SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.

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

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 BloomingtonThis 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 rocksThis 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 projectThis 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 PageI 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.

I think this is what you're looking for:Error 404 -- Page Not Found | Bryn Mawr CollegeMoose

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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: 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: 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.