VulcanLogician Posted January 14, 2018 Group: Seeker Followers: 3 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 21 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 20 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/12/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted January 14, 2018 4 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said: What's a "Garden Variety" Young Earth Creationist, pray tell...? regards I suppose a "garden variety" YEC might be one who accepts the heliocentric model and spherical earth, yet retains skepticism concerning matters of the age of the universe, plausibility of evolution etc... Out of curiosity, I've looked into the flat earth model, and found its skepticism too rigorous. That's not to say it's a waste of time to challenge the globe earth model. Science cannot thrive unless its assumptions are challenged. It's just not a conversation I'm interested in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted January 14, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 14, 2018 30 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said: Feeble attempt at Poisoning The Well (Fallacy). What's truly shocking and bizarre is your 'belief' in a Whirling Spinning-Ball hurling through a Fairytale Vacuum of Space at 1,907,600 mph in several different directions simultaneously without a Planck Length Sliver of Proof. regards You mean like the 'proof' you have for a flat earth resting on pillars, covered with a dome and surrounded by ice walls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted January 14, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 14, 2018 10 minutes ago, VulcanLogician said: I suppose a "garden variety" YEC might be one who accepts the heliocentric model and spherical earth, yet retains skepticism concerning matters of the age of the universe, plausibility of evolution etc... Out of curiosity, I've looked into the flat earth model, and found its skepticism too rigorous. That's not to say it's a waste of time to challenge the globe earth model. Science cannot thrive unless its assumptions are challenged. It's just not a conversation I'm interested in. You can't say you weren't warned, Vulcan. If you find yourself drowning in a sea of repetitive psuedo science you will know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 14, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 14, 2018 17 hours ago, VulcanLogician said: I suppose a "garden variety" YEC might be one who accepts the heliocentric model and spherical earth Have you read the critique on "Acceptance"? (Obviously Rhetorical) Quote plausibility of evolution Yes, much like the 'Plausibility' of Invisible 3 Toed Gnomes. Quote Out of curiosity, I've looked into the flat earth model, and found its skepticism too rigorous. That's why we can't wait to read your posts...your meticulous attention to excruciating detail of Empirical Evidence, OCD Like. Quote That's not to say it's a waste of time to challenge the globe earth model. Apparently you also skipped the PUMMELING of 'models' in a Scientific Context or just decided to roll with the same Trainwreck Narrative and hope for the best. Quote Science cannot thrive unless its assumptions are challenged. "Science" isn't an ENTITY or a result, It's a Method; The Scientific Method. "Science doesn't: "THRIVE", say, jump, run, swim, point to, or do the hokey pokey. To do such things takes, Sentience, Prescience, and Intelligence...to be ALIVE. Science isn't ALIVE; Ergo...Reification Fallacy. Quote It's just not a conversation I'm interested in. Yes, you said that before. Here's my same response: "Wise Move". regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulcanLogician Posted January 15, 2018 Group: Seeker Followers: 3 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 21 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 20 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/12/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted January 15, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Enoch2021 said: "Science" isn't an ENTITY or a result, It's a Method; The Scientific Method. "Science doesn't: "THRIVE", say, jump, run, swim, point to, or do the hokey pokey. To do such things takes, Sentience, Prescience, and Intelligence...to be ALIVE. Science isn't ALIVE; Ergo...Reification Fallacy. Nice job picking an arbitrary definition of science and then claiming your arbitrary definition indicates a misunderstanding on my part. LOL. Here's another arbitrary definition from wikipedia: "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]" Ho! Ho! According to this arbitrary definition, science is an "enterprise." An enterprise certainly falls under the category of "entity." Furthermore, an enterprise can indeed thrive. For example: "Our small enterprise of producing widgets struggled at first, but now it's THRIVING." And while I'm coasting on the merits of my arbitrary definition, I might as well point out that the article goes on to name astronomy as a science. I love it when people call me out on my type 1 thinking/logical fallacies. It helps me grow as an intellectual. It helps me more if they correctly point out a fallacy. But even when they are DEAD WRONG and misappropriate, say, the reification fallacy, it is still cause for me to reexamine my statements and figure out exactly why they are wrong. Thus it still benefits me by