posted
I'm obviously not saying that observation plays no role in science. Quite the contrary. What I am saying is that observation isn't all there is.
Let's say that we're conducting an experiment to test whether the speed of light limit is obeyed. Our observers see a ball seemingly teleport from one place to another instantaneously. We could abandon the position that light speed is the limit to all possible signals, and say that the ball travelled that whole distance in a moment. Or we could abandon the conservation of mass and energy, and say that the ball disappeared and another one just like it was created from nothing.
When you test a theory, you need to assume the truth of a whole bunch of other theories in order to interpret the results of the experiment. So while science would be impossible without experiments, it would also be impossible without at least one (approximately?) true theory as a starting point. We can't test string theory until we're sure of quantum field theory, we can't test quantum field theory until we're sure that quantum mechanics works, we can't test quantum mechanics until we know that classical mechanics is true most of the time, etc.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you're calling truth is better called consistency. Science doesn't assume anything is true, it assumes accurate scientific theories are consistent with each other and with observation.
This leads to situations like you describe, but without any "fundamental truths".
Also, note that I said physics does have access to some Truth, but this is only insofar as Truth and physical events are consistent.
For instance, if the universe was created five minutes ago in the exact form we observe it as having had five minutes ago, it doesn't matter that when physics extrapolates backwards it determines stars were created billions of years ago. The universe was still created five minutes ago.
However, as far as physics/science is concerned, the stars are observationally billions of years old.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, on an unrelated note, if I agree that evolution pros and cons ought to be taught, then concerning sex ed (the other thread), would you accept comprehensive sex ed (provided you could opt out)? It seems like what you ask for here is no different than what comprehensive sex ed folks are asking for in the other thread.
Sorry to everyone else, but I didn't know where to address this.
quote:What you're calling truth is better called consistency. Science doesn't assume anything is true, it assumes accurate scientific theories are consistent with each other and with observation.
But when an observation is inconsistent with the conjunction of two theories, you need some basis for deciding which theory to abandon. Seems to me like the best criterion would be, which theory is more basic, i.e. which do you think is closer to the truth.
quote:For instance, if the universe was created five minutes ago in the exact form we observe it as having had five minutes ago, it doesn't matter that when physics extrapolates backwards it determines stars were created billions of years ago. The universe was still created five minutes ago.
However, as far as physics/science is concerned, the stars are observationally billions of years old.
But for some reason I find myself inclined to believe that, because science indicates an ancient universe, the universe was in fact not created five minutes ago. I simply don't consider the five-minute-old universe to be a real possibility, just like I don't really consider the chance that I might now be hooked up to the Matrix. That's a theory which is just as consistent with all my evidence as any other, but I don't find it compelling. I can't tell you why, because I don't have any answer to the problem of skepticism. But I think science gives us access to truth in much the same way that our senses do. We build a consistent picture of the world from a combination of observation and conjecture, and hopefully (probably, I think) it's mostly true.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, its which theory is more inconsistent with observation that you ditch. Science has always been about ditching the least consistent, which has never been a problem because we've never had one completely consistent theory/premise, much less two at once.
Just because you odn't consider it True doesn't mean it isn't True; in fact you just illustrated what I've been trying to point out with regards to what science is: it just doesn't have anything to do with stuff like God and whatnot that are perpendicular to the natural senses.
As I said earlier, science is about observational truth. Just not Truth, or what is absolutely true. Only what can be observed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, its which theory is more inconsistent with observation that you ditch. Science has always been about ditching the least consistent, which has never been a problem because we've never had one completely consistent theory/premise, much less two at once.
Consistency isn't a matter of degree. Any two propositions or sets of propositions are either consistent or inconsistent. A and A&B are consistent, A and not-A are inconsistent.
