Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 136 of 614 (730497)
06-28-2014 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
06-27-2014 4:09 AM


Siccar Point was interpreted by one man looking at it and arriving at his conclusion. He argued others into accepting his conclusion. That's all there was to it.
What you are describing here is hypothesis formation which is simply the coming up with an explanation that fits the facts as they are known. Forming a hypothesis is only the very earliest part of the scientific method. Hypothesizing is the only part that I see you make attempts apply when you come up with Creationist explanations for geology. If geologist did no better than that, then I agree that your accusations would have basis.
To some extent, and I'd argue that to a large extent, the process of coming up with the hypothesis is largely irrelevant. I've seen people here saying the General Relativity is bogus because Einstein used thought experiments. But Einstein's thought experiments imply allowed him to see that there were errors in classical thinking. Einstein put in nearly a decade of work afterwards finding ways to rigorously and mathematically express the implications of his thought experiments, and yes some aesthetic considerations, before coming up with a set of equations that have been verified by countless experiments, and that explain phenomena Einstein never observed.
The process of coming up with the hypothesis is largely irrelevant to the success of the scientific method. It matters little whether the Bible, aesthetic considerations, or extrapolation is used. What matters is that the hypothesis explains what we see, and that the hypothesis is testable.
One might make similar observations about Darwin's work. Whatever criticisms one might make about the extent to which evolution is proven correct by the observations and thought processes of Charles Darwin as expressed in "Origin of Species", the basis for the acceptance of the theory of evolution is well beyond Darwin's work.
As for Siccar Point. I understand the issue for Creationists. Back in the 18th century, people largely accepted Hutton's hypothesis without much rigorous scientific method. But the real reason to accept Hutton's conclusions today is that they fit the evidence gained subsequently. It is entirely irrelevant today that there was no geological dating available in the 18th century. It is relevant that we know more about the geological processes, chemical, and physical processes are possible in the earth and what kinds of rocks form as a result of those processes.
And that's the basis on which I would counter your accusation that Siccar point represents just one man's opinion. That's simply not the state of geology today.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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 127 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 4:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 11:07 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 137 of 614 (730593)
06-29-2014 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Faith
06-27-2014 3:28 AM


Assertion: (Why bother with an Hypothesis?) Just by comparing two DNA strands it's possible to know the common ancestor of two different species and how long ago that common ancestor lived.
Assumption: The whole ToE, that is, all species are related, one descended from another.
Observation: Two different DNA strands, some portion thereof unidentified.
Method: Subjective interpretation of similarities between two different genomes.
Replication or testing: None possible, but if you know what one person's interpretation was then you can just have the same interpretation.
Evidence: None, it's all mental conjuring.
Conclusion: What a joke.
Which papers are you including in this review? Don't worry, I know you are just trying to frame it in such a way as to look bad rather than accurately describing the science.
Let's deconstruct this paper
Hypothesis: The clock-like accumulation of sequence differences in some genes provides an alternative method by which the mean divergence time can be estimated.
Estimates from single genes may have large statistical errors, but
multiple genes can be studied to obtain a more reliable estimate of
divergence time
Observation: 658 genes representing 207 species
Method: Calibrated the clock to a small number of known divergent times from fossil evidence and then used the clock to infer divergences of the other species and compare them to the fossil record dates.
Replication or testing: Here's how to find the genes we used go knock yourselves out.
Evidence: Here are the results of our statistical analysis based on hundreds of genes being compared.
Conclusion: The molecular clock is in broad agreement with radiometric/fossil dating, providing us with an alternative method to date divergences.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 3:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 138 of 614 (730626)
06-29-2014 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Faith
06-27-2014 3:28 AM


