What is good science?

I suspended both TrueCreation and Tranquility Base from the [forum=-7] forum for a week a couple days ago, and I suggested to both that they might want to start a thread in the [forum=-11] forum since it seems there is broad disagreement on what constitutes legitimate science. I'm a little surprised that neither has started such a thread, so I start it myself.Tranquility Base continually makes the mistake of overgeneralization. He was doing this three years ago, and he's still doing it today. For example, he cites a technical paper about rapid sedimentation under special circumstances and uses it to conclude that modern geology now believes that all sedimentation is rapid. This is akin to reading an article about a hybrid car that gets 80 miles to the gallon and concluding that there's no longer any danger of future fuel shortages because all motor vehicles get 80 miles to the gallon. It's just obviously stupid. Even discussing the point makes no sense, because it is self-evidently wrong. You can't have a rational discussion with someone who will not or cannot see this.This tells us that a prerequisite for doing good science is the ability to think logically and rationally, to take information and reach valid conclusions, but who the heck decides when this is being followed? Well, I do, for one. There's no sense arguing with an irrational person. As far as I'm concerned, they can either begin arguing rationally or they can be suspended. Their choice.But who am I to set myself up as God? How can I self-designate myself as the adjudicator of all that is rational? Just because I own the joint doesn't make it right. Being a parent doesn't give one the right to abuse one's children.But someone has to moderate and make these decisions, and here at EvC Forum we try to select those who have demonstrated fairness, levelheadedness and good sense of rational discrimination. I'm the only self-selected moderator here, but I believe I've demonstrated these qualities by my technical contributions within my profession (if you're using a computer to read this, it was probably designed using software and standards in which I played a role), by my ability to create and maintain this website (including the software), and by my long participation in the Creation/Evolution debate.In other words, I think I've developed a fair ability to detect nonsense and irrationality when I see it, and I feel I'm seeing quite a lot of it in the case of TrueCreation and Tranquility Base.The other area where both TrueCreation and Tranquility Base are sorely lacking is in producing evidence for their ideas. They claim the evidence of mainstream geology as their evidence, claiming that the same evidence could be produced in a year (TrueCreation) or 500 years (Tranquility Base) instead of a half billion years. They propose no evidence (that's not quite true, but I'll get to that) that would recommend their ideas over mainstream theory.The evidence they do suggest doesn't pass the rationality test. For instance, Tranquility Base proposes that excess helium in zirconium crystals means that radioactive decay rates were higher in the recent past. He actually believes that accelerated radioactive decay would have only two incredibly subtle effects: increased helium concentrations in zirconium crystals and the increased concentrations of daughter isotopes in geologic layers.No rational and informed person would believe that accelerating radioactive decay rates by a million times could have anything but dramatic effects. Arguing about it in the absence of significant evidence is just producing more nonsense, and I'm against nonsense discussions here.Well, that's a start. I hope TrueCreation and Tranquility Base decide to join this thread.

No reply from TrueCreation or Tranquility Base, so I guess I'll continue the soliloquy.Concerning sedimentation, Tranquility Base has also conceded certain things, such as that they don't have a complete answer for supposedly slow-forming layers like limestone. He has also said there is a Creationist response for this (see Message 133), but he hasn't presented this information yet. I have seen other Creationist responses, but I'll wait to hear TB's version.But slow sedimentation is an example of where TB's approach fails miserably as science. Slow forming sedimentary layers are fatal to TB's proposals. If even just one layer in the geologic column from the Cambrian to the present took a million years, his ideas are completely dead. Any scientist would immediately recognize that this is an area that must be seriously addressed before taking the theory public, but TB instead focuses his attention further from the light of facts, areas where little can be reliably established, for instance the relative fucundity and recolonization rates of organisms. Taking a Tolkein analogy, what he's doing is like speculating on the properties of Elvin arrow tips before even establishing the existence of the Tolkein world, let alone of Elves or their arrows. He wants to do a hop, skip and a jump past all the evidence that says his ideas are impossible to instead focus on areas where there is little conflicting data.I won't let him do that here. It isn't that he isn't doing science. More than any other Creationist here (along with TrueCreation and Wmscott), TB brings facts and rational dialogue to the table. But he also brings a phalanx of fallacies with him, like overgeneralization and unsupported leaps of logic. One can follow all the steps of the scientific method and still produce nonsense if one isn't logical and rational throughout the process. There's nothing wrong with putting minor problems aside and coming back to them later as the larger problems are resolved. TB's approach is the opposite. He is setting aside the most major problems, like heat and sedimentation and radiometric dating, while he addresses the minor issues.It wouldn't be fair to spend all this time critiquing TB without saying anything about TrueCreation. TC has developed a wonderfully fluent geological vocabulary, he has a good understanding of the earth's structure and tectonic processes, but he also has a couple glaring weaknesses. He seems to have no sense of the reasonable and possible, he is becoming beligerent in his insistence about of what factors are relevant to his ideas, and he's engaging in a certain degree of dissembling. For instance, he argues that accelerated radioactive decay is not a factor in his scenario, despite that the radiometric data falsifies his ideas. He disinformationally argues that it is irrelevant because CPT processes are not driven by accelerated decay. He claims that the heat from accelerated plate tectonics and accelerated decay, 500 million years worth in just a single year, is not a problem and that he needn't address it. Most perplexing of all, he's recently argued that he's not advocating CPT, that, "I never made the extraordinary claim that CPT ever happened, I am merely considering it as you are..." (see Message 141). I guess TC is hoping some kind of weird rhetoric will be persuasive, but after his many years of aggressively pushing CPT it is as ludicrous to suggest otherwise as it is to suggest that evolutionists here think CPT an interesting idea.TB and TC, I'll be restoring both your privileges in the geology forum when the week is up, but I don't think that the restoration will last too long until we see eye to eye on how you're conducting your science. I suggest you respond to this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

What I've noticed from creationists who have more geologic knowledge than your average Joe is that they have the ability to pick the best facts to support their theory.They start a thread, present their main theory (e.g., earth is young), and then present several lines of supporting evidence. And it just so happens that they've chosen very carefully, deliberately or not, the few facts that support their theory.It's sort of like drawing a rectangle on a piece of paper, cutting up the rectangle, fitting together the corner pieces, and then proclaiming it was a square all along.If we choose and ignore just the right pieces of the puzzle, we can make any picture we want. That isn't science and that's exactly what TB, TC, and all the other creationists do.If TC wants to promote or examine CPT, he should look for evidence that supports it. Simply stating that we'd see the exact same things geologically as we do with PT is ridiculous and naive. Logic tells us you will not see the same end results. However, we are human and to err is human. We could be wrong. Show us.Show us why there would be no differences. Why mineralogy, chemistry, structure, and even things like sizes and shapes of depositional basins would not be different between plates moving feet per day or year vs. plates the move cm per year. Why won't there be differences in the amount of volcanism or sea levels?We see enough differences on the surface and in the subsurface to know even the slightest changes in temperatures and pressures are reflected in mineralogy, texture, deformation, fault geology, geomorphology, etc.Why wouldn't CPT result in the same?This message has been edited by roxrkool, 07-20-2005 03:01 PM

I had proposed a thread but it hasn't been accepted and I just noticed this thread so I will just respond here. Much of my response will be taken from there.http://EvC Forum: The philosophy and logic of theory building, justification, and acceptanceAlso, to be clear I would like the purpose of this thread to be considered that of it's title "What is Good science?"It has become clear to me that it is impossible to productively discuss the credibility of theories like Catastrophic Plate Tectonics with misunderstandings of the nature of scientific evidence and how theories are hypothesized, built, justified, and ultimately accepted.One misconception that has been made 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 or believe the hypotheses and theories they research, whatever its status of popularity or 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.Percy also gave a problematic set of statements here:

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 I interpret as follows:(a) Consideration of CPT leads to => rejection (disconfirmation) of CPT by (1) the notion that CPT violates physical laws [note plural] 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 argued against (a.1) and would particularly like this responded to as it also explains the how it is underdeveloped why that is significant. Percy's assertion illustrates the flawed conclusion of the epistomologically flawed schema of (t) and (s), where H= hypothesis and TI=test implication:(t)
if H then TI
TI
therefore H is confirmedand likewise:(s)
if H then TI
not TI
therefore H is disconfirmedSeems reasonable doesn't it? The problem is that the first premise (that of if H then TI) will always contain auxiliary hypotheses. The actual form of the first premeses is (n) if H and A₁ and A₂ and ...A_n 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 (s), the formal conclusion can only be: Therefore, H is false, or A1 is false, or A₂ is false, or ...A_n is false.The problem in our context is that you think determination of A₁, A₂, and A_n, etc. is simple. That it is easy to confirm or disconfirm CPT relative to PT. To best determine those auxilliary hypotheses (required to be true for falsification of H, the hypothesis), sufficient models of the hypothesis must be developed. Hence, the problem with producing the diagnostic evidences you want--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.Furthermore as I pointed out in the CPT thread, the problem is compounded by the nature of conventional PT theory. It is difficult to envision disconfirming evidence of PT (relative to CPT) with all that time. Comparing CPT geology to Modern geology, the latter 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.The reason the human skull example is considerable is because this 'anomaly' is an imaginable event that would not also disconfirm the competing alternative--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.Lastly, Percy asserted the following in the CPT thread:

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.Some things already argued by Percy in this thread:

quote:

---

For instance, he argues that accelerated radioactive decay is not a factor in his scenario, despite that the radiometric data falsifies his ideas.

