faith vs science.. what vs?

[Tristen]

Hey Enoch,

 

You said “Let me ask you, what makes science...."Science"??  In other words, what's the Difference between "Science"  and  "Carpentry" or anything else ??  It's the Method:”

 

Scientific investigation existed long before the proposal of a specific “scientific method”. The distinction between science and other endeavours is over what is pursued, not the method by which it is pursued. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, carpentry is the production or reparation of wood-based products.

 

 

“scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation”

 

By this definition, any involvement of “systematic experimentation” renders an explanation to be scientific. I think it's moderately narrow, but I can live with a definition of science as the pursuit of knowledge incorporating "systematic experimentation"

 

 

“You can't do experiments on the past; Heretofore, anything dealing with the past is "UNSCIENTIFIC" by definition”

 

I understand that you cannot do experiments (or make any direct observations) in the past, but you can investigate the past by making inferences on experiments conducted in the present.

 

 

“Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory”

 

Agreed – which is consistent with my definition; i.e. facts interpreted either for or against a scientific position.

 

“when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

By THE METHOD.”

 

Wrong – the construct we label “the scientific method” does not speak to how facts are collected or interpreted. Simply restating a definition does not rationally rebut my rebuttal.   [and possibly a good example of why Wikipedia is frowned upon as a legitimate scientific reference source]. Definitions have to be validated in logic, rather than simply online-sourced.

 

 

“Define "scientific methodology"?? You're Equivocating......"Scientific Methodology"”

 

Just because I don’t specifically define every term as I use it, does not automatically render my usage equivocation. Your accusation of my equivocation is itself an Unsupported Assertion.

I am generally happy with your above-provided definition; i.e. any pursuit of knowledge that incorporates “systematic experimentation”.

 

 

“Just because I use tools:  Hammer, Nails, Square et al....... doesn't automatically make me a Carpenter”

 

Very true. But you don’t have to be a carpenter to do carpentry. WHooooaa!

But if you use those tools to make something, or fix something, made out of wood, you have engaged in an act of carpentry.

 

 

“This is also a False Dichotomy wrapped in an Equivocation Convolution......with the term "science" and with "scientific methodology"”

 

I have previously defined “science” as a broad concept incorporating “scientific methodology”. So my use is consistent; one term used generally, and the other more specific. Again, you have failed to provide any rational support (or even explanation) for your assertion.

 

 

“Forensics, Archeology, Paleontology et al are Historical Sciences”

 

Nah-ah – Not according to your previous statement, “if it's dealing with past events its not "science"”

 

 

“I stick with their Products:  "Scientific Evidence" or "Evidence" to differentiate.”

 

I’m not sure how your differentiation works. Both of these terms are constructs that exist within the overall concept of science.

 

 

“that doesn’t render them logically impossible or beyond the scope of scientific investigation… Strawman. I never said they render them logically impossible”

 

And I never claimed that you said such – so no Strawman. I simply included this statement as part of my argument.

 

 

“With respect to the author of this article, that is a ridiculously narrow defininition Why because you said so?  If you click the link he expands on it”

 

I was referring to the definition on the opened link – so yet another false accusation that I’m using logical fallacy. And not because I “said so” – I provided arguments to support my position.

 

 

“do you think that your "Almost every" or "Much of science" phrases are enough to refute?”

 

With regards to statistical modelling - not at all. Though I consider it logistically implausible to expect me to go through every scientific journal; listing every example of research using statistical modelling in the overall context of research - thereby demonstrating the relative saturation of statistical modelling in scientific research. I suppose, if I had the time, I could take a large random sample of journals and statistically model the density of statistical models in scientific journals.

 

With regards to experimental design, its simply a logically applied definition. Experimental design incorporates modelling the effects of a proposition in the context of an experiment; such that the experiment has meaning.

 

 

“Does it Preclude the fact that it has to have some validity?”

 

You presented one line of a larger definition. My ‘refutation’ was of the entire definition offered by “the author of this article”. I found the phrase “some validity” to be overly subjective – so I looked into how the author justified their position.

 

 

“just because models are built doesn't then automatically denote efficacy or validity/veracity”

 

“veracity” of what? The model; or the initial claim upon which the model is formulated. A formulated model is available for testing against the available evidence. Clearly I don’t consider the initial claim to be validated by the existence of the model.

 

 

“And you trapped yourself within the self same sentence.....How do you test a past event?  And please don't say Modeling.”

 

I am happy for you to rebut my presented position, but you don’t get to place arbitrary restrictions on how I choose to answer.

 

You “test a past event" indirectly, by adding a modelling step to the skeleton of scientific method. You perform the operational science on the model and make inferences based on the results. You just have to be aware that a model surviving observational/experimental scrutiny does not logically equate to the initial claim being verified.

 

 

“To legitimize the TEST You need:   the Dependent and Independent Variable along with the Control Group”

 

Those parameters are only required for a certain types of statistical models.

 

 

“The “scientific method” does not determine how facts are collected or interpreted. Your Hypothesis is either Validated or Invalidated Tristen from Experimentation/Testing!!!! ....where do we get them, from the "Scientific Method"”

 

So if I understand your argument – because some facts are derived through experimentation, and the scientific method mentions hypothesis testing (which you take to be synonomous with experimentation), therefore the scientific method directly determines the fact collecting method of all scientific investigation; i.e. through experimentation.

