Definition of True Science?

[Vance]

In a recent post (the OP of a thread which has now been closed), someone described Real Science as:

"Science is not taking one of these wild ideas that suits you personally and then going to to purposely try to find evidence for it. Science is finding evidence before you even know its evidence and then making ideas based on that."

The poster was using this to bash evolution, but it really effectively does away with Creation Science altogether.

Creation Science starts with the presumption of a series of facts (young earth, no evolution, global flood, etc) and then purposefully goes out to find evidence which supports these ideas, and purposefully goes out to find evidence *against* what they don't believe. What's more is they fully ADMIT that this is what they are doing! Right in the ICR creed, as well as over at AIG, they say that they start with these certain truths and go forward from there to establish "scientifically" that they must be true and the opposite must be false.

They definitely do NOT start with the evidence and "make ideas based on that".

So, an anti-evolutionist just defined Creation Science as *not* being True Science.

 

[Bushido216]

Pretty much. Darwin stumbled across those finches.

Great post.

 

[TrueCreation]

"Science is finding evidence before you even know its evidence and then making ideas based on that"

--Well I don't know. There are plenty of circumstances (such as in the development of theories on solar cosmogenesis) where we gather data (not necessarily "evidence" of a previously concieved hypothesis) and attempt to explain that data (yes, deliberately). It is the subsequent hypothesis which is considered as evidence and whose implications can then be used as a basis for further research and as evidence for that hypothesis.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[TrueCreation]

Pretty much. Darwin stumbled across those finches.

--Which he used subsequently to formulate natural selection and a better evolutionary theory.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Freodin]

Science works both ways - from evidence to hypothesis and from hypothesis to evidence.

It is just the ignoring of falsifying evidence that makes "bad science".

 

[Ryoko Ozaki]

I actually originally took it as a total bash on Christian/Creation Science(the biggest oxymoron ever) at first until you explained what they were attempting. Trying to find reasons to believe in something and finding reasons doe not mean that the reasons can't be caused by other things.

The fact is that until all possibilities are accounted for and experiments/tests are ran again, you can't prove that some supreme being(ie God) caused them.

 

[Bushido216]

Science works both ways - from evidence to hypothesis and from hypothesis to evidence.

It is just the ignoring of falsifying evidence that makes "bad science".

Well, it's always evidence, hypothesis, evidence. People see say, black holes, see how they work, and then try to figure out how that might work.

Creationists already think they have the answers and try to prove them.

 

[JGMEERT]

Creationists already think they have the answers and try to find ways around them.

JM: That's really more important than we typically emphasize in these debates. We (sensu lato) tend to forget in the heat of the discussion that such things as a young earth and global flood were utterly destroyed by the weight of the evidence long ago. It's important to remind creationists of this information and their own failure to document in detail just when the flood occurred if they want to cling to that sort of story.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Bushido216]

Bah, I meant "ways to prove them".

 

[TrueCreation]

Well, it's always evidence, hypothesis, evidence. People see say, black holes, see how they work, and then try to figure out how that might work.

Creationists already think they have the answers and try to prove them.

--Which is why it is about time for a revolution.

Cheers,
-Chris Grose

 

[Junior Sparagus]

Evolutionists, like all scientists, like to tell a story, too. I mean, why else do we give important skeletal finds personal names, like Lucy? The way a scientific story is told has an important effect, and the way that story is told matters.

The storytelling is not perfect science. Although it relies on the facts being straight, science is not merely facts. In fact, the very act of observation affects the process being observed. Thus two evolutionists, examining the same data, can get into a heated debate over what the evidence "means." The expression of meaning is a critical purpose of science, yet that very expression of meaning also accounts for 95% of scientific disagreement.

Thus, in the pursuit to expose bad science, even very good scientists can tell the story wrong, but because they have their own strawman "bad scientist" to assault, their own failures can be easily overlooked. It is probably smarter to focus on the pursuit of evidence and hypothesis and making reports than in delighting in the stupidity of others.

In other words, tell the best story. Continously criticizing the worst ones makes you a literary critic, not a scientist.

