Bad science?

quote:

---

From an old educator who has taught the scientific method to lots of kids....

---

Uh oh. If this statement:

quote:

---

Neither is proveable by repeated experiments.

---

comes from an "old educator", then I am beginning to see why our education system is failing.The scientific method works as follows:A theory or model is proposed. From the theory or model, one predicts phenomena that should be seen. Preferrably, the phenomena should not have been observed yet; however, previously observed phenonema could count if it was not used in the formulation of the theory (like, for example, how General Relativity "predicted" the already known precession of the perihelion of Mercury). If the phenomena are observed, this is considered a confirmation of the theory. If the phenomena are not observed, this is considered a potential falsification of the theory; then one must either find an explanation why the phenomena were not observed as predicted, one must modify the theory to take into account the failed prediction, or one must replace the theory with a better one.All scientific fields operate this way. Biology is no exception. The theory of evolution is good science precisely because it has passed most of the tests to which it has been subjected and failed very, very few.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

Because when the word "law" is used, it is used to describe mathematical formulations from which precise calculations can be made, and from which no known process deviates. For this reason, "law" is mostly used in the physical sciences.Of course, "law" is occasionally used in other contexts besides what I have just claimed, but that goes to show that there is no real good, precise definition of "law".

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

Hi, Eagles. Welcome to EvC -- sorry I forgot the welcome earlier.

quote:

---

I believe in the examination of ALL theories and allowing the students to be able to draw their own conclusions. Would you advocate this approach in education?

---

Do you really believe that ALL theories should be taught? Do you think that time should be spent on the Flat Earth theory? Or Holocaust Denial should be presented in a history class as if it were a legitimate contender for the truth? Or do you accept that in some instances there really isn't a competing theory, and the "alternative" should be presented to the students as a case study on how personal belief and political motivations can lead people to accept nonsense in spite of all the clear facts and evidence?I have no problems with presenting legitimate alternative theories -- in fact, common sense would demand it -- as long as the alternatives really are scientific alternatives. Creationism simply is not scientific. It is a religious dogma that is held despite the evidence to the contrary. As far as biology is concerned, the theory of evolution has not only been confirmed again and again for over a century and a half, there are no alternatives.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

quote:

---

Just 1 1/2 centuries?

---

I think this was meant as a reply to my post.

quote:

---

Creation in written form has been around for 4000 years give or take.

---

I guess I don't understand the argument. You must believe that the earth is at the center of the universe and all the planets and stars go around it -- heliocentrism has only been around for 400 years. And germs were only discovered about 150 years ago -- so do you believe that disease is caused by witchcraft?-

quote:

---

Sorry, I can't discount history even though no human was around to record either.

---

But history leaves some evidence around. Not all possible histories are consistent with the available evidence. That is why literal Genesis creationism was rejected by scientists even before Darwin, and why the theory of evolution has become accepted.-

quote:

---

...their perception of the evidence.

---

I have always found this line of argument interesting. As Ned points out, you give the appearance of believing that evidence can be interpreted in any way the observer wishes -- a conclusion that would startle scientists even in the non-biological sciences, as well as criminal forensics experts. Do you really believe that evidence is really that malleable?

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

quote:

---

Where would you get the idea that I believe "evidence" can change?

---

I didn't have any idea that you believe that, and, if it weren't for Percy's reply to you, I wouldn't even have known how you could have interpreted what I wrote in this way.When I asked whether you really feel that the evidence is "malleable", I was asking whether you really feel that one can make any interpretation of it at all. That is the implication I got from your post; it is certainly what previously creationists have meant when they have said things similar to you.-

quote:

---

The soundness of the interpretation is the question.

---

I'm not sure what you mean here; there are several possibilities. Do you mean how close the interpretation is to reality? Well, unless the crime suspect actually confesses, or we can drill a hole all the way to the center of the earth, or we can go back in time and witness the signing of the Declaration of Independence with our own eyes, then this becomes an epistemological problem that is unsolvable.If you mean how self-consistent an interpretation is, how consistent it is with the entire body of evidence, and how consistent it is with evidence that is observed after the intepretation is put forward, then I agree with you: some interpretations are more sound than others; some interpretations are obvious when the data are examined, and other interpretations are very, very untenable.A murder suspect can claim that the victim was killed by magical fairies and make up ad hoc explanations why the evidence seems to point to him; someone can claim that the earth's core is made of ice cream and make up ad hoc explanations why a nickel-iron composition with the outer core molten seems to be a better fit to the data; and a person can claim that the Founding Fathers were forced to sign the Declaration of Independence as part of an Illuminati conspiracy, a conspiracy that also rewrote their letters to one another and their diaries. These are all possible interpretations of the data; however, one can see these interpretations will be forced and ridiculous.The same with the theory of evolution. It has withstood the scientific tests that have been put toward it. Sure, one can "interpret" the data in favor of creationism, and make up stories about a variable speed of light, changing rates of radiactive decay, hydrological sorting, huge sediment deposits, and what do any of us know about how God works, anyway? But if the ad hoc explanations can't be tested, or, if they can but are shown to be unworkable, then this "interpretation" becomes as ridiculous as killer fairies and the earth's ice cream core.Once seen in their entirety, though, the evidence forms a very distinct pattern, and evolution and common descent are not only a reasonable interpretation, but, in the words of Stephen Jay Gould, it becomes perverse to withhold even provisional acceptance of the idea.Facts are facts, and not every "theory" is a reasonable interpretation of the facts.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

quote:

---

Correct me if I've been mislead.

---

You have been mislead. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems. Life is an open system; thermodynamics allows local decreases in entropy as long as the over-all entropy of the global system increases. Now, if you take into account the earth/moon system and the sun altogether, I can assure you that entropy is increasing.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

quote:

---

Despite the vague title, this thread is actually about whether scientists who reject global warming are practicing bad science.

---

Good point. I will desist from further discussion on this particular matter.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

Good point, PaulK. In the spirit of Percy's warning about the topic, I will point out a thread I started to discuss the "central premises" of the theory of evolution.Although nemesis and others have convinced me that I should do a little rewording of my statements in that OP, I wouldn't make any dramatic changes; hence, I present that thread as it was written.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

Hi, Eagles. Here is a thread that was opened to deal with the issue of thermodynamics and evolution. You might be better off bringing your questions about that topic there. If the messages on that thread don't answer your questions, feel free to bring it back to life.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline