Science and Exegesis

[Enoch2021]

Ummm unsupported assertion? Historical vs operational science? Bonky is right on there. A cursory search of the internet will validate this. It would require that you look up some websites that you do not agree with, however

 

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

 

So, just a cursory search on the Internet will provide the "evidence" telling me my Turkey Club is not a Turkey Club.... it's a Nutty Buddy?

 

Probably a good chance if I start with www.pseudo-science/"just so" stories.org ??

 

 

Lets try something new, lets try you "Debunking" each of the statements in my previous post "Specifically" with Support.

 

1.  Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (evolutionist):

 

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

 

2. Since you neither Observe anything then obviously cannot TEST for Validation....it falls outside the Scientific Method.

 

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."

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

 

 

3.  Professor Mayr says for Historical Science... "experiments are inappropriate techniques for explication" but .......

 

"Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."---- (from Directly above)

 

4.  Debunk QM, specifically these 2 Experiments that Speak Directly to my position...

 

A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047

Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdf

 

Thanks

[gray wolf]

Sorry I'm not going to play along and hear das alte Lied.  I've seen it all before and am astounded by it, believe me.  You really ought to go with the recommendation earlier that you post some of your  ideas on some mainstream discussions.  I would be interested with the outcome.  Good night.

[Bonky]

Hi bonky, you said “This probably won't be a popular view here but, this idea that "historical science" [creationist invented term by the way] is less legitimate or inferior than/to "observational science" is specious”

 

In what sense is it “specious”? Do you have an argument to back up this claim – or is it another example of Unsupported Assertion? And why is it important who invented the claim – other than to cast more unsupported Innuendo into the fray? If a creationist did invent the term, does that automatically render it illegitimate in your mind – i.e. without giving any consideration to the logical justification? This has nothing to do with being “popular’, but with the incapacity or unwillingness of some to provide a logical defence of their claims.

 

The historical method is different from the operational method; and logically inferior in several aspects – namely 1) the claims themselves can never be subjected to observation, 2) therefore the claims can only be tested indirectly – through comparing the current evidence to the formulated models (i.e. unobserved stories about what might have happened in the past), and 3) since the claims themselves can never be tested through experimentation (only the models can be tested), no legitimate scientific confidence can be attributed to the claims without committing the logical fallacy Affirming the Consequent. Operational science does not suffer these logical weaknesses.

I didn't reject this historical/operational concept outright, I listened to the argument for why we should consider it and it doesn't hold water. According to your logic, the folks at the ancient aliens studio have just as good a story as anyone else [on whatever topic] because "hey, none of us were there right?".

Do you believe that Pluto has ever made a complete orbit around the Sun? Do you think it's reasonable to suggest that it hasn't because "we haven't personally observed it"? I'm not saying that any or all scientific claims of the past are equally supported by evidence. We agreed that the extinction event that killed off the dinosaurs is not entirely agreed upon by the scientific community for example. Radio decay however is something that can be measured, calibrated and verified [supernovae]...so it's not an interpretation but a solid measurement.

 

 

 

But if the same evidence can be accounted for by competing explanations, such scrutiny would absolutely exist. This happens in every contested trial. A prosecutor’s job is to interpret the evidence in the context of a story where the accused is guilty. The job of the defence attorney is to interpret the evidence in the context of a story where the accused is not-guilty.

 

For example, if the knife victim’s blood is found on the accused’s body and the accused’s fingerprints on the knife; a) is the accused the murderer, or b) did the accused find the body and remove the knife. One set of facts – two plausible stories that are consistent with the facts. Such is the nature of all historical science.

 

The benefit of a legal trial is that both sides are afforded the opportunity to have their arguments heard – whereas in this debate, the secular side goes to great efforts, utilising a broad range of logical fallacies, to convince everyone that the opposing positions should be automatically dismissed without any consideration.

But your "competing explanation" is "We weren't there". You're holding an empty sack Tristen. By your logic, any murderer would go free unless we had video footage of the actual murder!

 

 

It’s not about trust or “distrust”. Everyone prefers the interpretation that agrees with their pre-existing beliefs – that’s called confirmation bias. The issue is whether or not a person recognises that historical claims can have more than one possible explanation – and since none of the claims is scientifically observed, all claims consistent with the facts are valid and worthy of objective consideration.

What claims are consistent with the facts?! You weren't there right!? It's funny how creationists will criticize mainstream science by saying that they sometimes adjust their views on something in light of new evidence [which is used to cast doubt] and yet ALSO feel perfectly fine in suggesting that scientists only go where their preconceived notions dictate to them. Neat how that works isn't it?

 

 

 

What is truly dishonest is a persistent failure to recognise that all sides ‘doubt’ historical claims that do not conform to their presupposition. Scrutiny (or “doubting”) is a valid pursuit in both historical and operational science. The suggestion that any scientific claim be merely accepted is based in faith, not science.

The thing is, scientists doubt based on scientific evidence, not holy books.

