Uniformitarianism

When they say uniformitarianism do they mean uniformitarianism or actualism?

Hmm that might raise a problem in that while I say I naturalistic I mean exhausing possible natural explanations rather than automatic gainsaying of the supernatural....Is there a better term than naturalistic?

Not really an assumption more a reductionalist methodology, i.e if you find a model that requires only natural phenomena and explains the evidence it is simpler (and therefore preferable) to a model that makes an appeal to the supernatural.....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 01-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
It sounded respondable untill you said that it combats a 'model that makes an appeal to the supernatural' as I have done no such thing in all of my posts, I use naturalistic phenomena to explain what we observe in science today. The uniformitarian assumption seems to be contracted from it being an explenation that 'explains the evidence as it is simpler', scientific data is not about simplicity, as this method was used by ancient civilizations, finding that nature was too overwhelming for them to explain, so they resolved to simplicity, ie everything is the way it is because of the Gods. As this would be reduced to an analogy of what we are discussing, it makes a point. Just because a method is simple, doesn't mean it is the right method.

​

---

"respondable"? "combat" (where did I say combat?)All my post said was that if there are two theories pertaining to a phenomena the simpler one is better [b]if it explains the event fully[b]. A theory that makes appeal to the supernatural i.e Goddidit is necessarily more complex (containing as it does a factor that is by definition unknown) and therefore under a reductionalist methodology is less satisfactory than a theory that relies on no such factors."I use naturalistic phenomena to explain what we observe in science today."I`m sorry this sentence makes no sense to me what did you mean?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
1)This is not neccessarelly true, as I gave the analogy of mythology to explain the phenomenal, and today we know it as otherwize. Another analogy is, it is easy to say that there is a river of light in the atmosphere that is created when moonlight strikes the poles, but we know today that this is not what causes the aurora, and the aurora is much more complex than this.

​

2)I would have to say it is wrong that it is more complex, it is pretty much the simplest case because all there is is....Goddidit, there, closed case. But this has no relevance to our discussion, as I make no relevance to impede that, 'Goddidit' as I have emphesised throughout my posts.

​

3)I mean 'I use naturalistic phenomena to explain what we observe in science today.' I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. Creation science has nothing to do with the causes of inflicting divine intervention to explain naturalistic phenomena, that is, to explain why/how things are the way they are. It is pure natural science.

​

---

1)The fact remains that an appeal to the supernatural results in an unresolvable complexity in a theory this is as true of mythology as Goddidit.The simplest acceptable theory should still be supported by evidence (I think you will find that the moonlight striking the poles fulfills less evidence than the current solar wind theory).2)Appeals to the supernatural are unresolvably complex because they are by definition appeals to the unknown and unknowable. Hence Goddidit is not simple but an increadibly vague theory.3)Most people use science to explain phenomena rather than the other way round.......

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
1)I see what your saying, though since we cannot experiment on the supernatural or observe it, we can get no information out of it, thus is a simple statement as to say 'Goddidit' and end it there.

​

2)Yes I agree, though this does not mean it is correct, it could be a far cry from what actually happend.

​

3)Because of its scale of vagueness it is simple, we cannot experiment on anything with the supernatural, thus there is no data and you resolve to the statment that well, 'goddidit'.

​

3)Of course, that is why creation science is science. But anyways, what was the topic we were discussing subfacing?

---

1)But you said yourself that you can have no information about the supernatural. Ergo any appeal to the supernatural muddies the waters. Hence a theory rested upon the supernatural is MORE complex than a theory that excludes the supernatural....2)You got a better theory than charged particles from the solar wind interacting with the Earths magnetic field? Hey how about you advance a competing theory involving the supernatural and we can see which is simpler....Vague is not simple, vague is by nature unspecified and complex, if it were simple it could not be vague....3)Look back at your post pal you said 'I use naturalistic phenomena to explain what we observe in science today'. Most people do the exact opposite they use science to explain phenomena....A phenomena is an event, it happens, it doesn`t explain anything, in fact it requires an explanation to be understood. Thus most people use science to explain phenomena rather than the other way round...To put it mathmaticaly in the sentence "I use naturalistic science to explain what we observe in phenomena today" phenomena and science are non-comutative....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 01-28-2002]