providing me with an intellectual exercise. So thanks. Why don't I return the favor and point out a logical fallacy of yours? (Only I will try to correctly peg you on your type 1 thinking.) On 1/14/2018 at 12:00 AM, Enoch2021 said: What's truly shocking and bizarre is your 'belief' in a Whirling Spinning-Ball hurling through a Fairytale Vacuum of Space at 1,907,600 mph in several different directions simultaneously without a Planck Length Sliver of Proof. This is a strawman fashioned out of the dryest straw imaginable. Nobody postulates a "whirling spinning ball" without noting laws of motion, forces of gravitation etc that make it possible for celestial objects to behave in such a fashion. By leaving out scientific theories which explain how the "whirling spinning ball" model works (and throwing the word fairytale in for rhetorical effect) you have thereby strawmanned the argument and said nothing of any substance. As I said, I don't wish to debate the flat earth model. A conspiracy theory, by its very nature, is beyond falsifiability. No amount of empirical data can change that. So, no thanks. I will, however, debate you on whether astronomy is a science or not--and I will do so accepting (for purposes of this argument) your assertion that a "science" is not an enterprise, but a methodology. (BTW, in order for us to have a coherent debate, we must agree upon definitions. You can't just proclaim that your definition is the correct one and say that I'm wrong because "you have the real definitions." To this end, I've accepted your definition as a show of good faith.) The only part of your definition I reject is the part about "manipulating" the observed objects. I don't think that manipulation per se is required as part of the scientific method. Wikipedia (my go to source for arbitrary definitions) defines the process as: 1) Formulation of a question 2) Hypothesis 3) Prediction 4) Testing 5) Analysis Can we agree, that a process which involves the above steps conforms to scientific methodology? But before I go to the trouble of making my point, I want to ask: if I demonstrate that astronomy uses the scientific method as described above, will this count as a sufficient refutation of your position that astronomy is not a science? [Insult redacted ] Remember, all I need in response from you is a "yes" or "no" to the question in the above paragraph, and THEN I will proceed with my argument. On 1/14/2018 at 12:36 AM, MorningGlory said: You can't say you weren't warned, Vulcan. If you find yourself drowning in a sea of repetitive psuedo science you will know why. I learned how to swim at an early age. Granted, I learned in water, but the mechanics of the activity should be the same if I find myself in a vat of liquid bull. Edited January 15, 2018 by VulcanLogician amiability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted January 15, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 15, 2018 23 hours ago, Enoch2021 said: Feeble attempt at Poisoning The Well (Fallacy). What's truly shocking and bizarre is your 'belief' in a Whirling Spinning-Ball hurling through a Fairytale Vacuum of Space at 1,907,600 mph in several different directions simultaneously without a Planck Length Sliver of Proof. regards The topic of this thread is distant black holes and what we learn from them. I know you want to derail every thread into a flat earth thread but it's really getting tiresome. Start your own thread on that subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted January 15, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Sojourner414 said: Yes; let's get this thread back to where is should be (from this point on, I recommend ignoring Enoch2021, as he only wants to derail the thread). To facilitate that, the original post: Light travels at a specified speed: 186000 miles per second, or 671 million miles per hour. But even with this tremendous speed, the distance light has to cross to reach us affects what we see with that light. An example is that the light from the Sun takes roughly 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to Earth. That means what we're observing of the Sun is actually an 8 minute old picture! Now, because of distance affecting what we see, the further we look into the universe that we can observe, the older the picture we see due to the time it takes the light from those parts to reach us. Our nearest Solar Neighbor, Alpha Centauri, lies about 4 light-years from Earth. That distance is measured by how long it takes light from that star (to be accurate, three stars named Alpha Centauri A, Alpha Centauri B and Proxima Centauri) to travel. Because of that, the light we see from that system is four years old. So, how does this affect astronomy? Simply put: by looking deeper into the universe, the picture we get becomes older. In a sense, it almost becomes like time travel, as we are viewing light from centuries, then millennia ago that shows us what it had struck before traveling the universe. (Now if we could go out about 2,000 light years and get the light coming from Jerusalem!) As to the black hole in specific:it is part of a quasar (a contraction of quasi-stellar radio source). Quasars are super-massive black holes surrounded by a disk of gas, found at the centers of galaxies. As the gas falls into the black hole, it releases energy in the form of x-rays and radio waves, as well as visible, ultraviolet and