Limits of Science

Its been addressed above, but I think its an important point - consistency of the evidence. There are only three reasons that spring to mind for the evidence to consistently point to the history that science has accepted:1) Its real.
2) Its a coincidence.
3) Its deception.Science rejects coincidences of this level, they are just so damn unlikely to be true. It could be true, which means the theory is still falsifiable, but every piece of evidence uncovered makes the coincidence explanation less and less likely.No evidence has been uncovered that would indicate deception.I'm wondering though, have you ever taken part in scientific practice. When I was studying physics the first thing I would have to do given any particular problem is to state my assumptions. You could fill half the page up with assumptions on a simple problem involving just a pulley system - are you suggesting that assumptions mean something is not scientific?The assumptions are supported by the evidence and not rejected by any of it. Thus they are kept until such a time as they are rejected.

I'm not sure how that relates to the section you quoted. I gave three reasons that I could think of that would explain the consistency of the independent lines of enquiry with regards to the history of earth. If you think there are other possibilities I'd like to hear them. I don't see what witnesses have to do with what I said. It means one thing: It gets removed by parsimony. Science doesn't propose more entities than are required to explain a phenomenon. It is irrelevant that many believe in the spriritual. Your hypothesis might be true, but any Omphalotic idea might be too. Until the idea has practical use, its not science.It might be a valid philosophy, but it is a philosophy that is different from science. Fortunately our assumptions either fall in that category, or most of them don't. The age of the earth for example is based on the assumption that the earth has proceeded in the past as it does today. We can test that today using an entirely different line of enquiry. If the entirely different line of enquiry produces the same result then either:1) The earth is that old
2) Its a coincidence.
3) Its deception.The more independent lines of enquiry that consistently give the same answers, the less likely it is to be coincidence.This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 12-April-2006 09:39 AM

I still don't see how this has anything to do with the three reasons I could think of for the multitude of independent lines of enquiry providing us with a consistent history. We don't have loads of evidence for the Omphalos hypothesis or its cousins - but there is no evidence against it. It is unfalsifiable.This is in stark contrast to the assumption of physical past.I'm confused by your challenge re 'proving it'. You are in the science fora not the maths fora. Science doesn't prove anything, it gives explanations with high levels of confidence which can be used to make predictions. Then the entirety of existence is a dream and only one entity exists. I have reduced my explanation to two entities (a dreamer and a dream), therefore my hypothesis is the strongest.That's not how it works. In your reality you have these entities of note:1) A physical present
2) A non-physical past
3) A mechanism/agent to transform these states
4) A fudge factor to line all the evidence up to present a consistent history.In mine:1) A four dimensional physical universe.In parsimony you shouldn't add entities without good reason. What reason do you have for piling these entities on? Since we are talking about science here, you'll need something along the lines of evidence. I don't claim that, I think you got it backwards. My evidence for a physical past is quite simple. We have radically different methods of dating that come to the same conclusion - so if the world wasn't the same in the past (ie spiritual) then the transition from spiritual to physical must have perfectly 'generated' a massive history. I don't believe in coincidences and I don't believe that a state transition from spiritual to physical would coincidentally invent a perfectly consistent history.Coincidence out the window, we are left with deception, or that the history is real. I don't say I don't need it. Some of your answers show that you are not understanding my position. If you are not clear on it, please ask questions. You'll have to explain how the old universe concept does not explain all the evidence or how it is falsified by some of it. That is essentially what the scientific philosophy is all about - developing explanations for what we see.You can create any alternative philosophy and it would remain as valid. For instance the spiritual/physical split philosophy. Its valid, but it is unfalsifiable - it proposes entities that leave no trace. Consistency. There's no reason for it. Either the universe is physically old or the evidence just happens to line up or some agent caused the evidence to line up. Pretending that its all coincidence that 10 different types of evidence point me as the guilty party in court would get me nowhere. Trying to say that an unknown and unidentifiable agent who left no evidence, framed me, would get me even less far.Science rejects these two lines of reasoning until some evidence of them is presented. Your number 4) is my number 2). The past must have been different in such a way as to coincidentally create a consistent billions of years long history...regardless of the method you use to test it. For the counter idea to have merit enough to be seriously considered by science (enough that the constant physical assumption could be in doubt) you'd need to explain how:Tree rings give us 10k years. How has the past changed to give us this picture?An entirely different series of physical phenomenon giving us 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in Antarctica. How radiometric dating gives us the same results. How genetic clocks point to the same direction. Why coral dating gives us the same history. There are many many more. (RAZD's dating thread for examples). They all involve different physical principles...so there is no reason for them to agree on their dates unless either some agent did it deliberately or their dates are accurate.Science uses parsimony discards uneccesary entites for which no evidence exists (ie no good reason). Our 'agent' is an entity that is cut away so we are left with a massive coincidence or an accurate age.As a side note you used the word 'unprovable'. Every single assumption that is ever made in science is unprovable, so this assumption is no different. Some assumptions that science makes can be show to be reasonable as above. Some assumptions cannot be shown to be reasonable without circular reasoning or the like. These axioms exist but they do not mean science is not science. If they all made the same type of mistake, that would a) be a gigantic coincidence or b) would result in wildly different inconsistent dates. The physical processes behind the different dating methods are radically different, so making the same mistake would not result in a consistent history. That is why emphasis has been placed on independent lines of evidence coming to the same conclusion...science is big on independent lines of evidence, and prehistoric sciences are no different. Yes, but that is because Omphalotic ideas don't actually explain (or use) the evidence, they basically just say it exists. Science explains evidence not just 'accounts' for it. If you can explain the evidence and develop a consistent history which, using your methodology, would lead me to the same conclusions, then you'll have yourself a fairly decent philosophy. I'm not saying otherwise. This isn't a philosophical pissing contest. You are saying that making a certain assumption in science is not scientific because it is baseless. My counter claim is that the assumption is valid from a science point of view because:1) There is no evidence to suggest the assumption is erroneous.
2) There is evidence that suggests the assumption is valid.