---

I would argue that this conclusion is also an example of a flawed conclusion of the epistomologically flawed schema of (t) and (s) discussed above. However I do agree that the radioisotopic data clearly poses serious problems for theories like CPT.I wish we could just get passed the arguments regarding the problems of accelerated decay. Like the origin of the universe, ultimately this will probably never be solved. In fact the origin of the universe is probably a really good analog. The origin of the universe will probably never be solved, however the existence of the universe is evidence that there was an event that occured which birthed the universe. Similarily, the origin of an accelerated decay rate will probably never be solved, so whether or not CPT occured would be evidence that such an even event occured. Unfortunately determining that CPT was a real historical event is a lot more difficult than determining that the universe exists.

quote:

---

He claims that the heat from accelerated plate tectonics and accelerated decay, 500 million years worth in just a single year, is not a problem and that he needn't address it.

---

This is nonsense, I never said this.

quote:

---

Most perplexing of all, he's recently argued that he's not advocating CPT

---

..No.. i've been arguing this for years..-Chris Grose

---

"...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.

You'll have to put this in English if you want a response. Realizing where the most serious problems for your theory lie is a start. Prioritize the list of problems with the most serious at the top. Radiometric dating should be one of the top two or three. Now, where do you think you should be spending most of your time and effort? On the problems at the top of your list, perhaps? I'm not even going to attempt to unravel the fallacies inherent in this. Suffice to say that you don't even have evidence of accelerated decay. How can you elevate a problem to such high status without any evidence that the problem exists? One thing I've requested over and over is to address issues in a forthright manner. CPT has a serious heat problem. Your response is evasive. Meet the problems your theory presents head on. Do not run from them.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

TrueCreation writes:

​

I argued against (a.1) and would particularly like this responded to as it also explains the how it is underdeveloped why that is significant. Percy's assertion illustrates the flawed conclusion of the epistomologically flawed schema of (t) and (s), where H= hypothesis and TI=test implication:...etc...

​

You'll have to put this in English if you want a response.

---

What part don't you understand? This is a pretty fundamental concept in philosophy of science so moving forward is probably going to be counterproductive if we can't get past this. How about an example?First to re-state my argument:

quote:

---

Percy's assertion illustrates the flawed conclusion of the epistomologically flawed schema of (t) and (s), where H= hypothesis and TI=test implication:

​

(t)

---

if H then TI
TI
therefore H is confirmed

​

and likewise:

​

(s)

---

if H then TI
not TI
therefore H is disconfirmed

​

Seems reasonable doesn't it? The problem is that the first premise (that of if H then TI) will always contain auxiliary hypotheses. The actual form of the first premeses is (n) if H and A₁ and A₂ and ...A_n 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 (s), the formal conclusion can only be: Therefore, H is false, or A1 is false, or A₂ is false, or ...A_n is false.

​

The problem in our context is that you think determination of A₁, A₂, and A_n, etc. is simple. That it is easy to confirm or disconfirm CPT relative to PT. To best determine those auxilliary hypotheses (required to be true for falsification of H, the hypothesis), sufficient models of the hypothesis must be developed. Hence, the problem with producing the diagnostic evidences you want--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.