infrared light. Since light cannot escape the black holes themselves, the escaping energy is actually generated outside the event horizon by gravitational stresses and immense friction on the incoming material. Quasars are very high intensity stellar objects that can easily outshine entire galaxies; the light that comes from them, especially the oldest ones, can reveal new information on the distant past. In this specific case, the light from the quasar found recently can show us "a picture" of the universe just as the first stars were forming and giving off light. Such a picture could reveal a great wealth of information about our universe and how it was made. The above is what I have read on this subject as well. I think it's awesome that God is slowly giving us a glimpse of how He made our universe. We could not view these things if He didn't allow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted January 16, 2018 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 16, 2018 On 1/14/2018 at 10:55 PM, VulcanLogician said: Nice job picking an arbitrary definition of science and then claiming your arbitrary definition indicates a misunderstanding on my part. LOL. Wait until you find out what "supernatural" means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 25, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 25, 2018 On 1/14/2018 at 9:55 PM, VulcanLogician said: Nice job picking an arbitrary definition of science and then claiming your arbitrary definition indicates a misunderstanding on my part. Define "arbitrary"...? What was my "arbitrary" definition, SPECIFICALLY...? Quote Here's another arbitrary definition from wikipedia: "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]" 1. You post a 'wiki' definition?? Are you a 'wiki'/google scientist?? 2. Why is Citing 'wiki' tantamount to Citing from Public Blogs? Quote Ho! Ho! According to this arbitrary definition 1. So you admit to posting an "Arbitrary" definition. smh 2. Moreover, do arbitrary definitions of "Science" exist?? And if they did, wouldn't that make "Science"... arbitrary, professor?? Quote science is an "enterprise." An enterprise certainly falls under the category of "entity." Well "Entities" have dimensions (Length/Width/Height) and in today's society have: Addresses, Email's, and Ph #'s. So, Please post the (Length/Width/Height) and Address, Email, and Ph# of your "Enterprise" (SCIENCE)...? (You'd have better chances Resurrecting Alexander the Great's Horse!!) Quote And while I'm coasting on the merits of my arbitrary definition, I might as well point out that the article goes on to name astronomy as a science. 1. "Coasting" doesn't quite capture what you're attempting here. 2. Well since they SAY it (Ipse Dixit Fallacy); Therefore: it must be TRUE. Right? 3. astronomy isn't Science: The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests). The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis". Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of astronomy...? OR Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...? "If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE". Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds. "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." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html Uh Ohh... "Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work." http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm Crocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy. By the mere fact that I had to explain this to you, is a Screaming Testimony that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie. Quote This is a strawman fashioned out of the dryest straw imaginable. Yes and Pocahontas was a MI6 Mermaid and the mastermind behind the sinking of the Lusitania. Quote Nobody postulates a "whirling spinning ball" without noting laws of motion, forces of gravitation etc that make it possible for celestial objects to behave in such a fashion. 1. Clearly you don't know what a Straw Man is... Straw Man (Fallacy)- when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html Not noting the "alleged" rationale behind your "Whirling Spinning Ball"... isn't a Straw Man Fallacy. 2. Show how the "Laws of Motion" Validate your "Whirling Spinning Ball" Religion...? a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? 3. "forces of gravitation"?? Which 'gravity'... Einsteinian or Newtonian ?? a. Is gravity a Force? b. Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory? c. What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...? d. Scientifically Validate 'gravity'...? (i.e., Format it with a.b.c.d. above. Thanks!) Quote By leaving out scientific theories which explain how the "whirling spinning ball" model works 1. You have NO CLUE what a Scientific Theory is. Watch, Define a Scientific Theory...? 2. I merely need to state your "POSITION" (Whirling 'Spinning Ball' Religion) it is "YOUR" job to provide SUPPORTING Evidence for "YOUR" Position, not me. smh SO... 3. Post EACH Scientific Theory SUPPORTING "your" Whirling Spinning-Ball Religion...? For EACH Scientific Theory... a. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...? b. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? c. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? 