Testing something works along these lines.1. Assumption: The earth is old.
2. Evidence: radiometric dating
3: Testing: Find an alternative dating method and perform tests against radiometrically dated things. If this dating method agrees with radiometric dating our confidence is increased that the dates are accurate.
4: Repeat testing for as many alternative methods as you can5: Result: So far many many many many dating methods have been employed and they come back with results that agree with radiometric dating (and by extension each other).This is science. You don't have to agree with science, but disagreeing about whether it is science or not based on some alternate philosophy doesn't cut it I'm afraid. We can't prove gravity exists, we are just massively massively sure it does. After all - are you forgetting the Intelligent Pushers? Intelligent pusher I'm afraid. Alternatively they are all the deluded illusions of a coma victim, and they don't exist at all. This is the problem. You might consider it beyond reasonable doubt. I consider the age of the earth/universe etc as being beyond reasonable doubt. It seems one can hypothesis a spiritual early universe that manifested into physical form in order to demonstrate the doubt is not reasonable. By this reasoning I invoke the Intelligent Pusher hypothesis to do likewise.We can both agree such an argument is weak. The evidence that demonstrates an old earth/universe is massive, you don't think it is. That does not make it not science. We use science to test the recent past, but that is not scientific either - after all if I test something that happened 1,000 years ago, how can I be sure that the universe wasn't spiritual then and our history has become muddled and wrong...or were forged?What about one century ago, last Thursday? The argument that the universe was brought into physical being at some point in the past with the appearance of age is problematic. You seem to be picking one age arbitrarily, but any age might be the case by the same reasoning. They don't all seem like entities to me. How can ignoring the spritual known factor be an entity? Let's work through them.1)An unevidencable past, based solely on assumptionActually, that's your hypothesis. What I was putting forward was a universe that has a past which leaves evidence. So we're still in our 4-d universe model.2) A mechanism/agent where it was in a speck hot soup for no apparent reasonThat sounds like a theistic evolutionists position more than my own. I propose no agents but a 4-d universe, this 'speck hot soup' represents but one region of coordinates within this entity.3) A fudge factor to try to explain all from the imagined patAn entity! Fortunately science doesn't try to explain all things that have happened. It tries to develop the best explanations based on what evidence exists. Many events have happened that have left ambiguous evidence or the evidence of it has been destroyed or diluted. As such, my model does not contain a fudge factor that you describe.4) Predictions of the future based on the same assumptions of the same same same for no apparent reasonThat isn't an entity. The future, the past and the present are all part of the 4-d object I propose. If you think the reason isn't apparent I don't know what to say. One of the cornerstones of science is the ability to predict. If the universe's rules change our prediction will of course be wrong. We have no reason to suspect the rules will change, and if they were to change then we would not bee able to make predictions. As such we have a choice of producing tentative predictions based on what we know now, or makin no predictions.Science, as ever, opts for the pragmatic approach of making tentative predictions.5) Ignoring or denying the spiritual known factorNot an entity. Nor is the spiritual factor 'known'. So you have a God as one entity, then you have a creation by God which is in two parts which were once together but are now seperate. The evidence just happens to line up to indicate an old universe. So you have God, two states seperated from one another and a fudge factor for the dating evidence. Looks like more than one entity. Peculiarly I am not alone. Scientists, the people who practice science, agree with me that science does not end at some arbitrary time and there is an abundance of evidence from independent lines converging to the same history. Right, perfectly possible scenario. What we need to do is test to see if there are other methods that do not rely on the same physical processes that give dates that agree. We can also take an event that happened say 100,000 years ago (for example supernova 1987) and radiodate the emissions from that. We can take coral reefs, tree rings, genetic clock, ice cores, and so on and so forth and find they all agree.Either this convergence is a coincidence, by design, or it demonstrates something about the universe. I've provided the evidence, the massively accurate convergence of many indpendent lines of evidence that suggest the same thing. As always, since this is science, the conclusion is tentative - but right now its the best explanation for the evidence. If you'd like to present a better one, go for it. Remember not to add unfalsifiable entities for no reason (without evidence). Indeed, but any explanation for the universe can say 'the evidence is that it is here'. I of course was referring to internal indicators, since we only have what is within the universe as evidence that helps us piece together explanations about the universe. Couldn't agree more! My explanation has evidence, as provided. Your merged past has no supporting evidence. We need some kind of merging agent and at least one other agent to explain the convergent evidence for an old earth. Any evidence of their existence, or is it merely a fairy tale, as you call it? So, they grew pre split. No problem. I assume they grew at some other 'rate', which just happened (coincidentally) to give them same dates as some other process. Now, since this is science, consider your position in need of evidence. We need to know some test that we can perform that would seperate a tree growing through all the laws as we currently from a tree growing in this spirit realm?The rest of your explanations for the dates are the same kind of ad hoc stuff. The problem is not explaining an individual piece of evidence, that's easy - I could have guessed at the answers you gave. Your answer was basically "Things were different then". They avoided the central point I was making by tackling it all seperately.The central point was not 'explain this one thing, explain this other thing' it was 'explain how all these dramatically different physical processes were all different in the past in such a manner as to give the same results'. That's the evidence, the pattern of the whole, not each result on its own. Yes, they would be expected if it was only one type of clock we were using, but we aren't. Many different lines of converging evidence rejects your hypothesis. Maybe its still true, but it has one hell of a sequence of coincidence to account for. And this needs work. Are you suggesting now that the processes behind ice core build up and radioactive decay and corals and trees were all the same processes in this spirity world? This inverts your problem. Now we have sudden physical processes springing into existence that happen to agree with one another about how old they are. I am just going where the parsimonious solution to the evidence leads. The way of science really is to pick the simple solution (The dates line up because they are all right) rather than the solution filled with hypotheticals that are untestable (eg a spirit world that manifested with the appearance age). I think this might be a useful time to repeat the line I started on here. There is an abundance of evidence for an old universe beyond whatever arbitrary time you choose within the last 10,000 years or so. All this evidence agrees with all the other evidence. You have offered no explanation for this congruence that would indicate your model as being accurate.On the other hand, my explanation is parsimonious and explains all the evidence and is falsified by none. It even makes predictions which can be tested. This is not proof, but it is a strong indication that we might be on to something. Why abandon that line of enquiry just because of some hypothetical fairy land that some guy once thought of? Why abandon it because some other guy thinks that reality only exists as long as he has been in it, thus every piece of history beyond the past several decades is fallacious? Why abandon it for some idea that the physical and the spiritual were once joined and were seperated at some other time period?What evidence is there that any of this happened, or is it ad hoc reasoning? Which is why we propose tests of our assumption. We find an independent dating method. If we're right the dates should match up. Its a test, it will never prove our assumption valid, but assumptions are never proven valid. It will give us more and more confidence that the assumption is fair and produces consistent results. We certainly can't call that science. As it stands though, our assumptions have been tested in a variety of creative ways and the results are consistently supportive of the concept that our assumption is valid. That is science, in all its tentative glory.

