Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,282 Year: 5,539/9,624 Month: 564/323 Week: 61/143 Day: 4/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So I Wrote A Book On The Scientific Method
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 4 of 168 (730185)
06-25-2014 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-25-2014 1:14 AM


I hope you are honest about the fact that the historical sciences that purport to know things about the past, that can't be known because they can't be tested, aren't really subject to scientific method.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-25-2014 1:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2014 5:59 AM Faith has replied
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 06-25-2014 9:48 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-25-2014 5:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 6 of 168 (730187)
06-25-2014 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
06-25-2014 5:59 AM


By now you ought to know that I'm deadly serious about this, am certainly not being dishonest, believe it absolutely that historical science is not testable science but just a tissue of assumptions and conjectures.
Why don't we try to prove some tenet of historical science and see if we can find out just how it conforms or doesn't conform to scientific method. Take Siccar Point perhaps, or the Great Unconformity in the GC, or you pick one.
Here is a Wikipedia article on Scientific Method for reference, or offer one of your own.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2014 5:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2014 6:22 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 8 by jar, posted 06-25-2014 8:48 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 06-25-2014 10:49 AM Faith has replied
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-25-2014 5:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 20 of 168 (730217)
06-25-2014 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NoNukes
06-25-2014 1:16 PM


historical vs hard science
Let me guess that all Ham was saying was that it was creationists who RECOGNIZED or made an issue of the difference between the hard sciences and historical science.
But he wouldn't be quite right about that anyway. I'll post this again, which is a noncreationist article that makes it clear there has been some controversy within establishment scientific circles about Geology as a historical science, that is, lacking real scientific legitimacy. This was posted by roxrkool some time ago, and she herself said something at the time in defense of Geology as a historical type science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 06-25-2014 1:16 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 06-25-2014 4:13 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 168 (730218)
06-25-2014 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NoNukes
06-25-2014 10:49 AM


The link I posted is a general presentation of the Scientific Method which I thought would help give structure to any discussion on the subject, so I don't get what you are objecting to.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 06-25-2014 10:49 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 06-25-2014 2:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 168 (730222)
06-25-2014 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
06-25-2014 2:29 PM


Your objection is idiotic. The article on Scientific Method is what I wanted. Yours is taken into consideration as well. So what.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 06-25-2014 2:29 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 25 of 168 (730229)
06-25-2014 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
06-25-2014 4:13 PM


Re: historical vs hard science
All the link was for was to demonstrate that Geology has been considered an inferior science because it's historical and interpretive. The author is making some point of his own about historical science as a philosophy. I'm not interested in his opinion, only in his pointing to the historical distinction, which shows that it is not a creationist invention. I hope that is clarifying.
I do not want to argue the question of the validity of the historical methods on this thread.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 06-25-2014 4:13 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 06-25-2014 9:58 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 168 (730390)
06-27-2014 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
06-25-2014 9:58 PM


Re: historical vs hard science
Your claim was that it was an example of someone other than a person on AIG's payroll who agreed with Ham.
And as the quote I provided indicates, the paper does not make the case for geology being an inferior science, or being unable to discern things from the past.
If you've got a case showing otherwise, then make it.
The case was that the paper acknowledges a general opinion that Geology is a historical and interpretive science and therefore inferior. He thinks it nevertheless makes for an interesting PHILOSOPHY, not so much a science, but that was not the point of the reference. Since it doesn't matter what I say about anything, how about if Percy says it instead, as he does
HERE
ABE to quote Percy:
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
And now I would like to stop posting in this thread.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 06-25-2014 9:58 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2014 5:40 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 41 of 168 (730706)
06-30-2014 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by PaulK
06-29-2014 5:40 PM


Re: historical vs hard science
I read it to be defending it as a philosophy but I wasn't interested in his opinion and apparently from your quote he justified it as a science as well. The point that interested me was only that as an historical and interpretive science it had been regarded as inferior to the hard sciences, which means that its being a historical and interpretive science, or inferior science for that reason, was not made up by creationists. That was my point and it is true. And just because this writer makes a case for it doesn't mean he is right.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2014 5:40 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2014 2:24 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 43 of 168 (730712)
06-30-2014 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by PaulK
06-30-2014 2:24 AM


Re: historical vs hard science
It doesn't endorse creationist anything. What it does is affirm that the science of Geology has had a reputation among scientists as inferior because it's historical and interpretive. PERIOD. And yes, this is all shown in the first part of the paper.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2014 2:24 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2014 2:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(3)
Message 135 of 168 (735646)
08-20-2014 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dr Adequate
08-20-2014 9:44 AM


Hi, Dr. A. I don't know how much experience you've had with publishers, and my own is rather outdated, but unless things have changed drastically in the last thirty to forty-odd years, once your manuscript is accepted you can expect to get tons of expert help with it. A good editor will check every detail for accuracy and be knowledgeable about the trends in the field and their publishing history. It's always good to submit the best draft you can muster of course, but don't expect to present the publisher with a finished product. It can happen but it would be unusual. I wish you the best with your book, and especially that you find the perfect publisher.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2014 9:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2014 12:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 137 of 168 (735649)
08-20-2014 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Dr Adequate
08-20-2014 12:07 PM


Put all that in your cover letter. (I'm confident it will be accepted by the right publisher, though you may have to search some).
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2014 12:07 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024