|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Ken Ham in his debate with Bill Nye said we need to break science into two parts
And he wants us to discard "historical science" because "you weren't there" Or something like that (feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented this). So what is real science and do these two distinctions above really apply to sciences like paleontology and geology?
quote: Scientific method - Wikipedia
quote: Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : per commentby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
I don't think you can characterize historical science as an invention of creationists, see for example the paper cited by Roxrkool, Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
understood. the part for the creationists is the "you weren't there" precept.
now revised for clarity Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Thread copied here from the SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 998 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
As far as I am concerned, the notions of historical science versus observational science are rubbish terms thrown out by Creationists in a vain attempt to divert attention away from their nonsensical claims.
It's the functional equivalent of their micro-evolution and macro-evolution tirades. Adjusting goalposts and skirting the issues in a last-ditch effort to save face. There is only science. Period. End of story. And for the record, saying one believes in micro-evolution and not macro-evolution is the functional equivalent of saying that one believes in yards but does not believe in miles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As far as I am concerned, the notions of historical science versus observational science are rubbish terms thrown out by Creationists in a vain attempt to divert attention away from their nonsensical claims. Curiously, like microevolution and macroevolution, both these terms are used in science, albeit, again like microevolution and macroevolution, with specific meanings defined by science rather than the hopeless confusion of creationists.
It's the functional equivalent of their micro-evolution and macro-evolution tirades. Adjusting goalposts and skirting the issues in a last-ditch effort to save face. It's a way they tell themselves (we aren't fooled) that one type is inferior to the other and not to be trusted -- radiological dating, geological age geology and evolution are particular targets for obvious reasons.
There is only science. Period. End of story. And for the record, saying one believes in micro-evolution and not macro-evolution is the functional equivalent of saying that one believes in yards but does not believe in miles. Or parents but not remote ancestors. As far as I am concerned, if the scientific method is used, observations or objective evidence is reviewed, hypothesis are generated to explain the evidence\observations, predictions are made and tested, and the result reviewed to see if the hypothesis is valid or invalid, then science is being done -- whether it is in a recognized field of study or not is immaterial to the process of doing science. The scientific method has several steps:
Now perhaps Faith or one of our other creationists, including our newbies, will choose to enlighten me on what limits some areas of study from being science. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Deleted
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Faith,
Do you agree with the assessment above? If not why and what would you change? by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
Faith writes: Idiot. How sweet of you to notice! We can always count on you to raise the level of discourse here.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 998 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
LOL
So much for civilized discourse. Incidentally, isn't a flat out insult like that in violation of forum guidelines?
10. The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person. Just sayin'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Let's focus on the topic please rather than encouraging a shouting match
yes?by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.3 |
Incidentally, isn't a flat out insult like that in violation of forum guidelines? She is a creo they have different rules. You will notice she has been doing this a lot lately and no one has said a thing. I call it the creo exemption.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.3 |
Really?
You are going to chastise Diomedes? Wow!Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Practically everything we know of events comes from their effects, after the fact. From those effects we work our way back to the event.
In this sense there is no great qualitative difference between historical science and science examining present-day events.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From Message 88 on Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham you said:
All I'm interested in here is the general principle that creationists are not antiscientific and have no problem with actual testable science and that the false accusation of antiscience is due to the failure to recognize that there is a real difference between the sciences of the untestable unwitnessed prehistoric past and the HARD sciences where you can replicate and test their claims. This really should be acknowledged. So you are saying that if the science cannot replicate the observed phenomena that it isn't good science, and that all science needs to deal with witnessed phenomena -- is that fair? by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024