One that is based on the evidence I listed below it. First you take one piece of evidence, it suggests the earth is old. You then test this using an entirely different line of evidence. If the two match you have supported {the earth is old}, the more independent tests the more supported it becomes. Are you suggesting then, that we cannot test anything to see if it might be true using a different line of evidence? It almost reads like you are suggesting that lots of evidence saying the same thing is somehow irrelevant. I don't think any court would find someone not guilty if their defense was "But you are testing on the assumption that I am guilty...".That's not how testing works. Testing works by saying 'if our concept is true, then we should see evidence from an independent source indicating the same thing. ' That's how we test our hypothesis that the earth is old. Agreed. It's a jolly good job I've been presenting evidence, then! That sounds like a thread for the Dates and Dating forum. Its a big topic in it's own right. I have already presented plenty of evidence here, and the most important piece of evidence: the pattern that emerges from the evidences. Such hubris! You think that I have spent so much time here and made so many posts without someone questioning my assumptions. It's the entire basis of debate here. That's kind of the point. I was denying gravity etc on the same grounds you are denying an old earth. Just picking any old piece of unfalsifiable hypothesis means I can deny just about anything. Its not a solid case, at all. We don't see the electricity. The light is generated by excited pixies that are tickled by electrons being pushed down the wires by the inteligent pusher. I'm using the same evidence, just different starting assumptions.You can keep repeating that assumptions about an old earth are unsupported. I have told you how science defines a supported assumption, and shown the old earth is tested to the same standards as any other aspect of science. Its up to you whether or not you want to tackle the evidence and the method of reaching conclusions from the evidence or just keep repeating your opinion about the subject.The latter is going to mean we are constantly repeating ourselves and the debate goes nowhere, might I advise against that? There are lots of threads which discuss the conclusions of Einstein's work in relativity. Check out some of recent the Big Bang threads in the Cosmology forum. We can't test that it's really Einstein's brain. We can't test that there ever was an Einstein. You are just assuming that the history you were taught in school is accurate. We have been brainwashed to think there is an Einstein! This is kind of refutation you are putting forward...you just pick an arbitrary cut off point of around 5,000 years ago. I could choose 5 generations ago as a cut off point and refute the concept that the Ancient Egyptians existed. I have shown the evidence, I have discussed in detail the overall pattern that the evidence reveals, and the consequences thereof. I have no qualms about the way you talk about the early universe. I was simply presenting to the the concept in terms of the model I was discussing. So what most people believe must be true? Sorry, I'm just describing the universe as Einstein saw it, simplified slightly. The universe simply exists as a single entity with 4 dimensional coordinates. Time is one of those coordinates. See the Cosmology forum for greater depth. Are you arguing from unacceptable consequences? I'm sorry that you are unnerved or upset or whatever about the consequences of thermodynamics and such revolutionary predictions as galaxies that are getting continuously closer to us one day colliding with us. No, I don't think your nuts, and I don't think I'm nuts. However, talking from a science point of view (we are in the science fora here), we have no objective evidence for it, only subjective feelings about the topic. From a science point of view we can't let what we believe to be true dictate what conclusions we reach. Glad we agree that I am not alone, contrary to what you oringally stated:

