Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 151 of 614 (731823)
06-30-2014 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Faith
06-30-2014 3:56 PM


Re: Siccar Point
Hutton's book is of course just a lengthy assertion in a sense.
No.
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.
But manifestly geological ideas can be tested. They can be tested by looking at the evidence.
Hutton's reasoning gives a fine example of that.
* Hypothesis : The lower strata were turned round after the upper strata were deposited.
* Testable prediction : If that were the case the upper strata would have been disturbed by this process.
* Observation : The upper strata show absolutely no sign of this, even at the surface of contact between the lower and the upper strata.
* Conclusion : The hypothesis has been falsified.
(And if you wanted to go further, there are some experiments you can try, like seeing if you can find any way in which you can rotate lower strata without disturbing strata above them. Though in this case the mere application of common sense might be sufficient.)
Now I don't see how --- without pleading so special that it rides the short bus --- one could reject this conclusion but allow other inferences such as are used daily in our legal system, or indeed in our day-to-day lives. To the extent that we know anything, we know that the hypothesis has been falsified. A consistent epistemology that denied this would have to deny pretty much everything else as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 3:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 152 of 614 (731869)
07-01-2014 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dr Adequate
06-30-2014 5:51 PM


Re: Siccar Point
But manifestly geological ideas can be tested. They can be tested by looking at the evidence.
Not if the evidence has to be interpreted, which Siccar Point does.
Hutton's reasoning gives a fine example of that.
It's good enough reasoning for a hypothesis, but there is no place to go from there except just to persuade others that his hypothesis is correct That's the only test there is. People can go look at Siccar Point and follow his reasoning about it and figure he was right. That's far from the kind of test that allows you to actually see that DNA is a double helix.
Thanks for laying out the steps of the method as follows:
* Hypothesis : The lower strata were turned round after the upper strata were deposited.
* Testable prediction : If that were the case the upper strata would have been disturbed by this process.
* Observation : The upper strata show absolutely no sign of this, even at the surface of contact between the lower and the upper strata.
* Conclusion : The hypothesis has been falsified.
If the upper strata were just a few layers as they are now then you'd expect them to be disturbed. But if the strata were laid down originally to a great depth there would have been extreme pressure from the weight of the strata above and enough rigidity to resist the disturbance. That falsifies his conclusion.
(And if you wanted to go further, there are some experiments you can try, like seeing if you can find any way in which you can rotate lower strata without disturbing strata above them. Though in this case the mere application of common sense might be sufficient.)
I have an experiment in mind that I hope I will be able to set up eventually, using clay slabs for strata. The word "rotate" isn't a good one here though, it suggests lateral or horizontal twisting, but what happened is that the lower strata were buckled by lateral movement that pushed them into vertical folds, and then the upper rounded folds were worn away. In some cases they remain in their folded condition with horizontal strata on top of them. Lyell has some good illustrations of this process, even from the Siccar Point area.
Now I don't see how --- without pleading so special that it rides the short bus --- one could reject this conclusion but allow other inferences such as are used daily in our legal system, or indeed in our day-to-day lives. To the extent that we know anything, we know that the hypothesis has been falsified. A consistent epistemology that denied this would have to deny pretty much everything else as well.
NO idea what you are talking about here.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2014 5:51 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2014 7:01 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2014 7:22 AM Faith has replied
 Message 155 by herebedragons, posted 07-01-2014 9:04 AM Faith has replied
 Message 156 by Coyote, posted 07-01-2014 10:08 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 167 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-01-2014 1:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-01-2014 1:22 PM Faith has replied
 Message 176 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2014 4:12 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 210 by ringo, posted 07-02-2014 1:38 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 153 of 614 (731870)
07-01-2014 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
07-01-2014 6:50 AM


Re: Siccar Point
quote:
If the upper strata were just a few layers as they are now then you'd expect them to be disturbed. But if the strata were laid down originally to a great depth there would have been extreme pressure from the weight of the strata above and enough rigidity to resist the disturbance. That falsifies his conclusion.
Does this actually make sense to anyone ? Why wouldn't the greater pressure on the lower strata prevent them from being deformed, too ? And why is the transition from no disturbance to severe distortion so marked ? Pressure does not explain that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 154 of 614 (731874)
07-01-2014 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
07-01-2014 6:50 AM


Re: Siccar Point ... as the rock turns
If the upper strata were just a few layers as they are now then you'd expect them to be disturbed. But if the strata were laid down originally to a great depth there would have been extreme pressure from the weight of the strata above and enough rigidity to resist the disturbance. That falsifies his conclusion.
No it doesn't. Extreme pressure would not remove the debris caused by this turning motion, it would just grind and crush the particles smaller so you would have sand instead of gravel in the interface. This material is ABSENT and that is the critical problem to this hypothesis -- that is what makes the actual evidence invalidate the concept.
Increased pressure also does not account for the generally leveled surface of the turned material: there is no rational reason for such an end result of arbitrary turning a lower layer.
What shears off the top AND where did the sheared material go?
What causes the lower layer to turn but leaves the upper layers level? Magic?
Erosion explains it very simply: erosion of an exposed surface not only levels the top but transports the material away.
It also provides time separation between the turning of the lower layer to the deposition of the upper layer so no magic is needed to keep it from turning.
Not if the evidence has to be interpreted, which Siccar Point does.
You don't need to interpret whether there is debris or not -- it is observed that the debris is missing.
The BEST explanation covers ALL the evidence.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 11:01 AM RAZD has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 155 of 614 (731886)
07-01-2014 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
07-01-2014 6:50 AM


Re: Siccar Point
That's far from the kind of test that allows you to actually see that DNA is a double helix.
Is it? You do realize that no one has actually 'looked at' DNA and observed the double helix, don't you? That DNA is a double helix is inferred, not directly observed. Here is the x-ray diffraction from Rosalind Franklin's lab that gave Watson and Crick the final piece of evidence they needed to build their double helix model:
You do realize that you have to be able to interpret that x-ray diffraction, don't you? Do you see an obvious double helix in that image?
There was no direct, observable evidence of the double helix until 2012 when scientists from the University of Genoa developed a new technique that allowed them to capture an electron microscope image of the double helix. Here it is ...
Article here
Since you are convinced that DNA being a double helix IS a scientific fact that has undergone appropriate scientific reasoning, perhaps you could research this particular topic and see how it was determined that DNA is indeed a double helix.
We use inference and indirect evidence to understand things we cannot directly observe all the time.
That's the only test there is.
Just to be clear ... "test" isn't synonymous with controlled experiment.
What "experiments" can you point to that have convinced you that DNA is a double helix?
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 10:58 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 156 of 614 (731887)
07-01-2014 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
07-01-2014 6:50 AM


Re: Siccar Point
But manifestly geological ideas can be tested. They can be tested by looking at the evidence.
Not if the evidence has to be interpreted, which Siccar Point does.
You seem to think that "interpreted" means "automatically wrong" or something.
Or, maybe to be more precise, "automatically wrong if I don't like it."
Again, you have no business trying to do science. You're so far afield you shouldn't even attempt to think about science!
In fact, what you are doing is exactly the opposite of science!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:50 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by herebedragons, posted 07-01-2014 10:25 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 157 of 614 (731889)
07-01-2014 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Coyote
07-01-2014 10:08 AM


Re: Siccar Point
You seem to think that "interpreted" means "automatically wrong" or something.
Or, maybe to be more precise, "automatically wrong if I don't like it."
I take it to mean that ALL interpretations are equally valid, since they are "only"interpretations.
For example, that the Coconino sandstone was laid down by aeolian processes or by flood processes are both equally valid conclusions since both are "interpretations" and since no one was there to witness it.
What gets me is how some things that are based completely on inductive reasoning and indirect evidence are accepted while others that use directly observable evidence and deductive reasoning are rejected. This subjectivity is clearly the "I don't like it" bias.
In fact, what you are doing is exactly the opposite of science!
Yes, it is clearly apologetics. Again, IMO, the attempt at apologetics is just as bad as the attempt at science.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Coyote, posted 07-01-2014 10:08 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 158 of 614 (731893)
07-01-2014 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by herebedragons
07-01-2014 9:04 AM


