quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And you are wrong. Anything that can be studied at all, can be studied by science. If you consider guesses and handwaving to be of value, you are welcome to them; just don't expect to be taken seriously.
Now that's just silly. Literature is not studied by science, unless you're expanding the definition of science quite a bit.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The parts of literature which can be studied, rather than simply experienced, are studied through a broad definition of science.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now that's just silly. Literature is not studied by science, unless you're expanding the definition of science quite a bit.
I was sort of under the impression that linguistics was under a definition of science not unduly expanded.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And you are wrong. Anything that can be studied at all, can be studied by science. If you consider guesses and handwaving to be of value, you are welcome to them; just don't expect to be taken seriously.
Now that's just silly. Literature is not studied by science, unless you're expanding the definition of science quite a bit.
And in consequence, what is known about literature amounts to guesses and handwaving.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And you are wrong. Anything that can be studied at all, can be studied by science. If you consider guesses and handwaving to be of value, you are welcome to them; just don't expect to be taken seriously.
Now that's just silly. Literature is not studied by science, unless you're expanding the definition of science quite a bit.
And in consequence, what is known about literature amounts to guesses and handwaving.
Huh? Are you serious?
What is "guesses and handwaving," by the way? That's the second time you've used it to end polite discussion.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now that's just silly. Literature is not studied by science, unless you're expanding the definition of science quite a bit.
I was sort of under the impression that linguistics was under a definition of science not unduly expanded.
literature ≠ linguistics
Linguists do not generally study literature, and when they do it's not in the same way that literature professors do.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is "guesses and handwaving," by the way? That's the second time you've used it to end polite discussion.
Just what it says. Information that's not known to be true. Informed speculation. Can you think of a single nontrivial fact about literature that's known to be true even at the level of certainty that, say, biologists find?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: What is "guesses and handwaving," by the way? That's the second time you've used it to end polite discussion.
Whisper "MAGIC!" in a spooky voice and waggle your fingers in the air.
I also like to add, "I'm a POWERFUL Genie! Wooo!" for extra effect. Who isn't going to believe what a powerful genie tells them?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Linguists do not generally study literature, and when they do it's not in the same way that literature professors do.
Linguistics is a study of language.
At times when studying language, linguistics study the composition and appeals of literature, and study the themes which create the composition of literature, the appeal, the psychological and emotive themes, so forth.
Since literature is studied in a scientific field which isn't a stretched definition of a scientific field I find it makes a most apt counterpoint to someone saying that 'literature is not studied by science.' In fact, since linguistics is the study of language, a very important part of that field would involve the inclusion of the study of the written form of communication.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is "guesses and handwaving," by the way? That's the second time you've used it to end polite discussion.
Just what it says. Information that's not known to be true. Informed speculation. Can you think of a single nontrivial fact about literature that's known to be true even at the level of certainty that, say, biologists find?
Um, that at some point somebody wrote it? That the ink they used had a specific molecular composition? Is that what you're looking for?
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that the only things worth knowing about literature can be scientifically proven.
edit: wrong word!
[ August 30, 2007, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Linguists do not generally study literature, and when they do it's not in the same way that literature professors do.
Linguistics is a study of language.
At times when studying language, linguistics study the composition and appeals of literature, and study the themes which create the composition of literature, the appeal, the psychological and emotive themes, so forth.
Do you mean that linguists "study the composition and appeals of literature"? Because they really don't, or at least not with their linguist hats on.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Linguistics is a study of language.
At times when studying language, linguistics study the composition and appeals of literature, and study the themes which create the composition of literature, the appeal, the psychological and emotive themes, so forth.
Since literature is studied in a scientific field which isn't a stretched definition of a scientific field I find it makes a most apt counterpoint to someone saying that 'literature is not studied by science.' In fact, since linguistics is the study of language, a very important part of that field would involve the inclusion of the study of the written form of communication.
