What is good science?

Chris, that is where you fall away from science. That's not surprising, we see it all the time here. If CPT happened, then by definition, it's possible. If CPT did not happen, then it does not matter whether it's possible or not. Sorry Chris but that's simply a nonsense statement.

quote:

---

jar asked:If we look at the world, it does not look like what we should see if CPT happened.

---

to which TC responded: That's simple and Good Science.The proponents of CPT need to ask "What would we see if CPT happened?"So far none of you have done so.List what we would see if CPT happened. Then we can look and see if there is evidence for those things.Remember, for CPT to even be considered you must show things that are NOT explained by PT. If they can be explained by PT then no new explaination or theory is needed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Chris, that is where you fall away from science. That's not surprising, we see it all the time here. If CPT happened, then by definition, it's possible. If CPT did not happen, then it does not matter whether it's possible or not.

---

I don't know what you are trying to say. We cannot say as a prerequesite that CPT did indeed happen or that it did not. Similarily with evolutionary theory. If, hypothetically, somehow it were determined that evolution just does not happen (non-existence of mutations, etc.), then it would disconfirm evolutionary theory. Critiquing the basic statements of CPT could help to determine if it could or could not happen in the first place.

quote:

---

Sorry Chris but that's simply a nonsense statement.

---

well is it? Do you understand how confirmation and disconfirmation are determined as I have explained it?

quote:

---

quote:

---

jar asked:If we look at the world, it does not look like what we should see if CPT happened.

---

​

to which TC responded:
"The question is--how can we really determine that beyond mere speculation?"

​

That's simple and Good Science.

---

Then explain what 'good science' has determined that CPT would produce different geophysical features for instance that does not fall victim to unfounded auxiliary hypotheses.

quote:

---

The proponents of CPT need to ask "What would we see if CPT happened?"

​

So far none of you have done so.

​

List what we would see if CPT happened. Then we can look and see if there is evidence for those things.

---

This isn't for this thread. The purpose of this thread is to determine what would be acceptable (among other arguments related to the scientific status of CPT and PT).-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.

