Are inquiries of the origin of life really scientific?

[oncelost]

It seems to me that hypotheses of the origin of life and all its forms are more like historical hypotheses than scientific hypotheses.

When we explore how something works, we can observe it work over and over again, by experimentation or otherwise, and test our observations against the hypotheses/theories. This seems to comport with scientific method. However, with origins, we try to answer questions of a different nature: historical questions. With historical inquiries, we cannot usually recreate and repeat events to produce data to compare to our theory. This is most obvious with abiogenesis and **gasp** macroevolution. Digging up fossils and interpreting the tree of life is not scientific method.

Likewise, theories explaining crime scenes aren’t considered scientific theories. They simply attempt to explain evidence in the most reasonable manner. Often science (forensic science) is employed to evaluate or reveal the evidence. But that doesn’t make the theory of the crime scientific. How are origins theories any different? Both are historical theories.

Employing naturalism in inquiries about origins seems to rule out an entire realm of possible, if not the most plausible, answers.

Analogy: If I want to explain how my car works, I could do so by only exploring the physical makeup of the car itself, and, through observation and experimentation, hope to end up explaining, scientifically, how it works. However, if I want to explain how it came to exist, and I limit myself to explanations to within car itself, I would rule out the only answer that makes sense.

Inquiries of origins of life and its forms should not rule out teleological or ID arguments in the same way that inquiries into the origin of my car should not. Likewise, such theories are not exactly scientific; they’re something more like a criminal theory… a historical hypothesis.

Where have I gone wrong?

 

[Mallon]

Where have I gone wrong?

You can test proposed evolutionary scenarios by comparing their predictions against future fossil finds, genetic evidence, biogeographic evidence, developmental evidence, etc. They're testable like any other idea in science.

 

[oncelost]

You can test proposed evolutionary scenarios by comparing their predictions against future fossil finds, genetic evidence, biogeographic evidence, developmental evidence, etc. They're testable like any other idea in science.

I can test proposed theories of a murder scenario by comparing their predictions against future forensic evidence discovered. They're testable, like any other idea of science. Clearly, a criminal theory is not a scientific theory.

I wouldn't think you would want to define science so loosely.

 

[Mallon]

I can test proposed theories of a murder scenario by comparing their predictions against future forensic evidence discovered. It's testable, like any other idea of science. Clearly, a criminal theory is not a scientific theory.

Why not? Why don't you consider forensic science to be science?

I'd wouldn't think you would want to define science so loosely.

What's loose about it? It's all hypothesis-testing, which is the accepted definition of science.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Based on my understanding of the Bible, I predict that Jesus will return one day.
Science in action!

 

[Mallon]

Based on my understanding of the Bible, I predict that Jesus will return one day.
Science in action!

 

[oncelost]

Why not? Why don't you consider forensic science to be science?

Let's be clear. Forensic science is not the same as the theory of Who murdered John Doe? Forensic science may put John Doe's DNA on the weapon...it may explain blood spatter...or it may demonstrate the presence of gun powder residue on his hands. Forensic science demonstrates the evidence. The theory of whodunit is not forensic science. It's the story told to explain the evidence revealed by forensic science.

Are you suggesting that all hypothesis testing is science? Would that mean judges and juries are, by definition, scientists? That my theory of who stole the cookie from my cookie jar is subject to scientific testing? It seems you diminish science if you answer yes to these questions. And where does the ability to repeat the object of study come in?

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Let's be clear. Forensic science is not the same as the theory of Who murdered John Doe? Forensic science may put John Doe's DNA on the weapon...it may explain blood spatter...or it may demonstrate the presence of gun powder residue on his hands. Forensic science demonstrates the evidence. The theory of whodunit is not forensic science. It's the story told to explain the evidence revealed by forensic science.

Are you suggesting that all hypothesis testing is science? Would that mean judges and juries are, by definition, scientists? That my theory of who stole the cookie from my cookie jar is subject to scientific testing? It seems you diminish science if you answer yes to these questions. And where does the ability to repeat the object of study come in?

With this criteria for science, what is an example of an actual "scientific" theory?

 

[Greg1234]

It seems to me that hypotheses of the origin of life and all its forms are more like historical hypotheses than scientific hypotheses.

When we explore how something works, we can observe it work over and over again, by experimentation or otherwise, and test our observations against the hypotheses/theories. This seems to comport with scientific method. However, with origins, we try to answer questions of a different nature: historical questions. With historical inquiries, we cannot usually recreate and repeat events to produce data to compare to our theory. This is most obvious with abiogenesis and **gasp** macroevolution. Digging up fossils and interpreting the tree of life is not scientific method.

