Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific Fact versus Interpretation
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 76 of 144 (295787)
03-15-2006 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Ratel
03-15-2006 10:58 PM


Re: Here's an issue both sides can interpret
This thread isn't supposed to be too much about the Flood, Ratel, and while there are some speculations by creationists about how to explain those phenomena, I agree, they are hard to explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Ratel, posted 03-15-2006 10:58 PM Ratel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Ratel, posted 03-15-2006 11:49 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 03-16-2006 5:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
Ratel
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 144 (295792)
03-15-2006 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by roxrkool
03-15-2006 11:16 PM


Re: Here's an issue both sides can interpret
Okay, thanks for your explanation, I guess I was thinking of it more like concrete, drying out and hardening.
So is the layer superimposed over the ripple layer always of a different material?
Because the pic I'm looking at *appears* to be
rippled beach
rippled beach
rippled beach
But to get each beach preserved, this is how it works:
rippled beach
blown in silt
rippled beach
blown in silt
rippled beach
etc.
Devil's advocate question:
Since we're on the topic of interpretation, is it at all possible what the geologists are calling ancient beaches may have been something-else, considering that there are footprints and ripples and so forth? Is there any conceivable scenario where a deluge (global or local) could have washed in these layers from somewhere else?
Thanks for your information, I'm getting a real education here.
[EDIT: Sorry, I asked a Flood question here, don't answer if you feel it's off-topic]
This message has been edited by Ratel, 03-15-2006 11:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by roxrkool, posted 03-15-2006 11:16 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by roxrkool, posted 03-16-2006 1:29 AM Ratel has not replied

  
Ratel
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 144 (295793)
03-15-2006 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
03-15-2006 11:23 PM


Re: Here's an issue both sides can interpret
Okay, I'll take it easy on the Flood side

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 11:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 79 of 144 (295805)
03-16-2006 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Ratel
03-15-2006 11:48 PM


Re: Here's an issue both sides can interpret
I've only posited one possible way to preserve tracks or ripples. I think we discussed this once before in another thread and there were several processes which seemed plausible. I think clay, silt, and cement components were mentioned as 'setting' agents. The new layer does not have to be a different size or type of sediment. I think all you really need is for the tracks, ripples, mudcracks, raindrops, etc. to form in sediment that can retain an impression long enough to survive in any particular environment.
Since we're on the topic of interpretation, is it at all possible what the geologists are calling ancient beaches may have been something-else, considering that there are footprints and ripples and so forth? Is there any conceivable scenario where a deluge (global or local) could have washed in these layers from somewhere else?
Are you referring to a specific location or is this a general question?
Thing is, the way geologists interpret the stratigraphic record is to compare what we see in the rocks to what we see today. Perfect analogues are not always necessary or possible, but all it really takes is making some pretty simple observations of the modern landscape and see if we can see the same or similar things in the rock record. Or vice versa. And we do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Ratel, posted 03-15-2006 11:48 PM Ratel has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 80 of 144 (295807)
03-16-2006 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
03-15-2006 2:39 PM


If Henry was King...
Well, Moddy, I will rapidly get bored with this thread if this is the way it's going to go.
You paved the way to a debate about 'just what is a fact?'.
Henry the VIII WAS King of England. That IS a fact.
I'm not sure how you can say it was a fact. Is it something to do with the corroborating evidence? Perhaps you have something else in mind?
And if we have to raise the question, even have whole threads at this late date in the EvC controversy, in order to establish how we can be sure that is a fact, then I say this whole debate enterprise is a pathetic joke (which of course I think anyway).
You're going to need to show how this is a fact and not an interpretation of the evidence. To me, the idea that Henry VIII was King is wild speculation, not a fact. It is a fact that the records show a Henry VIII, and several texts right of him, but us laymen need to be able to distinguish between the facts (the documents) and the interpretation (he was King).
There is NOT enough evidence for it to be unreasonable not to accept the OE interpretation (OR the common-descent-of-all-life-from-common-ancestor-back-in-the-Primordial-Ooze interpretation either).
Obviously your opinion. It runs massively contrary to pretty much every single person that has spent any time examining the evidence. But there you go. Of course, that means nothing, which is why I think it is perfectly reasonable to not accept that either the holocaust happened or the moon landing.
What I have identified as interpretation is clearly imaginative interpretation that has no way of being verified or falsified -- the whole tipsy scheme of long-lived "environments."
I've seen verifications though. Burrows, fossil gradients, radiodating, tree ring data, recorded volcanic activity, visibly eroded surface, cracked riverbed surfaces under other strata. Plenty of it.
But at least for the sake of discussion, although you may think all those interpretations are as sound as fact, the proper thing to do would be to acknowledge the distinction I am making, as it is certainly logical, and I think reasonable (it certainly doesn't exclude the likes of Henry the Eighth from being a fact) and politely spare us creationists the endless certainties that we know perfectly well aren't certainties.
I need to know where the line gets drawn, so I need some kind of method for distinguishing between what you call fact and what you call interpretation. Do you define any event that is said to have occurred more than 10,000 years ago as being speculation? Or do you have some objective criteria for making this distinction?
See, I think my pointing out the distinction was necessary, and that nobody here otherwise was going to recognize it.
I have often tried to impress the importance of fact vs theory. Many discussions have taken place here about just exactly what is a fact. I haven't found any reasonable reason to not accept geology or evolution, just special pleading, incredulity, appeals to consequences, the classic "we can't test the past...unless its forensic science, but that isn't a good analogy" etc etc.
I have blessed with the ability to tell the difference between observed data and evidenced based conclusions on the past, and I see no need to make the distinction any clearer. You are able to see the distinction, so what's the problem?
But hey, if everybody wants to stay in their blurry unverifiable unfalsifiable untestable ToE and OE delusion then carry on among yourselves. I'll just ignore you.
Hey Faith, if you want to continue believing what you do, despite dozens of falsifications tests, and you want to believe some strange idea about global floods creating ordered layers of fossils in such a way as to create congruency between fossil evidence and DNA evidence and radiodating, if you want to believe that the White Cliffs were made in one year despite how that hypothesis has been falsified by pretty much any test going, if you want to believe that layering of sedimentary rock can even begin to occur during a non-supernatural flood...carry on.
Faith, if you want to stay in your unexplained problematic unverified falsified Young Earth/Global Flood delusion be my guest. I may or may not ignore you, it depends if you make any statements about science which are not true or based on a misunderstanding. I hold no hope of convincing you, but hopefully someone reading this that might be taken in by your ideas will think twice.
Wow, making snide comments about your opponent's position is kinda fun. Kind of gets it in the open air a little right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 2:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 81 of 144 (295816)
03-16-2006 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
03-15-2006 10:26 PM


Good old confirmation bias
Nope, you proved the Flood for me
...
Single, multiple, anything is possible from the Flood.
So you have a situation where anything is possible. Thus if we find anything, that is evidence of the flood? How can any 'specific tests' be made if any outcome only confirms the hypothesis? Is this how Creationists interpret evidence? If it exists, it confirms my hypothesis in some way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 10:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 82 of 144 (295827)
03-16-2006 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
03-15-2006 11:23 PM


