Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bad science?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 148 (339886)
08-13-2006 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Head Eagle
08-13-2006 8:38 PM


quote:
Just 1 1/2 centuries?
I think this was meant as a reply to my post.
quote:
Creation in written form has been around for 4000 years give or take.
I guess I don't understand the argument. You must believe that the earth is at the center of the universe and all the planets and stars go around it -- heliocentrism has only been around for 400 years. And germs were only discovered about 150 years ago -- so do you believe that disease is caused by witchcraft?
-
quote:
Sorry, I can't discount history even though no human was around to record either.
But history leaves some evidence around. Not all possible histories are consistent with the available evidence. That is why literal Genesis creationism was rejected by scientists even before Darwin, and why the theory of evolution has become accepted.
-
quote:
...their perception of the evidence.
I have always found this line of argument interesting. As Ned points out, you give the appearance of believing that evidence can be interpreted in any way the observer wishes -- a conclusion that would startle scientists even in the non-biological sciences, as well as criminal forensics experts. Do you really believe that evidence is really that malleable?

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Head Eagle, posted 08-13-2006 8:38 PM Head Eagle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Head Eagle, posted 08-14-2006 8:33 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
MUTTY6969
Member (Idle past 6190 days)
Posts: 65
From: ARIZONA
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 92 of 148 (339887)
08-13-2006 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Head Eagle
08-13-2006 3:34 PM


Re: WHAT IS AND ISN'T SCIENCE?
quote:
Then, why has it been so hard to turn the Theory of evolution into Law?
Wow, and you have a B.S degree in Biology. I find that very hard to believe.
Where did you get this degree if I might ask?
Let's stick close to the topic and skip the credential shopping.
Edited by AdminJar, : guidelines advisory

Steve Rushin: "By the age of 18, the average American has witnessed 200,000 acts of violence on television, most of them occurring during Game 1 of the NHL playoff series."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Head Eagle, posted 08-13-2006 3:34 PM Head Eagle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by MUTTY6969, posted 08-13-2006 9:56 PM MUTTY6969 has not replied

  
MUTTY6969
Member (Idle past 6190 days)
Posts: 65
From: ARIZONA
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 93 of 148 (339889)
08-13-2006 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by MUTTY6969
08-13-2006 9:32 PM


Re: WHAT IS AND ISN'T SCIENCE?
You do know laws and theories are not in some hierarchy? They are completely different terms where one does not become the other . ever . it’s not like poof we now have enough evidence to put this theory into law. This is why I asked where did you get your B.S. degree; because in no science curriculum would you get that confused.
But as Adminjar posted, no need to reply to the education question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by MUTTY6969, posted 08-13-2006 9:32 PM MUTTY6969 has not replied

  
Head Eagle
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 148 (339949)
08-14-2006 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Chiroptera
08-13-2006 9:26 PM


Changing What I Said
Chiroptera,
Where would you get the idea that I believe "evidence" can change? I thought I said that evidence doesn't change -- just your perception of it. Evidence is evidence. It just lies there to be interpreted. The soundness of the interpretation is the question.
I've noticed that the tendency with some in this forum is to put words into the mouth of opponents; also to assume a lot of things not in evidence. Your opponent may not be as much a dolt as you presume. Then again, it just might be your interpretation of the evidence.

Lan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Chiroptera, posted 08-13-2006 9:26 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by NosyNed, posted 08-14-2006 11:37 AM Head Eagle has replied
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 08-14-2006 12:55 PM Head Eagle has not replied
 Message 102 by Chiroptera, posted 08-14-2006 1:55 PM Head Eagle has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 148 (339953)
08-14-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Head Eagle
08-13-2006 3:34 PM


Re: WHAT IS AND ISN'T SCIENCE?
Then, why has it been so hard to turn the Theory of evolution into Law?
A moment's thought would have told you that this question must be based on a misconception on your part.
Consider : if the distinction between theory and law is what you think it is, then why do the most ardent supporters of evolution always talk of the "theory of evolution" and never of the "law of evolution"?
And a little research would have shown you that a "theory" is a well-tested explanation for some phenomenon that incorporates facts and laws (and, sometimes, other theories).
In particular, the theory of evolution consists of the law of natural selection (including sexual selection) and the laws of genetics.
Why are you debating "Is It Science?" without a knowledge of the most basic vocabulary of science?
Oh, hang on --- that is why, isn't it?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Head Eagle, posted 08-13-2006 3:34 PM Head Eagle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by robinrohan, posted 08-14-2006 9:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 148 (339956)
08-14-2006 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
08-14-2006 9:01 AM


