|
Author
|
Topic: What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 6 of 304 (356011)
10-11-2006 9:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by Buzsaw
10-11-2006 9:10 PM
|
|
Re: Narrowing The Definition
It seems to me that there is a tendency in eliteist science circles and educational institutions to narrow the definition of what is science to what is acceptable by the majority so as to maintain the hold secularists enjoy in the field of science. Sorry but just an unsupported assertion. The definition of science is really, really simple. One key factor is that you must be ready to abandon any and all beliefs. Second you must include and publish the data that does not support your position with the same zeal you publish what supports your position. To do science you MUST agree that the evidence rules.
In order to maintain this hold, any suggestion that intelligence higher than that relative to earth humankind must be rendered as religion having nothing to do with science. Of course, thank GOD.
Abe: We IDists believe there is enough viable evidence of the likelyhood of a higher intelligence existing in the universe to allow this as a possible factor in arriving at scientific hypotheses. Sorry, but any such suggestion simply proves you are not doing science.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2006 9:10 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 37 by iano, posted 10-13-2006 12:36 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 8 of 304 (356022)
10-11-2006 10:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by nwr
10-11-2006 9:36 PM
|
|
So VERY important.
That is, you must try to prove your beliefs wrong. Beliefs that cannot survive critical testing are not part of science. That is so important. Science is about eliminating what is not true. To do science you must honestly be as willing to disprove your belief as prove it. If someone approaches a subject like the alleged flood with the absolute conviction that it must be true, then it cannot be science. If they wish to include something untestable like some higher intellegence than it can not be science.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by nwr, posted 10-11-2006 9:36 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 13 of 304 (356033)
10-11-2006 11:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by Buzsaw
10-11-2006 10:49 PM
|
|
Re: Narrowing The Definition
Is the possibility of uniformitarianism forever as falsifiable as the possibility of a ww flood given the likelihood that atmospheric carbon, nitrogen, and other elements would not be uniform in a pre-flood atmosphere which could render the dating of pre-disaster organisms as appearing very old? Uniformitarian simply means that the processes are the same. You also seem to have a whole bunch of stuff just stuck in a sentence. Let's try to pase it.
Is the possibility of uniformitarianism forever as falsifiable... Of course the process of uniformitarianism can be falsified. Simply show evidence for some other process. Butr then you add...
... as the possibility of a ww flood given the likelihood that atmospheric carbon, nitrogen, and other elements would not be uniform in a pre-flood atmosphere ... But so far no one has ever shown any evidence for some recent world-wide flood. Sticking that in simply removes the sentence from the realm of science unless there was also accompaning evidence for some flood. Yet you go on and toss in the wild speculation that some other conditions existed in this imagined pre-flood period and then compound it with still more unsupported assertions that :
which could render the dating of pre-disaster organisms as appearing very old? buz writes: How about the possibility of other unknown disasters relative to element makeup of atmosphere and organisms at any given time tens of thousands to tens of millions of years ago rendering dating methods questionable? The possiblity means nothing, nada, zilch, zip. If though someone could provide evidence to support that it then becomes something worth spending time on.
Are IDist scientists who study the layering of sediments et al, oberving samples, recording the results of research done by means of photography, written data and comparisons with other data, publishing the data and forming a (Abe:WW )flood hypotheses on the basis of what they have observed et al doing science? No. They do not publish their material in the peer reviewed, science, process. Groups like ICR are simply not doing Science.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 10-11-2006 10:49 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 38 of 304 (356306)
10-13-2006 12:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by iano
10-13-2006 12:36 PM
|
|
Re: Narrowing The Definition
Says science. Regardless of what you believe is true, to do science you MUST be not just ready to abandon what you believed was true, you must try to prove what you thought true is false. Anything less is not science.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by iano, posted 10-13-2006 12:36 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 40 by iano, posted 10-13-2006 1:10 PM | | jar has replied | | | Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 10-13-2006 7:50 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 43 of 304 (356329)
10-13-2006 2:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by iano
10-13-2006 1:10 PM
|
|
Re: Narrowing The Definition
I'm sorry but your response has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said. In case you have forgotten what I said, here it is.
Says science. Regardless of what you believe is true, to do science you MUST be not just ready to abandon what you believed was true, you must try to prove what you thought true is false. Anything less is not science. Let's try to stay somewhat close to the topic which is, in case you have forgotten, "What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?".
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by iano, posted 10-13-2006 1:10 PM | | iano has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 47 of 304 (356382)
10-13-2006 7:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
10-13-2006 7:50 PM
|
|
Re: Narrowing The Definition
So as per the above can we all agree that this definition pretty much generally identifies what science is or have the modernist revisionists sought to change all that? No.
buz writes: The attempt to prove what you thought is true is certainly an important factor in science, but just because one fails to do that or hasn't yet gotten around to that aspect of science does not necessarily mean the science one IS doing is not science being done. Again, you simply show that you do NOT know what science is and love to misrepresent what others post. What I said and you even quoted was:
jar writes: .......you must try to prove what you thought true is false. ........Anything less is not science. To do science you must try to prove your assumption WRONG. But don't worry, the folk that were here from WAR didn't have a clue what science was either.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 10-13-2006 7:50 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 50 of 304 (356395)
10-13-2006 8:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by iano
10-13-2006 8:29 PM
|
|
Re: Is what science is a philosophy about what science is?