quote:

---

It is you and only you who claim science backs up your PO past!

---

Science doesn't work like that. We never KNOW anything in science. Science tests hypothesis, either falsifying them or supporting them. We can test the hypothesis that the earth is old. I think I was saying this same thing, simple. I then went on to make my point viz:

quote:

---

which just happened (coincidentally) to give them same dates as some other process

---

Its the pattern of coincidences that I'm really interested in, not ad hoc explanations. I can't, I didn't think you could either. You see the quandry? Your position is ad hoc. There is no evidence that would confirm it or falsify it, from a science point of view its entirely useless. I've only seen ad hoc explanations. I've not actually seen the evidence explained as a whole. There is no unifying principle to explain the whole sequence of coincidences. All you are saying is 'yeah, but logically it could have happened and we'd never know, all sciences evidences about it would be wrong'. I agree. But we can apply this kind of thinking to any element of science. Science tries to overcome these other philosophical ideas by employing a very good methodology.It might all be wrong, it is possible for you scenario to be true. That doesn't mean what is being done now isn't science. And tests to support my position. I have also put it to you that if daughter products were already there then the coincidence is that each element would have had to have a relatively different amount of daughter products. It would be one heck of a coincidence if they all just happened to have the perfect spread of daughter products to produce a consistent age reading. Its these kinds of coincidences that I have been trying to discuss with you. The point is the way that the dates taken from tree rings say the same thing as radioactive decays do. That's what you pass for a logical retort to someone asking for some evidence. you then ask If you haven't spotted my discussion in regard to how evidence is supported in science, and you missed it again in this post, I suggest you reread what I've been saying.

Is there a reason you replied 5 times with 5 single respsonses, rather than just once? Is your edit button broken? It's not circular reasoning. IF the past was physical only then we should see convergence of evidence giving a consistent age for the world. There is no reason to suspect convergence should occur if the past was not physical. Since convergence occurs this massively supports that the universe was physical only for many billions of years. I'm not sure that makes a whole lot of sense according to relativity. Try bringing this up the cosmology forums and see how far it gets you. You need to expand on this line of reasoning. Why should PO conclusions be as consistent as they are? This is science we are dealing with, the pattern must be explained. The most parsimonious explanation for consistent conclusions is that the past was PO and the universe is old.You have yet to put forward a better explanation that actually deals with the evidence rather than simply saying 'The past worked differently in some undefinable way. It was spiritual in nature, though there is no positive evidence to suggest this. Then for some reason the physical and spiritual split and normal laws of physics resumed'. Its not an explanation because it still does not deal with the most important issue, the consistent pattern of age, the independent dating methods that agree with one another to such an extent. You can try appealing to magic if you'd like. However, there is no need. The evidence does become less abundant over time, but that does not mean that evidence does not exist, and that they do not form a consistent pattern of dates.No magic need to be invoked, just simple science. Invoking magic is closer akin to your own explanation, not mine. OK, so you are now suggesting that that your alternative past scenario is not logical, it couldn't have happened and that science is not wrong? I doubt that.You have a unifying principle about spiritual past and future. Its very nice but it means nothing right now. Such things as a spiritual future/past unifying all things have no evidence that would suggest they are true. So we can answer the question of Is It Science? With...no.

---

If you do get reinstated to the science fora one day - we'll need to tackle (once and for all) this niggling issue of convergence of independent lines of evidence. It's the only way this debate can ever move forward, as I commented in Message 57. As it turns out you are making it look like you are not interested in debate, but instead want to repeat your opinion, and that's surely not an image you want to maintain.You've been suspended from the science fora - my own experience in such matters means I suspect you feel it is because your argument cannot be dealt with, so we suspend you. Let me assure you that the contrary is most definitely the case.