|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 56 (9187 total) |
| |
Dave Sears | |
Total: 918,765 Year: 6,022/9,624 Month: 110/318 Week: 28/82 Day: 1/9 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1573 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In my mind, and in the sense that I use the term, Faith is retarded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22815 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
PaulK writes: In fairness I think that Faith is simply presenting her point very poorly. Facts are not evidence for a claim if they do not support that claim. I don't think so. First she said, "All it really means to say you can't prove something is that you don't have the evidence you claim to have." When it was pointed out that she was wrong and that we do have the evidence we say we have, unable to concede error she instead compounded it by insisting, "It isn't evidence if it doesn't lead to the conclusions you claim for it." She believes we have no evidence for what we claim, but since we obviously do have evidence for what we claim (even if we're wrong) she makes up a definition of evidence where it refers only to that which supports a claim. This is a common fallback tactic for Faith, to play word games when the evidence isn't in her favor. What is closest to what Faith said that happens to be true is that a claim can't be considered proven (successfully subjected to a technical testing process) until persuasive evidence has been gathered in its support. But Faith won't embrace a definition like this because it is just too obvious that science *has* gathered persuasive evidence in support of its claims, has, in effect, proven its claims.
Limestones do not normally build up as layers among layers, they had to have formed elsewhere and been transported and deposited as a layer. Water, of course, makes sedimentary layers; this is demonstrated in deltas and along the coastal margins.
Making up irrational excuses to cling to predetermined conclusions in the face of the evidence only shows that the evidence really does support a quite different conclusion. I couldn't extract any single unambiguous meaning from that passage from Faith (nor from most of the rest of her update). Maybe it is an irrational excuse, but maybe it's just a further reflection of her inner confusion. Having no clear picture in her own mind of what she thinks happened that isn't starkly in violation of the known laws of the universe, and having only a tenuous understanding of those laws anyway, she's left to utter vague inanities. When participating here Faith's posts follow an evolutionary pattern of gradual improvement over time as she weans out her weakest arguments, but all those lessons are forgotten when she returns to her blog. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1874 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I don't think so. First she said, "All it really means to say you can't prove something is that you don't have the evidence you claim to have." When it was pointed out that she was wrong and that we do have the evidence we say we have, unable to concede error she instead compounded it by insisting, "It isn't evidence if it doesn't lead to the conclusions you claim for it." She believes we have no evidence for what we claim, but since we obviously do have evidence for what we claim (even if we're wrong) she makes up a definition of evidence where it refers only to that which supports a claim. This is a common fallback tactic for Faith, to play word games when the evidence isn't in her favor.
I think that when Faith says that we have no evidence, she misspeaks. Facts are facts and they cannot be simply dismissed. I think what she means is that the interpretation of those facts is wrong. What is closest to what Faith said that happens to be true is that a claim can't be considered proven (successfully subjected to a technical testing process) until persuasive evidence has been gathered in its support. But Faith won't embrace a definition like this because it is just too obvious that science *has* gathered persuasive evidence in support of its claims, has, in effect, proven its claims. Never mind that she then fails to support that statement. It's an easy, throw-away argument: 'you have no evidence!' On the other hand, Faith does in deed provide no evidence other than feelings and made-up stories about how the world ought to be, with none of those stubborn little fact to stumble over. When she does present facts, such as her cross-sections of the GC and Colorado Plateau, she has no framework in which to interpret them, so they invariably end up supporting her addled opinion: e.g., all intrusive rocks are of the same age and since some cut the youngest sediments, then they all are young.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I think that when Faith says that we have no evidence, she misspeaks. Facts are facts and they cannot be simply dismissed. I think what she means is that the interpretation of those facts is wrong. Faith is wrong, but I think she is expressing herself properly. If the facts actually support both the scientific explanation as well as Faith's then the facts are not evidence for either proposition over the other. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2274 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Faith is wrong, but I think she is expressing herself properly. If the facts actually support both the scientific explanation as well as Faith's then the facts are not evidence for either proposition over the other. Interpretation must be derived from facts. As such, not all interpretations are of equal value. Some stem directly from the facts, while others...not so much. Faith has a long history of mis-interpretation of facts in order to arrive at her desired outcome. She twists, manipulates, and mis-represents facts to make her points, and most often she ignores facts which contradict her points. And then she tries to tell us how we should do science!Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22815 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
edge writes: I think that when Faith says that we have no evidence, she misspeaks. Facts are facts and they cannot be simply dismissed. I think what she means is that the interpretation of those facts is wrong. I suggested that to Faith back in Message 519:
Percy in Message 519 writes: ...so I think you must have meant to say that the evidence we have doesn't lead to the conclusions we claim,... In her answer in her update she reiterated her original statement:
Faith in her 9/8 Update writes: But of course, have it your way if you must but you know what I mean. It isn't evidence if it doesn't lead to the conclusions you claim for it. Having to defend offhand nonsensical things she's said actually works out well for Faith because it distracts time and attention away from the actual topic. And the reason she keeps coming up with and then defending nonsensical statements is because she wants to present a line of reasoning that concludes we're wrong, but she can't do that with the normal definitions, so she keeps nudging word definitions around until she can. Of course by inventing her own definitions even those who might otherwise be on her side can't tell what she's saying. --Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22815 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Faith has posted another update at her blog, see Finishing up the "Proof" and Untestable Past discussion, then search for "9/11 Update".
