Jump to content


Photo

Science


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
31 replies to this topic

#1 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 09 February 2012 - 07:39 PM

i have heard theres a difference between operational science and also historical science

theres a difference, one can study and test the one and the other relies on assumption and presumption then looks for evidence.

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 February 2012 - 08:41 PM

i have heard theres a difference between operational science and also historical science

theres a difference, one can study and test the one and the other relies on assumption and presumption then looks for evidence.



Yes there is a difference.

Observational science is real science. It derives from experimentation and the empirical scientific method. Its fundamental traits are directly observable, repeatable, falsifiable, and measurable.

Interpretive science are things like archeology, whereby they derive from human imagination of observations in an attempt to solve the observation "after the fact". I prefer to call these social sciences.


As far as I know the old style of science was the interpretive assumption based science. An example- Someone observes the sun and stars revolve around the world, and claims that the Earth is the centre of the universe, (which we know is wrong), such science has no experimental value and thus (to me) has little credibility. If something sounds logical then thats it. Hence the belief in Darwin's day that cells were blobs of jelly. This may have helped his "theory" in that its much more easy to believe that clobs of jelly can be moulded into different things, rather than the cells of today that are each specialized mini-factories.

This was changed by Karl Popper when he wrote his papers on empirical viability.

#3 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 10 February 2012 - 01:26 AM

Evolution has never been observed. Its been wildly extrapolated from evidence such as finch beaks and peppered moths.

#4 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 10 February 2012 - 04:29 AM

one could say the same with the bbt, sadly i know an oecer that doesnt know the difference. yet doesnt buy evolution but does buy into the bbt.

#5 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 14 February 2012 - 10:10 AM

one could say the same with the bbt, sadly i know an oecer that doesnt know the difference. yet doesnt buy evolution but does buy into the bbt.



However the evidence for evolution and tbb are completely different in nature. The Big Bang theory is derived from generally accepted formula's in science and has made predictions like background radiation and redshift. So I get why some people might believe one theory and not believe the other.


Classifying either the Big Bang Theory or Evolution as purely historical science is incorrect. While they do have a large part that complies to historical science only, we can perform observations like the one going on in CERN.

#6 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 14 February 2012 - 11:19 AM

hmm under presumptions. all we can do is observe know and assume that it was the same as mans recorded history. i believe this site has a few thread on the speed of light not being constant and light travel isnt a measure of time but the distance traveled.

#7 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 14 February 2012 - 11:44 AM

hmm under presumptions. all we can do is observe know and assume that it was the same as mans recorded history. i believe this site has a few thread on the speed of light not being constant and light travel isnt a measure of time but the distance traveled.



Don't fool yourself by thinking that scientists aren't aware of the claims that they are making and their consequences. Scientists do look for signs of events that can disturb the timeline for the part of their theory which is historical science. A good example of this is the whole punctuated equilibrium discussion in evolution. Something that could blow evolution out of the water would be proven boundaries to the genetic drift. The model for the formation of the earth for instance has been revised countless times because of this reason (discovered past events that would impact the model). However the lack of evidence/signs doesn't prove that there weren't any in the case of TBB or Evolution.

I'd love to see those threads. The speed of light not being a constant has very big consequences. It's almost the same as saying that all of physics is incorrect.
Light travel? Don't you mean lightyear (the distance light can travel within a years time which is in effect a distance, not a time).

#8 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:01 PM

look aroung evidence for a young earth correlation and its actually done by a respected astrophysicist.

yeah right pe denies evolution in its entirity. since when does random mutations speed up then start again? if its all gradual process that started it then pe denies it says it happened rapidly then went back to a lower rate.

http://creation.com/...-down-after-all

one article found.

two

http://www.icr.org/a...in-speed-light/


it seems a view anti-creationist also belief that too.

#9 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:17 PM

http://www.scienceda...91005114024.htm

cern also demostrated that the speed of light can be broken.