Are you in the field of linguistics? Because this does not match my experience. I started off majoring in English, and there are lots of courses in such programs that study literature's appeal, themes, meaning, and so on. Then I switched majors to English language (in other words, the linguistics of English) and never had another literature-centric course. There weren't any literature courses in my major or in the regular linguistics major. And none of my professors, as linguists, studied literature in the ways that you're talking about.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is "guesses and handwaving," by the way? That's the second time you've used it to end polite discussion.
Just what it says. Information that's not known to be true. Informed speculation. Can you think of a single nontrivial fact about literature that's known to be true even at the level of certainty that, say, biologists find?
Um, that at some point somebody wrote it? That the ink they used had a specific molecular composition? Is that what you're looking for?
I did say 'nontrivial'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm arguing that it doesn't matter. I don't care if there are "facts" about literature that can be proven to the same degree of certainty biology attains. That's not the point of studying literature. It's not even faintly encouraged. I say this as someone who graduated in English. And yet, there's still plenty to "know" about literature, plenty to gain from it, that is as indispensable to our society as scientific contributions are.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not arguing that people shouldn't read literature. I am saying that what we 'know' about literature is opinion and educated speculation, not fact, and that the same is true of any field where science is not used. If you want to argue that speculation is as valuable as fact in understanding the universe, go ahead. (In fact, that's apparently what you are doing.) I just want you to be clear on what you're saying.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're kind of giving me a narrow playing field. I get to choose either fact or speculation as a route to knowledge? Well, I would say that I do value facts, definitely, but I don't generate knowledge by the facts themselves but by the context I'm in and the language I share with all the various communities I belong to. The facts don't mean anything to me until I can put them in context. How I put the facts together with other facts, observations, opinions, etc., is an always shifting, kind of gray space affected by the entire community and influences outside the community, tensions between communities, etc. That might be where "speculation" comes into play, because very little about how we arrive at actual knowledge is certain or provable, or able to be pinned down.
In short, I don't "know" anything strictly by provable facts. I can't generate knowledge that way. I generate knowledge by bringing it all, facts and "speculation," into meaningful contexts.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I get to choose either fact or speculation as a route to knowledge?
Yes. That's pretty much how knowledge works. And before you think I'm being excessively flip, consider for a moment that the fine hairs you're splitting here are considerably finer than the core differences between religious and scientific epistemologies. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In short, I don't "know" anything strictly by provable facts.
Yes you do.
What? Please give an example of something you know strictly by provable facts.
What do you define as a "fact"? Is it something that is true beyond any reasonable doubt or is it something that can only be proven 100% true (like a mathematical proof)? It is a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow (at least in the places where it rises daily) by the first definition however not by the second.
EDIT: The reason I ask is because I suspect that you are using the second definition while Samprimary is using the first.
quote:In short, I don't "know" anything strictly by provable facts.
Yes you do.
What? Please give an example of something you know strictly by provable facts.
I know that if I touch a burning hot plate, I will get burned. I can know this strictly by a provable fact.
There are going to be plenty of things in your life that you have learned through a similar manner, strictly through a process which is known strictly by provable facts. Assuredly.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I think that's sort of putting the horse before the cart. Since the young earth theory came first, the question ought to be what evidence there is for the old earth theory.
From what I can tell, the old earth theory is almost entirely based on the unproven premise that evolution happens gradually over very long periods of time and that changes to the earth also happen very slowly over lengthy periods.
Then you need to do more research. Old earth theories were first proposed in the early 1800s, 50 years before Darwin, by geologists who had set out to find evidence for the Flood. Being honest scientists, they reported that they could not find any such evidence, but concluded that the Earth must be at least a few hundred thousand years old.
I further suggest that you consider the concept of varves. These are annual deposits of layers on lake bottoms. Now, there's no theory saying "This happens once a year", we can actually see it happen! It's like tree rings but the record lasts longer; and that record agrees with carbon dating out to twenty thousand years, which is as far back as we can find varves. Is this evidence, or not?