Since this was a response to Rahvin, I was going to leave it to him to reply, but since it's been a couple days I guess I'll step in. Rahvin is right and right, Chris. There's no ambiguity, you're wrong. A hypothesis is not a conclusion. In the scientific method, first one gathers observations, information, data, evidence, about a phenomenon. Then one formulates a hypothesis about the phenomenon, and that hypothesis is not a conclusion. It is not even concluded that the hypothesis is accurate. That is what the testing of the hypothesis, the next step in the scientific method, is intended to establish, whether the hypothesis represents an accurate understanding of the phenomenon. I think this is where you're getting all muddled up. Popper would definitely not agree that testing hypotheses is a subsidiary goal. Testing hypotheses is *the* primary goal of the scientific mehtod. Falsifiability, which is what you're describing when you speak of disconfirming hypotheses, is an important property of hypotheses that go on to become theories, because it means that the potential falsifications that were investigated during the testing of the hypothesis have not overturned it. All tests of a hypothesis are potential falsifications. If the hypothesis passes the tests then it's a validation, hopefully one that is repeated by other experimenters. Hypotheses that survive attempts to falsify them by different experimenters usually go on to become accepted as valid theory. This is just nonsense. The scientific method is predicated upon the fact that hypotheses are developed from evidence. No, Chris, evidence, data, information, observations, they are all part and parcel of the same thing. The level at which you misunderstand the practice of science is so basic that drawing fine distinctions between these terms is unnecessary and silly. What would you propose basing hypotheses upon if not facts? Let's consider an example. You see objects fall and it looks to you that they fall faster and faster. These visual observations are your facts. You form a hypothesis that objects double their speed with each passing unit of time (v_f = v_i * 2^t). You rig up a measuring apparatus that takes pictures of a falling ball every hundredth of a second. After running your experiment and analyzing the results you discover that your hypothesis was wrong, but you now have more facts to feed into your hypothesis, and you can modify your hypothesis. After a little analysis you quickly discover the proper equation (v_f = v_i + 9.81t), also realizing that your initial equation couldn't possibly be right, since if you start with zero velocity the object would never begin falling.This is how the scientific method works. First facts (evidence or data) derived from observations. Then a hypothesis. Then tests of the hypothesis that provide you more data. Then modifications to the hypothesis, if necessary, and more tests, until finally the hypothesis is either shown to be unworkable, or it succeeds to become theory.And this is why you need to begin with facts supporting your theory, because that's the way the scientific method works. You can argue till you're hoarse, but you can't change this fact. Hypotheses are constructed upon evidence. A hypothesis does not produce evidence. Evidence is sought to confirm a hypothesis. Rahvin applied the term to the Creationist habit of formulating the hypothesis first, then forcing it to fit known facts through the invention of, shall we say, "highly speculative" scenarios. Rahvin actually used the term "tangled scenarios". It's perfectly clear what is "logically fallacious" with this approach to science. It starts with the hypothesis instead of starting with the facts.I'm still amazed by your chutspah and arrogance. People with 10, 20 and 30 or more years of productive contributions in the sciences are telling you you're wrong, yet you go on arguing anyway. This flawed view of science prevents Creationists from making productive contributions in the sciences, and keeps their contributions out of legitimate scientific journals and conferences, and it will also keep you suspended in order to prevent you from gutting threads with nonsense.I have my own psychological hypothesis that I've been developing, and I've mentioned it to you before. The evidence suggests to me that those who don't get science cannot be coached into getting it. My hypothesis is looking pretty good right now, there haven't been any disconfirming data points yet.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If you HAD evidence in favour of catastophic rates of plate tectonic movement, then you would have a good reason to pursue CPT. But you don't. And you know it.As to your rely to my reference of Lakatos, you seem to be concerned only with auxiliary hypotheses in general, missing entirely the point. Let me repeat the question:What would Lakatos say about a research program that is dedicated solely to generating auxiliary hypotheses to evade falsification ?Note the words in bold.

The question you need to address is "What would the world look like if CPT happened?"Chris, until you do that there is nothing about CPT worth discussing. And remember, to even consider looking at CPT the things you point to must be different from what PT would produce. If everything is already explained by PT there is no need or reason to consider CPT.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This reads as nonsense, Chris. If you want to explain this then please go ahead, but I think it would be more profitable to read my previous post where I'm pretty clear about what constitutes evidence. Are you daft? Are you using some weird definition of evidence? An example of just how wrong you are is the recently attempted validation of general relativity's prediction that a rotating mass pulls space with it. They used data gathered from satellites over the past 30 years, long before the analysis was ever designed. Another example very common in the medical profession is mining data from old studies to test new hypotheses.The reason you're here arguing what constitutes good science instead of arguing for CPT in the geology forum is because of the weirdness of your ideas about the nature of scientific inquiry. You need evidence of the phenomenon before you can hypothesize about it. This is fundamental. I'm sure I don't, but that's because so much of your thinking is wrong. What you actually said in Message 35 that I was trying to remember was: I don't think accurately divining your precise meaning is really possible, but it looks like you're just splitting hairs. What is obvious is that you continue to push accelerated decay as an unfalsified hypothesis. You could only do this if you were ignorant of the falsifying evidence, or you're unable to follow the implications of the falsifying evidence, or you just refuse to think scientifically. Your choice. Your refusal to accept that it's been falsified means nothing if you cannot bring any evidence to the table to convince anyone. All it means is that you've got a weird unsupported idea that you refuse to stop promoting in an unscientific manner, which isn't acceptable here.You need evidence, Chris. Stop putting the cart before the horse. Find the evidence, then argue the hypothesis.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Yes, it seems to me that creationists truely believe that thier opinions about science are just as valid as those who have spent thier lives studying and working in the revelant field.

quote:

---

Rahvin is right and right, Chris. There's no ambiguity, you're wrong.

---

No. Science does not and cannot "start with evidence and formulate a hypothesis based on evidence". It is logically inconsistent.

quote:

---

A hypothesis is not a conclusion. In the scientific method, first one gathers observations, information, data, evidence, about a phenomenon. Then one formulates a hypothesis about the phenomenon, and that hypothesis is not a conclusion. It is not even concluded that the hypothesis is accurate. That is what the testing of the hypothesis, the next step in the scientific method, is intended to establish, whether the hypothesis represents an accurate understanding of the phenomenon.

---

I put 'conclusion' in quotes for a reason.

quote:

---

I think this is where you're getting all muddled up. Popper would definitely not agree that testing hypotheses is a subsidiary goal. Testing hypotheses is *the* primary goal of the scientific mehtod.

---

This isn't what I argued. I said that Popper would say that confirming a hypothesis is a subsidiary goal.

quote:

---

This is just nonsense. The scientific method is predicated upon the fact that hypotheses are developed from evidence.

---

No they are not. You cannot have 'evidence' without a hypothesis that it is evidence for. Thus it is logically inconsistent to have evidence prior to the hypothesis. You are, yet again, mischaracterizing what scientific evidence is.

quote:

---

quote:

---

(also note that 'evidence' and 'data' are completely different)

---

​

No, Chris, evidence, data, information, observations, they are all part and parcel of the same thing

---

No no no. Wrong. Evidence is NOT the same thing as data, information, or observations. Evidence is analogous to that which constitutes confirmation--it is the consequence of data that when passed through hypothetical tests results in the conclusion of confirmation, just like what I have been explaining since post 4. They are NOT the same.

quote:

---

What would you propose basing hypotheses upon if not facts?

---

I didn't say it wasn't based on facts. What I said was that to say such is a misleading oversimplification. Theory building, justification, and acceptance of theories is not a simple hum drum topic that can be accurately summed up by assertions like 'hypotheses are justified by comparing them to the facts'. This is well known in philosophy of science.Hypotheses are justified by giving reasons for the truth of the hypothesis. Such reasons may be epistemic or practical. Where an epistemic reason will count toward the truth or falsity of the hypothesis, and a practical reason does not but rather is based on the usefulness of believing the hypothesis. Furthermore in the face of epistemic reasons--those resultant from hypothetical tests, while one disconfirming instance can falsify a hypothesis (or auxiliary assumptions inherent in the test) one confirming instance does not justify a hypothesis. The problem presented by hypotheses is not that they do not have instances, but rather since their instances cannot be directly known by observation one cannot in any straightforward way "compare the hypothesis to the facts."

quote:

---

Hypotheses are constructed upon evidence. A hypothesis does not produce evidence. Evidence is sought to confirm a hypothesis.

---

No No and Yes. Your last statement is inconsistent with your first. Evidence is brought about as a consequence of testing the hypothesis.

quote:

---

Rahvin applied the term to the Creationist habit of formulating the hypothesis first, then forcing it to fit known facts through the invention of, shall we say, "highly speculative" scenarios. Rahvin actually used the term "tangled scenarios". It's perfectly clear what is "logically fallacious" with this approach to science. It starts with the hypothesis instead of starting with the facts.

---

No, starting with the hypothesis is how science is done. It is subsequently tested. Your describing this testing as 'forcing it to fit known facts through the invention of, shall we say, "highly speculative" scenarios' might be applicable to some AIG 'scientists' methodology but it is not applicable to anything I have argued. I argued against what Rahvin said because he said that "Science starts with evidence, and formulates a hypothesis based on the evidence". Which I argued was wrong.

quote:

---

I'm still amazed by your chutspah and arrogance.

---

And I am amazed by yours?

quote:

---

People with 10, 20 and 30 or more years of productive contributions in the sciences are telling you you're wrong, yet you go on arguing anyway.

---

My thoughts on theory building, justificaiton, and acceptance are the result of my readings of the literature of great and well known philosophers of Science like Kuhn, Feyeraband, Popper, Lakatos, Klemke, Hollinger, Hume, Hempel, Carnap, Putnam, Quine, etc. I actually find it quite funny the way you dispute many of these fundamental concepts well known to that class of literature.

quote:

---

I have my own psychological hypothesis that I've been developing, and I've mentioned it to you before. The evidence suggests to me that those who don't get science cannot be coached into getting it. My hypothesis is looking pretty good right now, there haven't been any disconfirming data points yet.

---

Well, I guess according to your hypothesis it would really suck if you were the one that didn't get science.Post 51:

quote:

---

Are you daft? Are you using some weird definition of evidence?

---

No, I am using a logical definition of evidence in the context of science.

quote:

---

An example of just how wrong you are is the recently attempted validation of general relativity's prediction that a rotating mass pulls space with it. They used data gathered from satellites over the past 30 years, long before the analysis was ever designed.

---

No, this does not indicate in any way that 'evidence' is known as evidence prior to the hypothesis that the evidence is in favor of. This was DATA that was collected, not 'evidence'. The 'evidence' was determined subsequent to analysis of the data and logically testing it, that the test resulted in confirmation of the Hypothesis was the evidence.

quote:

---

Another example very common in the medical profession is mining data from old studies to test new hypotheses.

---

Again this does not indicate in any way that 'evidence' is known as evidence prior to the hypothesis that the evidence is in favor of. It is only data. Hypotheses can be derived from data, but not from 'evidence', because 'evidence' does not yet exist as it has not been determined to be 'evidence' until you can filter the data through logical tests of the hypothesis.

quote:

---

The reason you're here arguing what constitutes good science instead of arguing for CPT in the geology forum is because of the weirdness of your ideas about the nature of scientific inquiry.

---

Most of these 'weird' ideas are not my own, but have been well developed and scrutinized by many philosophers of science. In fact the topic of theories is the most discussed in the literature. I don't it find it surprising that you find them so 'weird' since you probably have never read much on the topic of scientific theories anyway.

quote:

---

You need evidence of the phenomenon before you can hypothesize about it. This is fundamental.

---

What are you talking about? "evidence of the phenomenon"? You seem to be referring to what are known as 'observables' in hypotheses. I think your understanding of these fundamentals of science is skewed far away from a scientific context.

quote:

---

I don't think accurately divining your precise meaning is really possible, but it looks like you're just splitting hairs.

---

No, im not.

quote:

---

What is obvious is that you continue to push accelerated decay as an unfalsified hypothesis.

---

I am not pushing accelerated decay, you are pushing me to address it further than I already have. I am pushing the possibility of CPT independently from accelerated decay. Accelerated decay is potentially falsifiable but only through analysis of catastrophic plate tectonics so it is best left alone as the likely disconfirming instance that it is.

quote:

---

Your refusal to accept that it's been falsified means nothing if you cannot bring any evidence to the table to convince anyone.

---

I already have. But you just whined about not being able to understand it and not having time to look into it.. My refusal to accept CPT as falsified is due to the fact that the inherent auxiliary assumptions involved with every test of confirmation and disconfirmation and required to be true for the tests conclusions to be true have not been determined. I've explained this numerous times.-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.

quote:

---

Yes, it seems to me that creationists truely believe that thier opinions about science are just as valid as those who have spent thier lives studying and working in the revelant field.

---

how are mine much different?

1) If science does not start with the evidence - how do you determine the relationships that you wish to explore when constructing your Hypothesis ?2) Why do feel that nobody here agrees with your views on scientific method and methodology?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 24-Jul-2005 06:52 PM

quote:

---

1) If science does not start with the evidence - how do you determine the relationships that you wish to explore when constructing your Hypothesis ?