Also, I said the problem comes when the conjunction of two theories is inconsistent with experiment. In my example of the teleporting ball, the speed of light limit is inconsistent with observation only if combined with the conservation of energy. In isolation, each theory is consistent with the experiment. It's only if you accept them both that you run into trouble.
quote:Just because you odn't consider it True doesn't mean it isn't True; in fact you just illustrated what I've been trying to point out with regards to what science is: it just doesn't have anything to do with stuff like God and whatnot that are perpendicular to the natural senses.
Truth isn't perpendicular to the natural senses. It determines what I will sense. If it's True that the world is ten billion years old, when I observe it I will see that it seems to be ten billion years old.
quote:As I said earlier, science is about observational truth. Just not Truth, or what is absolutely true. Only what can be observed.
That's the common-sense picture that many scientists have, but it's now seen as a very outdated view in the history and philosophy of science. Any time you make observations, you bring to the table a host of assumptions which will determine how you interpret those observations. Observation isn't all there is to science -- you have to include the assumptions as well if you want an accurate picture of how scientists reach their conclusions.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not in science class. If it can't be tested, it doesn't belong there.
No claim about the past can be tested. Period. It's simply not possible.
You cannot perform an experiment to see if Germany lost World War II, or to seeif Jesus really did perform miracles, or if the universe began in a big bang. Unless you have a time machine, you cannot reproduce the results of history. Thus all specific claims about the past are outside the realm of science. The best science can do is use current theories to make untestable extrapolations about the past on the untested assumption that present theories held true in the past.
Therefore, if untestable claims do not belond in science class, the following claims should be removed: -The universe began with a Big Bang -Mankind evolved from single-celled organisms -The universe is billions of years old And so on...
This is why science is having this whole contraversy in the first place. It's very hard for all but the most extreme skeptics to deny repeatable, testable results. But when you get into untestable claims, you leave the realm of science and enter the realm of history, and people can say that no matter what science claims, history happened as it did. If science one day claims the holocaust was impossible, then science is wrong, no matter how solid their evidence is, because history is history.
So, if we want we can simply remove all these historical claims from science class. We can teach how creatures can evolve but not that they necessarily did. We can teach about astrophysics, but not that the universe is billions of years old. We can purify science and only teach testable, scientific claims in science class.
Or, on the other hand, we could argue that it is also important that students understand possible historical implications of scientific theories. If this is true, then we'd have to allow untestable, nonscientific claims into science class (as we currently do.) Furthermore, if we go this route, it would only seem fair to discuss the ways in which the same scientific evidence can be interpreted in different ways to lead to different conclusions about history.
We can pick one or the other of these approaches. But don't pretend like "Man evolved from single-celled organisms" is somehow more scientific or testable than "God created man." If you believe this then I challenge you to, right now, offer up an experiment to test the claim that Man evolved from single-celled organisms, in such a way that if it we don't see the expected result it would prove evolution wrong with complete and absolute certainty. This is the test for whether or not a claim is scientific.
posted
It's not a matter of two, its a matter of thousands or millions. We have a huge wealth of experimental data -- if one assumption is consistent with 99% of the experimental data, and another is consistent with 50%, the 99% one is staying, regardless of which one is "more fundamental". Situations like you describe just don't arise.
You're describing the situation in a vacuum of information; science does not exist in a vacuum of information. And anyways, a teleporting ball is consistent with both those theories: read some more of Hawking's work.
You can't prove your assertion about what the nature of truth is; in fact, we don't really know what truth is. Consistency with observation we do know what it is.
Yes, there are always assumptions. However, assumptions can be evaluated even if they can't be invalidated. And the only thing we have to compare with is observation.
If we make an assumption and its inconsistent with observation, we ditch it. If we make an assumption and it has nothing to do with observation, we just don't care about it (assumptions about God and the universe being created five minutes ago just don't matter).
Your outlook on science, that anything which is true can be detected, ignores one fundamental fact of how science works: science is never certain. This is even without the uncertainty principle. Past events cannot be described with perfect accuracy, and future events cannot be known with perfect accuracy. As such, there's no such thing as a true account of science except one that talks in probabilities, likelihoods. We will never know the exact age of the universe, for instance. Heck, we will likely never know for certain if its possible for something to reach absolute zero! We can only take a really good guess.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap - plenty of claims about the past can be tested. In fact, any claim of the form "the past could possibly have happened this way, with this probability from current observation, with this degree of certainty from current observation" can certainly be tested . . . and that's all the kind of claim that science makes about the past. You aren't understanding what sorts of claims science makes.
Man evolved from single celled organisms is considerably more scientific than God created man -- not in your incorrect view of science, but in how science actually works. Because science does not assert God didn't create man, or that man evolved from single celled organisms. It asserts there is a great deal of evidence that is highly consistent with man having evolved from single celled organisms, and it doesn't assert anything at all about God.
Don't mischaracterise science as being exact in any way, or that only things which are completely true are part of science (as you just stated). Science is about observational consistency, and one certainly can evaluate whether or not man having evolved from single celled organisms is consistent with observation!
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We can pick one or the other of these approaches. But don't pretend like "Man evolved from single-celled organisms" is somehow more scientific or testable than "God created man." If you believe this then I challenge you to, right now, offer up an experiment to test the claim that Man evolved from single-celled organisms, in such a way that if it we don't see the expected result it would prove evolution wrong with complete and absolute certainty. This is the test for whether or not a claim is scientific.
Only on the outdated Karl Popper philosophy of science, which says that testability and falsifiability is all there is.
In fact, Bayesians and other epistemologists interested in scientific induction are working on a number of ways to justify inductive reasoning about the past.
Besides that, the Big Bang has predicted the results of a number of subsequent measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
quote:It's not a matter of two, its a matter of thousands or millions. We have a huge wealth of experimental data -- if one assumption is consistent with 99% of the experimental data, and another is consistent with 50%, the 99% one is staying, regardless of which one is "more fundamental". Situations like you describe just don't arise.
Yes they do, at least approximately. That's what scientific revolutions are all about. Think about when special relativity was first proposed. You basically had some observations -- the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments -- which were incompatible with the conjunction of two accepted theories: electromagnetism and absolute simultaneity.
quote:And anyways, a teleporting ball is consistent with both those theories: read some more of Hawking's work.
I was providing a simplified example for the purposes of argument. I assure you that I'm quite familiar with the formal details of physics (BS University of Michigan, 2003).
quote:Consistency with observation we do know what it is.
Yes, and as Tres has pointed out, all sorts of ridiculous things, including young-earth Creationism, are strictly speaking consistent with the evidence.
quote:Your outlook on science, that anything which is true can be detected
I certainly don't believe that. I think there are all sorts of facts about unobservable objects like quarks which we can never know. All that I was saying is that observations are always the causal result of some truth about the world.
quote:Past events cannot be described with perfect accuracy, and future events cannot be known with perfect accuracy. As such, there's no such thing as a true account of science except one that talks in probabilities, likelihoods.
I agree completely. But these probabilities, I claim, reveal the degree to which we believe scientific claims to be true. I am 90% sure of the Big Bang theory; therefore, I think it is 90% likely that the Big Bang actually happened.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Xap - plenty of claims about the past can be tested. In fact, any claim of the form "the past could possibly have happened this way, with this probability from current observation, with this degree of certainty from current observation" can certainly be tested . . . and that's all the kind of claim that science makes about the past.
How would you test such a claim then? Give me an example.
I'd say there's no experiment that could tell you the probability that the past is a certain way given certain present evidence. Can you give me any such experiment?
quote:It asserts there is a great deal of evidence that is highly consistent with man having evolved from single celled organisms, and it doesn't assert anything at all about God.
There is a great deal of evidence that is highly consistent with George Washington being the first president. Is this a scientific claim?
quote:Science is about observational consistency, and one certainly can evaluate whether or not man having evolved from single celled organisms is consistent with observation!