---

For example, if we rewrite schema (s) as:if (CPT produced the oceanic lithosphere) then (the oceanic lithosphere should essentially have no variation in thickness)
[and we determine] not (the oceanic lithosphere should essentially have no variation in thickness)
therefore (CPT produced the oceanic lithosphere) is disconfirmedThis seems logical, right? Well it's not.The problem is that our premise of H then TI does not contain auxiliary hypotheses. The premise H then TI of the schematic argument described above will always contain auxiliary hypotheses which are assumed for the premise H implies TI to be true.Therefore the more realistic form of the premise in shema of (s), for example, must be:if H and A₁ and, A₂ and ...A_n then TIThis is why science is tentative--the accuracy of our array of auxiliary support given by A₁A₂, ...A_n will change as our understanding of the world and our field of available data increases.So in the example we used above with CPT and the oceanic lithosphere we might have auxiliary hypotheses like:A₁ = the lithosphere cooled by conduction
A₂ = hydrothermal circulation does not contribute significantly to lithospheric cooling
A₃ = the depth of significant hydrothermal penetration throughout the course of the formation of the oceanic lithosphere is not related relative age.etc.All of these are auxiliary hypotheses which logically must be contained within the premise "if H then TI" for disconfirmation of H to be credible. It must be determined that A₁, A₂, A₃, A_{etc. (n)} are all true, which I have argued is difficult. The formal conclusion of disconfirmation can only be: Therefore, H is false, or A₁ is false, or A₂ is false, or ...A_n is false. For the example of lithospheric cooling above, it is difficult (at least for me, at the moment) to determine A₂ because confirmation of auxiliary hypothesis can be determined in its own way as follows:if (hydrothermal circulation does not contribute significantly to lithospheric cooling) and A₁ and A₂ and A₃ then (modeling (computer, numerical, etc.) should suggest it can give no significant contribution)Where our array of auxilliary hypotheses might look like:A₁ = Convective transport is significantly faster than conductive heat transport
A₂ = there is no data indicating deep penetration of hydrothermal cracks in the lithosphere.
A₃ = there is no mechanism of progressive fracturing of the lithosphere and crust for hydrothermal penetration.Get it?This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-20-2005 05:40 PMThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-20-2005 05:42 PMThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-20-2005 05:56 PMThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-20-2005 05:58 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.

Reminder: The topic is "What is good science?", not catastrophic plate tectonic. This thread is not a place to resume the CPT discussion. Make sure that all references to CPT are examples supporting arguments for what constitutes good science. If this isn't heeded I will close the thread. --AdminI think that you are being a bit disingenuous here.FOr a start the whole point of CPT is the "Catastrophic" part. Historically mainstream plate tectonics came first. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is a subset of plate tectonics. Plate tectonics is not controversial on this forum. THe whole point of proposing CPT is the "catastrophic" part to try to fit geology into the YEC temproal frmework. FOr all these reasons it is reasonable to assume that the phrase "evidence for CPT" IS looking for evidence of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - not plate tectonics in general, nor evidence that happens to support mainstream plate tectonics as well or better.And you say that you haven't got any such evidence, so you really aren't disputing th statements you are objecting to.You also accept that CPT has some serious problems, and has not generated any useful predictions in all the time since it has been proposed.So scientifically speaking there is really no motive in proposing it. It explains nothing, produces nothing and is likely false anyway. So from a scientific point of view it doesn't appear to be worth any intellectual effort. It's certainly not a reasonable viewpoint on scientific grounds. So let's be honest - CPT is at this point primarily a religious apologetic and that is the only reason it is given any credibility by anyone.This message has been edited by Admin, 07-20-2005 09:51 PM

Reminder: The topic is "What is good science?", not catastrophic plate tectonic. This thread is not a place to resume the CPT discussion. Make sure that all references to CPT are examples supporting arguments for what constitutes good science. If this isn't heeded I will close the thread. --Admin

quote:

---

FOr a start the whole point of CPT is the "Catastrophic" part. Historically mainstream plate tectonics came first. Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is a subset of plate tectonics. Plate tectonics is not controversial on this forum. THe whole point of proposing CPT is the "catastrophic" part to try to fit geology into the YEC temproal frmework. FOr all these reasons it is reasonable to assume that the phrase "evidence for CPT" IS looking for evidence of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics - not plate tectonics in general, nor evidence that happens to support mainstream plate tectonics as well or better.

---

Whatever is implied, the assertion is still wrong that "CPT has no evidence", and I find it very misleading. It leads to stupid analogs like 'meteors did it!' or 'its all just a bunch of magic' or analogs to mythical creatures like leprechauns or unicorns, its just a frustrating unproductive tangent. To quote my last post in the geology forum:

quote:

---

CPT has plenty of evidence just as does PT. These evidences act as epistemic reasons to confirm CPT. Similarily, Newtonian mechanics and general relativity share evidence. If PT was ever to be replaced by CPT, the paradigm shift would be similar to that seen when Einstein's Physics replaced Newtonian mechanics. The evidence of past centuries for Newtonian mechanics carried over, within limits, as evidence for Einstein's physics; for, as far as it goes, it fits both!
"What is thus illustrated by Einstein's relativity is more modestly exemplified elsewhere, and generally aspired to: the retention, in some sense, of old theories in new ones. If the new theory can be so fashioned as to diverge from the old only in ways that are undetectable in most ordinary circumstances, then it inherits the evidence of the old theory rather than having it overcome it." W. V. Quine and J. S. Ullian, "Hypothesis." From The Web of Belief, 2nd ed., 1978 pp. 76-77.