 

That’s a very general and logically tenuous argument; undermined by the reality that not all facts are derived through experimentation. Facts are commonly collected or observed in place. The “Scientific method” does not speak whatsoever to how these facts are collected. It doesn’t even speak to how experimental facts are collected (apart from being derived from experimentation). The scientific method itself has an initial (i.e. pre-experimentation) observation phase.

 

 

“There is no "Interpretation" or Subjectivity or how we think it should be or what our favorite colors are.  Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis....end of story.”

 

Not sure what you mean here, or how it relates to my claim that “the scientific method” does not define the parameters of interpretation.

 

 

“Any “Equivocation” is in your interpretation – not in my usage. Why, because you said so”

 

Not because I “said so”, but because I have provided definitions for my usage of terminology, and you have failed to provide support for your accusation that I have equivocated by redefining terminology mid-argument. My usage terminology has been consistent throughout.

 

 

“Your whole Post and Premise has it's foundations in Equivocation and is Laced 30 meters thick with it... as I have just demonstrated above”

 

All you have demonstrated is that you disagree with how I use and define certain terms. But that doesn’t logically justify an accusation of equivocation.

[Tristen]

 

Science and faith are not inconsistent. They are merely different types of confidence. Science can only legitimately attribute confidence (but never certainty) to claims about those phenomena which are currently, naturally occurring. If any truth claim is not naturally occurring, and/or is not currently available for direct scientific observation, then it is an unfalsifiable claim (and some - not me - would say therefore unscientific). Many unfalsifiable claims can be investigated using an indirect version of the scientific method - namely, by modelling the effects of the putative claim, then comparing current evidence to the model (i.e. not to the claim itself). This is how Standard Cosmology, Common Ancestry, the existence of God and creationism are investigated (i.e. all using the logically identical methodology). One simply has to be aware that consistency between the evidence and models does not logically equate to confirmation of the initial claim. That is, no scientific confidence can be legitimately attributed by this indirect method without committing the logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent.

 

Faith is a claim of confidence (equating to certainty) that goes beyond what the scientific method can provide.

 

All science relies upon confidence in unverifiable (and therefore faith) presupposition (including faith in the trustworthiness of observation, as well as faith that the universe is rationally ordered; such that experimentation has meaning). Faith also provides the philosophical paradigms that limit which interpretations of evidence can be considered legitimate by the individual interpreter.

 

Science therefore requires an element of faith. And faith can be investigated through science. The only people who consider faith and science to be mutually exclusive are those who lack the self-awareness to recognise their own faith perspective (i.e. those people who detest the very idea that they too are operating on unverifiable faith presuppositions).

Objective faith is just being convinced that something is so.  Faith may be contrary to evidence, or based on no evidence, some evidence, much evidence, sufficient evidence, or absolute proof.  It is all faith.

 

But I put it to you that proper objective faith is being convinced that something is true based on the sufficiency of the evidence or the obviousness of the self-evident.

 

What we usually call science is simply human knowledge of the physical world.  And the accuracy of the knowledge varies from proposition to proposition.  The knowledge may be merely a model that could explain something or it may be as certain as if A = B, the A + C = B + C.  All of the propositions in a science textbook could be theoretically rated on a scale of 0-10 as to how accurate they are.

 

A given person's faith in the accuracy of the propositions could also be rated on a scale.  Only a fool would rate them all with a 10.

 

 

Hey EB,

 

If I understand you correctly, I think we are largely in agreement.

 

 

You said “I put it to you that proper objective faith is being convinced that something is true based on the sufficiency of the evidence or the obviousness of the self-evident.”

 

I make a distinction between blind faith – which ignores/arbitrarily disregards evidence, and rational faith – which considers evidence and utilises evidence to support their faith perspective.

 

 

“A given person's faith in the accuracy of the propositions could also be rated on a scale.  Only a fool would rate them all with a 10”

 

In the context of confidence, I have always understood faith to mean certainty (in contrast to mere "belief" which doesn’t necessarily mean certainty – even though these terms are often used interchangeably).

[EnochBethany]

I make a distinction between blind faith – which ignores/arbitrarily disregards evidence, and rational faith – which considers evidence and utilises evidence to support their faith perspective.

 

Utilises !  My guess is that you are a Brit!

 

I think the same way you do.

 

However, as the definition of a word in English, I maintain that the basic meaning of objective faith is conviction that something is true, in contrast with subjective faith which is trusting in something or someone (like the Lord Jesus!).  To be sure the modern usage is more and more twisting the word to mean belief without evidence.

 

But in its basic meaning, faith can be contrary to evidence or based on wishful thinking, no evidence, some evidence, much evidence, sufficient evidence, or absolute proof.  It is all faith.  The human being is capable of being credulous or gullible, or being excessively skeptical & paranoid.  I think that Faith in the self-evident, in the axiomatic, like I exist, is as close to certainty as we can come.  I take "belief" as the same in meaning as faith, though it is often used as a synonym for "think so" in everyday speech.  "I believe I will eat a prune this evening."

 

Now as to the Greek word pistis in the NT, one of its meanings is proof; one of its meanings is not belief without evidence. The word "I believe" in the NT is pisteuo, same root.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

===============================================================================

 

 

Round and Round we go

 

 

Scientific investigation existed long before the proposal of a specific “scientific method”. by which it is pursued. Science is the pursuit of knowledge

 

Define Scientific Investigation Please?? (for the 2nd Time)

 

Correct....Science is the pursuit of knowledge. It also leads to rampant equivocations because of its ambiguous nature.  So, was my quest to acquire knowledge to tie my shoes.... science?