Siccar Point
I've got some time, let's look at this crap.
HISTORICAL SCIENCE:
Siccar Point:
Hypothesis: took millions of years to form.
Observation: vertical and horizontal sections of strata.
Reasoning/Assumption: upper horizontal section was laid down after lower vertical section was tilted.
Evidence: None
Replication or testing: Nothing to replicate or test. Other angular unconformities subjected to the same reasoning, also based on no evidence. It's all theory, no proof.
We can see what Hutton wrote about Siccar Point by the daring expedient of seeing what Hutton wrote about Siccar Point. This is so subtle and ingenious an idea that I'm not surprised Faith didn't think of it. As Hutton was a notoriously bad writer, I shall elucidate quotations from his book with my own notes.
So, what was Hutton actually up to? In his explorations of Scotland, he observed lower strata of schist with the bedding planes nearly vertical, and upper strata of sandstone and clay with the strata nearly horizontal:
From Portpatrick, on the west coast, to St Abb's Head, on the east, there is a tract of schistus mountains, in which the strata are generally much inclined, or approaching to the vertical situation [...] Such was the state of my mind, in relation to that subject:, when at Jedburgh upon a visit to a friend, after I had returned from Arran, and wrote the history of that journey; I there considered myself as among the horizontal strata which had first appeared after passing the Tweed, and before arriving at the Tiviot. The strata there, as in Berwickshire, which is their continuation to the east, are remarkably horizontal for Scotland; and they consist of alternated beds of sand-stone and marl, or argillaceous and micaceous strata.
This led Hutton to wonder as follows:
The question which we would wish to have solved is this; if the vertical strata had been broken and erected under the superincumbent horizontal strata; or if, after the vertical strata had been broken and erected, the horizontal strata had been deposited upon the vertical strata, then forming the bottom of the sea.
That is, did the sequence of events look like this:
(1) Deposition of the lower strata; deposition of the upper strata; uplift of the lower strata.
or like this:
(2) Deposition of the lower strata; uplift of the lower strata; erosion of the lower strata; deposition of the upper strata.
In favor of point (2) Hutton adduced the point that the upper strata were remarkably flat:
That strata, which are regular and horizontal in one place, should be found bended, broken, or disordered at another, is not uncommon; it is always found more or less in all our horizontal strata. Now, to what length this disordering operation might have been carried, among strata under others, without disturbing the order and continuity of those above, may perhaps be difficult to determine; but here, in this present case, is the greatest disturbance of the under strata, and a very great regularity among those above. Here at least is the most difficult case of this kind to conceive, if we are to suppose that the upper strata had been deposited before those below had been broken and erected.
He also wondered whether the erosion in sequence (2) took place above or beneath the sea. He reasoned that if it took place on land, water could have washed away the clasts; if it took place underwater and was followed by marine deposition of the upper strata, the clasts would still be there forming a very thick layer between the lower and the upper strata. While there were some clasts (confirming, incidentally, that the lower strata were lithified before they were eroded) there weren't enough of them to justify the latter hypothesis.
If this shall be admitted as a just view of the subject, it will be fair to suppose, that the disordered strata had been raised more or less above the surface of the ocean; that, by the effects of either rivers, winds, or tides, the surface of the vertical strata had been washed bare; and that this surface had been afterwards sunk below the influence of those destructive operations, and thus placed in a situation proper for the opposite effect, the accumulation of matter prepared and put in motion by the destroying causes.
Now it is obvious that both these points are best elucidated by looking at the surfaces of contact --- the unconformities --- between the upper and lower strata, where they are exposed in cross-section: which is what we can see at Siccar Point.
So Hutton writes about Siccar Point as follows:
But Siccar Point, we found a beautiful picture of this junction washed bare by the sea. The sand-stone strata are partly washed away, and partly remaining upon the ends of the vertical schistus; and, in many places, points of the schistus strata are seen standing up through among the sand-stone, the greatest part of which is worn away. Behind this again we have a natural section of those sand-stone strata, containing fragments of the schistus.
What makes Siccar Point particularly interesting, from the point of view of the history of science, is that it is, as Hutton says (in the title of the section in which he describes it) one of the "Observations made on purpose to elucidate the subject". That is, in his hands geology had finally attained such maturity as a subject that he and his friends could distinguish between hypotheses by going and looking at, indeed looking for evidence: they could say to themselves "If things were like this, then the unconformity will look like this, but if things were like that, then the unconformity will look like that --- so let us go and find the unconformity."
(If we compare even this primitive state of affairs with modern-day "flood geology", we can see that Hutton was already more of a scientist than the "flood geologists" ever will be.)
As to why Faith is so howlingly wrong about Siccar Point, I think we can clear her of actual malicious falsehood. As usual, she has been too lazy to find out what she's talking about, and too arrogant to realise that this disqualifies her from opening her big yap and talking about it.
And Faith, this is not the first time this has happened. Perhaps in future you might take steps to avoid it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 3:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 06-29-2014 3:45 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 2:06 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 139 of 614 (730660)
06-29-2014 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dr Adequate
06-29-2014 1:34 PM


Re: Siccar Point
I read an entire biography of Hutton which of course included his discussion of Siccar Point, as well as his ineptness at writing, and how the idea got discussed in the scientific clubs and picked up and popularized by Lyell, so you can't accuse me of being too lazy to find out about this.
I have to take a break but will try to give this some thought later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2014 1:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 140 of 614 (730707)
06-30-2014 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dr Adequate
06-29-2014 1:34 PM


Re: Siccar Point
The point is that there is no way to confirm what he concluded, it is ALL his own interpretation, it's a subjective judgment. There is nothing that can be tested, there is no hard evidence, it can only be submitted to others' subjective judgment. There is no way to know for sure if his judgment was correct. Was the order of the deposition as he surmises? There no way to know for sure. Can we be certain that the strata would always look as he surmised if the situation were as he surmised? There is really no way to know for sure. His thoughts may be reasonable, but a lot of hypotheses in science sound good until they are tested and his can't be. That's the difference between a historical and a testable science.
I did think it interesting, however, that he actually considered the possibility that the vertical strata had been broken and set upright while the upper horizontal strata were in place, something nobody here will admit as a possibility as I've brought it up many times.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2014 1:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2014 2:17 AM Faith has replied
 Message 145 by jar, posted 06-30-2014 9:09 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 146 by ringo, posted 06-30-2014 1:00 PM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 141 of 614 (730709)
06-30-2014 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
06-30-2014 2:06 AM


Re: Siccar Point
The point is that there is no way to confirm what he concluded, it is ALL his own interpretation, it's a subjective judgment. There is nothing that can be tested, there is no hard evidence, it can only be submitted to others' subjective judgment. There is no way to know for sure if his judgment was correct. Was the order of the deposition as he surmises? There no way to know for sure. Can we be certain that the strata would always look as he surmised if the situation were as he surmised? There is really no way to know for sure. His thoughts may be reasonable, but a lot of hypotheses in science sound good until they are tested and his can't be. That's the difference between a historical and a testable science.
But this is not true.
On the one hand, you have not argued for your assertions; and on the other hand, we can read what Hutton wrote.
I did think it interesting, however, that he actually considered the possibility that the vertical strata had been broken and set upright while the upper horizontal strata were in place, something nobody here will admit as a possibility as I've brought it up many times.
You great loony, we rejected your dumb hypothesis for the same reason Hutton rejected it with respect to his unconformity. We considered it, like him; like him, we saw that all the evidence was against it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 2:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 2:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 142 of 614 (730714)
06-30-2014 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dr Adequate
06-30-2014 2:17 AM


Re: Siccar Point
What I said is true.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2014 2:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2014 2:47 AM Faith has replied
 Message 144 by Pressie, posted 06-30-2014 8:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 143 of 614 (730717)
06-30-2014 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
06-30-2014 2:30 AM


Re: Siccar Point
Well, again, on the one hand we have your assertion, on the other hand, we have Hutton's book, which I quoted. Now plainly he is using evidence to test hypotheses, the exact thing you say he wasn't doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 2:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 3:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 144 of 614 (731799)
06-30-2014 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
06-30-2014 2:30 AM


