Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: anil dahar
Post Volume: Total: 919,516 Year: 6,773/9,624 Month: 113/238 Week: 30/83 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 1118 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 436 of 614 (735224)
08-07-2014 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by Meddle
08-07-2014 7:41 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
I would say the issue is that all science is basically observational,
I would add that all science is observational AND interpretive. It doesn't do any good to make an observation unless you can determine what that observation means. One of the examples I used to try and point this out was how the double helix of DNA was determined. Sure the observation was made of the x-ray diffraction pattern, but without being able to interpret that pattern, it is totally meaningless.
In fact, I would say that most science today, at least at the primary research level, is on phenomenon that we cannot directly observe but we observe the results of some treatment and those results always need to be interpreted.
The paper Faith cited (actually came from roxrcool) that to her seemed to say that geology was not a real science but was distinct as a historical science actually made the opposite point. The days of direct observation are pretty much gone, those discoveries have been worked out. Today's sciences rely on a tremendous amount of inductive reasoning, a skill that geology has perfected. The authors argued that for this reason, geology was a model for other sciences to follow. Far from the claim of being "inferior."
I can't find the source, if someone else remembers where it is link it, otherwise I may try to find it later.
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 432 by Meddle, posted 08-07-2014 7:41 AM Meddle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by petrophysics1, posted 08-07-2014 3:26 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 438 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-07-2014 7:01 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 439 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2014 7:47 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 437 of 614 (735229)
08-07-2014 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by herebedragons
08-07-2014 1:10 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
HBD,
I have not forgotten you but have been very busy and now we have another oil cranker in the Three Forks in N.Dakota.
I’ve read the paper you mentioned and got the same out of it except it is written by a university type. He doesn’t understand that ideas are TESTED every time we drill a well. I predict that if we drill here we will make a well, so my ideas about the past and what it looked like, along with other geologist’s, are TESTED every time an oil company drills a well. None of these ideas include a worldwide flood and they work very well. If someone has a better idea to make money I’m all ears.
Before we go on our oil hunting expedition I need you to do some work so I don’t leave you in the dust. I searched around and found some sites I want you to take a look at.
This is the first, short and sweet. Pay attention to telling the difference between current ripples and ripples caused by waves.
Indiana University Bloomington
This one shows you some of the different kinds of limestone. Look at these and ask yourself if you think they could all be caused by the same process.
Limestone - Sedimentary rocks
This is an excellent site, and shows you what the rocks look like in various places in numerous depositional environments. I want you to pay attention to cores and rocks that only occur in one place and those that could be formed in different places. You need to know these because we may have several explainations and we are going to use stratigraphy and Walther’s to figure out what actually happened. This will take some time, go to every environment click on it and know the rocks like your life depended on it. My family has lived for close to forty years because I know this like the back of my hand.
Page not found | The ODL drifters project
This last one is a bit more complex, but please read it for the background. I will be talking about this and can explain it further later. I don’t want you completely lost so a dipmeter is a borehole log which you can get the exact dip of crossbedding off of. These days we use an FMI which gives us a resistivity map of the borehole and from that we get the orientation of the bedding and crossbedding. Pay attention to the DIFFERENT environments of deposition and how they are different and the same.
Crain's Petrophysical Handbook | Login Page
I have to drive to NY now but will be back and you are going to look for oil with me.
P.S. haven't the time to check for spelling so live with it.
Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Fix first link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by herebedragons, posted 08-07-2014 1:10 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Pressie, posted 08-08-2014 7:54 AM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 445 by herebedragons, posted 08-11-2014 9:27 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3971
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 438 of 614 (735240)
08-07-2014 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by herebedragons
08-07-2014 1:10 PM


Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science
The paper Faith cited (actually came from roxrcool) that to her seemed to say that geology was not a real science but was distinct as a historical science actually made the opposite point. The days of direct observation are pretty much gone, those discoveries have been worked out. Today's sciences rely on a tremendous amount of inductive reasoning, a skill that geology has perfected. The authors argued that for this reason, geology was a model for other sciences to follow. Far from the claim of being "inferior."
I can't find the source, if someone else remembers where it is link it, otherwise I may try to find it later.
I think this is what you're looking for:
Error 404 -- Page Not Found | Bryn Mawr College
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by herebedragons, posted 08-07-2014 1:10 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 439 of 614 (735241)
08-07-2014 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by herebedragons
08-07-2014 1:10 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
The paper Faith cited (actually came from roxrcool) that to her seemed to say that geology was not a real science
Faith's point was that the paper acknowledged that other people held biology in lower regard as a science. Of course she took the point as being supportive of her efforts to dismiss all geology that is not Genesis friendly.
Today's sciences rely on a tremendous amount of inductive reasoning, a skill that geology has perfected
Inductive reasoning is because such reasoning is the only available strategy. We have to live with both the strength and weaknesses of such reasoning, the primary weakness being that nothing generalization is ever proven and no conclusion is inescapable.

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 436 by herebedragons, posted 08-07-2014 1:10 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Pressie
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 440 of 614 (735248)
08-08-2014 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by petrophysics1
08-07-2014 3:26 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
petrophysics1 writes:
I’ve read the paper you mentioned and got the same out of it except it is written by a university type.
I read about the author; he's a philospher; obviously not a scientist at all. Philosophy type; not a scientist type. He's never done a day's work in the natural sciences in his life.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by petrophysics1, posted 08-07-2014 3:26 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10304
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.3


(4)
Message 441 of 614 (735263)
08-08-2014 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by Faith
08-06-2014 12:18 AM


I think the distinction in the end comes down to whether there are witnesses or not.
Then it is an arbitrary distinction. There is no reason why eyewitness testimony is any better than other forms of empirical evidence. In fact, rapists have been exonerated by forensic evidence even though they were convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony.
Even worse, we can directly observe galaxies that are billions of lighyears away, and creationists still won't accept it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 12:18 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 442 of 614 (735294)
08-10-2014 2:00 PM


Besides the specific gaping flaws in this particular line of argument, it demonstrates a more general problem, a hollowness when you poke your finger into their arguments. No creationist has ever actually tried to construct an epistemology ... but they know what it would be like if they did, just as they know what flood geology would be like if only they could invent it: it would account for the fossil record, water would be involved. Well, it's the same thing here. They feel sure that there should be some way to rewrite the rules of scientific inquiry so as to rule out the bits of science that upset them but not the rest of it. But they can't actually think of one. Amongst themselves they can talk as though someone has, but when someone with any critical thinking skills --- even someone with any curiousity --- hears this sort of talk and starts asking questions, there's nothing there.

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by Stile, posted 08-11-2014 3:27 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 443 of 614 (735340)
08-11-2014 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2014 2:00 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
Amongst themselves they can talk as though someone has...
I think this is where a lot of these "new phrases" and ideas come from.
Although possible... I don't think some "creationist think-tank" is sitting around conniving about their next string of words that's going to wow science and allow them to force their way into mainstream thinking.
I think it's more that they have these conversations with themselves... already all agreeing... and one guy said something they really like.
Then another guy's talking to another guy and says "I heard this wonderful talk that explained everything... the guy mentioned the difference between observational science and historical science and it just all made so much sense!"
And then, boom! The meme is created and they're all talking about how observational science vs. historical science is such a great idea. How it "explains everything" and "makes sense" and should be taught in schools.
They just forget about actually explaining the "explains everything" part, or don't need to develop the specifics of how it actually "makes sense" because it already does make sense (to them...).
And then, well... then the whole group-confirmation thing kicks in and they're all so convinced they "have something" that no one ever stops to check if the details actually exist. Which is sort of the important part...
Then we start getting into the whole problem of indicating an issue, but they have so much emotionally invested at that point that any indication of issues is taken extremely personally and it's just brushed away as part of "that scientific conspiracy!!"
Edited by Stile, : Too many problems to list, but not so many that can't be fixed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2014 2:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-11-2014 3:59 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 444 of 614 (735344)
08-11-2014 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by Stile
08-11-2014 3:27 PM


I think they do a bit more deduction than you think, like:
P1) The Bible is the literal inerrant word of God.
P2) Science generally works in making advancements (so we cannot deny it outright)
P3) Some science contradicts what the Bible says.
C1) Since the Bible cannot be wrong, then there must be something wrong with the science that contradicts it.
C2) Since only some of the science must have something wrong with it (and we cannot deny it all), then there must be some difference between the science that contradicts and the science that does not.
They keep getting pushed back into a corner, because the questionable science that may contradict the Bible gets more and more undeniable. Also, most of the "claims" from the Bible that are wrong are about things in the past, so they end up with the distinction between good and bad science having something to do with claims about the past.
And viola - Historical science is the problem! Yeah, that's sounds right!
And then that's when the circle-jerking that you've noticed comes into play.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by Stile, posted 08-11-2014 3:27 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 1118 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 445 of 614 (735361)
08-11-2014 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by petrophysics1
08-07-2014 3:26 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Thanks petrophysics,
I too am really busy right now. I will look over those links as soon as I have the time, probably within the week.
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 437 by petrophysics1, posted 08-07-2014 3:26 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22954
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 446 of 614 (735939)
08-28-2014 9:31 AM


At her blog Faith posted what looks like a response to this thread on 8/12/2014:
The underlying foundation of Faith's attempt to dismiss science that is based upon ancient evidence is the difference between deduction and induction, but her real target is tentativity. She believes that conclusions reached through induction and the evidence used to reach those conclusions can be dismissed or disregarded simply because induction was involved.
But the distinction she draws between conclusions based upon ancient versus new evidence doesn't exist. The length of a skid mark in a traffic accident to determine speed involves an induction little different from the one used to determine duration of sedimentation from the thickness of a layer and its particle size.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by NoNukes, posted 08-28-2014 11:34 AM Percy has replied
 Message 449 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2014 2:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 447 of 614 (735943)
08-28-2014 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 446 by Percy
08-28-2014 9:31 AM


simply because induction was involved.
Except, of course, when it comes to her own conclusions. She thinks she can test the past but we cannot.
Just to be clear, when you talk about induction, are you talking about inductive reasoning? It is of course the case that such reasoning produces tentative results, but then when, in science, do we not use inductive reasoning. There is no other alternative.
ABE:
I meant that science must use inductive reasoning. I'm recovering from a day of looking through legal briefs. Sorry about that.
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 446 by Percy, posted 08-28-2014 9:31 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by Percy, posted 08-28-2014 1:31 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22954
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 448 of 614 (735952)
08-28-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by NoNukes
08-28-2014 11:34 AM


I'm not myself drawing any distinction between induction and inductive reasoning - have people been doing that in this thread?
Faith must believe that experiments conducted today under controlled conditions with no unknowns require no inductive reasoning, but since the conclusions must inevitably rely upon theories arrived at inductively that can never be so.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by NoNukes, posted 08-28-2014 11:34 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17919
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


(1)
Message 449 of 614 (735954)
08-28-2014 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by Percy
08-28-2014 9:31 AM


Of course, the hard sciences are full of inductive reasoning. EVERY "natural law" is identified by inductive reasoning because there is no other way to do it. Even the hardest science cannot proceed by deduction alone. That was settled a long time ago.
As usual, Faith doesn't understand what she is talking about,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Percy, posted 08-28-2014 9:31 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by edge, posted 08-28-2014 4:05 PM PaulK has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 450 of 614 (735958)
08-28-2014 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by PaulK
08-28-2014 2:36 PM


Of course, the hard sciences are full of inductive reasoning. EVERY "natural law" is identified by inductive reasoning because there is no other way to do it. Even the hardest science cannot proceed by deduction alone. That was settled a long time ago.
As usual, Faith doesn't understand what she is talking about,
Faith is one confused person.
I like this statement from Wikipedia's article on inductive reasoning:
"Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true.[4] Instead of being valid or invalid, inductive arguments are either strong or weak, which describes how probable it is that the conclusion is true.[5]"
It elucidates some of the differences between the way that we look at the world, allowing for uncertainty, whereas there can be no uncertainty for hard-core YECs. That is why they seem to adhere to deductive reasoning, since it is authoritative and derives from (guess what)... the Bible.
Further from Wikipedia:
While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.[1]
Note the phrase "supposed to be certain". This fits in with the entire viewpoint of YEC. The know that the Bible is absolute truth (and its interpretation is not questionable, of course).
This makes a mockery of the argument that YECs, who apparently adhere to 'deductive reasoning', and the certainty that it provides, are the 'open minded' ones; as opposed to the scientists who understand the tentativeness of inductive conclusions and have a willingness to entertain new ideas as data flow in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2014 2:36 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2014 4:54 PM edge has not replied
 Message 452 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2014 10:23 AM edge 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