 

 

The distinction between science and other endeavours is over what is pursued, not the method

 

Preposterous.  Not according to the definition you provided above  .  You contradict yourself with every other statement Tristen.  And again.....

 

"The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things. In this introduction, we have emphasized that the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation."

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

I made it bigger for you 

 

 

I understand that you cannot do experiments (or make any direct observations) in the past, but you can investigate the past by making inferences on experiments conducted in the present.

 

Look up synonyms for "Inferences"...the first word that pops up is "assumptions".  So an equivalent statement would be...." I understand that you cannot do experiments (or make any direct observations) in the past, but you can investigate the past by making Assumptions on experiments conducted in the present.    I don't think so

 

The statement in TOTO is Non-Sequitur

 

 

Wrong – the construct we label “the scientific method” does not speak to how facts are collected or interpreted. Simply restating a definition does not rationally rebut my rebuttal

 

It's RIGHT...and you didn't have a rebuttal.  How are "Facts" collected concerning your hypothesis other than through Experimentation and then Data Analysis?  There is no "Interpretation"....as I said, the Hypothesis it's either Valid or Invalid ...end of story.

 

 

Just because I don’t specifically define every term as I use it, does not automatically render my usage equivocation. Your accusation of my equivocation is itself an Unsupported Assertion.  I have previously defined “science” as a broad concept incorporating “scientific methodology”. So my use is consistent; one term used generally, and the other more specific. Again, you have failed to provide any rational support (or even explanation) for your assertion.

 

I didn't ask you to define every term...just "scientific methodology" because you kept repeating it and is the cornerstone of your position.  And your continued dodging of that definition leads me to conclude that you wish to continue to equivocate.  And yes, I clearly showed that exact fact in my last response.

 

Define "Scientific Methodology" then!    LOL   You know it's curtains once you do 

 

 

“Forensics, Archeology, Paleontology et al are Historical Sciences”

Nah-ah – Not according to your previous statement, “if it's dealing with past events its not "science"”

 

Personally, they are not Science's to me for the reasons I have mentioned.  However, because they fall under "the Everything and the Kitchen Sink" definition of science, I suppose it was "Be Kind To Dumb Animal Week" from the Science Establishment to grace them with the term.  For example (I didn't qualify Cosmology in this list, but it's the same Category)....

 

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.” (Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.)

 

In Fact, it's worse for some of them because you can't get to the First Step:  Observe a Phenomenon.  It's just not Observe LOL. For instance, Dating Rocks or Fossils what Phenomenon did you observe?  That they're ROCKS and FOSSILS.  Here's your Hypothesis and only Hypothesis for each..... if you SKIP Step 1:

 

Is this a ROCK?

Is this a FOSSIL?

 

Laughing Out Loud!!

 

 

I am happy for you to rebut my presented position, but you don’t get to place arbitrary restrictions on how I choose to answer.

 

You “test a past event" indirectly, by adding a modelling step to the skeleton of scientific method. You perform the operational science on the model and make inferences (ie,. Assumptions) based on the results. You just have to be aware that a model surviving observational/experimental scrutiny does not logically equate to the initial claim being verified.

 

Preposterous!  And we already discussed Assumptions (they have no place in "Real" Science, Whatsoever).  And Observation is not Experimentation/TEST so remove your slash next time. Based on what results?  Please provide an example with Independent/Dependent Variables and Control.  Also, please list any confounding variables.  I already provided an example (Cladistics nonsense) to directly refute this.

 

 

“To legitimize the TEST You need:   the Dependent and Independent Variable along with the Control Group”

 

Those parameters are only required for a certain types of statistical models.

 

Hogwash and you know it.

 

'The value of variables:

Experiments must have the ability to be duplicated because the "answers" the scientist comes up with (whether it supports or refutes the original hypothesis) cannot become part of the knowledge base unless other scientists can perform the exact same experiment(s) and achieve the same result; otherwise, the experiment is useless.

"Why is it useless," you ask? Well, there are things called variables. Variables vary: They change, they differ, and they are not the same. A well-designed experiment needs to have an independent variable and a dependent variable. The independent variable is what the scientist manipulates in the experiment. The dependent variable changes based on how the independent variable is manipulated. Therefore, the dependent variable provides the data for the experiment.

Experiments must contain the following steps to be considered "good science."

1. A scientist must keep track of the information by recording the data.

    The data should be presented visually, if possible, such as through a graph or table.

2. A control must be used.

    That way, results can be compared to something.

3. Conclusions must be drawn from the results.

4. Errors must be reported.'

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/designing-experiments-using-the-scientific-method.html

 

 

“I stick with their Products:  "Scientific Evidence" or "Evidence" to differentiate.”

 

I’m not sure how your differentiation works. Both of these terms are constructs that exist within the overall concept of science.

 

 

By the Method Used to derive each.  Which I showed you by cited definitions for each.  It's just another equivocation.

 

 

“The “scientific method” does not determine how facts are collected or interpreted. Your Hypothesis is either Validated or Invalidated Tristen from Experimentation/Testing!!!! ....where do we get them, from the "Scientific Method"”

 

So if I understand your argument – because some facts are derived through experimentation, and the scientific method mentions hypothesis testing (which you take to be synonomous with experimentation), therefore the scientific method directly determines the fact collecting method of all scientific investigation; i.e. through experimentation.