Not. It's based on unproven assumptions. It's like tree rings. It was assumed at one point that a tree ring was a year. Now we know that isn't always true. I don't know if that's the case with varves or not, but I don't find the assumption that "as it is now, so was it always" to be very impressive. There ought to be a name for that kind of fallacy.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So in other words, you are suggesting that varves and carbon dating both change, in the past, at exactly the same rate? Because that's what you need in order for the two dating methods to agree, you know. This is special pleading, a form of fallacy which does have a name.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
If you're busy being so eager to throw out 'unproven assumptions' based on any potential errancies you can dredge up, then that sort of screws the whole attempt to rely on religious young-earth stories, unless there's blatant double-standards at work.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a name for the fallacy of hand-picking assumptions so everything matches preconceived notions?
Why is "things were different in the good ol' days" any more compelling than "as it is now, so was it always"?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:... a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis.
Confirmation bias is an area of interest in the teaching of critical thinking as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting the same preconception.
Morton's Demon was devised by Glenn R. Morton in 2002[13] as part of a thought experiment to explain his own experience of confirmation bias. By analogy with Maxwell's demon, Morton's demon stands at the gateway of a person's senses and lets in facts that agree with that person's beliefs while deflecting those that do not.
Morton was at one time a Young Earth creationist (YEC) who later disavowed this belief. The demon was his way of referring to his own bias and that which he continued to observe in other YECs. With time it has become a common shorthand for confirmation bias in a variety of situations.
In fairness to YECs, everyone including me has their own irrational/unconscious biases. It's so much easier to spot them in others than it is to find them in yourself!
edit: and so, what are we left with? You have to choose some initial axioms or assumptions, or nothing will ever be accomplished. I guess you just have to rigorously minimize assumptions and test them when possible. Not that the vast majority of people (including me) decide things that way.
So, tree rings, you say, don't always show precisely a year?
What do they show, preciesly, and what factors change the amount of time that they measure?
Knowing this information allows for more accurate measurements, which is, of course, of vital interest.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Further, how does the dating based on tree rings, with the new information and exceptions to the rules and so forth, match up with other forms of dating, such as carbon dating, geologic age, volcanic build up, astrological evidence, etc?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So in other words, you are suggesting that varves and carbon dating both change, in the past, at exactly the same rate? Because that's what you need in order for the two dating methods to agree, you know. This is special pleading, a form of fallacy which does have a name.
They only seem to agree because carbon dates that don't agree are thrown out.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that article is funny. They argue that radiocarbon dating gives dates too young, in increasing amounts of error, the further you go back in time, then argue that this is evidence of a young earth.
I wonder how current dates, which already date from further back than the 6000 years they assert, being actually even older dates, supports the notion the earth is 6000 years old.
That's quite a feat of 'logic'.
The relevant quotation:
quote:The curve switches direction around 500 B.C., when radiocarbon ages begin to underestimate supposed dendrochronological ages. The discrepancy grows as we go back in time, so that by the fifth millennium B.C., radiocarbon dates are too recent by 800 years.
quote:They only seem to agree because carbon dates that don't agree are thrown out.
source
GIYF.
The burden of your statements is yours alone. I don't have to do your homework for you to find out whether or not your statement is tenable.
Of course if you're just essentially saying that you're not going to back up your statements that's cool for me too.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:EDIT: The reason I ask is because I suspect that you are using the second definition while Samprimary is using the first.
Samprimary referred to "provable facts". Regardless of what definition of facts we are talking about, it is only provable if you can actually prove it. For instance, "the sun will rise tomorrow" may be a fact, but it isn't provable.
quote:I know that if I touch a burning hot plate, I will get burned. I can know this strictly by a provable fact.
What provable fact tells you this, without relying on any other unprovable assumptions?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It happened before, and you can prove something by demonstrating why and how it will happen.