Yes, but if that is all science is about then one can just as easily evaluate whether "God exists" is consistent with observations, or as I mentioned above, whethe "George Washington was the first president" is consistent with observations. So, unless that is ALL science, there must be more to what makes science science.
My "incorrect" view of the matter comes from Philosopher Karl Popper and is essentially this: A scientific theory is one that is testable - meaning one that can be falsified if observations are not what we expect them to be. A scientific theory is not only consistent with all the experimental data, but it could have been disproven had it not been. You can't disprove the theory that man evolved from single-celled oraganisms, or any historical claim. If you think we can, my challenge to produce an example of such an experiment stands.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fact, Bayesians and other epistemologists interested in scientific induction are working on a number of ways to justify inductive reasoning about the past.
Yes, well call me when they can actually show induction works. Folks have been working on that problem for over a century.
quote:Only on the outdated Karl Popper philosophy of science, which says that testability and falsifiability is all there is.
Karl Popper outdated???!!!
I would hardly say that.
Maybe Kuhn has a better handle on the process of change in science. And others since have moved away from Popper's work. But I think you'd be hard pressed to teach a course ABOUT science & how it works without dealing with Popper.
Oh well. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
As for induction versus deduction.
Bayesian methods work just fine. They are gaining many adherents in the field of traffic safety in that we use Bayesian techniques to judge the effectiveness of roadway treatments to improve safety. Those techniques are more reliable than the alternative statistical techniques.
Now, from a philosophical point of view, does anyone really give a rat's @ss about prior and posterior probabilities? Nah, probably not.
Maybe Kuhn has a better handle on the process of change in science. And others since have moved away from Popper's work. But I think you'd be hard pressed to teach a course ABOUT science & how it works without dealing with Popper.
I totally agree, Bob. Popper is outdated in the same sense as many old and venerable philosophers: his views are still respected and studied, but no one believes he was entirely right any more.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What does 'everyone' think he's mistaken about?
That varies, but it's not very common to think that falsifiability is the only constraint on theories. Real scientists obviously allow for other considerations like simplicity and explanatory power. Also, it's not at all true that scientists will simply abandon a theory if it's undermined by an experiment. Instead they often modify it, or search for ways in which the experiment could be explained away by the existing theory. Abandoning an established theory is a last resort.
And there's also the problem of the theory-ladenness of experiments, as I mentioned to fugu. It's never really possible to say that a particular theory was falsified by evidence. You could always change or abandon one of the assumptions or related theories instead.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
This is really cool that you've read all this stuff.
Do they teach the 100+ year old article about "The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses" still? It's my favorite thing on how to do better in science. Especially how to avoid bias and pet theories.
But you are exactly right that most scientists are loathe to abandon a theory that has worked well over time because of one contrary result. The more successful a theory has been in the past, the more contrary evidence is required to convince people that it needs revision or outright dumping.
It also requires that someone come up with a reasonable substitute first. A science without a unifying theory just doesn't feel right, I think.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
All scientists have to test is observation, never "reality". Scientists don't make statements about reality, really, they make statements about observations (see below for where I qualify this considerably). There isn't any statement about reality that's truly falsifiable, as its possible for their to be situations which fool the "senses" (our observations). Only statements about observation are testifiable and falsifiable, which is why science is only about observation.
And yes, Tres, whether or not George Washington was (likely) the First President of the US under the Constitution is a matter of science, or perhaps of the scientific method would be a better way of putting it.
However, statements like "God (likely) exists" are outside the realm of science because God (as meant in this case) is definitionally incompatible with observation.
Destineer -- I'm with one half of the scientist camp, you're with the other, on this one. There's been a huge amount of debate in science over what's really real, with two resulting sides -- one which says science is not fundamentally about what's really real, but about what's really observed, and the other which says science is about what's really observed. I view science as asymptotically approaching a "perfect" description of observation, not reality. My camp's smaller, but we're going to win anyways 'cause we're right . (And anyways, most of the of the other camp allows for exceptions like God which are better accomodated by our outlook -- which would, by the philosophy of most elegant, mean they should change to our philosophy ).