 

[Loudmouth]

To me, good science is based in honesty to the data, methodology, and falsibility. A good scientist will try just as hard to prove himself wrong as he does at proving himself right. In my own work, assay controls are some of the most important samples. If the controls don't work (which represent the null hypothesis, or an attempt to prove myself wrong) then the whole experiment is shot. The methodology must also be transparent, which lends itself to repeatability. Also, the scientist must admit conditions in which his ideas could be proven false, including parts of any experiment or theory on which his ideas hinge upon. Interpretation of the data is then left to the public, although the scientist who did the original work usually gets the first shot. However, if it is repeatable, the scientist can't hide anything and is open to critique.

If creation science is indeed science, I see a lack of the aforementioned qualities. Methodology is often cryptic, done incorrectly, and lacks comments on controls and null hypotheses. For once, I would love to hear a creation scientist state that if such and such were found to be true, then his/her theories do not stand.

 

[Junior Sparagus]

What, then, would have to be true in order for the theory of evolution to be asserted to be flawed or failed?

My concern is that evolution advocates spend far too much time looking at the oft-repeated errors of creation scientists, and far too little time testing and advancing (or altering or disproving) the theory of evolution. If interpretation is to be left to the public, why do so many scientists shreik when 50% (or whatever the gallup numbers are) of Americans say they don't believe in evolution? I mean can a scientist be both objective and an apologist at the same time?

Really, you and I both know that because evolutionary study spans billions of years and as a science is in its infancy (relative to many other sciences), that it really doesn't have the luxury of going after every quack. There are far too many unknowns and gaps to fill and mysteries to solve for us to waste time turning around and explaining basic concepts to those who have already decided that the earth is flat, or whatever. That's really why I question the motives of the archdefenders of evolution (who do little more than take potshots at crackpots): after a while, they begin to sound as dogmatic as the people who don't believe men walked on the moon.

 

[Jet Black]

What, then, would have to be true in order for the theory of evolution to be asserted to be flawed or failed?

something that falsifies it. like a crocodile having the genes for a chicken wing.

My concern is that evolution advocates spend far too much time looking at the oft-repeated errors of creation scientists, and far too little time testing and advancing (or altering or disproving) the theory of evolution.

do they? Evolution is actually one of the most tested theories on the planet, precisely because it is/was so controversial. The errors of creationists are critical, because they falsify their own theories.

If interpretation is to be left to the public, why do so many scientists shreik when 50% (or whatever the gallup numbers are) of Americans say they don't believe in evolution?

should it be left to the public though? Is public opinion really important in issues like this, when they don't have, or understand the information which is presented to them

Really, you and I both know that because evolutionary study spans billions of years and as a science is in its infancy (relative to many other sciences),

well the study of evolution tends to be the summation of studies of many other things... for example ERVs, which are more evidence for evolution, but are the result of the study of the genome and it's functioning.

 

[Taffsadar]

Evolutionists, like all scientists, like to tell a story, too. I mean, why else do we give important skeletal finds personal names, like Lucy? The way a scientific story is told has an important effect, and the way that story is told matters.

Actually there is two reasons for this. 1) Subject 1005 would be a name that is extremly hard to remember, calling the skeleton Lucy means it's easier to remember. 2) Many scientists (but in this case archeologists) are rather playful and enjoy giving their projects rather fun names (HUGO project anyone?).

 

[Jet Black]

Actually there is two reasons for this. 1) Subject 1005 would be a name that is extremly hard to remember, calling the skeleton Lucy means it's easier to remember. 2) Many scientists (but in this case archeologists) are rather playful and enjoy giving their projects rather fun names (HUGO project anyone?).

heh, there are loads of these. for example in the search for dark matter, the first idea was WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) and then someone else had an idea, and managed to force the acronym into MACHOS (I forget what it stands for)

 

[Freodin]

Well, it's always evidence, hypothesis, evidence. People see say, black holes, see how they work, and then try to figure out how that might work.

Creationists already think they have the answers and try to prove them.

Sorry, wrong example for your argument. Black holes were in fact a hypothesis without evidence. They were fictional explanations for some mathematical problems. Hypotetically, they would have to exist - that was the reason scientists started to look for them.

