What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

Others have already defined the methods of science well enough. Let me try and address your concerns from a different direction.The methodology that creationists and ID theorists use was once considered scientific. However, over time the methods of science have improved. These improvements were not created solely to weed out religions or any particulat tenet of some particular religion. The improvements, ironically enough, were often carried out by people who were religious.The issue was to get better results from their research, more accurate understanding in a faster way.The methods have been accepted over time because they have proven themselves, and make up a much more rigorous practice that is modern science. Thus when people discuss science today they are really talking about modern science, as what counts as science has changed over time.Unfortunately creationist and ID research eschews the methodology which makes up modern science. This may be frustrating for them, but they are the ones that have to accept they want to practice research methodology which is not as rigorous as most in the field and more prone to error, and so skepticism. If you are asking if it is possible to falsify that a process today may not have acted the same in the past, the answer is absolutely yes. Someone could very well approach the Flood and Species Diversity using modern scientific methodology. Its just that creationists and ID theorists generally don't.It might be pointed out that geology was born from people who did believe in Abrahamic accounts, who went looking for evidence in nature. Unfortunately it turned out that YE and Flood hypotheses were falsified.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This is specifically what I addressed in my first reply to you in this thread. Modern Science which is what is referred to as "science" has some pretty set methodologies.If one uses other approaches (i.e. methods) then one may be doing what was once considered science at another point in our history but it isn't anymore. ID authors pretty much discuss this openly in their texts. They do not like additions to the scientific method which occured during the enlightenment and want them taken back out.They have yet to explain why that would make any sense, except for the fact that it would allow what they do to be called science. ID isn't science according to modern definitions and practices. I might point out that it has nothing to do with "secularism". A theist can very well use the same methods.What has not been explained by creos and ID theorists, is why they should not avail themselves to the same modern methods. If their theories are true, it should be available in the evidence. If it does not emerge from the evidence then what is the practical use of the theory?I'd also put in a request that you clearly separate creo and ID. ID theorists generally do not support Flood or YE concepts, which you appear to do. Indeed that makes me raise the question why you treat them as compatible when ID accepts methodology regarding geology and age dating, rejecting creo methods?Edited by holmes, : tense

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm not sure if I should reply to this directly or not, but it will in part answer what you have called for, and raise a question about it. I think that people can generally agree on what the definition of science is. That is as long as one defines it based on what its goals are. The only potential difference would be whether conclusions in science reveal Truth versus "more accurate ways of concieving a natural phenomena".It seems to me the real difference is based on methodology. And that is because methodology has changed, even if what everyone did is called science.To be more clear, if the definition of science is based on methodology then very few people have practiced science. It would be limited to an area of time where specific methodology was used.I would feel uneasy claiming certain astronomers and alchemists were not doing science centuries or millenia ago, simply because their techniques had not become refined enough. Neither would I want to deny that modern astronomers and chemists were doing science because their methodologies are less flexible than in the past (something ID theorists argue).It seems to me they are/were all doing science as long as they were seeking the same thing, which is understanding the world around them.It is only in the colloquial sense that we use "science" as a stand in for Modern Science, which means science as it is practiced with current methodology, refined from examining the utility of methods across time.Modern Science would have a definition containing both goal and methodology.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

If you are having problems with others, perhaps you should address those who are sticking to the topic. If for some reason you have an issue with me, you could at least address what Modulous posted which went to the same point.The definition of science, as you seemed to be trying to get to with your dictionary quote, is not necessarily bound to specific methodology.But that is different than categorizing current research as science or scientific. When we say that something is or is not "science", we generally mean Modern science, which involves methodology. What counts as science at one time does not in another, based on improving methodologies.ID theorists themselves bring this up in their literature, and as Modulous has shown have admitted such under oath in court.You asked about peer review. I will disagree with others that that is essential to "doing science". One can certainly do science, even modern science, without engaging in peer review.The issue then would be how good your results are. As Percy and I wrangled over, but generally agreed, having others doublecheck your work is pretty useful. A single scientist looking at his own data, may be doing science, but increases the chance for personal error to creep in. In short they may do science without peer review, but they may not be doing it well.AbE: Note I will be gone for the next 3-4 days, so maybe you should address modulous. In any case, please try to consider my argument in further discussion.Edited by holmes, : note