That’s a very general and logically tenuous argument; undermined by the reality that not all facts are derived through experimentation. Facts are commonly collected or observed in place. The “Scientific method” does not speak whatsoever to how these facts are collected. It doesn’t even speak to how experimental facts are collected (apart from being derived from experimentation). The scientific method itself has an initial (i.e. pre-experimentation) observation phase.

 

SUPPORT THIS MESS...because that's what it is.

 

"That’s a very general and logically tenuous argument; undermined by the reality that not all facts are derived through experimentation."

 

Really, where else Pray Tell?  It's called DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS it's the Next Step right After EXPERIMENTATION.

 

'Facts are commonly collected or observed in place."  In Place...of what? Are you equivocating Facts and Data and then Quibbling (Fallacy)?  And Observations are not TESTS.

 

"The “Scientific method” does not speak whatsoever to how these facts are collected."

 

It's Called Step 5, DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS...again right after Step 4 Experimentation.

 

 

"The scientific method itself has an initial (i.e. pre-experimentation) observation phase."

 

Yes it's called Step 1 Observation of a Phenomenon.  So?

 

 

Here let me list the Steps for you:

 

The Scientific Method:

Step 1:  OBSERVATION of a Phenomenon

Step 2: Do Literature Review/Background research

Step 3: Construct Hypothesis (Tentative Question/Statement)

Step 4: TEST/Experiment

Step 5:  Data Collection/Analyze DATA/Results

Step 6:  Draw Conclusions.....  Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7:  Report Results

If invalidated....Back to the drawing board or STEP 3

 

“There is no "Interpretation" or Subjectivity or how we think it should be or what our favorite colors are.  Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis....end of story.”

 

Not sure what you mean here, or how it relates to my claim that “the scientific method” does not define the parameters of interpretation.

 

You're right, Common Sense does.  The Hypothesis is either True or False/ Valid or Invalid based on Experimental Results

 

 

“Any “Equivocation” is in your interpretation – not in my usage. Why, because you said so”

 

Not because I “said so”, but because I have provided definitions for my usage of terminology, and you have failed to provide support for your accusation that I have equivocated by redefining terminology mid-argument. My usage terminology has been consistent throughout.

 

Except for defining Scientific Methodology   you just provided the run of the mill definition for "science".  No I didn't say you redefined anything mid-argument, you've been equivocating "Science" with anything that walks from the beginning.

 

Failed to provide Support??  you can't be serious. Your first 2 Posts in TOTO are Poster Children for the Fact.

[Tristen]

I make a distinction between blind faith – which ignores/arbitrarily disregards evidence, and rational faith – which considers evidence and utilises evidence to support their faith perspective.

 

Utilises !  My guess is that you are a Brit!

 

I think the same way you do.

 

However, as the definition of a word in English, I maintain that the basic meaning of objective faith is conviction that something is true, in contrast with subjective faith which is trusting in something or someone (like the Lord Jesus!).  To be sure the modern usage is more and more twisting the word to mean belief without evidence.

 

But in its basic meaning, faith can be contrary to evidence or based on wishful thinking, no evidence, some evidence, much evidence, sufficient evidence, or absolute proof.  It is all faith.  The human being is capable of being credulous or gullible, or being excessively skeptical & paranoid.  I think that Faith in the self-evident, in the axiomatic, like I exist, is as close to certainty as we can come.  I take "belief" as the same in meaning as faith, though it is often used as a synonym for "think so" in everyday speech.  "I believe I will eat a prune this evening."

 

Now as to the Greek word pistis in the NT, one of its meanings is proof; one of its meanings is not belief without evidence. The word "I believe" in the NT is pisteuo, same root.

 

“My guess is that you are a Brit!”

 

Australian.

 

I think faith is one of those words with several connotations, depending on the context. Some people use the term faith as a general term for ‘belief system’. The Bible sometimes uses this connotation when referring to “the faith”. But when it comes to a context describing confidence, I think faith is the superlative claim, whereas belief represents a broader spectrum (when the terms are used correctly – though I don’t lose any sleep over them being used interchangeably).

 

 

“the basic meaning of objective faith is conviction that something is true, in contrast with subjective faith which is trusting in something or someone (like the Lord Jesus!)”

 

I’m not sure I understand the distinction you are trying to make. Both “conviction” and ‘trust’ describe measures of confidence. I make a distinction between whether or not the “conviction” and ‘trust’ equate to certainty (i.e. faith) or represent mere belief. By my understanding, all faith incorporates some measure of subjectivity.

 

 

“faith can be contrary to evidence or based on wishful thinking, no evidence, some evidence, much evidence, sufficient evidence, or absolute proof.  It is all faith”

 

Evidence can be a tricky term since it incorporates both facts and their interpretations (i.e. evidence are facts which have been interpreted in favour of, or against a particular position). So being “contrary to evidence” is really just being contrary to a particular interpretation of the facts. If faith is contrary to the facts themselves (i.e. raw, uninterpreted observations), then it is blind because it cannot be sustained without disregarding observations. I can’t conceive of a “no evidence” circumstance – unless the faith makes no naturalistic (i.e. historical, temporal) claims. If facts can be interpreted to support the faith (i.e. “some evidence, much evidence, sufficient evidence”) then the faith is rational (though the term “sufficient” is highly subjective). Absolutist terminology such as “proof” only legitimately applies to logical constructs – like the one in your previous post (where the conclusion “A + C = B + C” is absolutely true; assuming the truth of the premise “A = B” . There is no such thing as evidence equating to absolute verification because we can never be sure that we’ve considered every axiom; there could be a discovery yet to be made which will undermine everything we think we know – or to put it simply; we don’t know what we don’t know.

 

 

“I take "belief" as the same in meaning as faith, though it is often used as a synonym for "think so" in everyday speech”

 

 

I think that’s common. I make a distinction because of my understanding of scripture where I perceive that faith pertaining to miracles is described in terms of absolute confidence – e.g. because faith is absolute, even the smallest amount can supernaturally move mountains (Matthew 17:20), and the prayer of faith is a prayer without doubt (James 1:5-7).

 

 

“The word "I believe" in the NT is pisteuo, same root.”

 

Unsurprising - since they speak to related concepts.

[Tristen]

Enoch,

 

You said “Define Scientific Investigation Please”

 

Science is the noun describing the pursuit of knowledge. Scientific is the adjective form of the same word. Do you really need me to define investigation?

 

 

“It also leads to rampant equivocations because of its ambiguous nature”

 

I think it’s general, rather than “ambiguous”. I haven’t seen any equivocal usages of this term in our conversation.

 

 

“was my quest to acquire knowledge to tie my shoes.... science”

 

It may have been scientific. I wasn’t there to observe it. I imagine the first person to tie a shoelace utilised experimentation.

 

 

“The distinction between science and other endeavours is over what is pursued, not the method. Preposterous.  Not according to the definition you provided above.  You contradict yourself with every other statement Tristen”

 

Um – that was the definition you provided. I said that I considered the definition somewhat “narrow” – but could live with it for the sake of argument.

 

 

“Look up synonyms for "Inferences"...the first word that pops up is "assumptions".  So an equivalent statement would be...." I understand that you cannot do experiments (or make any direct observations) in the past, but you can investigate the past by making Assumptions on experiments conducted in the present”

 

Both inferences and assumptions (whilst not identical) have a valid place in scientific research – so long as they are recognised and noted in the relevant sections of the report.

 

 

“Wrong – the construct we label “the scientific method” does not speak to how facts are collected or interpreted. Simply restating a definition does not rationally rebut my rebuttal

It's RIGHT...and you didn't have a rebuttal”

 

I rebutted the claim by listing the central tenets of the scientific method, then pointing out that they say nothing whatsoever about how facts are collected.

 

 

“How are "Facts" collected concerning your hypothesis other than through Experimentation and then Data Analysis?”

 

Initial observations, in-field or incidental observations, initial sample collections etc. – i.e. all ways of collecting facts apart from experimentation.

 

 

“There is no "Interpretation"....as I said, the Hypothesis it's either Valid or Invalid ...end of story”

 

I was aware that you “said” it – I just can’t make any sense of it. All facts are interpreted to either support or refute the hypothesis – otherwise there is no purpose for theoretical aspects of science. Hypotheses themselves are attempts to interpret the initial observations; to put them in some context. Sorry, I’m clearly missing the point of this statement.

 

 

“I didn't ask you to define every term...”

 

But you did accuse me of equivocating every time I used terminology the way you didn’t like – forcing me to demonstrate the consistency of my position through defining those terms.

 

 

“just "scientific methodology" because you kept repeating it and is the cornerstone of your position”

 

Scientific methodology is a general description of the protocols established as best practice by each scientific discipline; i.e. a general term for those things found in the Methods section of a research paper. It refers to the processes associated with conducting scientific research (i.e. research in the pursuit of knowledge).

 

 

“And your continued dodging of that definition leads me to conclude that you wish to continue to equivocate”

 

And your continued use of Unsupported Assertion leads me to conclude that you have more interest in an emotive, rather than rational discussion (or you simply don’t know what equivocation is).

 

 

““Forensics, Archeology, Paleontology et al are Historical Sciences”

Nah-ah – Not according to your previous statement, “if it's dealing with past events its not "science"”

Personally, they are not Science's to me for the reasons I have mentioned”

 

That’s fair enough. At least it’s consistent. I simply define science differently (I believe in accordance with the traditional definition – and justified in logic). I even consider the social sciences to be science – which is unique for someone with a ‘real’ science degree.

 

 

“we already discussed Assumptions (they have no place in "Real" Science, Whatsoever)”

 

We didn’t discuss this – you made some unsupported Assertions.

 

You’ll actually find assumptions mentioned in the Introduction, Discussion and Conclusion sections of every other journal article (and no – I have not quantified this 50% claim – call it unpublished personal data based on experience). Assumptions are fundamental to the scientific process. We just need to realise that any confidence attributed to research is necessarily mitigated by how much it relies upon assumption (or as yet unverified suppositions).

 

 

“And Observation is not Experimentation/TEST so remove your slash next time”

 

No.

 

I wasn’t suggesting they were identical – just that both apply and I couldn’t be bothered writing “and/or”. I suppose I could also have written 'scrutiny based on observation and/or experimentation'. Whatever – a Red Herring.

 

 

“Please provide an example with Independent/Dependent Variables and Control.  Also, please list any confounding variables”

 

Why would I provide an example of something I haven’t proposed? I never claimed that the models of past events were statistical in nature.

 

 

““To legitimize the TEST You need:   the Dependent and Independent Variable along with the Control Group”

Those parameters are only required for a certain types of statistical models.

Hogwash and you know it.”

