Ken Ham in his debate with Bill Nye said we need to break science into two parts
"Observational Science" -- where scientific experiments can be conducted in real time with testable predictions, etc etc ... referring to the application of the scientific method through the use of our senses and what we can measure, etc, and
"Historical Science" -- where experiments cannot be conducted in the past and thus cannot be properly tested ... and therefore -- according to creationists -- the scientific method cannot be used and results\observations cannot be taken as evidence.
And he wants us to discard "historical science" because "you weren't there"
Or something like that (feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented this).
So what is real science and do these two distinctions above really apply to sciences like paleontology and geology?
quote:Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. ...
In modern usage, "science" most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe. ...
Certainty and science
A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism. ...
quote:The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. ...
The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. ...
As far as I am concerned, the notions of historical science versus observational science are rubbish terms thrown out by Creationists in a vain attempt to divert attention away from their nonsensical claims.
It's the functional equivalent of their micro-evolution and macro-evolution tirades. Adjusting goalposts and skirting the issues in a last-ditch effort to save face.
There is only science. Period. End of story. And for the record, saying one believes in micro-evolution and not macro-evolution is the functional equivalent of saying that one believes in yards but does not believe in miles.
As far as I am concerned, the notions of historical science versus observational science are rubbish terms thrown out by Creationists in a vain attempt to divert attention away from their nonsensical claims.
Curiously, like microevolution and macroevolution, both these terms are used in science, albeit, again like microevolution and macroevolution, with specific meanings defined by science rather than the hopeless confusion of creationists.
It's the functional equivalent of their micro-evolution and macro-evolution tirades. Adjusting goalposts and skirting the issues in a last-ditch effort to save face.
It's a way they tell themselves (we aren't fooled) that one type is inferior to the other and not to be trusted -- radiological dating, geological age geology and evolution are particular targets for obvious reasons.
There is only science. Period. End of story. And for the record, saying one believes in micro-evolution and not macro-evolution is the functional equivalent of saying that one believes in yards but does not believe in miles.
Or parents but not remote ancestors.
As far as I am concerned, if the scientific method is used, observations or objective evidence is reviewed, hypothesis are generated to explain the evidence\observations, predictions are made and tested, and the result reviewed to see if the hypothesis is valid or invalid, then science is being done -- whether it is in a recognized field of study or not is immaterial to the process of doing science.
The scientific method has several steps:
Now perhaps Faith or one of our other creationists, including our newbies, will choose to enlighten me on what limits some areas of study from being science.
We can always count on you to raise the level of discourse here.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
All I'm interested in here is the general principle that creationists are not antiscientific and have no problem with actual testable science and that the false accusation of antiscience is due to the failure to recognize that there is a real difference between the sciences of the untestable unwitnessed prehistoric past and the HARD sciences where you can replicate and test their claims. This really should be acknowledged.
So you are saying that if the science cannot replicate the observed phenomena that it isn't good science, and that all science needs to deal with witnessed phenomena -- is that fair?
™ Version 4.2
