What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

Some prominent members are continually alleging that ID and creationism is not science, implying that IDists and creationists who arrive at alternatives to mainline secularist science theories and hypotheses, including IDist scientists are not being scientific.This thread is for members of both persuasions to aire their arguments and thoughts on just what is science and what isn't. I know there's been other threads related to this debate but imo this one more directly addreses the problem we all seem to be having in determination of just what science is. I would appreciate for another moderator to please promote this in "Is It Science."

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Thanks AdminPD. You're Ms Fast and Efficient.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

It seems to me that there is a tendency in eliteist science circles and educational institutions to narrow the definition of what is science to what is acceptable by the majority so as to maintain the hold secularists enjoy in the field of science. In order to maintain this hold, any suggestion that intelligence higher than that relative to earth humankind must be rendered as religion having nothing to do with science.Abe: We IDists believe there is enough viable evidence of the likelyhood of a higher intelligence existing in the universe to allow this as a possible factor in arriving at scientific hypotheses. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

Yes, the so-called definition of science is one big conspiracy by secularists.Please vouchsafe unto us the TRUE definition of science, so that we may be enlightened. Either that or carry on derailing a thread you just started, either way's good.

Sorry but just an unsupported assertion.The definition of science is really, really simple.One key factor is that you must be ready to abandon any and all beliefs.Second you must include and publish the data that does not support your position with the same zeal you publish what supports your position.To do science you MUST agree that the evidence rules. Of course, thank GOD. Sorry, but any such suggestion simply proves you are not doing science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Such beliefs are philosophy and/or religion. To do science, you must take your beliefs and test them. That is, you must try to prove your beliefs wrong. Beliefs that cannot survive critical testing are not part of science.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

That is so important.Science is about eliminating what is not true.To do science you must honestly be as willing to disprove your belief as prove it. If someone approaches a subject like the alleged flood with the absolute conviction that it must be true, then it cannot be science. If they wish to include something untestable like some higher intellegence than it can not be science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The essential element of science is providing the best and simplist method of explaining how certain things came to be ---- and then testing themie-

• Observation (data)
• hypothesis (initial explanation)
• test (if hypothesis is true {X} happens, but if hypothesis is false not{X} happens)
• re-evaluation

And it doesn't rely on one person's test results, but on validation by others.Do a search on {scientific method} and see if you can come up with significant changes in the history of scienceScientific method - Wikipedia
History of scientific method - WikipediaIt seems to me that the formal definition has been in place since 1930 with Karl Popper's falsifiability formally added to the process of observation, hypothesis, testing and re-evaluation.But one could argue that testing MUST include attempts to prove the hypothesis wrong or it is not really testing the hypothesis eh?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Is the possibility of uniformitarianism forever as falsifiable as the possibility of a ww flood given the likelihood that atmospheric carbon, nitrogen, and other elements would not be uniform in a pre-flood atmosphere which could render the dating of pre-disaster organisms as appearing very old? How about the possibility of other unknown disasters relative to element makeup of atmosphere and organisms at any given time tens of thousands to tens of millions of years ago rendering dating methods questionable?Question for you and others: Are IDist scientists who study the layering of sediments et al, oberving samples, recording the results of research done by means of photography, written data and comparisons with other data, publishing the data and forming a (Abe:WW )flood hypotheses on the basis of what they have observed et al doing science? Would they be doing all of this science work if the flood were not falsifyable? Edited by Buzsaw, : eliminate sentenceEdited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Buz, why don't you add something to this thread: How do we decide about "things"?It is a description of the use of the process of science in the everyday.Science is a process used to determine how likely it is that idea is true.We know that as individual humans our idea of what we sense is flawed and we use this process to attempt to minimize errors due to these flaws.The process therefor relies on the duplication of what we think we have seen. This is "replication". I have seen many, many cases of where a scientist, when asked for a comment on some new result, remarks that until it is replicated it might simply be an error.In the case of complex hypotheses we need ways to distinguish the more likely to be 'true' from the less likely; to do this we attack each of them with tests designed to prove them false. This too is part of the process of science.Exactly what parts do you want to leave out?Edited by NosyNed, : spelling! (thanks Jar)

