This thread is a result of some of the discussion which has occured in the
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Fact or Fiction thread. It has become clear to me that it is impossible to productively discuss the credibility of theories like Catastrophic Plate Tectonics with misunderstandings of
what is the nature of evidence and how theories are hypothesized, built, justified, and ultimately accepted.
I have repeatedly read the statement, "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics has no evidence", and numerous veriations of the claim implying a complete void of what has been termed "evidence".
One exchange with Percy went as follows:
quote:
Percy:...you have no evidence CPT conditions have ever occurred. Start with evidence, Chris. Find evidence that says, "This demands that the continents moved rapidly." Stop trying to shoehorn the evidence into the Biblical myth.
Me in response:...I have accurately stated several times that you are not looking for evidence for CPT, you are looking for evidence (data) that can be explained by CPT and NOT by modern geology. I have also argued that the modern uniformitarian view of geology has a remarkable ability to continue molding itself, modifying auxilliary hypotheses after another without the ultimate theory suffering variations in the degree of confirmation/credibility--how could you not with all that time? Modern geology is specified to the point where it rather fails the virtue of refutability in the philosophy of science. This virtue of theories is a matter of degree measured by the cost of retaining the hypothesis in the face of imaginable events. The degree is measured by how clearly we cherish the previous beliefs that would have to be sacrificed to save the hypothesis. The greater the sacrifice, the more refutable the hypothesis. Modern geology gives very little sacrifice--so much so that it would require something like finding a human skull in cambrian rock record to even begin to be questioned. In fact, I can't think of too many other imaginable events except like anomalies in the fossil record that would be considered candidates for disconfirming evidence. So much more of modern geology's survivability is in the virtue of conservism and generality than in refutability. Furthermore in the context of our discussion, those imaginable events should be formulated while also considering the predictions of CPT. The reason the human skull example is considerable is because this 'anomaly' is an imaginable event that would not also disconfirm CPT. However other imaginable events, such as a lithosphere that does not thicken with age, the current forces of tectonics, etc. are not reasonable imaginable events because CPT expects what PT predicts at least approximately what CPT would predict as well so its potential disconfirmation is rendered null in light of the competing theory.
In summery, I would argue that there is much data which qualifies as evidence for CPT, but have not and will not argue that CPT has diagnostic evidence in relation to the prevailing theory of conventional plate tectonics and geodynamics.
Another misconception that has been shown several times is that the amount of intellectual time and energy I invest in theories like CPT essentially equates to my acceptance or belief of it. To this "logic" I note that it is NOT the business of scientists as scientists to accept as true the hypotheses and theories they research, no matter its status of acceptance in the scientific community. The degree to which I invest my intellectual energy (hardly understood, let alone determined by those who presume to know it, I also note) in such realms of research cannot be filtered through any such deterministic equation.
Furthermore, the following misunderstanding was illustrated:
quote:
If you were truly "merely considering it" then you would have rejected it at the outset for violations of known physical laws and for just being mind-poppingly unbelievable. Those interested in exploring ideas from the frontiers of science do not wed themselves to Biblical myths at the expense of basic scientific principles and thinking.
Which can essentially be interpreted as follows:
(a) Consideration of CPT leads to => rejection (disconfirmation) of CPT by (1) the nebulous assumption that CPT violates physical laws and (2) is "mind-poppingly" unbelievable.
And the second sentence:
(b) Those interested in scientific discovery who also consider theories like CPT have accepted the "Biblical Myth" at the expense of basic scientific principles and thinking.
I have argued against (a.1) in my response as follows and would particularly like this responded to as I have here demonstrated the current status and implications of the structure of CPT theory:
quote:
...You have just described the flawed outcome of the epistomologically flawed schema of (t) and (s), where schema (t) is stated as "H then TI; TI, therefore H is confirmed" and likewise schema (s) is "H then TI; not TI, therefore H is disconfirmed" where H= hypothesis and TI=test implication. The problem is that the first premise (that of H then TI) will always contain auxiliary hypotheses. The actual form of the first premeses is (n) if H and A1 and A2 and ...An then TI. A1, A2, etc. are auxiliary hypotheses--hypotheses assumed when it is claimed that H implies TI. Therefore, to be more realistic about the first premise of (t), the formal conclusion can only be: Therefore, H is false, or A1 is false, or A2 is false, or ...An is false. The problem is that you think determination of A1, A2, and An, etc. is so simple within confirmatory evidence of CPT relative to PT. In order to best determine those auxilliary hypotheses (required to be true for falsification of H, the hypothesis), models of the hypothesis must be developed sufficiently. This is the problem with producing the diagnostic evidences you desire--the details of CPT have not been sorted out well yet and so it is very difficult to say that certain auxilliary hypotheses are correct when determining confirmation and disconfirmation of CPT. How well do you understand those 'basic scientific principles and thinking" that you seem to think you are advocating??
I would like to see Percy or another substantiate the original claims who really understands the philosophy of scientific methods, inquiry, and justification.
Lastly, Percy asserted the following:
quote:
We are not exploring CPT with you because it is self-evidently in the "extremely unlikely" category. We don't think it's science, and we don't think there's any evidence supporting it.
I would like to know how is CPT a non-science, cannot be scientific, and is a non-science as I have argued it. The claim that 'there is no evidence supporting it' has been addressed above.
I would like the purpose of this thread to be to approach YEC theories like CPT within the scope of epistomology and the philosophy of science. Illustrative and exemplary discussion of relevant fields of science like geology are therefore inevitable, but should be given in moderation--with the focus and motivation for their inclusion being on the problems and successes YEC theories have in their structure, justification, confirmation, and acceptance.
Therefore this topic should probably enter the "Is it Science" forum.
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-19-2005 09:06 PM
"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.;
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.
I hope this isn't the case.
™ Version 4.2