The American Heritage Dictionary is with me on that point, at least. Anyone is free to drift into a philosophical netherworld where the burdens of how one defines 'provable' make it so that you can't even prove that anybody else exists or that you exist or that existence exists, but that reduces words like 'fact' and 'provable' into useless concepts in a fog of untestability, and if I'm not allowed to rely on unprovable assumptions that sorta entirely throws God out anyway and leaves the subject dead.
Since we're currently engaged in a scientific discussion, where we're using empirical claims (I can only hope, since it asks for the most compelling 'evidence' for a young earth) it behooooooves us to think of a subject as being true when proven, and that a fact is an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.' (this, compliments of the criteria of the National Academy of Sciences).
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But you can't always know what you want to know. "It's better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.""
I agree. Which is why being off a few thousand or a few million years with not precisely perfect methods is far superior than being so precisely wrong as to give an exact date six thousand or so years ago for creation.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But anyway, you're telling me that my desire to know the specific rates of change, for the sake of accuracy, is something I should not bother with, since I "can't always know what I want to know."
That's bunk! That's the kind of mindset which held science at a standstill for a thousand years, and one which, if we still held onto it today, would mean not only that we wouldn't be speaking now, but that I, and many others I know, wouldn't be alive today, thanks to the lack of medicine.
It takes work to learn, but that's something we must do! To do otherwise is a crime.
Anyway, as to the link you gave me, this I find interesting, in the assumptions section:
"Looming over all these assumptions is the idea that cross-checking with other archaeological information will confirm whether the radiocarbon date is “reasonable.” This introduces the specter of subjectivity."
This I pick out not because I cannot speak on the rest, but because it strikes my mind so heavily.
These people actually insinuate that cross-checking with other methods is not wise? That's just silly! Does cross-checking your data with other independant sources bring in a "specter of subjectivity" in other cases, such as, say, a second opinion of a doctor, or checking your readings in any other subject?
As for the tree rings section, this article addresses a single kind. I don't know if that's the only kind used, first of all. I don't know how accurate its information is, but I'll accept that, say, the particular kinds of trees mentioned have flaws, and aren't perfect. That these ones are used. That certainly doesn't mean they're useless.
This article, trying to plant doubts about them, speaks in broad terms about the limits, and mentions the factors which limit their usefulness somewhat, but doesn't go into much detail about how scientists deal with said problems. Not a very good means of discrediting it, if they don't even bother to mention what scientists do to deal with it, if at all.
That's a few things I notice. I'm not well read enough to know if the article's descriptions of carbon dating are perfect, flawed, or whatever. I don't know whether the measurements they mentioned are accurate or not, and I have not read the sources they give, so I can't really speak upon it. I can't gauge the accuracy of their claims.
Certain things I can tell, of course. The statement that 5000 years ago, the data can be up to 800 years off the mark is interesting. But how about when you go farther back? It doesn't mention how much, by their calculations, the data is off at, say, ten thousand or fifteen thousand years. Would their calculations state that, say, fifteen thousand years ago, the amount of error was nine thousand years?
I'd like to know, but I can't tell from what they show me. They don't show me how they gained this data, or what it comes from, and how it deals with dates beyond the age of the Earth. How am I to know how accurate it is in that case, if they don't show enough data, or even tell me how they came up with it?
That's for the equilibrium dating, or whatever.
As for nonequilibrium dating, they state that "Several creationists believe that the radiocarbon method may still be of some use, but only if we recognize that the Bible and nature record an instantaneous Creation and a cataclysmic Flood."
But the question is one of basics: Show the flood! Show evidence of the flood, show reasonable evidence that the flood did anything, and certainly, certainly, explain Noah's Ark, what with all the millions of animals that would have to be in said ark, whose dimensions are clearly stated in the Bible, and is simply, you know, not BIG ENOUGH.
Show evidence of the flood. Show why such conditions would create nonequilibrium conditions of radiocarbon dating.
Show how the flood would disrupt all carbon dating. Not just "it did" but HOW did it?
Besides not showing much of the science, math, or evidence involved in any of the subjects, this article just isn't explaining what makes them think the flood happened in the first place.