 

 

 

“Here is an article written from a Christian on this creationist tactic to undermine scientific inquiry of the past.

http://godandscience...ns_science.html”

 

This article doesn’t address the fundamental creationist arguments. It simplifies the creationist position to a couple of prima-facie points, then makes simple, unsupported claims supporting the author’s position, without any consideration given to the underlying logic of the claims. How can you fall for this after our other conversation (starting http://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/181250-big-bang-continued/page-3#entry2120342 )? You must be aware that our position is misrepresented in this article – or is your confirmation bias really so strong that you haven’t heard anything I said?

The article is in response to AIG, a creationist organization and their suggestion that there's this distinction between operational science and historical science. So even within the Christian community this argument is rejected.

This argument made by creationists is attempt to make a literal view of Genesis seem to be just a valid model as any other. If we come across scientific evidence that contradicts an early earth [radio decay measurements] you sit there and say "You weren't there".

[Enoch2021]

Sorry I'm not going to play along and hear das alte Lied.  I've seen it all before and am astounded by it, believe me.  You really ought to go with the recommendation earlier that you post some of your  ideas on some mainstream discussions.  I would be interested with the outcome.  Good night.

 

 

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

 

Sorry I'm not going to play along and hear das alte Lied.  I've seen it all before and am astounded by it, believe me.

 

Yes...you make Unsupported ambiguous claims, then when called to support them... come up with x,y,and z cliche or story then exit stage left.

 

 

You really ought to go with the recommendation earlier that you post some of your  ideas on some mainstream discussions

 

How do you know I don't? Also, isn't Worthy "mainstream"?  There are actual "Scientists" within it's membership....including you, as I recall.

 

I got a better idea, why don't you....please start with the Operational vs Historical Science have = veracity.  I would also be quite interested on how that turns out.

[gray wolf]

Maybe you can help me out. You're making the claim that there is this distinction. Please provide a reference that this distinction is accepted by the scientific community. I was not aware of it until I looked up some creationist sources.

[Enoch2021]

Maybe you can help me out. You're making the claim that there is this distinction. Please provide a reference that this distinction is accepted by the scientific community. I was not aware of it until I looked up some creationist sources.

 

 

Yes it's called "Observing a Phenomenon" and "Experimentation"....it's Common Sense, that's the Reference.  It's like asking me to provide a reference contrasting the difference between a Turkey Club and a Reuben....there is no research, they take it for granted that everyone knows by mere "observation" that yes, both are sandwiches...but different.

 

For the 3rd time....

 

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."

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

 

 

Please try to stop with this "Creationist Site" drivel, it's quite Non-Sequitur.  Can you tell me the difference between a "Creationist Site" and a "Secular Site"?  Warning: I'm leading you right into another fallacy. 

[gray wolf]

I was not aware that I learned something by consulting a resource was non sequitur. Ok I'll give you you this: there are no creationist websites. Happy?

On a serious note, is it fallacious (I'm sure it is to you) to say that a website explaining that God designed the universe is indeed creationist? What is the disconnect here? Are you offended by the term? I can use another word.

[Bonky]

Can you tell me the difference between a "Creationist Site" and a "Secular Site"?  Warning: I'm leading you right into another fallacy. 

Yes, I have an example of a difference. The use of what I would call "magic" when it's convenient. From ICR's website regarding the RATE project years ago:

 

http://www.icr.org/article/rate-review-unresolved-problems/

The Heat Problem

Of greater concern to both supporters and skeptics of the RATE project is the issue of how to dispose of the tremendous quantities of heat generated

by accelerated decay during the Genesis Flood. The amount of heat produced by a decay rate of a million times faster than normal during the year of the Flood could potentially vaporize the earth’s oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth. The RATE group is confident that the accelerated decay they discovered was not only caused by God, but that the necessary removal of heat was also superintended by Him as well. Dr. Russell Humphreys, a member of the RATE group, has suggested one possible mechanism that may explain this dilemma. He has found evidence, both scientific and scriptural, that cooling of the earth by the expansion of the cosmos may have occurred simultaneously with the heat produced by accelerated decay.

Real scientists don't use magic wands.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Bonky

[Enoch2021]

I was not aware that I learned something by consulting a resource was non sequitur. Ok I'll give you you this: there are no creationist websites. Happy?

On a serious note, is it fallacious (I'm sure it is to you) to say that a website explaining that God designed the universe is indeed creationist? What is the disconnect here? Are you offended by the term? I can use another word.

 

 

Nope not offended @ all...whether it's a Creationist Site, a Secular Site,  a Pink Polka Dot Site or whatever...it's irrelevant.  Is the Premise or Postulate TRUE or not, end of story.

[Enoch2021]

Real scientists don't use magic wands.

 

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

 

So Dr. Russ Humphreys is not a "Real Scientist", eh?  No True Scotsman (Fallacy): https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

 

TIP: Fallacies are Fallacious

 

This is the Fallacy I was warning Gray about...he side-stepped it.  Thanks for Illustrating it