Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,243 Year: 5,500/9,624 Month: 525/323 Week: 22/143 Day: 12/10 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   So I Wrote A Book On The Scientific Method
ramoss
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 31 of 168 (730238)
06-25-2014 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Stile
06-25-2014 10:05 AM


I have been Well, a comic book at least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Stile, posted 06-25-2014 10:05 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 32 of 168 (730239)
06-25-2014 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
06-25-2014 5:58 PM


And that should be everyone.
---
I have been mentioned in a published book. Alas, I am by no means the only one to have been recognized in this way by the phone company, and I feel that this cheapens the honor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-25-2014 5:58 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 168 (730240)
06-25-2014 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
06-25-2014 4:27 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.
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.

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 25 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 4:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 06-26-2014 1:55 AM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 10:13 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 34 of 168 (730250)
06-26-2014 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
06-25-2014 9:58 PM


Re: historical vs hard science
Even the position that the paper is arguing against doesn't come close to Faith's claims. Arguing that geology is a comparatively "soft" science compared to physics is a long way from arguing that it isn't science at all. Faith's use of it is tantamount to admitting that she has no case.

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

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 188 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 35 of 168 (730298)
06-26-2014 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dr Adequate
06-25-2014 5:09 PM


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.
My 18 year old son would have said "pwned !"
I think you might appreciate my "Well played, sir !" a little more :-)

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-25-2014 5:09 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


(1)
Message 36 of 168 (730380)
06-27-2014 5:12 PM


20 % In
I haven't yet been reading to suggest changes but I'm about 20 % through and at this point I would buy this book if it was in a book store. Everyone here could learn something from this however aware they think they are.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 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

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


Message 38 of 168 (730671)
06-29-2014 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-25-2014 1:14 AM


Dr. A, should I just forgo any punctuation or spelling? Do you have any time to discuss in spoken English some of the details I'm finding? Skype maybe? If not, should I PM or just post here on thread? Am only at 6 so far but should get a little faster as I put the PDF on my Kobo e-reader.

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 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2014 7:23 PM CosmicChimp has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 39 of 168 (730673)
06-29-2014 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
06-27-2014 10:13 PM


Re: historical vs hard science
quote:
The case was that the paper acknowledges a general opinion that Geology is a historical and interpretive science and therefore inferior.
That it was wrongly viewed as "inferior" to Physics, the "hardest" of the sciences.
quote:
He thinks it nevertheless makes for an interesting PHILOSOPHY, not so much a science
That is an outright misrepresentation.
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.
The author thinks that geology is good science, based on sound reasoning. That is a LONG way from the view that you propose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 10:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 2:00 AM PaulK has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 168 (730685)
06-29-2014 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by CosmicChimp
06-29-2014 5:21 PM


Dr. A, should I just forgo any punctuation or spelling? Do you have any time to discuss in spoken English some of the details I'm finding? Skype maybe? If not, should I PM or just post here on thread? Am only at 6 so far but should get a little faster as I put the PDF on my Kobo e-reader.
It's as well to have it properly spelled and punctuated, it makes me look like I know what I'm doing. It's terribly hard to proof-read one's own work, though I did read the whole thing out loud, which is a big help.
You can skype me if you want, PM me, email me, whatever suits you best.
How are you liking it so far?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by CosmicChimp, posted 06-29-2014 5:21 PM CosmicChimp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by CosmicChimp, posted 07-07-2014 8:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 42 of 168 (730711)
06-30-2014 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
06-30-2014 2:00 AM


Re: historical vs hard science
quote:
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.
I would say that claiming to have read it is stretching the truth a little, then. While the quote came from the conclusion there is similar material in the introduction.
quote:
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.
But even so that view still accepts geology as a valid science, and does not endorse creationist criticisms to anything like the degree that would be useful to your case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 2:00 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 2:27 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 44 of 168 (730716)
06-30-2014 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
06-30-2014 2:27 AM


Re: historical vs hard science
In other words that paper doesn't provide any real help to your position. So why bother to cite it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 2:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 45 of 168 (732377)
07-07-2014 12:51 AM


You've all gone very quite. Is that the sound of awed silence, or ... ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 07-13-2014 4:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024