 

Dependant and Independent variables are data fields for statistical models. The models used to investigate past events are conceptual, hypothetical models - so your request doesn’t apply (what you would call “Non-sequitur” if I made such a challenge). I’m not going to waste time finding examples of such because the point of our debate is not whether the scientists employ best practices, but whether legitimate historical inferences can be made from testing models.

 

 

“Experiments must contain the following steps to be considered "good science."…”

 

Yes – someone’s list of best practice. Good list generally – though not related to the point of our discussion.

 

 

““I stick with their Products:  "Scientific Evidence" or "Evidence" to differentiate.”

I’m not sure how your differentiation works. Both of these terms are constructs that exist within the overall concept of science.

By the Method Used to derive each.  Which I showed you by cited definitions for each.”

 

One is evidence (facts interpreted to support or refute a particular claim), and one is scientific evidence (facts interpreted to support or refute a scientific claim); i.e. a more narrow subset of evidence.

 

Yes you provided definitions; one of which I argued against due to it not being logically justifiable.

 

 

“It's just another equivocation”

 

Congratulations – through consistent unjustified use, you have successfully rendered this accusation meaningless.

 

 

“"That’s a very general and logically tenuous argument; undermined by the reality that not all facts are derived through experimentation."

 Really, where else Pray Tell?  It's called DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS it's the Next Step right After EXPERIMENTATION.”

 

Yes – I see that your preferred version of the scientific method has a specific fact collecting or “data collection” stage in step 5. During the early stages of my degree I received about 5 or 6 versions of this; each with its own modifications and additions of different details to suit the discipline being taught. Some were lists (like yours), others were flow charts. All contain the basic precepts starting with Observation, then Hypothesis formation, then Hypothesis Testing.

 

But what about step 1 - Observations are facts?

 

Even your own preferred version of the scientific method doesn’t determine how facts are collected (which was the claim of your provided definition) – just that they are collected after experimentation – which I suspect doesn’t appear in many versions due to its logical redundancy – generally speaking, scientists are not morons; they understand that experiments yield data and don’t have to be reminded to collect it.

 

 

“'Facts are commonly collected or observed in place."  In Place...of what?”

 

In the place they are found.

 

 

“Are you equivocating Facts and Data”

 

No – data is a type of fact.

 

 

“And Observations are not TESTS”

 

They can be. If an hypothesis claims one thing and something else is observed – the hypothesis has failed the test. Experimentation is a more specific kind of test; also yielding observations.

 

 

“"The scientific method itself has an initial (i.e. pre-experimentation) observation phase."

Yes it's called Step 1 Observation of a Phenomenon.  So?”

 

So observations are facts. What you call “Observation of a Phenomenon” is in reality an exercise in fact collecting (pre-experimentation OMG!!!).

 

 

“The Hypothesis is either True or False/ Valid or Invalid based on Experimental Results”

 

Science doesn’t deal in absolutes such as true/false (& please don’t take the slash as an indication that I consider these to be the same). Experimental results neither validate nor invalidate the hypothesis. How do you know that the experimental design wasn’t a problem? How do you know that every possible axiom had been considered? What were the known assumptions and how might they be reflected in the results etc. The reality is not as straight forward as your version of the scientific method would indicate.

 

 

“I didn't say you redefined anything mid-argument, you've been equivocating "Science" with anything that walks from the beginning.”

 

Equivocation is the logical fallacy defined by the use of multiple definitions for a single term; i.e. moving from one definition to another during the argument. For example, the term “evolution” is often equivocated. One will present evidence of Natural Selection and claim “evidence of evolution” - meaning evidence of Common Ancestry.

 

Nothing I have presented could be legitimately described as equivocation.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Tristen

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

========================================================================================

 

 

Science is the noun describing the pursuit of knowledge. Scientific is the adjective form of the same word. Do you really need me to define investigation?

 

I never liked English, thanks for pointing that out.

 

Yes, I want you to define "Scientific Methodology"....Scratch that, see last response

 

 

I think it’s general, rather than “ambiguous”. I haven’t seen any equivocal usages of this term in our conversation.

 

I'd call it Ambiguous- Open to more than one interpretation. <-------- Because of that   http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ambiguous . But I can live with "General" also.

 

Equivocation is the foundation of your last 2 Posts....will see how it goes with this one.

 

“was my quest to acquire knowledge to tie my shoes.... science”

 

It may have been scientific. I wasn’t there to observe it. I imagine the first person to tie a shoelace utilised experimentation.

 

Tristen:  YOU defined science in your last post.....1. "Science is the pursuit of knowledge"

 

Then qualified it immediately concurrent to that with this: 2. "The distinction between science and other endeavours is over what is pursued, not the method"

 

So, according to your first definition, (YES) tying shoes qualifies.

According to the 2nd....well, most likely not.  Why should you be concerned with experimentation? Your #2, By "YOUR" own definition, disregards method?

 

See it?

 

“The distinction between science and other endeavours is over what is pursued, not the method. Preposterous.  Not according to the definition you provided above.  You contradict yourself with every other statement Tristen”

Um – that was the definition you provided. I said that I considered the definition somewhat “narrow” – but could live with it for the sake of argument.

 

Um-No.  It was YOURS. See yours in last response above.....IN GREEN

 

“Look up synonyms for "Inferences"...the first word that pops up is "assumptions".  So an equivalent statement would be...." I understand that you cannot do experiments (or make any direct observations) in the past, but you can investigate the past by making Assumptions on experiments conducted in the present”

 

Both inferences and assumptions (whilst not identical) have a valid place in scientific research – so long as they are recognised and noted in the relevant sections of the report.