Re: Siccar Point
I've got no clue about scissor point.
Could you give some explanation and opinions about your profound knowledge relating to all those different forms of contacts between the the Cape Supergroup and the Karoo Supergroup? It seems as if you studied them all extensively.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 2:30 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 145 of 614 (731800)
06-30-2014 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
06-30-2014 2:06 AM


Re: Siccar Point
I did think it interesting, however, that he actually considered the possibility that the vertical strata had been broken and set upright while the upper horizontal strata were in place, something nobody here will admit as a possibility as I've brought it up many times.
Yes, like us he considered it and since he could find no model, method or process that could do that he, like us, rejected it.
Now perhaps you can present the model, method, process that could do that?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 2:06 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 146 of 614 (731807)
06-30-2014 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
06-30-2014 2:06 AM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith writes:
There is nothing that can be tested....
and
Faith writes:
I did think it interesting, however, that he actually considered the possibility that the vertical strata had been broken and set upright while the upper horizontal strata were in place, something nobody here will admit as a possibility as I've brought it up many times.
It should be possible to test that hypothesis; all you'd need to do is get a chunk of similar strata and subject it to pressure in various amounts and various directions. If creationists can imagine a way that that could happen, why don't they do the experiment?

"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 2:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 3:44 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 147 of 614 (731811)
06-30-2014 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by ringo
06-30-2014 1:00 PM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith writes:
I did think it interesting, however, that he actually considered the possibility that the vertical strata had been broken and set upright while the upper horizontal strata were in place, something nobody here will admit as a possibility as I've brought it up many times.
Ringo writes:
It should be possible to test that hypothesis; all you'd need to do is get a chunk of similar strata and subject it to pressure in various amounts and various directions. If creationists can imagine a way that that could happen, why don't they do the experiment?
There may not be any creationists quite crazy enough to be interested in this idea except me. I pondered for years how to set up such an experiment and nothing really feasible or conclusive occurred to me. Finally a while back one occurred to me that seems to have potential. I described it somewhere here. I'd have to get organized, motivated, go to a crafts store for the materials, but maybe eventually I'll try it out. "A chunk of similar strata" is of course impossible if you mean real strata, but perhaps a collection of clays with something added for different textures would make a reasonable miniature stack of strata for such a test.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by ringo, posted 06-30-2014 1:00 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Coragyps, posted 06-30-2014 3:57 PM Faith has replied
 Message 198 by ringo, posted 07-02-2014 11:45 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 148 of 614 (731812)
06-30-2014 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Dr Adequate
06-30-2014 2:47 AM


Re: Siccar Point
Hutton's book is of course just a lengthy assertion in a sense. What you presented is so hard to read I can't easily break it down into the categories I had in mind, Observation, Evidence, etc, but that's what I'd like to do with any example of scientific thinking, historical or testable or whatever it should be called. Observation is involved in historical science so that term doesn't seem appropriate for the other kind of science.
The Geology that deals with the past is historical and interpretive though, it is different from testable science. It depends on what you're trying to prove what counts as evidence, so I'll concede that evidence is involved but it depends on the project. The thing that's missing is testability or replicability. You can of course go around and look at lots of angular unconformities and be convinced of Hutton's theory about how they were formed, but if you can't test it you could be wrong because all you have is the reasoning process, and of course "you weren't there," it was a one-time historical event and nobody saw it happen.
I think you ought to concede this, it's pretty obvious.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2014 2:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2014 5:51 PM Faith has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 149 of 614 (731813)
06-30-2014 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
06-30-2014 3:44 PM


Re: Siccar Point
Try out the angle of repose kit you already have first.....
Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 3:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 3:58 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 150 of 614 (731814)
06-30-2014 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Coragyps
06-30-2014 3:57 PM


Re: Siccar Point
If I get organized to do either one I'll do both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Coragyps, posted 06-30-2014 3:57 PM Coragyps 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