Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 421 of 614 (735146)
08-06-2014 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 413 by JonF
08-06-2014 7:35 AM


Fifth stupid knee-jerk unthinking straw man post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by JonF, posted 08-06-2014 7:35 AM JonF has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 422 of 614 (735147)
08-06-2014 9:30 AM


Well, there's some solace in having my prediction so thoroughly confirmed. Not much but some.

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by herebedragons, posted 08-06-2014 9:37 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 434 by NoNukes, posted 08-07-2014 12:21 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 435 by ringo, posted 08-07-2014 12:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 423 of 614 (735148)
08-06-2014 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 418 by Faith
08-06-2014 9:25 AM


So, Faith, are you telling us that those black rocks we call the Drakensberg basalts were not a result of volcanic action; just because no human witnessed them forming?
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 9:25 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 424 of 614 (735149)
08-06-2014 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 418 by Faith
08-06-2014 9:25 AM


quote:
Second stupid knee-jerk unthinking straw man post.
Oh, Faith you've written a lot more than two such posts here,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 9:25 AM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 425 of 614 (735150)
08-06-2014 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by Faith
08-06-2014 9:30 AM


Do you define "stupid knee-jerk unthinking straw man post" as anything that doesn't agree with you? Cause if that's the case, then yea, good prediction!

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 422 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 9:30 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by PaulK, posted 08-06-2014 9:43 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 426 of 614 (735151)
08-06-2014 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by Faith
08-05-2014 9:08 AM


Determining systematic errors in age measurements
I have to assume some sort of systematic error, that's all, that really isn't about time at all. If I ever figure it out I'll let you know.
Please do. Meanwhile please consider this post:
RAZD Message 403, systematic errors and tree rings.
And how would you test for such a systematic error, Faith?
Science tests for it with correlations to other systems, preferably ones that have known values ...
For instance tree rings ...
There are three Bristlecone pines, two living and one with a known date when it was cut down for the purpose of counting the tree rings.
Tree rings have varying thickness for different years due to the variations in climate, Thus we can compare these three trees to see if they have the same patterns year\ring after year\ring ... and they do.
Tree rings are observational evidence, the cores and sections are preserved so that others can count them and verify the results.
This confirms that the three trees precisely match each other, but we don't know (at this point) how accurate they are: could there be a systematic error that produces extra rings in each tree at the same time? Could there be a systematic error that produces no ring in each tree at the same time? How do we test those errors? There are several ways.
There is more, a lot more, should you wish to actually pursue this. If you want I can start a new thread on it.
Note that tree rings are used to calibrate 14C dating in order to remove systematic errors, so this is very much in line with what you are concerned with.
Now consider these terms and their meanings in this context:

Definitions

These are some definitions that I think will be useful in this discussion, as these terms have been, and will be, used frequently and I want to be sure we mean the same thing when they are used:
ac•cu•ra•cy(1)
[ak-yer-uh-see] noun, plural ac•cu•ra•cies.
  1. the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness.
  2. Chemistry, Physics. the extent to which a given measurement agrees with the standard value for that measurement. Compare precision (def 6).
  3. Mathematics . the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc. Compare precision (def 5).
In scientific use Accuracy means your ability to hit the bulls eye of a target. If we take a bow and shoot 200 arrows at a target, and all the arrow locations average out to a bull's eye, then the average result is very accurate, the closer they cluster to the bull's eye the greater the degree of accuracy, even though there may be significant error in any one shot and there may not even be a single bull's eye in the whole group. There could be a fairly large degree of scatter in the data and still have an accurate overall average result.
pre•ci•sion(2)
[pri-sizh-uhn] noun
  1. the state or quality of being precise.
  2. accuracy; exactness: to arrive at an estimate with precision.
  3. mechanical or scientific exactness: a lens ground with precision.
  4. punctiliousness; strictness: precision in one's business dealings.
  5. Mathematics . the degree to which the correctness of a quantity is expressed. Compare accuracy (def 3).
Again, in scientific usage Precision means the ability to replicate exactly the same results. With our bow and arrow example we now have 200 arrows all clustered very close together, but they may or may not be located near the bull's eye. There is very little scatter in this case, so it is highly precise, as the degree of scatter defines the precision.
As you can see these terms are not quite the same, and ideally we would like to have a system that is both accurate and precise.
con•cord•ance(3)
[kon-kawr-dns] noun
  1. agreement; concord; harmony: the concordance of the membership.
  2. an alphabetical index of the principal words of a book, as of the Bible, with a reference to the passage in which each occurs.
  3. an alphabetical index of subjects or topics.
  4. (in genetic studies) the degree of similarity in a pair of twins with respect to the presence or absence of a particular disease or trait.
concordance would be a general relationship between two or more factors that would result in similar but not identical results.
cor•re•la•tion(4)
[kawr-uh-ley-shuhn, kor-] noun
  1. mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.: Studies find a positive correlation between severity of illness and nutritional status of the patients. Synonyms: similarity, correspondence, matching; parallelism, equivalence; interdependence, interrelationship, interconnection.
  2. the act of correlating or state of being correlated.
  3. Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.
  4. Physiology . the interdependence or reciprocal relations of organs or functions.
  5. Geology . the demonstrable equivalence, in age or lithology, of two or more stratigraphic units, as formations or members of such.
Correlation means taking two or more systems and comparing them to see if they reflect similar results and this is usually shown graphically. Often a "best fit" mathematical curve can be derived to fit the data. A correlation is generally more precise than concordance.
cal•i•brate(5)
[kal-uh-breyt] verb (used with object), cal•i•brated, cal•i•brat•ing.
  1. to determine, check, or rectify the graduation of (any instrument giving quantitative measurements).
  2. to divide or mark with gradations, graduations, or other indexes of degree, quantity, etc., as on a thermometer, measuring cup, or the like.
  3. to determine the correct range for (an artillery gun, mortar, etc.) by observing where the fired projectile hits.
  4. to plan or devise (something) carefully so as to have a precise use, application, appeal, etc.: a sales strategy calibrated to rich investors.
Calibration means taking a precise correlation and determining what needs to be done to correct the precise result to obtain more accurate results. This can be discussed in greater detail later.
Another word applicable to this topic is consilience(6)
quote:
In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" to strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence are very strong on their own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus.
The principle is based on the unity of knowledge; measuring the same result by several different methods should lead to the same answer. For example, it should not matter whether one measures the distance between the Great Pyramids of Giza by laser range-finding, by satellite imaging, or with a meter stick - in all three cases, the answer should be approximately the same. For the same reason, different dating methods in geochronology should concur, a result in chemistry should not contradict a result in geology, etc.
Consilience means taking two or more systems that have strong correlations and showing how they all point to the same result, thus consilience is stronger than any single set of evidence, or single correlation between systems, in providing evidence of a trend or relationship being correct.
At this point we can say that tree rings are precise (we get the same results from three different trees), but we aren't sure of the accuracy. The next step would be to test the accuracy against known dates, yes?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:08 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 427 of 614 (735152)
08-06-2014 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by herebedragons
08-06-2014 9:37 AM