 

 

Synonyms are different words with identical or at least similar http://www.synonyms.net/

 

In this case they are Identical.  The only Assumption in "Science" is a Tentative Assumption (Hypothesis). However, the Assumption is not linked to the True or False Nature of the Hypothesis.  Because if you impune True or False on your "Tentative" Assumption you introduce bias vis a-vis "begging the question" Fallacy.

 

 

“Wrong – the construct we label “the scientific method” does not speak to how facts are collected or interpreted. Simply restating a definition does not rationally rebut my rebuttal

It's RIGHT...and you didn't have a rebuttal”

 

I rebutted the claim by listing the central tenets of the scientific method, then pointing out that they say nothing whatsoever about how facts are collected.

 

What your Observation/Hypothesis/Experiment?  Yes, it's usually recognized by the acronym (OHTR) or the mnemonic pronounced ("otter").  However, this is usually employed after you have the fundamentals down of....1. OBSERVATION of a Phenomenon 2: Do Literature Review/Background research 3: Construct Hypothesis (Tentative Assumption/Question/Statement) 4: TEST/Experiment 5: Analyze DATA/Results 6:  Draw Conclusions: Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis 7:  Report Results.  If invalidated....Back to the drawing board or STEP 3

 

So the "Seasoned" Scientific Method doesn't mention:  Drinking Coffee, Bathroom Breaks, or Phone Call Interruptions.....it assumes you know all the Tenets from your professional background.

 

Case in point: it would be quite non-nonsensical and embarrassing if you skipped STEP 2 (Lit Review/Background Research) if in the middle or @ the conclusion of your walk down "your own personal" abbreviated "scientific method" if you found out that the EXACT SAME research/inquiry had already been DONE!!  I'm sure you and your Boss/Immediate Supervisor would have an up-close and personal.

 

Moreover, every Freshman "General" Science student knows these steps as absolute Standard Operating Procedure or will know them in the first week.  Because if they don't, they'll be picking up cans along the side of the road before they can say "Tuition Assistance"!

 

 

“How are "Facts" collected concerning your hypothesis other than through Experimentation and then Data Analysis?”

 

Initial observations, in-field or incidental observations, initial sample collections etc. – i.e. all ways of collecting facts apart from experimentation.

 

Yep, I figured, just as I said....... Quibbling (Fallacy) over simple logistics.  And OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT TESTS.

 

 

“There is no "Interpretation"....as I said, the Hypothesis it's either Valid or Invalid ...end of story”

 

I was aware that you “said” it – I just can’t make any sense of it. All facts are interpreted to either support or refute the hypothesis – otherwise there is no purpose for theoretical aspects of science. Hypotheses themselves are attempts to interpret the initial observations; to put them in some context. Sorry, I’m clearly missing the point of this statement

 

Listen, this has been a boatload of fun but I have to end this here.  The Record speaks for itself and there's plenty.

 

The Prosecution Rests

[EnochBethany]

Well Tristen,

 

(when I see that name I think of the BBC program, All Creatures Great & Small & the actor who later played Dr. Who).

 

Ah.  So you are from Oz -- now I know why your thinking is upside down!

(no, I think it is sound).

 

I said: “the basic meaning of objective faith is conviction that something is true, in contrast with subjective faith which is trusting in something or someone (like the Lord Jesus!)”

 

Thou hast said, "
I’m not sure I understand the distinction you are trying to make. Both “conviction” and ‘trust’ describe measures of confidence. I make a distinction between whether or not the “conviction” and ‘trust’ equate to certainty (i.e. faith) or represent mere belief. By my understanding, all faith incorporates some measure of subjectivity."

 

This is the distinction:  Demons believe, have objective faith, in Jesus, that is, that He exists.

But they do not trust Jesus; they do not depend on Him. (subjective faith).  I distinguish believing the facts & trusting someone as differing concepts.

 

When I was 9, I walked forward to join the church.  The preacher asked if I believed that Jesus was the Son of God.  I replied, "Yes," and I did.  But I was not saved at that point, because I was not trusting Him to get me to Heaven.  I had objective faith, but not subjective faith.

[Tristen]

 

 

 

 

========================================================================================

 

 

Science is the noun describing the pursuit of knowledge. Scientific is the adjective form of the same word. Do you really need me to define investigation?

 

I never liked English, thanks for pointing that out.

 

Yes, I want you to define "Scientific Methodology"....Scratch that, see last response

 

 

I think it’s general, rather than “ambiguous”. I haven’t seen any equivocal usages of this term in our conversation.

 

I'd call it Ambiguous- Open to more than one interpretation. <-------- Because of that   http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ambiguous . But I can live with "General" also.

 

Equivocation is the foundation of your last 2 Posts....will see how it goes with this one.

 

“was my quest to acquire knowledge to tie my shoes.... science”

 

It may have been scientific. I wasn’t there to observe it. I imagine the first person to tie a shoelace utilised experimentation.

 

Tristen:  YOU defined science in your last post.....1. "Science is the pursuit of knowledge"

 

Then qualified it immediately concurrent to that with this: 2. "The distinction between science and other endeavours is over what is pursued, not the method"

 

So, according to your first definition, (YES) tying shoes qualifies.