It is falsifiable. That is it is testable. It has been well tested. Samples of ancient atmosphere are found in ice cores, and have been tested.Science does not make as many assumptions about "uniformitarianism" as you might think. Rather, it uses available evidence to extend its measurement back to the past. It calibrates all of its measuring methods. Such disasters leave evidence. It would show up in the calibration of the various measuring procedures. If you can provide the citations, so that we can know which studies you are talking about, then we will have something to investigate.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Uniformitarian simply means that the processes are the same. You also seem to have a whole bunch of stuff just stuck in a sentence.Let's try to pase it. Of course the process of uniformitarianism can be falsified. Simply show evidence for some other process.Butr then you add... But so far no one has ever shown any evidence for some recent world-wide flood. Sticking that in simply removes the sentence from the realm of science unless there was also accompaning evidence for some flood.Yet you go on and toss in the wild speculation that some other conditions existed in this imagined pre-flood period and then compound it with still more unsupported assertions that : The possiblity means nothing, nada, zilch, zip. If though someone could provide evidence to support that it then becomes something worth spending time on. No. They do not publish their material in the peer reviewed, science, process. Groups like ICR are simply not doing Science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Science is the body of knowledge developed by the application of the scientific method, which is basically the formulation of hypotheses, the development of tests that could falsify those hypotheses, the gathering of data from those tests, the reaching of the minimal conclusion that data can support, and the sharing of all of that work with the community of all the other people who are following the same process (and others, too), with the aim that they will look over your shoulder and catch any mistakes you might have made.When we say that ID is not science, it's because there's absolutely no indication they've been able to do any of those steps. They don't start from data; they start by picking the conclusion and rejecting what doesn't fit. They don't start with a hypothesis that they consider how to disprove; they start with by making up whatever dishonest arguments they can think of. They don't publish their data, methods, and results for the sceptical scientific community to pick over; they publish in books they know scientists won't read, targeting those who don't have the training to see through their deception.They just don't do science. It's all politics, for them.

quote:

---

Is the possibility of uniformitarianism forever as falsifiable as the possibility of a ww flood given the likelihood that atmospheric carbon, nitrogen, and other elements would not be uniform in a pre-flood atmosphere which could render the dating of pre-disaster organisms as appearing very old? How about the possibility of other unknown disasters relative to element makeup of atmosphere and organisms at any given time tens of thousands to tens of millions of years ago rendering dating methods questionable?

---

I think that this treally illustrates Buzsaw's approach to science. Good science is all about sayign what Buzsaw wants to hear. Making up excuses about a pre-Flood atmosphere is "good science" no matter that the evidence does not show a Flood, does not show any of these supposed differences and that the dating methods have been checked (did you know that C14 dating has to be calibrated because ther rate of production is NOT constant ?). It is not just that these excuses do not apparently need a factual basis - they do not even need a theoretical basis in "Buzsaw science". Certainly I've never seen any valid explanation of why a "pre-Flood" atmosphere would be expected to be different - and certainly no reason why the abundance of C14 relative to other carbon isotopes should be different.

quote:

---

Question for you and others: Are IDist scientists who study the layering of sediments et al, oberving samples, recording the results of research done by means of photography, written data and comparisons with other data, publishing the data and forming a (Abe:WW )flood hypotheses on the basis of what they have observed et al doing science? Would they be doing all of this science work if the flood were not falsifyable?

---

Yes. In fact the YEC "scientists" (not ID-ists in general, many of whom accept that the Earth is old or won't admit to caring about the age) are doing "all this work" to try to discredit the evidence that falsifies the Flood. They would be quite happy to make the Flood unfalsifiable - as the attack on dating methods quoted above makes clear. They would like to "prove" that the religious dogma that they worship is correct - but they would be happy to settle for making it unfalsifiable.