alphaparticle Posted January 19, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 19, 2014 Right, I don't understand the importance of artificially excluding astronomy from the sciences I suppose. If we exclude astronomy, then our definition is wrong and we need to rethink it. I choose astronomy on purpose, because I think most people would agree it's a legitimate scientific endeavor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 19, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.89 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Right, I don't understand the importance of artificially excluding astronomy from the sciences I suppose. If we exclude astronomy, then our definition is wrong and we need to rethink it. I choose astronomy on purpose, because I think most people would agree it's a legitimate scientific endeavor. "I don't understand the importance of artificially excluding astronomy from the sciences" It has nothing to do with the importance or non-importance and it's not based on opinion, each discipline is defined by it's inherent nature. Does it conform to the Scientific Method or not? Period, end of story. "because I think most people would agree it's a legitimate scientific endeavor." It's not up for a vote. See above. Petition the Scientific Establishment to allow for ad hoc observations, assumptions, speculations, and ideas to replace the Scientific Method. Then we can redefine everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 19, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 19, 2014 Right, I don't understand the importance of artificially excluding astronomy from the sciences I suppose. If we exclude astronomy, then our definition is wrong and we need to rethink it. I choose astronomy on purpose, because I think most people would agree it's a legitimate scientific endeavor. "I don't understand the importance of artificially excluding astronomy from the sciences" It has nothing to do with the importance or non-importance and it's not based on opinion, each discipline is defined by it's inherent nature. Does it conform to the Scientific Method or not? Period, end of story. "because I think most people would agree it's a legitimate scientific endeavor." It's not up for a vote. See above. Petition the Scientific Establishment to allow for ad hoc observations, assumptions, speculations, and ideas to replace the Scientific Method. Then we can redefine everything Definitions are arbitrary, we make them up. We certainly *can* and *should* discuss and veto definitions we find inadequate. If the definition you present for science excludes astronomy it is an inadequate definition because it fails to capture what we mean by the term. Astronomy is a standard example of a science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted January 19, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,713 Content Per Day: 8.03 Reputation: 21,770 Days Won: 77 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Right, I don't understand the importance of artificially excluding astronomy from the sciences I suppose. If we exclude astronomy, then our definition is wrong and we need to rethink it. I choose astronomy on purpose, because I think most people would agree it's a legitimate scientific endeavor. "I don't understand the importance of artificially excluding astronomy from the sciences" It has nothing to do with the importance or non-importance and it's not based on opinion, each discipline is defined by it's inherent nature. Does it conform to the Scientific Method or not? Period, end of story. "because I think most people would agree it's a legitimate scientific endeavor." It's not up for a vote. See above. Petition the Scientific Establishment to allow for ad hoc observations, assumptions, speculations, and ideas to replace the Scientific Method. Then we can redefine everything Yes I agree totally then they could get right down to the good stuff ... fantasy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 19, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted January 19, 2014 "The scientific method may be the gold standard" Fortunately, it's the only standard. Here, read this: Observational Study Researchers doing observational studies don't manipulate variables to attempt to produce results. Instead, they simply watch what happens. They might have a particular group or thing they want to study, but an observational researcher has to find that group or the thing he wants to study occurring naturally. For example, an observational researcher studying the effects of smoking would look for people who smoke and people who don't smoke, and compare the two groups to each other, rather than introduce smoking to a group of people who had never smoked before. <snip> Limitations Both observational studies and experiments have their limitations. Many experiments that would be able to prove a causal relationship would also be unethical to perform. For example, researchers may not do an experiment to see if smoking gives humans cancer by taking a group of people and forcing them to start smoking. Researchers can use observational research in situations when the same study would unethical in experimental research; however, the results of observational research aren't always clear, and are more open to interpretation. Read more: http://www.ehow.com/info_8611337_observational-study-vs-experiments.html#ixzz2qqKmC5pz What is the difference between controlled and observational studies? The three classic types of studies in biomedical research are controlled (also called experimental), observational (also called epidemiological), and case-control. There are advantages and disadvantages to each type, and an awareness of these differences makes for a savvier consumer of public health information. Read more: http://explorable.com/observational-study A scientists cannot experiment on the interior of the earth, but he can perform observational studies on seismic waves. A scientist cannot experiment on how many spiral arms our Milky Way galaxy has, but he can perform observational studies with radio waves. Determining the current health of a forest or a stream is performed through observational science. Measuring the distance to stars is performed through observational science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 19, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 19, 2014 Christians like to whine and complain that they are not taken serious in the realm of science, that they are ridiculed and dismissed. This thread is the reason why it happens and the reason why it is justified in most cases. Most every major branch of science has now been classified as "fantasy" along with almost every major theory that is in existence today. Atomic Theory...fantasy. And then you complain about not being taken seriously. Well you reap what you sow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 19, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.89 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 19, 2014 "The scientific method may be the gold standard" Fortunately, it's the only standard. Here, read this: Observational Study Researchers doing observational studies don't manipulate variables to attempt to produce results. Instead, they simply watch what happens. They might have a particular group or thing they want to study, but an observational researcher has to find that group or the thing he wants to study occurring naturally. For example, an observational researcher studying the effects of smoking would look for people who smoke and people who don't smoke, and compare the two groups to each other, rather than introduce smoking to a group of people who had never smoked before. <snip> Limitations Both observational studies and experiments have their limitations. Many experiments that would be able to prove a causal relationship would also be unethical to perform. For example, researchers may not do an experiment to see if smoking gives humans cancer by taking a group of people and forcing them to start smoking. Researchers can use observational research in situations when the same study