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I hesitate to reply when you post in admin mode, but you raise issues in your posts which themselves suggest repliability... It is not so hard to understand why scientists (or proscience people anyway) are having a hard time defining science, because it has a variety of definitions and certainly no set one. One can see this in dictionary definitions of science as well as following the history of science.It has started with a broad meaning, and has progressively developed narrower meanings, specifically based on evolving methodologies by practitioners. As I pointed out and modulous has shown, ID theorists are attempting to popularize a wider meaning. They are not wrong in refering to their work as science, but they are inaccurate in that it is not modern science, that is they do not practice the methods of contemporary scientists.While methods can be included to reach a narrow definition regarding modern science, there is a problem in that not all methods are necessary, and new ones may emerge over time... as they always have.I am not a big creo studier, but have spent some time on ID in specific. They specifically deny Occam's razor as a valuable tool as well as try to validate arguments from ignorance (arguing that to reject arguments for ignorance may itself be a fallacy). This goes a long way in undercutting modern scientific methods. While incredibly valuable to scientific progress, and it is suspicious when anyone actively avoids peer review, indeed one is not taking part in mainstream science community without doing so, it is not NECESSARY for fulfilling any definition of science that I am aware of.If that was true then individuals in remote or isolated locations would be considered not doing science, despite treating data according to modern scientific methods, and obtaining practical results.This could also provide a problem for isolated groups of scientists, which engage in work that they cannot release for larger review due to security concerns. Essentially creos and IDists can appeal to that model, arguing that they do engage in small scale internal review. They'd have a point, even if one raises an eyebrow for not sharing their data further professionally and instead delivering it straight to the lay public (they aren't dealing with national secrets after all).Real criticism of not engaging in modern science, the narrow definition of science, should fall on the nature of hypothesis construction and treatment of data as it effects the ability to test one's hypotheses, and deliver practical conclusions.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Jumping back into the fray. I think your outline is excellent and could very well be used as a primer for those without science backgrounds to better understand what science is, or how it generally operates.There are two things I'd suggest for changes... I would replace the above with"It is empirical. This means subject matter is limited to what can be directly perceived by the human senses, or indirectly perceived via interaction with materials which is directly observable."This removes potential side debate on what is meant by the natural world or not. It also makes inclusive some science which is not observable, but highly supported by indirect observation. This might better be said that "It is largely inductive". Deductive methods are used from time to time in science. The question is where the general rules come from to get to a specific conclusion. I would add as a side not that this does point up a difference in science then/now. Actual science involved deductive reasoning in the past, and was quite successful. That it isn't as successful as induction, has made that the better form.I think in some past thread modulous mentioned that it is better thought of as abductive reasoning. I was taken by that suggestion at the time, and think it might be more accurate.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I know really good scientists that are very much Xian fundamentalist. Thus I don't see that as an inherent block to science, though it may impact some of the work they might do.In your friend's case I do sort of wonder why a geologist is working on biological issues, but having a hobby does not mean one is not doing science either. It seems that his lack of experience in biology might lead to misconceptions which effect his research.From what you wrote, which is quite general, I don't see why it couldn't be scientific. Although it seems to me he'd have a lot of work ahead of him and indeed many generations after him, to prove anything. And even then it would just pertain to guppies (he knows that, right?).It might be of interest here, since you brought that up as a specific test case, that you asked your friend for a more detailed explanation of his work. What exactly is he doing and how does he intend to support a conclusion regarding evolutionary processes from looking at a contained group of guppies?On a side note, I was confused by your response to Percy's post 144. I thought he did an excellent job outlining scientific basics, and your rebuttal seemed to claim there was some other criteria he didn't mention. I didn't get it.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Sorry about referring to the man as your friend. I didn't mean anything by it. Also, you have taken me as being more critical than I actually was. All I was doing was noting what seemed unusual. Science has been done by people working outside their professional area, so it really isn't a bar to doing science. However one can legitimately ask if he might miss have missed some specific detail, especially as science has become more specialized (as schraf accurately pointed out). Again not drawing a conclusion, just raising an eyebrow.But I will say this about your current claim. I don't know of anyone, especially a credible scientist, who has ever learned enough to debate the whole science spectrum. And I have known some pretty bright people. You don't need to sell him so hard. I don't think this is getting into another topic. It seems we could use a more detailed explanation of the research he is doing, in order to discuss it as an example. I can't be sure from the general statement you made. That's not and insult to you or him, just a statement of fact.If you can't get more detailed info, that's fine, it just makes it hard to judge accurately whether he is doing science or not.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm sorry but I have to challenge this statement.I get what you are saying, that an isolated experimenter's work, if forever outside the knowledge of other scientists, will never be part of the "fabric of science", if we conceive of that as the body of scientific knowledge (RAZDs discussion of cumulative knowledge).But that does not make his experiments or his approach unscientific. I have already raised an example of an isolated experimenter or covert group of experimenters.Lets say a manned mission is sent to mars. A geologist goes to work on soil samples and well-logging to understand the nature/evolution of martian geology. For some reason all communication is lost with earth, and they are unable to return. We can even add that the earth has been destroyed. Does that mean that the geologist is no longer doing science because what he finds is no longer capable of being handed to other scientists for review?Or lets say a small team of scientists, let's say at los alamos, could have broken the atom and then figured out how to create a nuclear weapon. This research is never sent outside their group and after the bomb is created the group is killed and their notes destroyed so no one else can know what they did. They STILL did science didn't they?In the last case in specific it would be hard to argue when the bomb goes off that no one learned anything about the natural world, or that they did no science to achieve such results.Review and replication is incredibly useful. Its utility cannot be overstated with the exception of making it a mandate. Some scientists have toiled in obscurity with their work never having been seen, or if seen then rejected, until discovery many years after their death. That's when it entered the body of scientific knowledge. Yes their work was obsolete until it was recognized, but not necessarily flawed and not unscientific.I also don't think you can say how Miller's work would be treated. Buz never gave us enough to judge what he is doing. I admit it looks... fishy... but suppose buz is giving us a simplified version filtered through his own ideas regarding evolution/creation.It is possible the guy is trying something that could end up being accepted by journals. I do agree that creationists would not accept a "bad" result, but that is neither here nor there. The question would be if Miller is willing to accept such a result.I understand your enthusiasm. I just don't think you need to rail so hard against this specific example, until we actually know what is going on. And I have to take exception with your apparent demand that review and mass replication is necessary for science. Edited by holmes, : if seen then