---

quote:

---

You also accept that CPT has some serious problems, and has not generated any useful predictions in all the time since it has been proposed.

---

It is difficult for me to perform the required experiments. If I could, I would be headed up to sample intermittant basaltic lava flows in the Eocene Yellowstone fossil forests to potentially disconfirm conclusively the possibility of a younger geologic time scale. I guess part of the problem is that we can't even get to the point where it is just an analysis of the potential diagnostic evidence for CPT because evidently we can't get past the other diatribe misconstruing what evidence, science, and the methods thereof even are. Progress is not made and we go back to square one with every new post.

quote:

---

So scientifically speaking there is really no motive in proposing it. It explains nothing, produces nothing and is likely false anyway.

---

Well there we go again, CPT does explain a lot of geology, produces a lot of geology, whether or not it is "likely false" is just speculation based on its current status, so it doesn't really have much meaning. CPT is interesting to me and I am motivated to look into it because it isn't just some backwater hypothesis. There is something to it. And actually quite a lot of my 'research' will be beneficial no matter the outcome anyways (eg. runaway subduction of small portions of slabs, cretaceous thermal event, changing frequency of geomagnetic reversals, localized catastrophic behaviour, etc.).Besides, I would eventually like to write a book that either conclusively establishes CPT as a non-event along with other subsidiary arguments, or clearly supports endeavors of further research on the subject. I predict it being required reading for advanced undergraduate students in geology, and suggested reading for students in other sciences and philosophy of science, woohoo.This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-20-2005 06:29 PMThis message has been edited by Admin, 07-20-2005 09:51 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.

Reminder: The topic is "What is good science?", not catastrophic plate tectonic. This thread is not a place to resume the CPT discussion. Make sure that all references to CPT are examples supporting arguments for what constitutes good science. If this isn't heeded I will close the thread. --AdminI disagree that the statement "there is no evidence for CPT" is misleading. I find that your denials are misleading for the reasons I have given. We all know that the whole issue is the "Catastrophic" compression of geological events into the YEC timescale.This message has been edited by Admin, 07-20-2005 09:52 PM

Reminder: The topic is "What is good science?", not catastrophic plate tectonic. This thread is not a place to resume the CPT discussion. Make sure that all references to CPT are examples supporting arguments for what constitutes good science. If this isn't heeded I will close the thread. --Admin

quote:

---

I disagree that the statement "there is no evidence for CPT" is misleading. I find that your denials are misleading for the reasons I have given. We all know that the whole issue is the "Catastrophic" compression of geological events into the YEC timescale.

---

My denials are certainly not misleading. I don't see how More specific accuracy can logically be more misleading than less specific accuracy. eg. "evidence" and "diagnostic evidence"This message has been edited by Admin, 07-20-2005 09:52 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.

But Chris, shouldn't SOMETHING be found in the geologic record that is better explained by CPT than PT? Like more volcanics?I mean if you (or someone else) could at least give us some predictions, we could test the CPT model.We're not going to take your word for it that CPT is going to result in exactly the same geologic phenomena as PT. That's just not a reasonable assumption at this point.I would expect there to be very little ocean sediment accumulation, or at least much less than we see today. Have you tried taking that angle? What about coral reefs? What about marine fossils? What about a change in water and chemistry content of subduction-related volcanics?Like (I'm just throwing this out there) perhaps there would be less calcium-rich minerals found in certain aged subduction-related volcanics because not enough carbonate was able to accumulate on the ocean floor, thereby limiting the amount of calcium available for subsequent subduction-related volcanics.If you can't provide any predictions from the CPT model that can be tested, there is absolutely NO reason to even consider it at all. We should stop discussing it today.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 07-20-2005 07:09 PM

I really don't see why there should be a problem. If you really insist on splitting hairs you could simply say "yes, there is no evidential support for the catastrophic element of CPT". Such a statement actually addresses the core issue rather than ignoring it as if it were inconsequential.

quote:

---

But Chris, shouldn't SOMETHING be found in the geologic record that is better explained by CPT than PT?