Modifying a theory is equivalent to creating a new, similar theory and switching to it. It is completely consistent with what I said about taking what agrees with observation most (note this measure is highly subjective).
I apologize for appearing to impugn your knowledge of physics, I meant no such disrespect.
Going with Big Bang theory predicting an outcome which has since been observed -- certainly! It is highly consistent with current observation. Quite likely to have occurred. I've been saying this all along. Its just that every one of our readings is also perfectly consistent with the universe having come into being five minutes ago in a way that would replicate the effect. There's no reason (its simpler! isn't a reason; its a philosophical, untestable, unfalsifiable assumption about how things work) this second description could not be true, however, there is significant reason it is not scientific, in that it is not observable.
Yes, YEC is consistent with the evidence. Which is why we need a different measure of when something is scientific. Such as having predictable results, something I have been holding up as necessary throughout this entire thread. Come to think of it, I bet simplest possible explanation is actually a derivative notion of predictable results *goes off to think on that*
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the subject of observation -- I didn't mean a theory would be thrown out when a single observation came along which contradicted it. I meant a theory would be thrown out when enough observation came along (or a new theory) such that a different theory was more observationally consistent.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I stand in awe of you. It takes a woman with powerful ovaries to stand up to these gentlemen the way you have! You make some excellent points, and I like the way you point out and question assumptions.
As a teacher, I have to be sensitive to my community. Bob mentioned his "taxpayer" dollars. Schools are ultimately responsible to those they serve.
When it comes to controversial subjects like Evolution (with a capital E, note), I see no reason not to teach it. It is a widely accepted scientific theory. And as a teacher, I would refer to it as such. And I would also say, some people don't agree with this theory. And not make a judgment on those who don't. Often, I get kids asking me if I go to church, or what I believe. I lump these questions in with Creationism V. Evolution. Sometimes, if the child is mature, I will tell them what I personally think and distinguish it as an opinion. Other times, I tell the child that it doesn't matter what -I- think, but what he or she thinks. And I ask, "Can you support why you think that?" And I don't try to influence one way or another. I respect the children and their parents too much for that. Everyone must come to their own decisions about what they believe to be true. My job is to present information.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also find it incredibly annoying that a useful word like "evolution" has become somewhat taboo due to this scientific controversy.
What's so "evil" about the evolution of an idea? Or the evolution of a society or business? Evolution is small change over time.
I've shocked students when I've talked about the evolution of a work in progress, just because I used the word "evolve". Not even in a scientific context!
posted
"What scientific evidence is there that intelligent design exists? There is none. That's why I proposed it be taught as a theory. Intelligent design can't be proven, so it should not be taught as a fact."
I'd like to assert that this is the fundmental problem with Belle's argument.
THere is no scientific evidence that ID exists, so it is NOT a theory. A theory, in the scientific community, is more then a guess about the way the universe works. A theory has scientific evidence to support it, and has gone through the wringer a few times. A scientific fact, which evolution both is and is not depending on context, is something that has specifically been observed.
Gravity, for all that we know about it, is a scientific theory. A scientific fact related to gravity is that when an apple falls near the earth, it falls in the direction of the earth's center of mass. This is a different statement from "Gravity causes an apple that falls near the earth to head towards the earth's center of mass."
Likewise, it is fact that there are genetic changes over time within populations. We've observed this, and if you want to go observe it, head into a biology lab doing work on genetic changes. You'll find it to be true. This sort of evolution is fact, much like the statement "When an apple falls near the earth...." Evolutionary theory posits that this genetic change is the mechanism for species diversity, etc. This is a theory, because its the best explanation that can be supported by observable facts that fits in with all the other theories and facts that we have conerning life on earth.
Note that word "best" there. Its rather important. If a hypothesis doesn't fit the other theories and facts that we have gathered, and isn't the best fit of all theories in regards to what it is trying to explain, then its unlikely to be an accepted scientific theory, and as such, won't be talked about within the scientific community as a "Theory."
Science uses the fact/theory/hypothesis/guess continuum differently then the vernacular has that continuum. A fact is something that has been observed to happen. A theory is something that has withstood the rigors of scientific methodology. A hypothesis is something that has been proposed as a possible mechanism, but has not yet undergone enough testing to become a theory.
For example, I have observed that apples fall towards the center of the earth. I hypothesize that all objects fall towards the center of mass of the earth. Now I will perform experiments to determine whether this is a good hypothesis or not.
After performing a number of experiments for myself in the lab, I suggest that the hypothesis is true, and write up my results to be published.
My methodology in the lab was good, so my results are published, and towards the bottom of my paper, I posit the idea that it appears, within the constraints of my experiments, that all objects fall towards the center of the earth.
Another experimental physicist reads my paper. He says "This doesn't match with astronomical data," publishes a paper explaining how some objects fall towards teh sun, and others towards the center of the galaxy, etc. and therefore, while my factual observations are correct within the context of my experiments, my hypothesis is flawed, and the theory of gravity explains the observational universe more completely. Thus, my hypothesis dies, and the theory of gravity remains dominant.
Note: The observational facts I gather are the same under both my hypothesis that all objects fall towards the center of the earth, and the theory of gravity. The theory of gravity, however, explains a much larger number of observational facts, as well as fitting within a theoretical construct that explains an even larger number of natural phenomenon. Thus, the scientific theory is gravity.
Saying "Evolution is only a theory," shows exactly how strong evolution is within the community.
Edit: Note that its possible to have two competeing theories, where both fit whats known to approximately the same degree. String theory is currently a weak scientific theory in competition with, for example, Loop quantum gravity. Both of theories fit a fair amount of evidence, but there's nothing yet to distinguish to the point where one will be discarded or at best used for a small subset of predictions.
However, ID and evolution are not in competition. There isn't any evidence that fits the ID hypothesis, since ID doesn't have any evidence that suggests it, whereas evolution explains a vast quantity of stuff, and is suggested by large quantities of evidence.
In my above example, I can point to the evidence that makes me suggest that the objects--->earth hypothesis is reasonable. It also explains a lot of evidence. Gravity explains more. In the ID evolution debate, scientifically, ID isn't suggested by any evidence, because we don't have anything to observe that says "god." As Bob said above, ID is saying "The miracle happened HERE." Belle admits that there is no evidence for ID. This is why it is not a theory, and barely even a hypothesis. It is a guess, within the scientific framework.
[ February 01, 2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yes, Tres, whether or not George Washington was (likely) the First President of the US under the Constitution is a matter of science, or perhaps of the scientific method would be a better way of putting it.
Why not include all of history in science class then?
quote:However, statements like "God (likely) exists" are outside the realm of science because God (as meant in this case) is definitionally incompatible with observation.
What scientific observation is "God exists" incompatible with?
quote:A theory, in the scientific community, is more then a guess about the way the universe works. A theory has scientific evidence to support it, and has gone through the wringer a few times. A scientific fact, which evolution both is and is not depending on context, is something that has specifically been observed.
But again, if this is what a theory is, then the suggestion that mankind evolved from single-celled organisms is NOT a theory, nor a scientific fact. There is no scientific evidence to support it and no experiment that could test it. It has NEVER specifically been observed, as it is a part of history, and it will NEVER be able to be observed. (Unless, of course, we figure out how to time travel.)
posted
Because we have history class, and a large subset of historical studies is also a subset of scientific studies. Why teach things in two places?
You misunderstand what I meant by incompatible with observation. I did not mean incompatible with any particular observation, but incompatible with being observed. God as traditionally defined in judeo-christian methodology is not possible to be scientifically observed, and thus is incompatible with scientific observation.