Likewise, theories explaining crime scenes aren’t considered scientific theories. They simply attempt to explain evidence in the most reasonable manner. Often science (forensic science) is employed to evaluate or reveal the evidence. But that doesn’t make the theory of the crime scientific. How are origins theories any different? Both are historical theories.

Employing naturalism in inquiries about origins seems to rule out an entire realm of possible, if not the most plausible, answers.

Analogy: If I want to explain how my car works, I could do so by only exploring the physical makeup of the car itself, and, through observation and experimentation, hope to end up explaining, scientifically, how it works. However, if I want to explain how it came to exist, and I limit myself to explanations to within car itself, I would rule out the only answer that makes sense.

Inquiries of origins of life and its forms should not rule out teleological or ID arguments in the same way that inquiries into the origin of my car should not. Likewise, such theories are not exactly scientific; they’re something more like a criminal theory… a historical hypothesis.

Where have I gone wrong?

It is historical. But comparatively in Darwinism you are forced to admit that the cabinet used a knife to commit the murder despite all evidence showing that it cannot do it. But due to the place of the cabinet, the knife, and the relation of the body to the cabinet, you need to reinterpret the manufacturer's manual to fit this theory.

 

[Mallon]

Let's be clear. Forensic science is not the same as the theory of Who murdered John Doe? Forensic science may put John Doe's DNA on the weapon...it may explain blood spatter...or it may demonstrate the presence of gun powder residue on his hands. Forensic science demonstrates the evidence. The theory of whodunit is not forensic science. It's the story told to explain the evidence revealed by forensic science.

That didn't really make sense. "Forensic science demonstrates the evidence"? Not sure what that even means.
If I have a theory that Joe Blow shot Betty Anne, I can test that idea using forensic science: if Joe Blow's finger prints are found on the murder weapon left at the scene, I have confirmed my hypothesis. It's no different from any other science.

Are you suggesting that all hypothesis testing is science?

Yes.

Would that mean judges and juries are, by definition, scientists?

Do they test hypotheses?

That my theory of who stole the cookie from my cookie jar is subject to scientific testing?

You can test it by seeing whose finger prints are on the cookie jar.

It seems you diminish science if you answer yes to these questions.

How am I diminishing science? Are you speaking as a scientist? I am.

And where does the ability to repeat the object of study come in?

You can repeatedly test for the presence of fingerprints. In science, the tests need to be repeatable; not the actual event. No single event can be repeated twice, even in theory.

 

[juvenissun]

Language is troublesome. We can argue that everything is scientific. Politics is scientific and music/art is also scientific. Cake making, of course, is 100% scientific.

Can we imagine that before the Tower of Babel collapsed, how precise was the language?

 

[Mallon]

Language is troublesome. We can argue that everything is scientific. Politics is scientific and music/art is also scientific. Cake making, of course, is 100% scientific.

Ummmm... no.

 

[BrendanMark]

Initially, the meaning of the Greek word for truth, unhiddenness, has nothing to do with assertion and that factual contexture in terms of which the essence of truth is usually explained, i.e. with correctness and correspondence. To be hidden and unhidden means something quite different to correspondence, measuring up, directness towards . . . Truth as unhiddenness and truth as correctness are quite different things; they arise from quite different fundamental experiences and cannot at all be equated.
Heidegger, Martin – The Essence of Truth – On Plato’s Cave Allegory and Theaetetus [Continuum, 2002, Sadler, Ted trans., p. 8]


Thought in the Greek fashion, truth is always eventually concealed by time. Science and inquiry into truth can reveal truth from its essential hiddenness, but never completely and never for all time. Modern science can look at the behaviour of species, inherited characteristics and such, but no such investigation can by its nature reveal the truth of how life on earth began.

Kronos has concealed that particular truth from us. We have no time machine, so may only make conjectures consistent with the truths we do know.

Aristotle. who had a few things to say about truth, logic and science was quite able to distinguish art from science and politics while noting their inter-relationship in certain areas.

 

[oncelost]

That didn't really make sense. "Forensic science demonstrates the evidence"? Not sure what that even means.
If I have a theory that Joe Blow shot Betty Anne, I can test that idea using forensic science: if Joe Blow's finger prints are found on the murder weapon left at the scene, I have confirmed my hypothesis. It's no different from any other science.