Proof was the original topic of Faith's blog post, but in her updates she's been gradually drifting away from that topic and more into geology. In this latest update she's completely abandoned the proof topic, repeating a few of her wackier geological claims as if they hadn't already been rebutted many times. The rebuttals can all be found in the Growing the Geologic Column, Continuation of Flood Discussion, and Why the Flood Never Happened threads. Concerning the topic of proof, I hope that at some point Faith will begin embracing normal word definitions and agree that evidence is evidence independent of whether anyone has drawn the right conclusions from it. It makes no sense to say, "Your evidence doesn't support your claims, therefore you have no evidence." This shouldn't even have to be explained. It's simple English. When scientists say they have proven something, all they mean is that they have supported their claims with evidence sufficiently persuasive to form a consensus. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10230 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Concerning the topic of proof, I hope that at some point Faith will begin embracing normal word definitions and agree that evidence is evidence independent of whether anyone has drawn the right conclusions from it. It makes no sense to say, "Your evidence doesn't support your claims, therefore you have no evidence." This shouldn't even have to be explained. It's simple English. What Faith needs to do is separate observations from evidence, and then show how each relates to the hypothesis AND the null hypothesis. Evidence is a set of observations that satisfies the hypothesis and disproves the null hypothesis. One of Faith's greatest weaknesses has always been her lack of a null hypothesis which means that she is unable to evidence her claims. In order to have evidence, there need to be potential observations that would be inconsistent with her hypothesis. As she has shown, she will claim that any and all geologic observations are consistent with a flood, no matter what. She can not describe the features a geologic formation would need to have in order to satisfy the null hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22815 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Taq writes: Evidence is a set of observations that satisfies the hypothesis and disproves the null hypothesis. Expressed this way, it's consistent with what Faith is saying. Putting it in your terms, she's saying that evidence that does not satisfy the hypothesis and does not disprove the null hypothesis is not evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
When scientists say they have proven something How often do scientists even bother with the word proof? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1874 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22815 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
NoNukes writes: How often do scientists even bother with the word proof? Faith included "proof" in her blog title, but I don't think you often see that word in science writing unless it's about math. I'm thinking mainly about uses of the words "prove" and "proven" and "proving" in science writing, whether by scientists or science writers. Since I wince every time I see those words in a science article, I'd say they occur much more often than they should. Here's an example from Were the Dinosaurs Really Wiped Out by an Asteroid? Possibly Not:
Universe Today writes: Gerta Keller of Princeton University in New Jersey, and Thierry Adatte of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, are set to publish this new work in the Journal of the Geological Society today, using data from the analysis of sediment from Mexico to prove the asteroid impact pre-dated the K-T boundary by as much as 300,000 years. So what does O'Neill mean when he writes that Keller proved the asteroid impact occurred as much as 300,000 years before the K-T boundary? Using the definition I've offered it means that Keller has provided evidence sufficient to produce a consensus. Since I doubt he's done any such thing (since 5 years later the debate rages on), what O'Neill means is something slighter weaker, that Keller has provided strong evidence in support of his contention. So when Faith says we can't prove anything about the "untestable past," then if she's using the word "prove" in the same way that science writers use the "prove" she can only mean that we can't provide strong evidence in support of our claims about the past. Of course that makes no sense, which is why Faith is now attempting to redefine the word "evidence." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Faith uses "prove" in the Ken Ham sense.
It is a given that the Bible is the truth and the undisputable Word of God in literal form, and that science is tentative and definitely in error when it contradicts the Bible. Therefore the truth can easily lie in whatever uncertainty that exists in scientific results and only mathematical proof from Biblical premises can remove all uncertainty. Maybe not even that. Even if you demonstrate that one of Faith's scenarios is wrong, that simply means that a different, Bible supported scenario is correct even if she cannot come up with it now or ever.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22815 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
NoNukes writes: Faith uses "prove" in the Ken Ham sense. 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. My best guess of what you're saying is that because Faith believes nothing can contradict the Bible, evidence proving the Bible wrong cannot exist. Therefore we can have no such evidence, and therefore she's justified in claiming that we have no evidence. This is self evidently irrational, but as I said, that interpretation is just a guess. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1874 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024