Be fair,, HBD, those posts are obviously self-descriptive. And on that interpretation they are absolutely true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by herebedragons, posted 08-06-2014 9:37 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 428 of 614 (735153)
08-06-2014 9:46 AM


Who would have thought that the quality of Faith's arguments could decline?

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 429 of 614 (735155)
08-06-2014 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by Faith
08-06-2014 12:18 AM


Since they've all been brainwashed into the Old Earth assumption they will of course agree, so that's how you get your consensus.
That must be why at the beginning of every science class I had, the instructor would swing a golden watch back and forth and say "The earth is old, the earth is old."

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 406 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 12:18 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by Pressie, posted 08-07-2014 4:59 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 430 of 614 (735196)
08-07-2014 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 429 by herebedragons
08-06-2014 10:02 AM


I got brainwashed by the rocks themselves!
I got brainwashed by the rocks, themselves, into concluding that the earth is very, very old. Just by logging a core through the Springbok Flats Coalfield in my second year at uni.
Faith, like all those creationists writing on religious websites, where he gets his so-called information from, struggles to distinguish between the words 'assumption' and 'conclusion'. Just like he struggles to distinguish between a basalt and a coal seam.
Wish they could learn the difference. But, seeing that Faith mentioned IQ's of 80, I doubt it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by herebedragons, posted 08-06-2014 10:02 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by JonF, posted 08-07-2014 7:30 AM Pressie has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 431 of 614 (735197)
08-07-2014 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 430 by Pressie
08-07-2014 4:59 AM


Re: I got brainwashed by the rocks themselves!
She's a she.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by Pressie, posted 08-07-2014 4:59 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1270 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


(1)
Message 432 of 614 (735199)
08-07-2014 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 394 by Faith
08-05-2014 9:17 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
I've been puzzled all along why this distinction between interpretive and observational science isn't obvious to you all.
I would say the issue is that all science is basically observational, because the processes we see today inform us of how the natural world works. This is how we understand the natural laws, and this is how we can look at sediment forming today and note that it has the same structure as sedimentary layers in the rocks, so we know how long they take to form. Anything which circumvents such processes is acting in contravention of natural laws. You describe your process of understanding as starting with the bible and everything must fit into this paradigm (apologies for the over simplification), and you describe the alternative as old earth (OE) interpretations as if we start with the conclusion that the earth must be old and try to fit the evidence into this paradigm. But this is completely opposite to how science functions. There was nothing inevitable about the age of the earth, it has just been gradually pushed further and further back as new observations came to light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:17 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by RAZD, posted 08-07-2014 8:14 AM Meddle has not replied
 Message 436 by herebedragons, posted 08-07-2014 1:10 PM Meddle has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 433 of 614 (735200)
08-07-2014 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by Meddle
08-07-2014 7:41 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
... There was nothing inevitable about the age of the earth, it has just been gradually pushed further and further back as new observations came to light.
As further observations refined the approximation of the age as invalidated concepts were corrected or discarded.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Meddle, posted 08-07-2014 7:41 AM Meddle has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 434 of 614 (735219)
08-07-2014 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Faith
08-06-2014 9:30 AM


Well, there's some solace in having my prediction so thoroughly confirmed.
Some prediction...
You posted the same old crap assertions about not being able to do science on old stuff and nobody bought it for about the eighteenth time. Then you act surprised.
That sequence of events is just about the definition of insanity.

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 422 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 9:30 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 435 of 614 (735221)
08-07-2014 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Faith
08-06-2014 9:30 AM


Faith writes:
Well, there's some solace in having my prediction so thoroughly confirmed.
Hm.... You're wrong today. You were wrong yesterday. You were wrong a week ago. You were wrong a year ago.
Based on these observations, I predict you will be wrong tomorrow.
I hope my predction is not confirmed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 9:30 AM Faith 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