4. 'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science... Please show "models" in The Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...? "A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY." https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066 Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science" ...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being *'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !!* REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!! Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments -- ( Hypothesis TESTS ). A "model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UNTESTABLE !!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !! Quote As I said, I don't wish to debate the flat earth model. Yes, because you'd get your Hat Handed to You. Flat Earth isn't a "Model" (aka: Pseudo-Science). Quote I will, however, debate you on whether astronomy is a science or not Oh I can't wait. Quote and I will do so accepting (for purposes of this argument) your assertion that a "science" is not an enterprise, but a methodology. It's not "MY" Assertion , Science is it's Method... "Science is nothing more than a METHOD OF INQUIRY." Crichton, Michael; Testimony before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (28 September 2005) The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests). The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis". The sine qua non of Hypotheses are "Independent Variables". The Final Arbiter of TRUTH in 'Science' is EXPERIMENT !! Lewars, EG: Computational Chemistry -- Introduction to the theory and application of Molecular and Quantum Mechanics; Third Edition 2016, p. 5. "The only way things change in Physics is EXPERIMENTS. ...Everything is based on EXPERIMENT, that's the only way we change our mind." Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. Wave Theory of Light. ( .22 second mark) "If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE". Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds. “EXPERIMENT is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is POETRY, IMAGINATION.” Max Planck (Nobel Prize, Physics), Quoted in; Atkins P.W.,: Molecular Quantum Mechanics; Oxford University Press, 1983 "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." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html "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 Scientific Evidence: The TESTING of a hypothesis or theory that is objective and in a controlled environment. http://thelawdictionary.org/scientific-evidence/ Get the Picture?? Quote You can't just proclaim that your definition is the correct one and say that I'm wrong because "you have the real definitions." To this end, I've accepted your definition as a show of good faith.) Quote The only part of your definition I reject is the part about "manipulating" the observed objects. I don't think that manipulation per se is required as part of the scientific method. Wikipedia (my go to source for arbitrary definitions)... LOL, Thanks Again!!! ... The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests). The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis". The sine qua non of Hypotheses are "Independent Variables". EXPERIMENT: from Penn State University: "There should be three categories of variables in EVERY EXPERIMENT: Dependent, Independent, and Controlled." http://www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/var.htm Well then, what are: "Independent Variables" ... "In an EXPERIMENT, the "INDEPENDENT VARIABLE" is the variable that is VARIED OR MANIPULATED by the researcher, and the dependent variable is the response that is measured. An "INDEPENDENT VARIABLE" variable is the presumed CAUSE, whereas the dependent variable is the presumed EFFECT. The IV is the antecedent, whereas the DV is the consequent." http://www2.uncp.edu/home/collierw/ivdv.htm Independent Variable -- is what is VARIED during the Experiment; it is what the investigator thinks will affect the dependent variable." https://www2.lv.psu.edu/jxm57/irp/var.htm Independent (MANIPULATED) Variable - variable CHANGED BY THE SCIENTIST; what the investigator is TESTING. http://www.csef.colostate.edu/resources/vocabulary.pdf "The two main variables in an EXPERIMENT are the "INDEPENDENT" and dependent variable. An INDEPENDENT is the variable that is CHANGED or controlled in a SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT to test the effects on the DEPENDENT VARIABLE. https://www.thoughtco.com/i-ndpendent-and-dependent-variables-differences-606115 An INDEPENDENT VARIABLE is the variable that is VARIED or MANIPULATED during an EXPERIMENT to affect change in the dependent variable. National Science Teachers Association https://www.ecybermission.com/files/helpdocs/Constructing a Hypothesis.pdf In Summary... You'd "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science. Quote if I demonstrate that astronomy uses the scientific method as described above, will this count as a sufficient refutation of your position that astronomy is not a science? It'd be easier demonstrating an Orangutan as a Facultative Anaerobe Woodpecker. Thanks for the Laughs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted January 25, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 25, 2018 38 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said: Thanks for the Laughs No, thank YOU for the laughs, Enoch. I've missed your fourteen page diatribes about tipsy biscuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts