What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only)

If Rob decides to reengage the discussion I think that he should be permitted the opportunity to provide an illustration of how he would apply his definition of science, but using an example where the conclusions are obvious to everyone. Your power outlet example was of just this nature, since no matter how you approached the problem, once all the evidence was available the conclusion was eminently sensible.By using an example with an obvious outcome Rob should be able to highlight his definition of science and not have it overshadowed by some controversial topic. One interpretation of your most recent rebuttal is that it showed Rob's conclusions about intelligent design wrong, but not necessarily Rob's proposed definition of science.It is in everyone's best interest to have the best method possible for figuring out the nature of the universe. We should all be on the same side.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I will assume that I am allowed to reply if not explicitly requested not to? Fair comment. In the absence of a generalised form of what specific elements are compared for contradiction in a non case specific 'test for coherence' this is true.
It is my conclusion that a generalised form is just not possible and that as a result a generalised argument is unavailable. What Rob chooses to compare his predetermined conclusion to, totally depends on both the case in question and whether or not he wants to prove or disprove the theory under consideration. It is totally, completely and utterly arbitary. Therefore it is almost impossible to argue against the core idea of his thesis in generalised terms and almost impossible to understand when he tries to talk about it in generalised terms. I should have made this clearer but it is a difficult point to get across in an already (overly) long post.If Rob does supply us with an example things should become much clearer. On that I think we can all agree. That is definitely what is required here.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Clarity

