Continuing Challenge to Creationists

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Words in red were added by you and are wrong.

Hah! Good catch! I missed that particular deceit the first time round.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Phantom423

I don't agree with that. Here's why: Reasonable doubt in a courtroom is based on a LACK of evidence to convict. "Reasonable doubt" in science suggests that there exists other evidence that may conflict with the current findings. But here's the clincher: that other evidence has to have been acquired under the standards of the scientific method. And that can certainly happen. But typically prior to publishing, a thorough search of the literature is conducted. If that other evidence did exist, then it would be the responsibility of the current author to include it in some way in his publication either by citation or inclusion of some aspect of that research, for instance a table which reflects the data. But that doesn't constitute reasonable doubt. It only says that another scientist worked in a similar area of research.

Nope. No evidence is needed. The established doubt is intrinsic to the scientific method.

This is not a scientific debate, but a philsophical one. Evidence is, quite frankly, irrelevant.

I don't understand your thinking on this. Why is it not a scientific debate? Where does philosophy come in?

The scientific method is a model, or set of rules, which scientists adhere to during the process of discovery. There's no philosophical component to it. The rules are meant to guide you in such a way that your work is thorough and the conclusions are the result of objective data collection and analysis.

Evidence is everything in science. I don't know about philosophy. So please explain in further detail. Thanks.

a reply to: Phantom423

Creationism vs. science? That's not a scientific debate. That's two opposing worldviews.

The scientific method is a model, or set of rules, which scientists adhere to during the process of discovery. There's no philosophical component to it.

On what are the rules based, then?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Phantom423

Creationism vs. science? That's not a scientific debate. That's two opposing worldviews.

The scientific method is a model, or set of rules, which scientists adhere to during the process of discovery. There's no philosophical component to it.

On what are the rules based, then?

This is the flow chart for the scientific method. It's a step-by-step method protocol.

a reply to: Phantom423

Like you, I am the lucky beneficiary of a scientific education.

And I've seen that graphic before, right here on ATS.

I asked what rules the methodology of science is based. An exposition of the methodology doesn't answer that question.

a reply to: Serdgiam

hello and thank you for your reply.

That assertion relies on the assumption that you somehow know my beliefs, as well as how I apply the scientific method. Both of which are incorrect.

perhaps i was hasty in calling it "your" theology, although i stand by my opinion that theology uses science for its credibility and not its compatibility.

I view the term "God" as a cultural term more than anything. In this context, an accurate statement would have been more akin to the opposite of the "God of the gaps."

"cultural term" or not, given that most phenomena once credited to supernatural forces have since been more appropriately categorized due to the efforts of science, i would have to disagree.

Though, I will assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you will base your perceptions on past interactions rather than treating this as a new interaction. This happens from both sides, as it is easier to confirm bias when one asserts what is true and known without any exploration, using generalized and easily dismissed archetypes.

every time you take a step, breathe air, or use the computer, you are using past interactions to determine that the ground will not vanish, the air will not poison you, and the computer will not transform into a man-eating mechanical monstrosity. this is a result of exploration, and much like this thread, previous experience has indicated a general idea of what will transpire should you choose to proceed.

for instance, this thread will likely burn out and be recycled. would you like to test this hypothesis?

Regardless, many tend to have their own explanation for any and all new information that is perceived, regardless of ignorance. This makes most discussion a complete waste of time to anyone who is interested in, and participates in, scientific exploration. Hell, its a waste of time for anyone who does not operate on a foundation of perceived omniscience.

in lieu of omniscience, perhaps you could provide us with the much desired evidence required to pass this "hypothesis" from the null stage to the plausible stage. we can go from there.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Phantom423

Like you, I am the lucky beneficiary of a scientific education.

And I've seen that graphic before, right here on ATS.

I asked what rules the methodology of science is based. An exposition of the methodology doesn't answer that question.

perhaps this will answer your question?

Rules of Science

(1) Question authority. No idea is true just because someone says so, including me.

(2) Think for yourself. Question yourself. Don't believe anything just because you want to. Believing something doesn't make it so.

(3) Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment. If a favorite idea fails a well-designed test, it's wrong. Get over it.

(4) Follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you have no evidence, reserve judgment.

And perhaps the most important rule of all...

(5) Remember: you could be wrong. Even the best scientists have been wrong about some things. Newton, Einstein, and every other great scientist in history -- they all made mistakes. Of course they did. They were human.

courtesy of neil degrasse tyson.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Phantom423

Like you, I am the lucky beneficiary of a scientific education.

And I've seen that graphic before, right here on ATS.

I asked what rules the methodology of science is based. An exposition of the methodology doesn't answer that question.

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your question. If you're suggesting that there is a set of laws or regulations that govern research, that doesn't exist nor should it. If a scientist is found to have tampered with the data or results, which happens once in a while, then he/she must retract the paper.

Otherwise, scientists are free to approach their research in any manner they please as long as they report accurate data and results.

The scientific method is simply a way to organize work in a logical manner. Maybe the word "rules" is misleading. It's more a matter of design and planning of your project. Data needs to be verified and analyzed, experiments repeated - all of that.

a reply to: TzarChasm

perhaps this will answer your question?

A thousand apologies, O Vashe Imperatorskoye Velichestvo, but it will not.

Again, this is the methodology of science. On what premises is it based?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TzarChasm

perhaps this will answer your question?

A thousand apologies, O Vashe Imperatorskoye Velichestvo, but it will not.

Again, this is the methodology of science. On what premises is it based?

The premise would simply be honesty.

a reply to: Phantom423

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your question.

I trust, then, that alarm bells are ringing somewhere below decks in the vessel of your conviction.

If you're suggesting that there is a set of laws or regulations that govern research, that doesn't exist nor should it.

I'm not suggesting anything. But note that the laws and regulations people make are only different varieties of rule, differing from the methodological rules of experimental science only in that the penalties for breaking them are applied by human beings and not by nature.

What are laws and regulations based on? Some would say, mere expediency; and perhaps they often are. But others, less cynical, might suggest that laws and regulations are based on an ethical or moral code, which in turn could be premised on religious belief, eusocial instinct, enlightened self-interest or the good old Golden Rule.

The same is true of science. Underpinning the methodology of investigation, hypothesis formation, experiment, etc., that your diagram pictures so beautifully are certain foundational premises. My question to you is: what are these premises?

A consequent question, to which the Tzar has already attempted an answer, is: how do we know these premises are valid? But let's see if we can establish first what the premises are.

a reply to: Phantom423

The premise would simply be honesty.

Ah. I see I still haven't convinced you to actually think about my question.

See my post above, which I was writing while you posted that. Honesty is not a premise. It is a quality of human character.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TzarChasm

perhaps this will answer your question?

A thousand apologies, O Vashe Imperatorskoye Velichestvo, but it will not.

Again, this is the methodology of science. On what premises is it based?

i had to look that one up. my username isnt a model, its a mockery, if that makes sense. bitter ironies tickle me a bit.

perhaps you could provide an example i can compare, to get a clearer idea of what you mean by "premise".

my immediate response would be academic. the love of information and collecting it. and an accompanying disappointment in those who abuse it.

a reply to: Astyanax

And there is also my original question: why should the debate be judged on strictly rational grounds?

I'm not saying it shouldn't, just asking why it shoud.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I greatly appreciate the mockery of your username. Indeed, you might call me a fan.

Here's a simple definition of a premise. A more exhaustive discussion can be found here.

a reply to: TzarChasm

sarcasm or amicable teasing? hard to tell sometimes...

I didn't detect any sarcasm there at all Chas. And I don't believe
any one could unless their sarcasm detector ring was set for
all amped up? I'm interested in the answer to this question
Astyanax has posed. And seeing the struggle you guys are
putting up. My interest is beginning to peak.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Astyanax

And there is also my original question: why should the debate be judged on strictly rational grounds?

I'm not saying it shouldn't, just asking why it shoud.

Because any other way would be chaotic and nonproductive.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Serdgiam

perhaps i was hasty in calling it "your" theology, although i stand by my opinion that theology uses science for its credibility and not its compatibility.

Do you view the above as a generalization with or without exceptions?

"cultural term" or not, given that most phenomena once credited to supernatural forces have since been more appropriately categorized due to the efforts of science, i would have to disagree.

It might be advisable to first determine what I mean by "cultural term" before proposing a conclusion. Likewise, determine whether or not I attribute supernatural qualities to anything in the conversation (I do not).

every time you take a step, breathe air, or use the computer, you are using past interactions to determine that the ground will not vanish, the air will not poison you, and the computer will not transform into a man-eating mechanical monstrosity. this is a result of exploration, and much like this thread, previous experience has indicated a general idea of what will transpire should you choose to proceed.

And what do you do when something contradicts these assumptions? When the air is poisonous, or when the computer detonates, or when a sinkhole opens up beneath our feet? Do we stand firm in our assumptions, or make attempts to explore the new information?

It may seem obvious, but perhaps with some contemplation you will see how it applies to a thread like this.

in lieu of omniscience, perhaps you could provide us with the much desired evidence required to pass this "hypothesis" from the null stage to the plausible stage. we can go from there.

What hypothesis would that be? That it is a waste of time to have conversations with those who argue with the archetypes in their mind rather than reality? That's really just my opinion, but since I have yet to propose an actual hypothesis, I assume you have something in mind.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Phantom423

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your question.

I trust, then, that alarm bells are ringing somewhere below decks in the vessel of your conviction.

If you're suggesting that there is a set of laws or regulations that govern research, that doesn't exist nor should it.

I'm not suggesting anything. But note that the laws and regulations people make are only different varieties of rule, differing from the methodological rules of experimental science only in that the penalties for breaking them are applied by human beings and not by nature.

What are laws and regulations based on? Some would say, mere expediency; and perhaps they often are. But others, less cynical, might suggest that laws and regulations are based on an ethical or moral code, which in turn could be premised on religious belief, eusocial instinct, enlightened self-interest or the good old Golden Rule.

The same is true of science. Underpinning the methodology of investigation, hypothesis formation, experiment, etc., that your diagram pictures so beautifully are certain foundational premises. My question to you is: what are these premises?

A consequent question, to which the Tzar has already attempted an answer, is: how do we know these premises are valid? But let's see if we can establish first what the premises are.

I see the scientific method as a logical sequence of events that should occur when you're doing research. It's not rocket science. There's no deep, philosophical meaning to it. It's just a common sense way of approaching research.

So as long as I can't answer your question, perhaps you can describe what your answer would be if the same question were put to you.

a reply to: Phantom423

I see the scientific method as a logical sequence of events that should occur when you're doing research. It's not rocket science. There's no deep, philosophical meaning to it. It's just a common sense way of approaching research.

Well, that is profoundly, indeed gravely mistaken.

So as long as I can't answer your question, perhaps you can describe what your answer would be if the same question were put to you.

Is that an 'I give up'?

I should say the premises underpinning the scientific method are empirical and inductive. To wit,

That our perceptions are derived from an external physical reality.

That our brains produce accurate or at least reliable models of this reality.

That our memories are reliable.

That induction is a reliable way of arriving at the truth.

That scientific laws are universal.

Which of these premises would you regard as proven?

edit on 22/9/15 by Astyanax because: a redundant premise.