I never said that man evolving from single celled organisms was a fact. In fact, I explicitly denied it. Nor did I say it was a theory. I said that man having highly probably evolved from single celled organisms being consistent with observation was a theory. Don't keep trying to apply your definition of evolutionary theory when its incorrect, Tres. The theory as I described it is eminently falsifiable -- if I find an observation which contradicts single celled organisms having highly likely evolved into man, I have falsified it, and must create a revised theory (which could be anything from a slight revision of the probability involved to a complete reworking).
You keep asserting that these theories are factual statements about the past. They are not. They are factual statements about observations being consistent with something having happened in the past. (there are also theories that are factual statements about behavior). And as such, they are completely falsifiable, testable, and scientific.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am just wondering if Christianity is the only group of religions that has problems with the idea of Evolution.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Any claim about the past is consistent with any possible evidence you have in the present. Even the outrageous claim that the past did not exist one second ago is consistent with all evidence we have now. Therefore, if theories are "factual statements about observations being consistent with something having happened in the past" then EVERY POSSIBLE CLAIM ABOUT THE PAST is a scientific theory.
quote:I said that man having highly probably evolved from single celled organisms being consistent with observation was a theory. Don't keep trying to apply your definition of evolutionary theory when its incorrect, Tres. The theory as I described it is eminently falsifiable -- if I find an observation which contradicts single celled organisms having highly likely evolved into man, I have falsified it, and must create a revised theory (which could be anything from a slight revision of the probability involved to a complete reworking).
Yes, but there is no possible observation one could make that would falsify such a claim. If there is, as I keep asking, please tell me the experiment that will do so.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Any claim about the past is consistent with any possible evidence you have in the present. Even the outrageous claim that the past did not exist one second ago is consistent with all evidence we have now."
No its not, not from a scientific methodology.
From certain philosophical positions, those claims are consistent. But not from a scientific framework.
You have to remember, tres, that not all philosophical models are used for all epistomologies. Science is an epistomological method.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Experiment to prove that man did not evolve from a single celled organism- One which shows single celled organisms can't develop into more then one cell. Experiment that shows two celled organism can't develop into more cells. ETc. Any experiment which shows that a chromosone can't be added.
posted
Are you just not bothering to think about it, Tres? Read Paul's post that lists numerous such observations.
And I don't think you've been reading my posts very closely, I didn't say that such a phrasing was sufficient for it to be a scientific theory about the past, I said it was necessary (actually, I just said that was how it was in certain cases, but given I have stated other conditions I would rather think the necessary was implied). I assume you understand the difference between necessary and sufficient. If you'll look above, another thing I said was necessary was that it be observationally falsifiable, and that the universe was created one minute ago exactly as if it had been in existence for much longer is not observationally falsifiable. If you want to argue over something, read what the other person says.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Experiment to prove that man did not evolve from a single celled organism- One which shows single celled organisms can't develop into more then one cell. Experiment that shows two celled organism can't develop into more cells. ETc.
A scientific experiment cannot prove something can't happen.
Science could theorize (and not prove) microevolution can't occur, but you can't use one unprovable theory to falsify another theory, because the second theory could always turn out to be true if the first turns out to be wrong, which means it has not been falsified. Otherwise Creationism would be a scientific theory too, because it could be falsifed by the theory of evolution.
quote:And I don't think you've been reading my posts very closely, I didn't say that such a phrasing was sufficient for it to be a scientific theory about the past, I said it was necessary (actually, I just said that was how it was in certain cases, but given I have stated other conditions I would rather think the necessary was implied).
Whether it's a necessary or a sufficient condition, it's still a condition that holds true for both evolutionary theories about the past and creationism, which means it is not a condition that separates the two. Neither of these are inconsistent with present observations.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
).![[Smile]](smile.gif)
*goes off to think on that*
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