---

Wow, a question that actually approaches the topic by directly addressing the logic of the issue? I like this.Anyways, the direction of science is based on human intuition. It is actually quite subjective (ie. the so called logical problem of induction). We look at observations and try to find relationships between them. A hypothesis is formulated to explain those observations--we take a guess. The hypothesis is then tested in a format like I briefly detailed in post 4 and 6. If the hypothesis is confirmed by that test, and the auxiliary hypotheses are also confirmed, the test counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis and serves an epistemic reason to believe the hypothesis. You cannot start scientific methodology with "evidence" for the hypothesis under question, becasue evidence comes only as a consequence of the hypothesis having been tested. Instances of disconfirming evidence can also result form these tests. However, disconfirming evidence was not known prior to the test.

quote:

---

2) Why do feel that nobody here agrees your with views on scientific method and methodology?

---

Sometimes I don't know. But my hypothesis is that statements like 'CPT has no evidence' and 'You must start with evidence' have been said for so long they have become deep-seated beliefs. People don't like to be wrong, but retraction of statements like these, being so fundamental and seemingly elementary, are not taken lightly and will be avoided at much cost.-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.

Hi Chris,EvC Forum evidently subscribes to a brand of science that you don't accept, so I don't think this is the proper place for you. I'm removing your privileges in the rest of the science forums, but you can still post everywhere else. Please feel free to resume the dialogue here if there ever comes a time when some of the things people have been telling you begin to seem more acceptable to you.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Just paging through these posts, it seems to me there's a really simple point that Chris is trying to make, and I agree with it. He's trying to make a distinction between an observation and evidence.Science doesn't start with evidence, it starts with observations. Evidence is an observation that "fits" or "supports" a specific theory. Without a theory, an observation is just an observation. You can't start with evidence. Thus, science is not based on evidence, but rather is based on observation.Just frustrating to see so many words spilled over this distinction. I do think it's important, but I get easily frustrated with meta-discussion.Anyway, I just wanted to put this out and see if everybody out there agrees. Due to his restrictions and his leaving, I will assume I won't hear directly from Chris if this is what he's getting at.And yes, I understand that this isn't the heart of the problem. But I think it's good to clarify the point. Let me know if this clarification (sans specific quotes) is not at all clarifying.Ben

Firstly, even if relevant, Chris's point would be rather dubious.Relevant obsevations would be considered evidence in the general sense, and even though they could not be considered evidence for a hypothesis before the hypothesis was formulated, they would be considered such afterwards.More importantly, however, if that was Chris's real point he ought to be pointing to the observations that motivated CPT. He didn't because there weren't any. His whole point has been to try to gloss over the fact that CPT is YEC apologetics, lacking in scientific merit.

Percy, not that I'm defending TC, but can you tell me what is wrong with his statement: I have no argument with TC's description here. If you do, what is it? You mentioned General Relativity, but I would ask what evidence was accumulated prior to the devlopment of that theory?Furthermore, this recurrent theme of accelerated decay is only relevant if you're trying to use CPT to explain a YE. CPT, if a valid possibility, may just not have happened 4500 years ago... perhaps it hasn't occurred since the last break-up of pangea. But its study could be of enormous benefit... one day we may wake up and find ourselves flying around the planet on runaway plates, melting as we go IF CPT dropped out of a VALID modelling system, then it MAY have some substance and be worthy of study. Just because we can't find evidence for it does not mean that it is not possible.Hawking and Stewart[1] came up with a great disaster scenario in 1993... a numerical study of the end phase of black hole evaporation revealed the release of a "thunderbolt" singularity. This singularity streaked across the universe at the speed of light, wiping out everything in its path with absolutely no warning. Cool! Now obviously we had no evidence of one occuring in the past(!), but that didn't mean it wasn't going to happen sometime in the future. Of course, the real reason we were still here was that there was a mistake in the model Somehow, I feel that may be the case with CPT...[1] NucPhysB 400(1993)393