No, the real problem of "creation science" and other dubious "science" topics is the stubborn ignoring of falsifying evidence. If such evidence exists, the hypothesis is, in the current form, false. To continue to use it is not good science, regardless how much supporting evidence you find.

 

[lucaspa]

Nice post. Hoist them by their own petard, didn't you?

In a recent post (the OP of a thread which has now been closed), someone described Real Science as:

"Science is not taking one of these wild ideas that suits you personally and then going to to purposely try to find evidence for it. Science is finding evidence before you even know its evidence and then making ideas based on that."

Science is taking an idea (wild or otherwise) and then purposefully trying to find evidence to show it to be wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

What, then, would have to be true in order for the theory of evolution to be asserted to be flawed or failed?

Mammalian fossils in the Cambrian would falsify common ancestry. Darwin himself gave a couple of tests that would falsify natural selection:

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Origin, pg 501.

Find one of those and natural selection is in trouble.

Haven't found one yet.

My concern is that evolution advocates spend far too much time looking at the oft-repeated errors of creation scientists, and far too little time testing and advancing (or altering or disproving) the theory of evolution.

That's only on debate boards, not in science itself. Go to PubMed and enter "evolution" as your search term. Lots of papers testing every aspect of evolution, hardly any attacking creation science. It's not worth the effort. Creation Science was falsified long ago. Scientists only care about it because of the political pressure to get it into schools as a valid theory.

If interpretation is to be left to the public, why do so many scientists shreik when 50% (or whatever the gallup numbers are) of Americans say they don't believe in evolution?

Because the evidence is overwhelming that creationism is falsified and evolution supported. Scientists shreik because the numbers mean 1) 50% of the people don't know the evidence and 2) a lot of people are getting conned by misinformation from professional creationists.

I mean can a scientist be both objective and an apologist at the same time?

Really, you and I both know that because evolutionary study spans billions of years and as a science is in its infancy (relative to many other sciences), that it really doesn't have the luxury of going after every quack. There are far too many unknowns and gaps to fill and mysteries to solve for us to waste time turning around and explaining basic concepts to those who have already decided that the earth is flat, or whatever. That's really why I question the motives of the archdefenders of evolution (who do little more than take potshots at crackpots): after a while, they begin to sound as dogmatic as the people who don't believe men walked on the moon.

1. I think you mischaracterize the "archdefenders of evolution" as just taking potshots at crackpots. Phillip Kitcher, Douglas Futuyma, Ashley Montagu, Tim Berra, Niles Eldredge, Robert Pennock, Kenneth Miller, Ernst Mayr, to name a few, have written thoughtful and data filled books explaining evolution and refuting creationism. Have you taken the time to read any of them?

2. Yes, sometimes everyone gets frustrated at the person who repeats the same misinformation again and again and takes personal potshots at them.

Take a look around this forum. You will find, I think, that most of the posts present evidence falsifying creationism, This is not the same as taking potshots at crackpots or even just looking at the errors of creationists. When you put out claims, the next step is testing them in order to show they are false if possible. There's a lot of testing of creationist claims in this forum, and the end result is showing them to be false.

 

[lucaspa]

To me, good science is based in honesty to the data, methodology, and falsibility. ... In my own work, assay controls are some of the most important samples. If the controls don't work (which represent the null hypothesis, or an attempt to prove myself wrong) then the whole experiment is shot.

Congratulations. It looks like someone has taken the time to teach you the elements of the philosophy of science. Your controls are not just the "null hypothesis". That term is limited to the statistics used. The controls are there to falsify all the alternative hypotheses so that your tested hypothesis stands alone unfalsified.

If creation science is indeed science, I see a lack of the aforementioned qualities. Methodology is often cryptic, done incorrectly, and lacks comments on controls and null hypotheses. For once, I would love to hear a creation scientist state that if such and such were found to be true, then his/her theories do not stand.

Creationism is indeed a scientific theory. A falsified theory. However, what you point out is that creationists do not behave as good scientists. That's a personal problem that does not invalidate creationism as a scientific theory.

Of course no creationist will ever set out a condition under which he will acknowledge creationism to be falsified! Because underneath the creationist has tied the truth of creationism to the existence of God. To admit creationism is falsified is to also admit, for him, that God doesn't exist.