Yup, iano. Even our belief in the scientific method must be challenged and abandoned if a better method is demonstrated.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by iano, posted 10-13-2006 8:29 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 70 by iano, posted 10-14-2006 8:21 AM | | jar has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 55 of 304 (356402)
10-13-2006 9:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by Buzsaw
10-13-2006 9:41 PM
|
|
Re: Narrowing The Definition
OK I'll agree that that's an integral part of science. So when ICR goes out and studies the layering of the Grand Canyon sediment, taking samples, photographing significant portions, documenting and publishing the results, proving it wrong is an integral aspect of the science since they are looking for the pros and cons relative to their study. Sorry but ICR does not do science. They do NOT publish their studies in peer reviewed journals. Period.
They may also give reasons for the possibility of error in modern dating methods factoring in the possibility of a pre-flood undermined amount of certain elements in the atmosphere on the counterpart interpretation. Sorry, but unless they can show there was some pre-flood environment they are not doing science. They are free to try to do science, and personally I wish they would. If they did they would have abandoned the idea of some world-wide flood long ago.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 10-13-2006 9:41 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 10-13-2006 10:06 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 62 of 304 (356418)
10-13-2006 10:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by Buzsaw
10-13-2006 10:06 PM
|
|
Re: Narrowing The Definition
1. Can you document any conclusive definition of science that requires the publication in peer reviewed journals, perse when in fact they do publish for the public all the important data researched? Putting your information out in front of your peers is part of doing science. ICR does NOT do that.
2. Imo, the peer reviews and mainline secularist mainstream are not honestly trying to falsify when they deny alternative science findings and hypotheses from being included in their curricula? Okay. LOL. That's fine buz. You are welcome to your opinion. But that has nothing to do with what science is.
They do in fact show evidence of pre-flood environment which is rejected by the counterpart claims. So you assert buz. But it is not rejected by claims but rather because it does not stand up to peer review. Evidence is not saying some atmosphere must have been different. Evidence is not saying that there was some time without a rainbow. Evidence is not saying that there was some vapor canopy. We are trying to address what science is. As Lith once said to me, "Excluding data relevant to the study (positive or negative) is a big no no." That is what ICR and Wyatt and the rest of the pseudo-science crowd do. To do science ICR must start with the position that things like the flood MUST be abandoned if the evidence shows it did not happen. AbE: buz, maybe we can step through the definition one small step at a time? Would you like that? Edited by jar, : add suggestion
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by Buzsaw, posted 10-13-2006 10:06 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 64 by Buzsaw, posted 10-13-2006 11:43 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 67 of 304 (356431)
10-14-2006 12:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by Buzsaw
10-13-2006 11:43 PM
|
|
Re: Narrowing The Definition
You said:
The topic is not the quality of evidence as in your opinion. I was not discussing the quality of evidence. I said no evidence was presented. Making wild assertions is not evidence. You made an assertion, that there was a flood. The scientific method can be described as:
A process that is the basis for scientific inquiry. The scientific method follows a series of steps: (1) identify a problem you would like to solve, (2) formulate a hypothesis, (3) test the hypothesis, (4) collect and analyze the data, (5) make conclusions. So in this case, would you agree that the first step would be to identify the problem you want to solve, specifically, was there a world-wide flood within the period of recorded history?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by Buzsaw, posted 10-13-2006 11:43 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 198 of 304 (357615)
10-20-2006 12:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by Buzsaw
10-20-2006 12:17 AM
|
|
Re: ICR Statement
Exactly buz. They are unable to get honest accreditation and so turn to the mockery called TRACS. They are NOT doing science. They are a sham and a fraud. Only the most gullible cannot see that they are but a con game.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by Buzsaw, posted 10-20-2006 12:17 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 226 of 304 (357944)
10-21-2006 12:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 225 by RAZD
10-21-2006 11:45 AM
|
|
TRACS standards
We can learn a lot about TRACS standards by actually reading them. They begin:
Standards and Evaluative Criteria
1.1 The institution must have a Biblical Foundations Statement that includes
affirmations of tenets such as the following:
1.1.1 the Trinitarian nature of God;
1.1.2 the full deity and humanity of Christ;
1.1.3 the inerrancy and historicity of the Bible;
1.1.4 the divine work of non-evolutionary creation including persons in God's image;
1.1.5 the redemptive work of Jesus through his death and resurrection;
1.1.6 salvation by grace through faith;
1.1.7 the Second Coming of Christ;
1.1.8 the reality of heaven and hell;
1.1.9 the existence of Satan. This is the very first of their standards and comes right out and says that to be accredited the school must teach non-evolutionary creation. Looks like that since they have already arrived at the ultimate conclusion they have pretty much written off any chance of doing science or really any honest research at all. You can read their accreditation standards at this link You can also look at their benchmark here.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 225 by RAZD, posted 10-21-2006 11:45 AM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 299 of 304 (358988)
10-26-2006 11:18 AM
|
|
|
Science is Adversarial
There has been much discussion of whether or not peer review is a necessary component of doing science. I think the importance of the concept of review has been understated in this thread. IMHO one of the biggest reasons that Science and the Scientific Method has succeeded where other methods (Magic, ID, Biblical Creationism, Alchemy, Astrology) have not is the innate adversarial nature of Science and the Scientific Method. In Science, ideas are placed before other folk who then try to replicate or falsify the results. It is this adversarial process, every paper, every experiment is placed out in the marketplace of Science to be challenged, that is the secret to the success of the scientific-method. When ID or Biblical Creationism withhold certain parts of the process from challenge, for example the question of whether a world-wide flood even happened, they immediately stop doing science.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
™ Version 4.2