---

Ultimately, you are absolutely correct. The problem is actually determining what kind of difference that would be. As I explained in my post #4, the difficulty is compounded by the flexibility of modern geology. The data in favor if CPT therefore have to be very significant.

quote:

---

Like more volcanics?

---

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we would expect less volcanics? First we would have to accurately determine what kind of quantity of volcanism would be expected given how CPT might effect its production--what is it that controls how much volcanism is produced that would change during CPT in a non-proportionate way to the overall increased rate of tectonic activity. This is probably more difficult to determine than other potential falsifications or test implications of CPT because our speculation is limited on what would change far beneath the earths surface. Modern geology can't even figure out what exactly causes local upwelling lithospheric flexure around hot spots.

quote:

---

I mean if you (or someone else) could at least give us some predictions, we could test the CPT model.

---

Yes we could! I've provided a few earlier but not too many. This would be good for another thread--an attempt to determine exactly what CPT would predict.

quote:

---

We're not going to take your word for it that CPT is going to result in exactly the same geologic phenomena as PT. That's just not a reasonable assumption at this point.

---

Well, I agree that it isn't a reasonable conclusion, but I think it is an option which hasn't been disconfirmed.

quote:

---

I would expect there to be very little ocean sediment accumulation, or at least much less than we see today. Have you tried taking that angle? What about coral reefs? What about marine fossils? What about a change in water and chemistry content of subduction-related volcanics?

---

These are all very good avenues of inquiry. Some of them probably not the avenues I would take (as I know more about and/or am more interested in other geological phenomena) but good.

quote:

---

If you can't provide any predictions from the CPT model that can be tested, there is absolutely NO reason to even consider it at all. We should stop discussing it today.

---

Sounds good. I think those predictions should be taken to another thread, however. Indeed the reason this thread exists is because someone has a misunderstanding of those processes of how theories are built, justified, and ultimately accepted (maybe its me, but I doubt it!). Following your good suggestion is just going to be useless if we don't understand that much.This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-20-2005 07:58 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.

quote:

---

I really don't see why there should be a problem. If you really insist on splitting hairs you could simply say "yes, there is no evidential support for the catastrophic element of CPT". Such a statement actually addresses the core issue rather than ignoring it as if it were inconsequential.

---

CPT isn't just 'speedy PT'. Sure, that is what it seems like in a nutshell, but that is just a result of its underdevelopment and hence its inability to confidently make specific statements which differ from prevailing PT. Structurally, CPT, as with any general theory, is a set of statements, some of which state laws, others of which are singular factual or existential claims (eg. new lithosphere is created at spreading centers). The statements of a theory are interrelated in such a way as to embody certain virtues like generality or comprehensiveness of explanatory and predictive power, ability to unify diverse phenomena and laws, and depth of explanatory power. Because there are two theories that both contain some statements which are identical does not render the evidences for those identical statements given by the competing theories trivial. They are necessary for motivated inquiry of the rising alternative. Ultimately, as is also alluded to and reflected in roxrkool's last post, DISconfirmation (or refutability or falsification), etc. is the emphasis of scientific justification over competing theories. If we keep alluding to the competing theory having no evidence or having no motive for any analysis for potential confirmation or disconfirmation, we cannot progress.-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-20-2005 07:51 PMThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-20-2005 07:55 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 said your ideas violate physical laws and are mind-poppingly unbelievable. I also said that rational and logical thought and a good grasp of the possible and reasonable are important to performing good science. If you'd like to respond to this in English then I'd be glad to discuss it with you.Roxrkool has made the key point about CPT requiring evidence that is not just the same as the evidence for mainstream geology, and you appeared to agree, but the next paragraph descended into unintelligibility. You also talked a bit about wanting to gather your own evidence, which is a good thing, but it also further substantiates the fact that you understand you don't have evidence right now. What is the point of badgering people to accept something as scientific that is unlikely in the extreme and for which you have no evidence?The foundation of scientific theory is objective evidence. This means evidence that is available to anyone with sufficient training and expertise. You agree with this, right? And you understand you have no evidence for CPT that is any different from the evidence for mainstream geology, right? And you know that CPT requires matter and energy to behave in ways not consistent with the evidence of physics, chemistry and geology, right? Given this, your continued attraction to the theory is hard to understand.One of the stunts you use to pull a few years ago was to force high falutin' words into your posts, often with comical results. Now you seem to be using vocabulary and grammar as a tool of obfuscation. People who actually have something meaningful to say are usually much easier to understand than you are. I suggest you start engaging the discussion in this thread in a constructive manner.--Percy