would unethical in experimental research; however, the results of observational research aren't always clear, and are more open to interpretation. Read more: http://www.ehow.com/info_8611337_observational-study-vs-experiments.html#ixzz2qqKmC5pz What is the difference between controlled and observational studies? The three classic types of studies in biomedical research are controlled (also called experimental), observational (also called epidemiological), and case-control. There are advantages and disadvantages to each type, and an awareness of these differences makes for a savvier consumer of public health information. Read more: http://explorable.com/observational-study A scientists cannot experiment on the interior of the earth, but he can perform observational studies on seismic waves. A scientist cannot experiment on how many spiral arms our Milky Way galaxy has, but he can perform observational studies with radio waves. Determining the current health of a forest or a stream is performed through observational science. Measuring the distance to stars is performed through observational science. Yes very familiar with the concepts. "A scientists cannot experiment on the interior of the earth, but he can perform observational studies on seismic waves. A scientist cannot experiment on how many spiral arms our Milky Way galaxy has, but he can perform observational studies with radio waves. Determining the current health of a forest or a stream is performed through observational science. Measuring the distance to stars is performed through observational science." Yes that's what they do. I have a problem when it say's "Scientists"...which implies the "Scientific Method". Not that anyone is doing it on purpose they are Scientists after all. It depends on how it's worded. In your first 2 examples, it's clear that NO Experiments were done....GOOD, No problem. However, it's usually stated in the media/press releases.... "Scientists "determine" the Age of the Universe/Earth @ _______" or some other "Claim." It sort of gives the impression to the casual observer that results were reached "Scientifically" Ergo the "Scientific Method". It's disingenuous @ best and @ worst, well....you can fill in the blank__________!! It's very difficult sometimes to assess intent; However, in some instances it's quite apparent ...and as you know....it will send me over the edge LOL The 3rd one is subjective and is just an assessment. However, that ones ripe for experimentation. Measuring the distance to stars through observations are assumptions with the possibility of multiple unknown and confounding variables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 19, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.92 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted January 19, 2014 Enoch, with that mindset, you might as well just turn off the telescopes like Hubble and SOHO, shut down the radio observatories like Greenbank and the Very Large Array, and every observatory around the globe, and miss out on all the cool and useful technologies that have come out of the space program because in your mind observational science is not "real" science. Likewise, you need to not listen to Creationists who point to the dramatic landscape changes, formation of a petrified forest, and rapid ecological recovery around Mt. St. Helens, because all of that is being reported from observational science as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 19, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 19, 2014 I have been thinking about this topic a lot lately, and I'm grateful nebula started this thread. As far as the original dialog goes, I can think of ways it might progress. Say we have a scientist (a 'conventional one' who here is going to accept the current standard scientific views) believer and a young earth creationist believer. I want to return to the original dilemma. C: if you believe the Bible is God's word there is really only one legitimate way to understand the Genesis creationist account, and that is to take it as a factual account S: I don't see that that is necessarily the case, perhaps God was communicating to ancient communities using terminology and concepts they would understand C: God could have put the Big Bang model in there, evolution in there, long ages in there, in terms they would understand without the details S: that may be so but maybe the intended point of the account isn't what went down in a step-wise type way skipping ahead to theological consequences... C: not only is that a forced, ad hoc reading of what is most simply seen as a factual account of matters, but there are dire theological consequences to your reading also. If you are not taking the creation account factually, are you also not taking the fall as a historical happening? S: maybe not C: if that's the case, then what about the need for Jesus' sacrifice? S: if it's the case that my reading of the creation account is right, and the precise historical happenings aren't what is most critical that could apply here also. After all, it's empirically verifiable that humans do wrong. Whether or not a literal historical Adam and Eve got kicked out of the garden of Eden or not we are sinful C: there are multiple problems with that. The first is, if you are going to so blithely disregard historical factualness as important, what's to stop you from disregarding Jesus' life, death and resurrection as important historical events? Second, Jesus referred to these people as real. I will let the creationist have the last word here, and move on to a different aspect of this C: considering you'd have an easier time just accepting that the entire Bible, unless genre obviously mitigates against it, ought to be taken in a factual historical way why don't you do that? You seem to be cherry picking here and my view is a lot more obviously coherent. S: in a sense I agree with you but it's not that simple. If I want to believe what is true, and I do, I can't ignore what seems to be the obvious facts about the world. Believing the world is 10k years old is impossible for me. I can't up and choose to believe I have won the lottery and I have millions in the bank based on will alone. It has to actually seem true to me. More than that, the social implications of something like YEC, the ramifications on my career, make it incredibly nontrivial. That view is considered beyond contempt in scientific circles, though I personally respect where you are coming from on this. C: alright but if it comes down to empirical facts and the Bible, shouldn't you choose the Bible? Otherwise you are devaluing it as God's revelation to the world. I shouldn't even have to mention that Jesus did say we'd be hated for His sake as for your latter concern. S: I suppose the truth is I can't give primacy to the biblical account in isolation to what seems to be the facts about the natural world. I think I could make a case from the Bible itself that we ought to expect order in nature, and not expect to be deceived in it... I'll leave it there for now, but there is how it is basically broken up in my mind at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 19, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 19, 2014 Enoch, with that mindset, you might as well just turn off the telescopes like Hubble and SOHO, shut down the radio observatories like Greenbank and the Very Large Array, and every observatory around the globe, and miss out on all the cool and useful technologies that have come out of the space program because in your mind observational science is not "real" science. Likewise, you need to not listen to Creationists who point to the dramatic landscape changes, formation of a petrified forest, and rapid ecological recovery around Mt. St. Helens, because all of that is being reported from observational science as well. What other mindset can a YEC have? They have to find a way to deny any science that does not agree with their interpretation of Genesis 1. To the YEC crowd Edwin Hubble is a snake oil salesman and Ken Ham is the ultimate authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts