becomes one of the effect all of this has on creationists miinterpretation of science.
Because science is effectively indistinguishable from 'atheist science' in practice it is perhaps easier to understand why creationists seem so incapable of distinguishing the difference?
The difference is relatively subtle and I think I am beginning to see why creationists might feel so persecuted.
We accuse them of doing false science
They accuse us back
We explain to them the nature of their 'unscientificness'
On the false assumption that we are doing 'atheist science' they accuse us back
BUT if science and 'atheist science' are in practice all but indistinguishable and the difference relatively subtle and not even fully appreciated by many of those on the science side of the debate
THEN it is no wonder the whole thing ends up as an exercise in futile banging of heads on brick walls.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 01-13-2007 4:50 PM Percy has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 26 of 96 (377160)
01-15-2007 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Doddy
01-15-2007 7:49 AM


Re: Naturalism
Try this one for me: naturalistic science.
Fair question but one that has been effectively indirectly answered earlier in this thread (by Percy and myself)
Naturalistic science - If meant in the sense that no supernatural conclusions are even theoretically possible, and should therefore be discounted regardless of the evidence, would be a form of XXXX science and would therefore be unscientific.
Naturalistic science - If meant in the sense that ANY conclusions are theoretically possible BUT which is totally unable to comment (is effectively agnostic) about anything which cannot actually be tested physically. Then this is not XXXX science. It is just science.
Given the evidence that is available differentiating between the two is perhaps more a philosophical question than a practical one.
It is however important to misinterpretations within the EvC debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Doddy, posted 01-15-2007 7:49 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Doddy, posted 01-15-2007 8:26 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 81 of 96 (387348)
02-28-2007 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by mick
01-17-2007 10:38 AM


XXXX Science
There is evidently a difference between XXXX as a term of description (e.g. biological science) and XXXX as an indicator of predetermined conclusions (e.g. creationist science)
The first describes the limitations of the questions that will be investigated.
The second necessitates the limitations of the conclusions that can be formed.
As a descriptive term it is useful for describing the area being studied scientifically.
As a ideological term it implies a false science with preconceived conclusions and little respect for evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by mick, posted 01-17-2007 10:38 AM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Brad McFall, posted 02-28-2007 5:25 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 85 of 96 (387882)
03-03-2007 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Brad McFall
03-01-2007 6:35 PM


Re: XXXX Science and Mick's constraint
ICR is just now operationalizing a new on-line technical journal.
Well we can all look forward to that!!
If the ICR undertake research with predetermined conclusions which pick, choose and adapt evidence to support these conclusions then is this scientificaly valid in any way at all?
If they are undertaking their research without this creationist bias (i.e. whereby they could make evidence based conclusions that are contrary to a biblical account of creation) then how is this 'creation science' and not just......science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Brad McFall, posted 03-01-2007 6:35 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Brad McFall, posted 03-03-2007 7:41 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 87 of 96 (387971)
03-03-2007 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Brad McFall
03-03-2007 7:41 PM


???Genius or Lunatic???
Do you set out to be utterly incomprehensible??
I am afraid that I have no idea what most of your post is about. This could be because what you are saying is completely over my head. It could be because it is rampant nonsense. Or it could be that you are just a woefully bad comminicator.
Can you summarise in a more user friendly manner?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Brad McFall, posted 03-03-2007 7:41 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Brad McFall, posted 03-03-2007 8:11 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 89 of 96 (388102)
03-04-2007 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Brad McFall
03-03-2007 8:11 PM


Re: ???Genius or Lunatic???
It seems to me that one can DO whatever it is that creationists DO in purely "logical" frame of mind
Well that is the question. Can they?
It sems to me that "whatever it is that creationists DO" is in fact seek out evidence that is cosistent with biblical creationism and ignore or misinterpret evidece that does not spport this view.
Can that be done logically? Or, in your view, is this not what creationist science does?
Your question seemed to me to be, "How can ICR's new on-line journal be science if they continue to do Bible Based "research" OR how can it NOT BE SCIENCE if that is what the journal is to produce?" It seems like a catch-22 question, one that no 5th grader could answer! And it was 'deftly' crafted across a "line-break" to boot. If that leaves you wanting let me know that I misunderstood your question, please.
I don't think I am being as clever as you credit me.
The question is basically this - If an investigation is being undertaken where conclusions are based on the physical evidence EXCLUSIVELY using the methods of conventional science then, even if the hypothesis being evaluated is biblically based (the possibility of a worldwide flood - for example) is this "creationist science" or just science?
I would say science.
The creationist in "creationist science" relates to the (predetermined) conclusions not the area of question or hypothesis. The same is true of any XXXX science in terms of the OP.
I have no problem with challenges to established scientific thinking (this is after all how science progresses) but faith based irrationalities that provide no new evidence, make no testable predictions and explain no new phenomenon and which amount to (often quite bizzarre) alternate explanations that are obviously objectively infereior to the established theory seem unlikely to bear fruit in terms of discovery and scientific progress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Brad McFall, posted 03-03-2007 8:11 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Brad McFall, posted 03-04-2007 5:08 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024