Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,223 Year: 5,480/9,624 Month: 505/323 Week: 2/143 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So I Wrote A Book On The Scientific Method
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1618 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 16 of 168 (730202)
06-25-2014 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-25-2014 1:14 AM


Good luck!
I will buy it and read it.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-25-2014 1:14 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 17 of 168 (730203)
06-25-2014 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-25-2014 1:14 AM


Glad to offer opinions
Since I am full of ... them. I'd enjoy trying to do a critical read.

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 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-25-2014 5:10 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 18 of 168 (730213)
06-25-2014 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-25-2014 1:14 AM


Hi Dr. A,
Could you send me a copy? Would love to read and give you some feedback.
BlowDevilUp@gmail.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-25-2014 1:14 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 168 (730216)
06-25-2014 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by herebedragons
06-25-2014 11:18 AM


Do you know what Ham actually said, because I find it hard to believe that he would openly, and distinctly admit that since it is so crucial to the YEC position.
I do not. The statement is likely to be only a slight exaggeration. My impression of Ham is that he is completely upfront and honest during debates. In that respect he's head and shoulders above that felon, Creationisth Hall of Famer, Hovind.
I cannot find a transcript of anything but the Q&A section of the debate, and that portion did not involve any back and forth between Nye and Ham.
Edited by NoNukes, : fix tag

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by herebedragons, posted 06-25-2014 11:18 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 1:24 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 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 1559 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

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 168 (730220)
06-25-2014 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
06-25-2014 1:25 PM


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.
I made the substance of my objection completely clear. You could not possible be this obtuse, so perhaps I accidentally typed my post in Latin.
No, upon review, I see that it is reasonably understandable English and includes an example of what might constitute a useful post. You are an idiot.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 1:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 2:36 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 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

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 168 (730228)
06-25-2014 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
06-25-2014 1:24 PM


Re: historical vs hard science
No one would argue that there are no distinctions between geology and physics. The question instead is whether geology is not science and is accordingly not fit for reaching scientific conclusions. The larger question is whether or not observation sciences have that problem.
The article you link to simply does not support such a conclusion. Since you cannot be bothered to show us how this link supports your or Ham's position, here is a quote from the conclusion showing that it does not.
quote:
In this account of geological reasoning I have argued that while geology depends in part on the classic deductive-nomological
method of the experimental sciences, geology is also distinguished by a discrete set of logical procedures. Viewing geology from
the perspective of physics skews our understanding of geological reasoning. Geology only partially lives up to the classic model of
scientific reasoning. But rather than viewing geology as somehow a lesser or derivative science, I have argued that geological reasoning
provides an outstanding model of another type of scientific reasoning based in the techniques of hermeneutics and those of the historical sciences. Geology is a preeminent example of a synthetic science, combining a variety of logical techniques in the solution of its problems.
Hardly an indictment of geology as a science. Your welcome to pick out whatever you think supports your position, but there really does not seem to be much here. I hope asking you to support your position isn't too onerous a request.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 1:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 4:27 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 168 (730232)
06-25-2014 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
06-25-2014 5:19 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.
But when I've briefly persuaded you to be honest on this subject, you have admitted that we can, for example infer living stegosauruses in the past from their bones in the present.
Faith writes:
I've also acknowledged that some things about the past are knowable such as the sorts of creatures that once lived.
In explaining the scientific method, then, it is my job to explain why and how this is the case, not to deny that it's the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 5:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 27 of 168 (730233)
06-25-2014 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
06-25-2014 6:15 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.
Except when you wish to make assertions about the past, when you post stuff like this:
Faith writes:
The worldwide billions of fossils are terrific evidence for a worldwide catastrophe that buried them all at one time; the strata could only have been formed in water, and their immensity and existence throughout the world suggest an immense and worldwide catastrophe. This is so obvious it takes dishonesty to deny it. Or stupidity.
When we point to terrestrial sediments with footprints in, and say that it's terrestrial, then all statements about the past are mere conjecture. When you wish to point to the same sediment and pretend that it's aqueous, this is so certain that it takes dishonesty to deny it. Sometimes, one standard is not enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 6:15 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by vimesey, posted 06-26-2014 5:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 168 (730234)
06-25-2014 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by NosyNed
06-25-2014 11:22 AM


Re: Glad to offer opinions
Since I am full of ... them. I'd enjoy trying to do a critical read.
Send me your email address. And I'll want your good opinions, not the ones about whether it's fun to glue dwarfs together.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 06-25-2014 11:22 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 168 (730236)
06-25-2014 5:13 PM


OK, that's nwr, NosyNed, NoNukes, CosmicChimp, and Tanypteryx.
Have I missed anyone who's volunteered so far? If not, that's enough people, thanks.
---
If I'm keeping count, I have emailed copies to Tanypteryx and CosmicChimp, who have supplied email addresses, but not to the others, who haven't. PM me, guys.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-25-2014 5:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 30 of 168 (730237)
06-25-2014 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Adequate
06-25-2014 5:13 PM


I repeat, that's enough people. Thanks. I have made the last exception I'm going to. (Modulous. You're welcome.) Beyond a certain point, it'll just become a nuisance to add more people and then wait to see what they say.
I think I've now emailed everyone except NoNukes and NosyNed, is that right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-25-2014 5:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-25-2014 9:02 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