#10 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:33 PM

look aroung evidence for a young earth correlation and its actually done by a respected astrophysicist.

yeah right pe denies evolution in its entirity. since when does random mutations speed up then start again? if its all gradual process that started it then pe denies it says it happened rapidly then went back to a lower rate.


The problem with so called macro evolution is that we simply can't be certain about it. It might be possible that evolution can speed up and slow down depending on certain conditions. That's the whole reason why there is a debate in science and why macro-evolution isn't thrown in the garbage bin. The thing scientists do agree about is the big picture and the small picture: micro evolution is true and that we evolved over time. This is a good frame of reference and it is useful to science. But they don't agree on how macro-evolution took place (timeline problem). You may notice that I said the big picture isn't thrown into the garbage bin even though scientists cannot agree on macro-evolution. This has to do with the tree of life and genetic research. However if macro-evolution has been decided on, or has been replaced by another, better explanation, the frame will probably be revised as well. Note: the random mutations don't speed up but the drift in gene pool does and the species vary faster.


http://creation.com/...-down-after-all
one article found.

two

http://www.icr.org/a...in-speed-light/


it seems a view anti-creationist also belief that too.


Yeah, I'm sorry but I'm going to trust Einstein over people who only propose an initial hypothesis and who, for the moment, propose a universe that would collapse at time t<1s instead of expanding (1st article). Like the second article says: the speed of light, which is woven into countless laws of physics (the laws lots of creationists mostly like to call "real" science or operational science contrary to evolution) would in this case be altered for historical science, you do realize this right?

#11 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:41 PM

so then he also stated that the speed of light wasnt able to be broken. and yet it was by cern if i recall and that also if you take it that way negates the bbt. that is why many dont buy it.

and so we assume just because we cant prove it that it did happen. thats my point. you are presumming that it did happen.

argument ad futuris isnt a way to do science.

#12 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 14 February 2012 - 01:03 PM

so then he also stated that the speed of light wasnt able to be broken. and yet it was by cern if i recall and that also if you take it that way negates the bbt. that is why many dont buy it.

and so we assume just because we cant prove it that it did happen. thats my point. you are presumming that it did happen.

argument ad futuris isnt a way to do science.


If I remember correctly, special relativity postulates that the speed of light is a constant and that indeed nothing can exceed it because it would move back in time.

CERN did indeed discover that a particle moved faster than C but they wanted a second opinion from an independant source to verify their observations as it would have far-reaching implications.

After a bit of research, I found out that John Moffat is the 'father' of modified theory of gravity. I have heard of it before but I'm not certain what has happened to it. Guess I'll research it today or tomorrow.

I'm certainly not dismissing the idea of varying values of C, but I do insist that the person making that claim, along with his team and other people, investigate, test and write a very good piece about their hypothesis. Just think about E=mc². Since E is constant in our universe, if c would be a lot larger or smaller, the mass of particles would diminish or become larger which is a very, very big deal ! If the author of the 1st article says that to solve the problem with starlight, C had to be a billion times bigger than today, than the mass of particles would be far less. That would in fact have far reaching consequences of our entire universe (or Einstein's law is wrong).

#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 February 2012 - 01:59 PM

If I remember correctly, special relativity postulates that the speed of light is a constant and that indeed nothing can exceed it because it would move back in time.

CERN did indeed discover that a particle moved faster than C but they wanted a second opinion from an independant source to verify their observations as it would have far-reaching implications.

After a bit of research, I found out that John Moffat is the 'father' of modified theory of gravity. I have heard of it before but I'm not certain what has happened to it. Guess I'll research it today or tomorrow.

I'm certainly not dismissing the idea of varying values of C, but I do insist that the person making that claim, along with his team and other people, investigate, test and write a very good piece about their hypothesis. Just think about E=mc². Since E is constant in our universe, if c would be a lot larger or smaller, the mass of particles would diminish or become larger which is a very, very big deal ! If the author of the 1st article says that to solve the problem with starlight, C had to be a billion times bigger than today, than the mass of particles would be far less. That would in fact have far reaching consequences of our entire universe (or Einstein's law is wrong).


OR another alternative E=mc² is not the full equation ;)

#14 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 15 February 2012 - 02:54 AM

OR another alternative E=mc² is not the full equation ;)


That's what I basically meant by wrong but you did word it better.

#15 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 February 2012 - 04:06 AM

Talk Origins agrees with me!!!!!!!!!!


"Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable."

Yet it now fails in its breakdown below....

"By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions."

Testable is carried out by physical empirical tests. Empirical infers direct observation, repeatability and falsification. For many of the observations cited by evolutionists there are more than one possible answer for the prediction, (thus unfalsifiable), furthermore how do they know that their prediction is the right one in the first place. In other words they are claiming the old inference based science, (despite claiming the scientific method before), whereby you make an observation and find a logical reason for such and make a prediction and then if it works then thats science... Kinda like

Observation: I see the sun and stars going around the Earth
Reason: The Earth is the centre of the universe and everything rotates around it
Prediction: I predict that the sun and stars will continue to rotate around the Earth

We know that the reason is not true, and as such shows how false this method of doing "science" is.

This is where falsifiability comes in, something that Talk Origins fails to address.

No wait it does so in a link.... which leads nowhere.... Hmmm

#16 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 14 March 2012 - 06:53 PM

"Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable."

Yet it now fails in its breakdown below....

"By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions."

Testable is carried out by physical empirical tests. Empirical infers direct observation, repeatability and falsification. For many of the observations cited by evolutionists there are more than one possible answer for the prediction, (thus unfalsifiable),

I beg your pardon, I think you jumped the gun there. Just because there are multiple possible answers to a prediction, does not mean it is unfalsifiable. If I predict that when an object is dropped, it can go up or down depending on its weight, but an air balloon remains where it is (density is same as air) then my prediction is falsified. And even if it weren't, all such hypothesis must increase the amount of knowledge and lead to further testing. If further tests are made and determine the original assumption/mechanism/hypothesis is false, then we start from scratch to make a new model.

furthermore how do they know that their prediction is the right one in the first place.

We don't, and that's why we do further testing.

In other words they are claiming the old inference based science, (despite claiming the scientific method before), whereby you make an observation and find a logical reason for such and make a prediction and then if it works then thats science...

If you do manage to make an observation of a fact that has happened in the past, you can possibly create an experiment to test whether your hypothesis of what happened is accurate. If not, (eg you cannot test the sacking of Baghdad again), you can still propose a hypothesis as to how exactly the sacking proceeded, based on prior observations and resent knowledge. If you predict they used machine guns, well your hypothesis is falsified because obviously they didn'T exist at the time. You start with the big picture, and when you cannot focus your hypothesis anymore (unable to test hypothesis because conditions were unknown, not enough historical data, etc) you sit back and say, 'well, this is as close as it gets', you sit back, and check up on it from time to time as knowledge increases. That is still science.
It is NOT science however, if you try to fit and contrive everything inside your model without testing anything at all, admitting that there might be mistakes, or attempting to correct/rectify/explain mistakes. Obviously, mistakes will be made and some will be unexplainable, but you go on with the most likely answer.

Observation: I see the sun and stars going around the Earth
Reason: The Earth is the centre of the universe and everything rotates around it
Prediction: I predict that the sun and stars will continue to rotate around the Earth

Using that prediction, we can map the position of the stars to predict where they're going to be. Oh look, now we have epicycles, and we can't explain how or why! What on earth could make those stars go in such complicated circles? Either there is some unknown force, or we were wrong. Again, testable hypothesis. Turns out the answer was we were wrong, so we started from scratch and dumped the earth-centric system.
The scientific process is always about finding the next step, the clearer, more complete picture.
  • Nuada likes this

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 March 2012 - 12:19 PM

1. I beg your pardon, I think you jumped the gun there. Just because there are multiple possible answers to a prediction, does not mean it is unfalsifiable.