According to the 2nd....well, most likely not.  Why should you be concerned with experimentation? Your #2, By "YOUR" own definition, disregards method?

 

See it?

 

“The distinction between science and other endeavours is over what is pursued, not the method. Preposterous.  Not according to the definition you provided above.  You contradict yourself with every other statement Tristen”

Um – that was the definition you provided. I said that I considered the definition somewhat “narrow” – but could live with it for the sake of argument.

 

Um-No.  It was YOURS. See yours in last response above.....IN GREEN

 

“Look up synonyms for "Inferences"...the first word that pops up is "assumptions".  So an equivalent statement would be...." I understand that you cannot do experiments (or make any direct observations) in the past, but you can investigate the past by making Assumptions on experiments conducted in the present”

 

Both inferences and assumptions (whilst not identical) have a valid place in scientific research – so long as they are recognised and noted in the relevant sections of the report.

 

 

Synonyms are different words with identical or at least similar http://www.synonyms.net/

 

In this case they are Identical.  The only Assumption in "Science" is a Tentative Assumption (Hypothesis). However, the Assumption is not linked to the True or False Nature of the Hypothesis.  Because if you impune True or False on your "Tentative" Assumption you introduce bias vis a-vis "begging the question" Fallacy.

 

 

“Wrong – the construct we label “the scientific method” does not speak to how facts are collected or interpreted. Simply restating a definition does not rationally rebut my rebuttal

It's RIGHT...and you didn't have a rebuttal”

 

I rebutted the claim by listing the central tenets of the scientific method, then pointing out that they say nothing whatsoever about how facts are collected.

 

What your Observation/Hypothesis/Experiment?  Yes, it's usually recognized by the acronym (OHTR) or the mnemonic pronounced ("otter").  However, this is usually employed after you have the fundamentals down of....1. OBSERVATION of a Phenomenon 2: Do Literature Review/Background research 3: Construct Hypothesis (Tentative Assumption/Question/Statement) 4: TEST/Experiment 5: Analyze DATA/Results 6:  Draw Conclusions: Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis 7:  Report Results.  If invalidated....Back to the drawing board or STEP 3

 

So the "Seasoned" Scientific Method doesn't mention:  Drinking Coffee, Bathroom Breaks, or Phone Call Interruptions.....it assumes you know all the Tenets from your professional background.

 

Case in point: it would be quite non-nonsensical and embarrassing if you skipped STEP 2 (Lit Review/Background Research) if in the middle or @ the conclusion of your walk down "your own personal" abbreviated "scientific method" if you found out that the EXACT SAME research/inquiry had already been DONE!!  I'm sure you and your Boss/Immediate Supervisor would have an up-close and personal.

 

Moreover, every Freshman "General" Science student knows these steps as absolute Standard Operating Procedure or will know them in the first week.  Because if they don't, they'll be picking up cans along the side of the road before they can say "Tuition Assistance"!

 

 

“How are "Facts" collected concerning your hypothesis other than through Experimentation and then Data Analysis?”

 

Initial observations, in-field or incidental observations, initial sample collections etc. – i.e. all ways of collecting facts apart from experimentation.

 

Yep, I figured, just as I said....... Quibbling (Fallacy) over simple logistics.  And OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT TESTS.

 

 

“There is no "Interpretation"....as I said, the Hypothesis it's either Valid or Invalid ...end of story”

 

I was aware that you “said” it – I just can’t make any sense of it. All facts are interpreted to either support or refute the hypothesis – otherwise there is no purpose for theoretical aspects of science. Hypotheses themselves are attempts to interpret the initial observations; to put them in some context. Sorry, I’m clearly missing the point of this statement

 

Listen, this has been a boatload of fun but I have to end this here.  The Record speaks for itself and there's plenty.

 

The Prosecution Rests

 

 

Interesting strategy; you fill a response with challenge and insinuation, then call proceedings to a halt.

 

I’m not one that subscribes to the errant ‘last answer wins’ convention, but I have always assumed that etiquette dictated that the one to call for an end to the discussion forfeits the right of final reply.

 

 

"The Prosecution Rests" - but in this court, the defence has no right of reply.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Tristen

[Tristen]

Well Tristen,

 

(when I see that name I think of the BBC program, All Creatures Great & Small & the actor who later played Dr. Who).

 

Ah.  So you are from Oz -- now I know why your thinking is upside down!

(no, I think it is sound).

 

I said: “the basic meaning of objective faith is conviction that something is true, in contrast with subjective faith which is trusting in something or someone (like the Lord Jesus!)”

 

Thou hast said, "

I’m not sure I understand the distinction you are trying to make. Both “conviction” and ‘trust’ describe measures of confidence. I make a distinction between whether or not the “conviction” and ‘trust’ equate to certainty (i.e. faith) or represent mere belief. By my understanding, all faith incorporates some measure of subjectivity."

 

This is the distinction:  Demons believe, have objective faith, in Jesus, that is, that He exists.

But they do not trust Jesus; they do not depend on Him. (subjective faith).  I distinguish believing the facts & trusting someone as differing concepts.

 

When I was 9, I walked forward to join the church.  The preacher asked if I believed that Jesus was the Son of God.  I replied, "Yes," and I did.  But I was not saved at that point, because I was not trusting Him to get me to Heaven.  I had objective faith, but not subjective faith.

 

It's an interesting point. I think that I would characterise your distinction (assuming I understand you correctly) as faith and a response to faith - rather than faith (encompasing the spectrum of positive belief) and trust.