Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 536 of 614 (736740)
09-12-2014 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by NoNukes
09-12-2014 3:34 PM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
How often do scientists even bother with the word proof?
Good question. It may be more than you think.
In the natural resources business, the concept of 'proven reserves' has a long and checkered history. That is partly due to unscrupulous operators, but also to a lack of consistent definition. Only in recent years have they tried to tighten up the restrictions to make them more rigid and yet transparent to the public.
In another sense, I could say that I have proven the source of a gravity anomaly by drilling into a particular rock type and feel pretty certain that I'm correct. However, someone else may have a different standard for proof, because one data point might be insufficient.
And then there are some people who are just overconfident and feel that anything they do is proof positive.
To me, the key word is 'certainty', and in the context of this discussion, the problem is that faith provides a level of certainty that can never be matched by mere data and the principles we use to interpret them. YECs want absolute proof because that is what they think they already have; and there's no going back on that.
And that is why they can glibly say that 'you have no evidence', or 'your interpretation is wrong' and (in their own mind) get away with it.
And so it goes...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2014 3:34 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 540 of 614 (736795)
09-13-2014 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 539 by Percy
09-13-2014 8:54 AM


Re: Faith Posts a 9/11 Update
I don't know what the "Ken Ham sense" of the word "prove" is. A Google search didn't find anything that helped me find the answer.
I has to be something absolute.
I think we probably have some kind of idea what Ken Ham thinks about 'proof', but it's hard to get a handle on it. Maybe it has to be something that supports an absolute truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by Percy, posted 09-13-2014 8:54 AM Percy has seen this message but 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