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Let me make clear I agree with the point he's trying to make, and my guess is his guess is probably accurate regarding Miller's work. My point on Miller's work was more that we ought to cut him some break since we don't actually know what he is doing.No offence to Buz, but would you trust him to accurately portray your work to EvC after a single seminar? Heheheh... you are so right. The first thing I was wondering was how long he was expecting to run this experiment to come to a conclusion about evolution.That's not to mention even if he ran it till the end of the world and found 0 mutations in his guppies, that would not mean no other species could have accumulated enough mutations over time to be classified as a new species.I suppose the one thing he could hope for is that a new species would emerge from parents wholly incapable of producing that offspring from any plausible mechanical process, or simply poofed into existence sans parents altogether.Given Buz's description it sounded like a very poorly thought out experiment, but I want to reserve total judgement until I know more about it.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

While I can accept that as a functionally valid definition, and use it if you want, it is a personal definition (or criteria) you are using.It is one that I am not familiar with, and most scientists I have known and spoken to on this very subject (over the years and during prep for doc on ID) have not used such a criteria.It leads to some unusual implications as I have already noted and you did not address, except to assert the above. Potential for replication is necessary to be science, replication is vital for continuance of a theory but not for previous work to be considered science.I mean according to your definition, if we store all data ever collected on electrical media, and in some freak accident it is all destroyed, the result would be that no one did science in the past because their work can no longer be known or replicated.I am totally on board with how useful it is to science, one could even say critical to the maintenaince of any theory within the body of scientific knowldge. You are making that point exceedingly clear. The problem, to my mind, is in the hairsplitting between approaching something in a scientific manner and doing science based on that criteria. I agree with that assessment. However there have been many people who did not share common perspectives, did not find consensus (till well after their death), and had some gaps within their theory... yet were scientists. I think your last two sentences above are the more important issue to whether they end up doing science, as opposed to simply piss poor science.If Galileo or Newton never published, or never got published, despite having done all the same work and wrote the same papers on the same subjects, would you really maintain they never did science and only approached things in a scientific manner? Absolute agreement. I think we are simply separated by one issue within the criteria for science, and that it must be collective. As useful as it is, and as part of everyday practice as it is at this time, I just do not recognize it as mandatory to the defining any specific research as science.Do you maintain that your criteria is a commonly held concept? If so, can you point to where that has been advanced? I agree and am not meaning to be critical of your asking him to present something else from ICR or whatever. I just thought if he wanted to use it, he would at least need to supply something from this guy before he or anyone else can talk about it seriously.BTW, buz seems to be taking my position a little bit far the other way now. Its not that I'm solidly arguing for his position, I'm just not completely against it. I think he has a point that science can be used more broadly, and what some do today has been considered science in the past.Only he must realize that common convention and intent is something much more narrow for the same reason, definitions change over time... modern science which is what we refer to in science education follows criteria which your outline in 144 provided admirably.It seems to insist on using a more archaic or broad version, needs to be explained. ID theorists have tried and their explanations found wanting.