Straggler:For the love of reason Straggler, we all rely solely upon the application of logic for the scientific method. Furthermore, when it comes to origins (be it biological or cosmological), all of us are working with incomplete evidence.So what you have just said in essence, is that any science will produce unreliable conclusions when it comes to historical sciences. Certainly your not suggesting that a little illogical interpretation of the incomplete evidence is valid. No, you not so foolish . we rely simply on logic to make what evidence is present, coherent and intelligible.You may be confusing observational science (where we have all the evidence) with the historical sciences (which we do not).We’re dealing with theory here Straggler. And we’re specifically trying to find out which theory (in terms of origin) is the most logical (coherent) with the available evidence.
That is the context of my thesis as clearly stated in the abstract. So let me state it in another way; we’re not dealing with empirical facts, other than basing our theories on those incomplete empirical facts already known.Straggler:Empirical truths? Truth is not empirical Straggler, it is coherent. Truth is essentially the quality of our propositions.Truth 3 a: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality. ( Truth Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster )Truth is a statement that conforms to what actually is empirically. Rocks do not speak. We must speak for them in the language that appears to accurately reflect the cosmos; the language of mathematics and logical inference.I said it even more clearly in my argumentation; that if the empirical material world is coherent, then our theories (philosophies) regarding it must also be coherent in order to be in accord; in order to match, the logical and coherent pattern in nature.logic 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning. (Logic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster )And the most formal of all principles of reasoning is the law of contradiction. That’s what logic is. And all other modes of premise, conclusion, and the like, must obey this law. Without it, we do not have mathematics to postulate laws of physics and the like which you glibly assert as empirical truth.Reason, logic, and coherence are synonymous . Logic is coherence Straggler. You said that (incomplete evidence) + (valid logic) + (coherence) = (unreliable conclusion).All logic is valid by definition. Logic and coherence are the same thing. If our reasoning is not valid, then it is illogical and incoherent.This is the proper way to state my thesis (Available evidence) + (logical i.e. scientific methodology) = (the most scientific conclusion). I am not suggesting that such a result is absolutely solid or empirical fact. We’re dealing in the realm of scientific theory not fact. We’re trying to derive the most logical and coherent conclusion from available evidence (”empirical truths’ as you call them).And how are empirical truths arrived at if not by the application of logic in the past? Evidence isn’t true apart from observation, testing, repeatability and the like. If it were, we would have no need for science, or the scientific method.Upon testing the evidence with the law of contradiction (logic) we find such things as logical and mathematical patterns (laws of physics) that are coherent and indisputable in nature. We might say that nature reflects and confirms our reasoning (which is a curious thing in itself really)That’s what makes an empirical fact a fact.And I agree that that is the best method, and it is all that I am advocating. The only thing I have done is established what science already is . And I find it amusing that you are arguing against the very thing you are trying to defend. You’re completely tied in knots. As one poster told me privately, you’re manifesting demons. I don't know about that, but I can almost imagine you foaming at the mouth. We all got a few snakes inside...You accuse me of zeal? If you want to see zeal, take a gander at Richard Dawkins. Zeal is not something reserved only for theists!Straggler:First of all, my only theory is that logic is valid. That is my assumption, and it is also my conclusion. Logic is circular and systematic by its very nature, and that is why rationalism is not good enough. We must systematize logic with the objective empirical world. Then it is valid.That is exactly the case I make in the argumentation. But you have had it backwards from the beginning. It isn’t design that I assume before I begin, it is materialism that you conclude before you begin.Again, the only thing I assume from beginning to end is logical coherence.What I said (and what all of you confess) is that methodological naturalism assumes a preconceived conclusion (that all scientific explanations must be material) before the process even begins. So as Percy is waiting for, let's put my process to an example. And let's test my theory of ID against yours.It works like this with regard to origins: Material explanations and causes for many problems exist. Therefore all explanations and causes for all problems are material.That is called inductive reasoning. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.It may be valid, but it must be weighed and made to cohere with empirical evidence, which cannot be done apart from omnipotence. So it is neither internally coherent or objective (as deductive reasoning would be), and is not empirically testable or repeatable by observation or experiment.Now here is the rub:There is no material explanation for the origin of DNA or matter.[/b] It is simply asserted that such an explanation must exist by ecclesiastical proclamation made by those with a materialistic philosophy. That is an anti-theistic philosophy that has no scientific merit by way of empirical evidence or logical authority.[/b]How can I say that anything must exist without evidence? Isn’t that what you accuse theists of doing?On the other hand, there is empirical evidence for intelligent causation, namely the organizational and creative capacity of intelligent human beings.Matter cannot produce information. Matter obeys information. Matter is simply the material medium by which intelligence produce patterns that are written.For example, SETI researchers who are supported by a large body of ”scientists’, listen for such patterns, in order to prove the existence of intelligence elsewhere. So you guys support the principle if only it could be used to find life other than God.The addition of information causes no difference in mass to the material medium. A CD that is full of 70MB of information is no different in terms of mass than one that is empty. The only difference is the pattern that intelligence inscribes in the medium. Without intelligence, there is no information.There are lots of material emissions coming from space, but they contain no intelligent information as far as we can tell thus far. There is no demonstrable natural process by which information is produced. And that’s why SETI Researchers know that such a pattern would signify intelligence.It isn’t the matter or energy in the emissions that contains the information, but the pattern of the medium that contains the signal.Imagine two newspapers . both with equal numbers of letters and atomic weight. One has intelligible sentences, and the other has the same letters distributed randomly across the pages. It’s the logical order of the letters that contains intelligible information, not the material medium itself. It isn’t the ink and paper that is information, but the pattern put there intelligently.When it comes to DNA were dealing with the most sophisticated and efficient organized and logical code in the known universe. Random and repetitive forces of nature cannot produce a Dick and Jane book, let alone quaternary digital codes.At least not that we know of . But if you could find some evidence to the contrary, then you be scientific.So when it comes to origins we have a choice between two theories. One provides no explanation for the origin of biological information. The other offers a logical and coherent conclusion sustained by actual empirical evidence.Which one has the logical and scientific evidence on its side?Which of the two based upon your own admission of what science is, is the most scientific?Which one?Now Straggler, if you don’t think we should rely upon logic in light of insufficient evidence, then you must be advocating illogical interpretation of what evidence we do have, so as to believe in something that there is no evidence for whatsoever.I never said that two valid theories can be equally true btw. You were tearing down a straw man. Obviously they cannot, because the law of contradiction prohibits it. There is simply no such thing as two valid theories, because there validity is determined by testing.When looking at two theories, the one that is the most coherent must be exalted to remain scientific. That is the inference to the best explanation. It doesn’t mean that it is true absolutely . it only means that it has the most explanatory power in terms of science, which is the combination of logic and evidence.Use your God given mind.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

From the argumentation for the thesis:

quote:

---

Methodological naturalism is neither logical (philosophically), nor scientific (empirically) when exalted to the status of an absolute. The only absolute in science is logic and coherence. Logical coherence (non-contradiction) must be assumed to be reality (i.e.God) in the triune sense extrapolated to us by the apostle John. But before we analyze John’s witness, let’s bear in mind that the Greeks had several ”terms’ for the English term ”Word’. The one that John used is ”logos’ which assumes ”reason’ as part of its meaning. The term Logos is also the etymological root of the English term ”logic’.[1]

​

John 1:1 In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men . 14 The ogos became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

​

So science is indeed a triune and monotheistic affair. Paul Davies understands the history of scientific thought very well. Even so, it appears that the connection is far more implicit than he, or many of us bargained for. Logic has always been so, long before we discovered its power and recognized its whole nature. Logic is our only authority. Without its coherent order, all things would become unintelligible philosophically, and fall to pieces materially.

​

Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together (cohere).

​

Non-contradiction is the law of laws and reflects the logical and intelligible character of the living triune God. The coherent quality of His work is the intelligibility behind the physical laws, and the power and certitude of our moral laws (love thy neighbor as thy self). Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

​

What I want to know is how did 16th and 17th century philosophers (who were ironically called empiricists) fool us for so long into framing every question in a form such as ”what is life?’, ”what is reality?’, what is energy?’

​

Speaking of energy, let us remember that energy is defined by physicists as 'the capacity to do work'. I think it is worth noting the abstract quality of the definition. ”Scientists’ can tell us what energy does, and they can mathematically measure and quantify it in that way, but they cannot tell us what energy is. And the reason they fail is by assuming energy to be ”a what’, and not ”a who’.

​

John 5:17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working."

​

It appears that Jesus claimed to have a lot of capacity. I mean really now, just who does He think He is? Is He claiming to be God?

​

John 10:17 “The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

​

Was it a lack of intellectual capacity on our part that made us prone to asking questions that assumed reality to be a ”what’ that is completely at our disposal, or was our dilemma really only an intellectual/moral discontinuity? One need not look far for the answer. It has been on our shelves for at least two thousand years.

​

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.

​

Ultimately the question has always been, ”who is reality’. That’s what the empirical evidence shows; the part of the historical and empirical evidence that reminds us of man’s hunger for spirituality. Can we as scientists, dismiss such evidence as irrelevant? I thought evidence was more persuasive than theory .

​

”Who’ is this holy, logical and coherent Spirit of truth that we are necessarily dependant upon and implicitly commanded to worship and seek as our only light and savior? Since this holy spirit of coherence is the only intelligible self evident truth, and our only way to finding God (reality), then if logic could speak, what would He say? Since logic is the way the truth and the life, wouldn’t ”the logos’ Himself affirm such a thing?

​

John 14:6 " . I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

​

John 8:12 " . I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

---

( rob_lock LiveJournal )

Logic is systematic by definition. It is a system. That's why any scientific equation must have at least two entities that cohere to have a legitimate result.The testimony of two witnesses is a Judeo-christian tradition. Otherwise the prosecutor would become God. Thou shall not bear false witness.The Bible affirms and upholds the strictest scientific principles.Science and coherence is triune by it's very nature. Evidence + theory = coherent conclusion. It may not always be fully concluded, but we are not omniscient.Anyway, that is the historical roots of science. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.phpAnd we see it here so beautifully illustrated.John 8:12-20
12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." 13 The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid." 14 Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."And of course in this context, Jesus is not only 'the logos incarnate', but referring to the prophecies about Him in the Old Testament.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

So from all of this can we assume that your proposed methodology is just unable to reach any conclusions if applied to find the causes of the sort of basic everyday problems that the scientific method can be so successfully employed to do?After all your fine words are you simply unable to meet the challenge laid out in Message 72?If your car would not start would you solve the problem by means of a test for logical coherence or would you progress by means of empirical testing and the conventional scientific method? When it comes to your own theory are you a practitioner or a hypocrite?

Guys, lets get on-topic.To Rob:No Bible quoting. This is a science thread.You said you were going to provide an example as per my request, but there was no example, just more argument. You don't have to use Straggler's power outlet example, but you should use something equally simple with an equally obvious outcome so that it is your scientific process that is the focus and not the example itself.To Straggler:Let's keep it civil and impersonal.To you both:Please, no replies to this message.Edited by Admin, : Typo.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Straggler:Is it really that difficult for you?If my car would not start, I would do exactly what the scientific method is at it's very heart...I would systematically, and logically deduce what the problem is, and then confirm to make sure that my analysis is coherent.But logical deductions cannot be made without the law of contradiction. If it's not this problem, then perhaps it is that.So we move from assumiing and applying the methodology of logical coherence, to the hypothesis, to the testing, to the confirmation or contradiction, upon contradiction to further testing, unto conclusion, and varification, so as to arrive at a coherent conclusion.That is the scientific method as I have been telling you all along. My only point, is to remind you that it is inseperable from, and useless without, the founding faith that we maintain in the systemic validity of logic.Science is triune. That is the simplicity of the scientific method.You're making it much too complicated in an attempt to avoid this unpleasant reality...Remember Friar Occum and his razor "lex parsimoniae"... 'Do not multiply entities without necessity'.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Just to highlight the absurdity of your position can I just verify that you are proposing that we do away with all empirical testing of scientific conclusions/hypotheses?So when a pharmaceutical company proposes a new medicine on the basis of theoretical biochemistry you would check for logical coherence instead of running drug trials?Where a physicist has developed a theory regarding alternative energy sources (e.g. cold fusion) you would judge his theory in terms of logical coherence rather than whether or not his proposed method could be shown to actually produce any energy or not?In which areas of science do you suggest that we actually replace empirical testing and the conventional scientific method with your proposed test for logical coherence?
Or is your theory only applicable in the areas of science where you happen to dispute the findings of empirical testing and conventional science on purely religious grounds?

Admin:The triune God is science Percy. The Hindu Vedas may not be science, but the logos is by definition.I am that I am.Banish and threaten his messengers, and you condemn yourself.I don't need to be here. But you need me to be...Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

No straggler, I am authenticating empirical observation and evidence. And you are again confuting observational sciences with the historical sciences.Do you have any empirical evidence as to a material or natural cause that produces information?Because I have some empirical evidence for intelligence producing it. So the question is really whether it is needed for you to believe in a materialistic explanation?Your the one with blind faith. Jesus opens the eyes of the blind.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

You just cannot show how your method would be applied to a simple cause and effect problem can you?
You are simply unable to refute the key allegation made against your theory that it is unworkable in any practical sense at all.In Message 72 the sort of detail that is required to demonstrate the deductive processes involved for a given methodology were explicitly stated. Plese either apply this level of detail to an example of your methodology in action so that we can all see which aspects of your theory gives rise to which thought processes or just concede that you are unable to do so.

John 8:38-45
38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father." 39 "Abraham is our father," they answered. "If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the things your own father does." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself." 42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Straggler:My method is the cause and effect problem. How many times do I have to tell you? I did it last time remember? Right here: http://EvC Forum: What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only) -->EvC Forum: What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only)To have cause and effect, you use logical coherence to solve the problem. Logical coherence is the scientific method.Why can't you understand that? Can you not hear the truth when it is spoken?Logical coherence + evidence = scientific conclusionEdited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

The only place logical coherence rests in peace, is in your incoherent posts Straggler.You've been straggling the whole thread, so come out of your tomb Lazarus and live.In all honesty, it's a hard thing to grasp. But once you do, you will praise God, not me.I don't want any praise. I thoroughly expect to be metaphorically crucified and thrown into prison for speaking so boldly to the temple authorites.As you have judged, so shall you be judged.