fantasy scenario v theory based on lines of converging evidence
From an earlier reply...
The point about these conjectures is that they aren't just conjectures of the sort we always build on observations or evidence, they are complete imaginative fantasy scenarios that cannot be tested at all.
Why are they unable to be tested? I could have sworn that's what my professor was doing for his work in geology. Just because the methods are not completely spelled out in one citation does not mean there was no work (beyond fantasization) put into such an assignment.
But part of me is still wondering how you classify one thing as conjecture and another as not. From your own post, an example of "fact"...
This appears to be physical fact : "The Vishnu Schist consists of pelitic schist and quartz + biotite +muscovite schists interpreted as meta-lithic-arenites, metagraywackes,and calc-silicate lenses and pods. Meta-lithic-arenite and metagraywacke sequences show thick sections (kilometre-scale) of rhythmically banded (centimetre- to metre-scale) coarser and finer layers, with locally well-preserved bedding and graded bedding (Walcott, 1894; Clark, 1976; Fig. 4c). Locally, the Vishnu Schist contains pelitic and semipelitic schists that variably contain andalusite, sillimanite, staurolite, chloritoid, cordierite, and garnet. Original grain size in the Vishnu Schist metasedimentary rocks probably ranged from medium-grained sand to silt and clay.Conglomerates are conspicuously absent in the Vishnu metasedimentary rocks (Campbell and Maxson, 1933).
All I see is telling. They do not explain how they determined any of what they say. I mean what is schist v quartz? How do they know? Because they look alike/different? I cannot tell from this how anything is determined, though there are citations where I assume I can find more information, and perhaps more citations there.
So you accept the above as "fact", though there is NO explanation for methods, then have an issue with...
This, however, is conjecture : Relict graded bedding (Fig. 4c), association with metavolcanic rocks containing pillow structures (Fig. 4b), lack of coarse sediments, and geochemical data (Babcock, 1990) indicate that the metasedimentary units accumulated in an oceanic island-arc environment, as suggested for the Yavapai Supergroup rocks of central Arizona (Anderson and Silver, 1976; Bowring and Karlstrom, 1990).
Explain to me how this is any different than the first quote? In fact this almost seems to have a more clearcut assignation process. Both make statements assigning characteristics to deposits and give citations to work which made that assignation possible.
Despite claiming it was all fantasy work, nowhere did I see you mention or quote from the articles cited in your quote. Do you know what work Babcock, Anderson and Silver, and Bowring and Karlstrom did? Have you looked at their papers?
If not, isn't it purely conjecture on your part that this assignation is untestable and pure conjecture?
I decided to help you out by looking for at least one of the articles (I chose Bowring and Karlstrom). My extremely brief search did not result in that article, but I did find one of Karlstrom's latest (2005), which is essentially the same subject.Please take a look at this article and explain what is wrong with the methodology they use. I'd be particularly interested in substantiations of your claim that they are not concerned with testing, and create fantasies which are not capable of being tested.
while there are some speculations by creationists about how to explain those phenomena
Do you consider creationist work open to the same criticism as geologists? If not, why not? Could you show me pieces where they explain the methods behind their assignations of content and depositional environment which are testable?
If so, how do you feel creo explanations compare to geo explanations? Does one group's theories carry greater weight based on greater corroboration from evidence (ie greater explanatory power)?
This message has been edited by holmes, 03-16-2006 12:00 PM
This message has been edited by holmes, 03-16-2006 12:01 PM

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 11:23 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by roxrkool, posted 03-16-2006 10:23 AM Silent H has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 83 of 144 (295857)
03-16-2006 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-15-2006 9:51 AM


Scientific Interpretation for the Layman
Excellent topic Faith!
As a layman I understand your quandry. How do we decide what is fact and what is opinion or interpretation?
Even though you didn't like Message 5 by Modulous, I think his approach as explained more in Message 80 is a good avenue to understanding how the scientists come to their conclusions and the way they present them which sound like fact to us.
When I take a blood test, I assume the resulting numbers would be considered fact, but what do they mean? Someone has to interpret what the numbers mean.
IMO, the easiest way to understand their position is to start with what we, as laymen, already accept as fact on a daily basis. Understanding how we ourselves speak of certain things as fact, can hopefully help us understand how and why they speak of certain things as fact from our viewpoint.
You called them out here, so let's take advantage of the opportunity. As a layman who is not able to actually run any tests, how do I discern what is fact and what is opinion? This goes for geology, biology, medicine, etc. How can I tell whether the scientist speaking is one who knows what he is doing or one who doesn't know what he is doing.
As laymen, we probably accept quite a few things as fact that technically aren't fact.
I think it would be easier to understand if we got away from the actual science stuff you were presenting and deal on a generic level. Then maybe you can go back and apply it to what you consider fact and see how they got the interpretation.
Personally, I don't understand the stuff you presented anyway.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 9:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 84 of 144 (295874)
03-16-2006 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
03-15-2006 9:38 PM


Re: conjecture vs simplified description
Faith writes:
Well, tell me how you plan to test the conjecture that a certain rock formation was created in a certain kind of environment. You can show how the conjecture was arrived at, but you can't test it to see if it's true.
Well, you could see if there are any formations that are being created now that have the same or similar features/details as the old rock formation. It seems reasonable that the same conditions/elements that are creating the formations of the same type today would have likely created the formations a long time ago.
No, you can't test the rock formation directly to find out absolutely if it was formed in the same manner but you can test things that help determine the relative likelyhood of particular scenerios (conjectures, in your terminology).
You know, the Henry VIII example seems to be having more and more validity in regards to this thread. You can't directly test if there was an English king named Henry VIII, but you can look at evidence that corroborates his existance and make educated guesses as to the likelyhood that the CONJECTURE that he was king is true.
Unless, of course, you have a way of directly testing the "wild speculation" that there actually was a King Henry VIII. If you do, please present it here because that just might change the entire way that history is researched.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 9:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 85 of 144 (295906)
03-16-2006 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Silent H
03-16-2006 5:57 AM


Re: fantasy scenario v theory based on lines of converging evidence
Thanks for that paper, holmes, it actually has applications to both my projects. Karlstrom has been doing similar work since the 70s and I wouldn't be surprised if he alone had more than 50 published papers on similar topics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 03-16-2006 5:57 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Silent H, posted 03-16-2006 12:50 PM roxrkool has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 86 of 144 (295955)
03-16-2006 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by roxrkool
03-16-2006 10:23 AM


Re: fantasy scenario v theory based on lines of converging evidence
it actually has applications to both my projects.
You mean you can apply pieces of fiction to your own sheer speculations?
Heheheh.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by roxrkool, posted 03-16-2006 10:23 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by roxrkool, posted 03-16-2006 1:20 PM Silent H has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 87 of 144 (295966)
03-16-2006 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Silent H
03-16-2006 12:50 PM


Re: fantasy scenario v theory based on lines of converging evidence
I guess I'm just delusional like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Silent H, posted 03-16-2006 12:50 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Silent H, posted 03-17-2006 5:57 AM roxrkool has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 144 (296110)
03-16-2006 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
03-15-2006 2:39 PM


Re: PulEEZE let's not hassle out such obvious stuff
Right on, Faith. Henry the 8th, relative to a few centuries is apples and oranges to interpreting millions of years scientifically speaking.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 03-15-2006 2:39 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by LinearAq, posted 03-17-2006 8:45 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 144 (296112)
03-16-2006 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by jar
03-15-2006 10:38 PM


Re: Finally something that can be tested.
Jar writes:
....... Flood never happened Faith and there is no evidence anywhere to support such a myth.
Have you viewed ICR's Grand canyon video, pertaining to scientific evidence of the flood?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 03-15-2006 10:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 03-16-2006 10:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 99 by nator, posted 03-18-2006 9:04 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 90 of 144 (296113)
03-16-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Buzsaw
03-16-2006 10:34 PM


Re: Finally something that can be tested.
Yes, and it's a laugh a minute. The ICR evidence is not just sophomoric, it's a little below Scary Story 26 on the believable scale.
There is absolutely NO way the Grand Canyon was produced by the alleged Flood, just as there is NO evidence anywhere on Earth that there has been a world-wide flood in at least the last 600,000 years.
The Biblical Flood never happened.
If you would like, follow along with the discussion of the Grand Canyon from the bottom up and perhaps you will learn something.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Buzsaw, posted 03-16-2006 10:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by NosyNed, posted 03-16-2006 11:24 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024