2. If I predict that when an object is dropped, it can go up or down depending on its weight, but an air balloon remains where it is (density is same as air) then my prediction is falsified. And even if it weren't, all such hypothesis must increase the amount of knowledge and lead to further testing. If further tests are made and determine the original assumption/mechanism/hypothesis is false, then we start from scratch to make a new model.


3. We don't, and that's why we do further testing.


4. If you do manage to make an observation of a fact that has happened in the past,

5. you can possibly create an experiment to test whether your hypothesis of what happened is accurate. If not, (eg you cannot test the sacking of Baghdad again), you can still propose a hypothesis as to how exactly the sacking proceeded, based on prior observations and resent knowledge. If you predict they used machine guns, well your hypothesis is falsified because obviously they didn'T exist at the time.

6. You start with the big picture, and when you cannot focus your hypothesis anymore (unable to test hypothesis because conditions were unknown, not enough historical data, etc) you sit back and say, 'well, this is as close as it gets', you sit back, and check up on it from time to time as knowledge increases.

7. That is still science.
It is NOT science however, if you try to fit and contrive everything inside your model without testing anything at all, admitting that there might be mistakes, or attempting to correct/rectify/explain mistakes. Obviously, mistakes will be made and some will be unexplainable, but you go on with the most likely answer.



8. The scientific process is always about finding the next step, the clearer, more complete picture.



1. I beg your pardon, where did I make such a claim in the post you quoted? You do realise that the bulk of the paragraph you are responding to is a quote from a science teaching resource....

2. And? How is that in contradiction to what I said, (actually what i quoted)?... Attempting to make a case by restating things is very misleading.

3. That is my point, but then how can you verify the later ones too... No matter how many tests you have they are all built on a previous assumption.

4. I'll get my crystal ball

5. Yes you can propose any amount of hypothesises however since it is not physically tangible in the now you cannot directly experiment on it.

6. Like before how do you know you have the REAL "big picture"... Sounds like as if you are claiming we should have the conclusion, ("the big picture") and make the "facts" fit the conclusion, ("the big picture")... That is conformism.

7. No its not science. Conformism is not scientific.

8. Yes, but not in the way you described.

#18 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 15 March 2012 - 01:41 PM

1. I beg your pardon, where did I make such a claim in the post you quoted? You do realise that the bulk of the paragraph you are responding to is a quote from a science teaching resource....

I think you jumped the gun right at the point where I ended the quote, where you specifically said that "there are more than one possible answer for the prediction, (thus unfalsifiable)". Having more than one possible answer does not mean it is unfalsifiable. Science isn't always a game of true/false.

2. And? How is that in contradiction to what I said, (actually what i quoted)?... Attempting to make a case by restating things is very misleading.

My prediction was that it would go up or down. I could have included sideways also, but all that goes is to say that just because there are more than one possible answer does not make something unfalsifiable.

3. That is my point, but then how can you verify the later ones too... No matter how many tests you have they are all built on a previous assumption.

There is nothing wrong with assumptions if they are consistent with reality. Remember, the bible shows that pi is equal to 3. Since that is not based on pure mathematical proof, I can say that is an assumption. Is that a bad thing? No. You can test that assumption to arrive to a more precise value of pi. If you test your assumptions and they work, good. Try to get rid of assumptions and replace them with fact. If you test your assumptions and they don't work, then throw the assumption out and replace it with a better assumption of a known fact.

4. I'll get my crystal ball

I see what you did there :P Yeah, my bad, I should have phrased that better :)

5. Yes you can propose any amount of hypothesises however since it is not physically tangible in the now you cannot directly experiment on it.

Still, you can see how your hypothesis can compare to reality. I can propose as a hypothesis that the Huns sacked Baghdad using giant flying squids, but we know that is not a hypothesis supported by facts. I can instead hypothesize that they sacked Baghdad using cavalry, which is consistent with their usual methods, in addition to evidence validating the presence of horses and tales passed down from people witnessing the carnage.

6. Like before how do you know you have the REAL "big picture"... Sounds like as if you are claiming we should have the conclusion, ("the big picture") and make the "facts" fit the conclusion, ("the big picture")... That is conformism.

Well, you sort of have to, because no-one can start from the small picture that say a frame-shift mutation in the LQ5 gene on chromosome 5, base pair #59,243 changed the metabolic pathway of vitamin B6. You have to start from the big picture and work your way down. Simply stuffing facts into the theory as you move down is unscientific, but if you can work your way down 95% of the way, and there are 5% of the bits here and there you can't totally explain, you keep going anyways.

7. No its not science. Conformism is not scientific.

I completely agree. That is why science is not conformist, but empirical. Well, technically, you are right, but then science would also be conformist, because science conforms to reality.

8. Yes, but not in the way you described.

I'm sorry, I should perhaps take a course on the philosophy of science :) I'm but a lowly 2nd year biochemistry undergraduate :)

#19 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 March 2012 - 07:00 PM

1. I think you jumped the gun right at the point where I ended the quote, where you specifically said that "there are more than one possible answer for the prediction, (thus unfalsifiable)". Having more than one possible answer does not mean it is unfalsifiable. Science isn't always a game of true/false.

2. My prediction was that it would go up or down. I could have included sideways also, but all that goes is to say that just because there are more than one possible answer does not make something unfalsifiable.


3. There is nothing wrong with assumptions if they are consistent with reality. Remember, the bible shows that pi is equal to 3. Since that is not based on pure mathematical proof, I can say that is an assumption. Is that a bad thing? No. You can test that assumption to arrive to a more precise value of pi. If you test your assumptions and they work, good. Try to get rid of assumptions and replace them with fact. If you test your assumptions and they don't work, then throw the assumption out and replace it with a better assumption of a known fact.

4. I see what you did there :P Yeah, my bad, I should have phrased that better :)


5. Still, you can see how your hypothesis can compare to reality. I can propose as a hypothesis that the Huns sacked Baghdad using giant flying squids, but we know that is not a hypothesis supported by facts. I can instead hypothesize that they sacked Baghdad using cavalry, which is consistent with their usual methods, in addition to evidence validating the presence of horses and tales passed down from people witnessing the carnage.


6. Well, you sort of have to, because no-one can start from the small picture that say a frame-shift mutation in the LQ5 gene on chromosome 5, base pair #59,243 changed the metabolic pathway of vitamin B6. You have to start from the big picture and work your way down. Simply stuffing facts into the theory as you move down is unscientific, but if you can work your way down 95% of the way, and there are 5% of the bits here and there you can't totally explain, you keep going anyways.


7. I completely agree. That is why science is not conformist, but empirical. Well, technically, you are right, but then science would also be conformist, because science conforms to reality.


8. I'm sorry, I should perhaps take a course on the philosophy of science :) I'm but a lowly 2nd year biochemistry undergraduate :)


1. I am talking about what we assume to base the hypothesis on, you claim common descent for similarities, I'd claim common design... since the data fits both it is unfalsifiable as you cannot determine which is correct as they both have the same credability in that data set.

2. You've missed my point, read point 1

3. Assumptions can only ever be used in a hypothesis, anywhere else, (like in assuming evolution for point 1), then it is not scientific.

4. No probs :)

5. Yet there would be corroborating data from historians to verify that... Hence your example doesn't fit. What we are talking about are things that have NO corroborating empirical evidence, and thus is taken on faith alone.

6. No you don't do that. Making the facts conform is not science. Science starts at the observation, go look up the scientific method if you doubt this.

7. And it conforms to reality via observations, not conforming to "the big picture".

8. Perhaps, who knows?

#20 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 15 March 2012 - 08:10 PM

1. I am talking about what we assume to base the hypothesis on, you claim common descent for similarities, I'd claim common design... since the data fits both it is unfalsifiable as you cannot determine which is correct as they both have the same credability in that data set.

Well, the only way to see which one has the most predictive power, we'll have to do tests to see. Now, using common ancestry, I can determine that all life-forms will share some kind of similarty, as is the case with the fact we share something like 50% of our DNA with a banana. How exactly does design deal with that? I honestly don't know, as I've never heard a prediction being done based on the design hypothesis, neither has anyone bothered to tell me what the design hypothesis was in any great detail. So, what is the design hypothesis's hypothesis?

2. You've missed my point, read point 1

I don't think I have. The validity of a hypothesis is determined by ho well it compares to tests of hypothesis, not how much data it can explain.

3. Assumptions can only ever be used in a hypothesis, anywhere else, (like in assuming evolution for point 1), then it is not scientific.

Well, one cannot make science without a few base assumptions, such as the fact that the universe does in fact exist, and it's not simply some huge simulation running in our brains. The second assumption would be that the laws governing the universe can be discovered using empirical tests to determine the nature of our universe. Not a shred of evidence can validate these assumptions, because without these assumptions, evidence means absolutely nothing.

5. Yet there would be corroborating data from historians to verify that... Hence your example doesn't fit. What we are talking about are things that have NO corroborating empirical evidence, and thus is taken on faith alone.

What kind of corroborating evidence are we talking about here? Because as we all know, history books can be written to have whatever we want in those pages. Not only must that historical corroborate your hypothesis, it must also be consistent with the majority of other history books concerning what really happened. In the same way, evidence must be corroborated with a lt of other evidence to make sure everything fits in the gbig picture. When things don't fit, either we were mistaken in our understanding of the big picture, or there's a mistake somewhere. ie for the fossilized soft tissue and fossilized red blood cell remains that were found in the dinosaur bones lately, that on its own would be treated in the same way that if a reference to Hitler was found in an ancient Egyptian book. It would simply not make sense. However, if using that evidence we start seeing references to Hitler everywhere in Egyptian culture, then maybe we're on to something. Similarly, if we start cracking open the bones of all the dinosaurs and find fossilized remains of soft tissue in a lot of them, then we'd be onto something. But we can't throw out the entire puzzle because one piece doesn't fit.

6. No you don't do that. Making the facts conform is not science. Science starts at the observation, go look up the scientific method if you doubt this.

Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't mean looking at the big picture and deciding what the facts must be like, then to make them conform to how we predict it to be. I meant taking in the big picture as in taking all the evidence and trying to see where it's leading us. Sort of like a general observation that everything falls more or less at the same speed independently of the mass of said objects, we can sort of assume that the earth's gravitational pull has nothing to do with the mass of the object. Of course, that has been proven to be not entirely accurate, it's just that the mass of the earth is so much bigger than the mass of any simple object we can drop that the object's mass is to all intents and purposes irrelevant. However, just because that was the starting big picture, we're not then going to say 'No, planets don't attract each other proportional to the square of their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, that's not what we predicted!' we're obviously going to reconsider. Just like has been done many times with the theory of evolution, from darwinism to neo-darwinism to the modern synthesis.

7. And it conforms to reality via observations, not conforming to "the big picture".

Well, science tries to get the big picture, in the hopes that the big picture we get is the most accurate representation of the natural universe around us as far as we can see. The big picture 200 ish years ago was earth-centric (ptolemaic model), then it became sun-centric, now we realize we're simply on an unimportant planet orbiting an otherwise unremarkable star in one of many arms of a perfectly normal galaxy in the universe. That is how the big picture has changed over time as we take into account new evidence and new observations.

8. Perhaps, who knows?

It might be useful :P Especially to finally understand what's the big difference between observable, historical sciences, and inductive abductive and deductive reasoning I keep hearing about.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users