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I saw your post 205 after I posted my longer reply. I think you hit on something which may be key to the subdiscussion we are having. I will deal with that last... Okay I can agree with this somewhat, but the problem is science does not have a set definition. That is to say at any one point in time what fulfills the current definition will not at another point. There are some common criteria which you did an excellent job of pointing out. However methods and practices do change thus affecting what counts as science.In the specific case of replication I do not believe disqualifying Galileo's work as science- if his papers had been collected and hidden away forever by the church- is a matter of defining a difference between where the bay ends and the ocean begins. I think Galileo's work is CLEARLY a "spot in the ocean", and to consider it debatable is a problem. Get as complex as you want. This is part of my background education as well as part of my professional work. I can keep up with it, or I'll tell you when I can't.I'm not sure if you are referring to the mandate of communal activity "traditional scientific philosophy". There are many camps with different concepts of how science works. Scientists themselves do not necessarily agree with all labels/standards philosophy applies.I am not a creationist and am not interested in pointing to internal controversies. I thought your review in 144 was almost 100% dead on with the most common features to most philosophies of science/scientific method. I just don't believe that to do science requires communal effort.Okay with all this in mind, you stated in 205 that perhaps some were discussing scientific experimentation, rather than science. That was an interesting point and I thought about it. While I don't think that's exactly the right way to look at the issue, let me throw something else out and see if you'd agree.It seems to me that there is a difference between doing science, and taking part in science/scientific endeavour. A person can do all the science they want, but if they are in any way cut off from the mass of other people in the field, then they and their work are not (or not yet) contributors to common scientific knowledge (which is communal and cumulative). Thus they are not "taking part" in science.This joins well with not only what RAZD said, but what you said earlier about how creos approach science. Whether they want and actually manage to do science within any specific research would be besides the point, as they have no interest in taking part in science (ie by being contributors within the process). In fact they pose themselves as antagonists to scientific endeavour.Edited by holmes, : clarity

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This is what I felt might be the case, and was part of why I hoped buz could be encouraged to find out the answers. If that isn't a support for evolutionary concepts, I'm not sure what could be. I would really like to see Buz address this point that Miller has made on that topic.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I would tentatively agree with that statement. I am not really into strict "creation science" (like ICR) so I don't know what they actually do.Its only with regard to ID that I would say that some (and I want to repeat some... not all) of their work does fulfill an older definition. The problem to me is why they'd want to move back when part of scientific progress is improving methodology, and the new methods exclude their work. That they can even admit that to be the case, in their books much less in open court, and no one (on their side) sees a problem... I don't get it. Oh, don't worry then. Sorry that I took it the wrong way. In fact we can skip the more detailed arguments if you want. I'd be more interested in your take on the "doing science" versus "taking part in science" concept I raised. I thought that flowed more naturally than "scientific experimentation" v "doing science".Note on the Miller thing, it appears lithoid went and got what I was hoping buz would. If you were right, which you were, that would have to come out.Though I will say you were also right (in a comment to me) that if we have only one contact on an issue, that person could always keep changing (adding to) his story with no way for us to know different. Thus its useless. This may stand as a testament in the future that people really should stick to papers that can be shown, or are publicly available.Edited by holmes, : clarity

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well that seems to be one of the problems people were discussing. How would such a barrier be revealed, particularly through limited investigations of one species? "Sense" isn't going to cut it, especially as that can turn into a game of claiming... supposing large changes are seen (pheno or genotypically)... that guppiness remains.I do understand that there could conceivably be a point (it is not logically impossible) in gene/phenotypic complexity, that an organism is limited in the number of possible changes it can ever have from that time forward. I suppose one can think of any organism as a Go board, with all possible moves dwindling given ongoing changes (plays).That would not effect evolutionary theory itself, nor lend credence to creo or ID concepts. All it would do is modify our understanding of how genetic variation can be limited within an evolutionary framework.The only way to hit evolution along this line, would be to show that such limits actually have been hit for all species we see in existence. And especially for species that we feel have evolved newer species.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)