(Oh, yes. The Bible. God said so. Based on what evidence? What evidence is there that the Bible is precisely accurate? If you can't give that, then why believe what it says on this subject?)
This points out certain assumptions the nonequilibrium dating method would use. Basically, assuming that the rates of everything were changed by the flood? You need to prove a global flood happened first, or else this assumption falls flat!
I think the assumptions of, you know, scientists, that radioactive decay happens at the same or nearly the same rate, that the laws of physics were the same as they are now, etc, are a bit more tenable. But then again, I rather like speaking to you on the internet, whose existence is based on such simple assumptions.
Okay, later, we get into problems even with this dating system and the Bible. Really, now, when different books of the Bible contradict each other on basic points of history, why do you expect it to be a perfectly accurate historical record, again? (I've shown one strong example elsewhere. I can show others ,too, but if you ask I can cut and paste my first example, since my time is limited)
I have not been perfectly thourough, because I have no time to be, but this article again and again makes unreasonable assumptions without evidence. I think it's reasonable to assume that, say, the rate of decay in isotopes doesn't change much over time. I don't think it's reasonable to simply assume that the (unproven!) global flood caused them to change.
But those latter sorts of unreasonable assumptions plague this article! Why should I believe it, when they haven't given a case for its truth, other than, essentially, it's in the Bible? (whose accuracy hasn't been proven to me, at least in matters like this.)
To be fair, I could be biased. But I think the question of evidence for the assumptions of this article is not problematic.
The second to last paragraph of this thing says this:
"Both radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology face technical problems, and are loaded with uniformitarian and old Earth ideas. They assume that nature works today the same as it has worked for millions of years, yet the facts do not support this contention. Neither method should give us cause to abandon the facts of biblical history. "
I ask this, simply: Show me why the facts do not support the contention. What evidence is there that they do not?
It did not show in the article, and I scoured it as well as I could in this short time.
Could you enlighten me, Lisa? Or was my inability to find the evidence because it wasn't there? The assumption that nature works the same today as in the past... what evidence challenges this?
Of course, this article doesn't hide its own bias. It's steadfast in the belief that biblical history is "fact". I ask where their evidence for this assumption is. Of course if you assume it's true, this stuff might make some sense.
But you need some evidence for that assumption. What is it?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well, I won't be surprised if you just think I'm simply dismissing it out of hand, without thinking about it.
But in the end, just as the harmony of the spheres and a flat earth hypothesis have been disproven, so has a 6,000 year old earth. At least, with enough clarity to convince me.
Unless, of course, God is a liar, having made the very light of the stars en route, so that it hints that the stars exist, when they did not.
With a fraudulent God, an omnipotent being who acts to decieve us, we couldn't know anything for sure, of course.
But then, why worship a liar?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Could you enlighten me, Lisa?
I don't care enough. I didn't even read through that whole link. GIYF. You're the one who cares about this subject.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ron, it appears you have a rather different understanding of 'miracle' from mine. Can I suggest, in the interest of clarity, that you instead use the phrase "Deliberate intervention by powerful, intelligent beings, which nonetheless leaves a human-discernible trace"?
I can live with that definition. It is essentially what I said, although I am not positing intervention in our history by some alien supercivilization, but intervention by God the Creator.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Ron, to the extent that miracles are just unusual, but detectable, manipulations of natural processes, then science can contemplate those manipulations and take them into account. The evidence for such manipulations seems slim and proposing such manipulations by default when one reaches a point of ignorance seems lazy. You get a lot further when you say "I don't know" and keep digging than if you say "God did it" and stop.
MattP, you don't quite get the point I am trying to make. When we look at evidence for some unusual event or phenomenon and say "God did it," we do not stop. That is our starting point. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Proverbs 1:7) Only evolutionists and agnostics and atheists stop at this point and reject utterly the reasonable alternative that there is a God and He does at times take an active roll interacting with us and our world. The Bible records these interactions of Divine Providence with man and human history and the physical world.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