Re: WHAT IS AND ISN'T SCIENCE?
And a little research would have shown you that a "theory" is a well-tested explanation for some phenomenon that incorporates facts and laws (and, sometimes, other theories).
I was thinking that "theory" was just another word for "law." So it would be improper to speak of the "theory of gravity"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-14-2006 9:01 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by nwr, posted 08-14-2006 12:56 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-14-2006 6:54 PM robinrohan has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 97 of 148 (339958)
08-14-2006 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Head Eagle
08-13-2006 8:55 PM


Re: WHAT IS AND ISN'T SCIENCE?
Religion and science? One real and one dead?
And this is a response to my post how, exactly? I'm afraid I'm simply not understanding your argument. Please clarify.
To reply to your challenge, let me first ask you to define religion. This is a loaded question. Be careful.
Two things here. One, I'm afraid definitional games centering around religion would be considered off-topic for this thread. Here we are, after all, attempting to define science and determine whether evolution or other biological concepts and theories do in fact fit the definition. Your question inre religion would be very appropriate in another thread. I'm serious, the Admins here get very testy and cranky if a thread starts going too far off-topic. I have no particular desire to be suspended for something like this, especially when there are other threads for that discussion.
Secondly, there was no "challenge" in the post to which you were responding. I merely asked you to reflect on the consequences of your statement concerning the validity of an argument based on the amount of time an idea has been around. Acceptance of ancestor worship, propitiation of nature spirits, and attribution of anthropomorphic benevolence/malignancy to natural phenomena have been around much longer than 4000 years. Thus the logical extension of your intimation (that the length of time an idea has been held is correlated to its validity) would be to accept even older beliefs. I'm sure you don't agree that we should be making sacrifices to thunderstorms. This was merely an attempt to get you to realize this argument is invalid.
I'll be happy to discuss whatever evidence you feel is compelling concerning the Flud on the appropriate thread.
Edited by Quetzal, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Head Eagle, posted 08-13-2006 8:55 PM Head Eagle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Head Eagle, posted 08-14-2006 2:26 PM Quetzal has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 98 of 148 (339982)
08-14-2006 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Head Eagle
08-14-2006 8:33 AM


Interpretations
Evidence is evidence. It just lies there to be interpreted. The soundness of the interpretation is the question.
Once again, open a thread, show the evidence and then show a coherent different interpretation. Otherwise it would be appropriate to shut up.
Edited by NosyNed, : chose a better word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Head Eagle, posted 08-14-2006 8:33 AM Head Eagle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Head Eagle, posted 08-14-2006 2:52 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 99 of 148 (339990)
08-14-2006 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Head Eagle
08-14-2006 8:33 AM


Re: Changing What I Said
Hi ENC,
You neglected to address the main thrust of Chiroptera's post and focused on just the last sentence, which you might have misinterpreted. I don't think Chiroptera intended his use of the word "malleable" to imply that evidence changes - the context was still the interpretation of evidence.
Chiroptera was mainly inquiring why you believe that the length of time an idea has been held is related to its accuracy. A good scientific approach would be to accept ideas according to the quality of their supporting evidence and the degree to which that evidence has been replicated.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Head Eagle, posted 08-14-2006 8:33 AM Head Eagle has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 100 of 148 (339991)
08-14-2006 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by robinrohan
08-14-2006 9:10 AM


Re: WHAT IS AND ISN'T SCIENCE?
I was thinking that "theory" was just another word for "law." So it would be improper to speak of the "theory of gravity"?
I would not have a problem with "theory of gravity." But the theory is not the same as the law. The law is the relationships observed, in this case a mathematical formulation. The theory is the explanatory background that connects the numerical quantities with our experience.
At least that's the distinction I would make.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by robinrohan, posted 08-14-2006 9:10 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by robinrohan, posted 08-14-2006 1:15 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 148 (339996)
08-14-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by nwr
08-14-2006 12:56 PM


Re: WHAT IS AND ISN'T SCIENCE?
The law is the relationships observed, in this case a mathematical formulation. The theory is the explanatory background that connects the numerical quantities with our experience.
So a "law" is some specific idea within a more general idea that we call a "theory"? Let's say the germ theory of disease. What would be a law that that theory would include?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by nwr, posted 08-14-2006 12:56 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 148 (339999)
08-14-2006 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Head Eagle
08-14-2006 8:33 AM