Re: Siccar Point
Whatever the proofs of the double helix are, nobody disputed them because they were testable and replicable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by herebedragons, posted 07-01-2014 9:04 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-01-2014 1:53 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 159 of 614 (731894)
07-01-2014 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by RAZD
07-01-2014 7:22 AM


Re: Siccar Point ... as the rock turns
As long as all you have is "what WOULD have happened" you do not have a testable science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 07-01-2014 7:22 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 07-02-2014 7:23 AM Faith has replied
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2014 7:41 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 160 of 614 (731895)
07-01-2014 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by NoNukes
06-28-2014 3:06 PM


The state of geology today is mostly a matter of radiometric dating. Otherwise it's still the same science of interpretation of past events that cannot be tested or proved. Hutton's interpretation of Siccar Point is that the bottom part had to have been made vertical before the upper part was laid down, but there is no way to test that and I hope to prove it eventually with a real test, which I hope is possible for the idea that the lower strata were buckled while the upper were in place.
As for Darwin, his observations are all of microevolution and do not prove the ToE. His finches are just varieties of finches, his Galapagos turtles just a variety of the mainland turtles and so on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 06-28-2014 3:06 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Coyote, posted 07-01-2014 11:15 AM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 161 of 614 (731896)
07-01-2014 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
07-01-2014 11:07 AM


Amen!
The state of geology today is mostly a matter of radiometric dating. Otherwise it's still the same science of interpretation of past events that cannot be tested or proved. Hutton's interpretation of Siccar Point is that the bottom part had to have been made vertical before the upper part was laid down, but there is no way to test that and I hope to prove it eventually with a real test, which I hope is possible for the idea that the lower strata were buckled while the upper were in place.
As for Darwin, his observations are all of microevolution and do not prove the ToE. His finches are just varieties of finches, his Galapagos turtles just a variety of the mainland turtles and so on.
You forgot to say, "Amen!" after your post.
You really should add that, you know, as what you are doing is preaching, or as noted above, apologetics.
You should never entertain the idea that you are doing science of any kind. You are simply not qualified.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 11:07 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 11:19 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 162 of 614 (731898)
07-01-2014 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Coyote
07-01-2014 11:15 AM


Re: Amen!
HBD needs a good punch in the nose for calling science apologetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Coyote, posted 07-01-2014 11:15 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by NoNukes, posted 07-01-2014 11:36 AM Faith has replied
 Message 169 by herebedragons, posted 07-01-2014 1:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 614 (731899)
07-01-2014 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
07-01-2014 11:19 AM


Re: Amen!
HBD needs a good punch in the nose for calling science apologetics.
Do you know what apologetics is? My father used to teach the subject at a theological university. Apologetics is nothing to apologize for. If, in fact you were actually doing that, you are to be commended.

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 162 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 11:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 11:37 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 164 of 614 (731900)
07-01-2014 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by NoNukes
07-01-2014 11:36 AM


Re: Amen!
I've read a ton of apologetics, the point is that we're talking about science here and what I've said IS scientific and calling it apologetics deserves a punch in the nose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by NoNukes, posted 07-01-2014 11:36 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Coyote, posted 07-01-2014 11:46 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 166 by NoNukes, posted 07-01-2014 12:56 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 171 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-01-2014 2:01 PM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 165 of 614 (731901)
07-01-2014 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Faith
07-01-2014 11:37 AM


Re: Amen!
I've read a ton of apologetics, the point is that we're talking about science here and what I've said IS scientific and calling it apologetics deserves a punch in the nose.
What you are doing is not science. It is pure apologetics.
If you were doing science you would accept reliable evidence no matter the consequences. Instead you pick and choose the evidence you will accept based on a priori beliefs.
You have even admitted that the bible is your chief source of evidence, and that anything that contradicts it is wrong.
So no, you are not doing science no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 11:37 AM Faith 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