Re: Changing What I Said
quote:
Where would you get the idea that I believe "evidence" can change?
I didn't have any idea that you believe that, and, if it weren't for Percy's reply to you, I wouldn't even have known how you could have interpreted what I wrote in this way.
When I asked whether you really feel that the evidence is "malleable", I was asking whether you really feel that one can make any interpretation of it at all. That is the implication I got from your post; it is certainly what previously creationists have meant when they have said things similar to you.
-
quote:
The soundness of the interpretation is the question.
I'm not sure what you mean here; there are several possibilities. Do you mean how close the interpretation is to reality? Well, unless the crime suspect actually confesses, or we can drill a hole all the way to the center of the earth, or we can go back in time and witness the signing of the Declaration of Independence with our own eyes, then this becomes an epistemological problem that is unsolvable.
If you mean how self-consistent an interpretation is, how consistent it is with the entire body of evidence, and how consistent it is with evidence that is observed after the intepretation is put forward, then I agree with you: some interpretations are more sound than others; some interpretations are obvious when the data are examined, and other interpretations are very, very untenable.
A murder suspect can claim that the victim was killed by magical fairies and make up ad hoc explanations why the evidence seems to point to him; someone can claim that the earth's core is made of ice cream and make up ad hoc explanations why a nickel-iron composition with the outer core molten seems to be a better fit to the data; and a person can claim that the Founding Fathers were forced to sign the Declaration of Independence as part of an Illuminati conspiracy, a conspiracy that also rewrote their letters to one another and their diaries. These are all possible interpretations of the data; however, one can see these interpretations will be forced and ridiculous.
The same with the theory of evolution. It has withstood the scientific tests that have been put toward it. Sure, one can "interpret" the data in favor of creationism, and make up stories about a variable speed of light, changing rates of radiactive decay, hydrological sorting, huge sediment deposits, and what do any of us know about how God works, anyway? But if the ad hoc explanations can't be tested, or, if they can but are shown to be unworkable, then this "interpretation" becomes as ridiculous as killer fairies and the earth's ice cream core.
Once seen in their entirety, though, the evidence forms a very distinct pattern, and evolution and common descent are not only a reasonable interpretation, but, in the words of Stephen Jay Gould, it becomes perverse to withhold even provisional acceptance of the idea.
Facts are facts, and not every "theory" is a reasonable interpretation of the facts.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Head Eagle, posted 08-14-2006 8:33 AM Head Eagle has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 103 of 148 (340002)
08-14-2006 1:58 PM


Laws and Theories
You'll go crazy trying to figure out the logic behind naming something a law or theory. There are some general rules of thumb that sort of mostly apply, and then you have to take into account the historical context of the 18th and 19th century when they expected that all science would boil down to mathematical relationships that could be termed laws, like Boyle's Law, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc.
It turned out not to be so simple, and the general practice today is to use the word theory for new conceptual frameworks. Even so, new laws crop up in the modern lexicon all the time. For example, there's Moore's Law, named after the Intel co-founder who first noticed that computer power doubles every 18 months.
--Percy

  
Head Eagle
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 148 (340005)
08-14-2006 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Quetzal
08-14-2006 9:16 AM


Re: WHAT IS AND ISN'T SCIENCE?
Quetzal,
Since you or your compatriots brought up the opposite of science being religion, it must be O.K. with the admin to pursue it. I'll let you off the hook if you can clarify what you mean by the term "religion" as opposed to science. O.K.?

Lan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Quetzal, posted 08-14-2006 9:16 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Admin, posted 08-14-2006 2:40 PM Head Eagle has replied
 Message 108 by Quetzal, posted 08-14-2006 2:59 PM Head Eagle has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 105 of 148 (340008)
08-14-2006 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Head Eagle
08-14-2006 2:26 PM


Re: WHAT IS AND ISN'T SCIENCE?
ENC writes:
Since you or your compatriots brought up the opposite of science being religion, it must be O.K. with the admin to pursue it.
Perhaps not a safe assumption. Any sub-topic, including religion, is valid for discussion in any thread where it bears directly upon the main topic. If that's the case here, then a digression into the definition of religion is fine, but I don't see a connection, so it should be clearly explained why the digression is relevant.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Head Eagle, posted 08-14-2006 2:26 PM Head Eagle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Head Eagle, posted 08-14-2006 3:10 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 116 by Head Eagle, posted 08-14-2006 3:29 PM Admin 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