Okay. You're a scientist, and I'm a lawyer. I'm really trying to understand this. There's science behind fingerprint identification theory... it's been tested, repeated with confirmatory observations such that it's been generably accepted to be reliable.

The science has revealed the evidence,i.e., Joe Blow's fingerprint on the murder weapon. We must still interpret that evidence. Maybe the weapon is Mr. Blow's hunting rifle and you'd expect to see his print there, even if he's not the murderer. You might use forensic science to help you know what evidence exists; but that's a far cry from saying your theory of whodunit is a scientific theory.

I may not be explaining this well, but do you really not see the difference.

Do they [judges and juries] test hypotheses?

Sort of. They look at evidence and, after listening to one lawyer offer a hypotheses consistent with guilt and another to the contrary, determine if the hypothesis is consistent with the evidence. To call that a scientific process seems absurd. Sorry.

You can test it by seeing whose finger prints are on the cookie jar

Same response as above. BTW, I can test it more conclusively by reviewing my video serveillance footage or interviewing witnesses. Is that scientific?

You can repeatedly test for the presence of fingerprints. In science, the tests need to be repeatable; not the actual event. No single event can be repeated twice, even in theory.

Okay. Lets say my inquiry is to determine the optimal amount of sunlight to grow the biggest tomatoes... a classic science fair experiment. Hypotheses: X hours/day. Obviously, the test would be repeatable. In such a scientific experiment, what would be the "actual event" you refer to? The term "event" seems to refer to history, not science.

 

[metherion]

Oncelost, I think I see what you're saying.

What you are saying is kind of as follows.

A) Forensic science is used to say what the evidence means.
a1) Forensic science says "If Joe Blow's fingerprints were on the rifle, Joe Blow must have touched the rifle with ungloved hands. Same with this axe handle."
a2) Forensic science says "if an axe is swung at a human neck at such and such an angle, the blood splatter will be THIS pattern (show a slide)."
a3) Forensic science says "If we go to medical science, someone shot where the victim was would have this blood pressure, and if they were then hit with an axe at this angle with that blood pressure, the blood splatter will match that slide I just showed."
a4) It IS forensic science to say "that blood splatter ONLY matches the swing of an axe from that height, at this angle, with this force, and no other splatter could possibly match that."

B) Putting together the case as a lawyer is not the same as the science.
b1) It is NOT forensic science to say Joe Blow had the means, or the motivation.
b2) It is NOT forensic science to say why Billy Bob Brown would have reason to make gloves that would not leave Billy Bob Brown's fingerprints on the gun and axe that Joe Blow owns and uses on a regular basis.
b3) It is NOT forensic science to say "Joe Blow did it" or "Billy Bob Brown" did it, leading to

C) science would only say what could or could not be consistent.
c1) Only an axe swing after a gunshot would leave the blood spatter.
c2) Wearing gloves or the actual accused's hands would both leave the same prints on the axe and rifle.
c3) So science could only say 'the evidence would fit with this proposed idea, but not THAT proposed idea.'

I believe that is what you are trying to say.

And the problem lies with c3. The studies on the origins of life ARE scientific, because (continuing to use the law analogy), the origin of life studies aren't saying "Did Joe Blow or Billy Bob Brown kill this guy?", but rather "Is the blood spatter from an axe or a knife?"

It's not about "did God do it or not do it", it's about "How did it happen?"

Metherion

 

[oncelost]

What you are saying is kind of as follows.

A) Forensic science is used to say what the evidence means.
...
a4) It IS forensic science to say "that blood splatter ONLY matches the swing of an axe from that height, at this angle, with this force, and no other splatter could possibly match that."

You've been watching too much CSI. I don't think a blood spatter expert would go that far. She'd probably say, based on the science, the spatter is consistent with blood trajected from this point of blunt impact. But the conclusion is based on the science; its application to the set of facts in the case is not a scientific theory.

B) Putting together the case as a lawyer is not the same as the science.
...
b3) It is NOT forensic science to say "Joe Blow did it" or "Billy Bob Brown" did it

No problem there.

C) science would only say what could or could not be consistent.
...
c3) So science could only say 'the evidence would fit with this proposed idea, but not THAT proposed idea.'

Well, not exactly. Science can give us evidences A, B and C. Good ole police work can give us evidences D, E and F. Assessing whether the hypothesis of the case is consistent with A-F is not science, is it? That's just using your brain.

The studies on the origins of life ARE scientific, because ...
It's not about "did God do it or not do it", it's about "How did it happen?"

Kinda like Stonehenge or the 100 ton rocks that are part of Incan architecture. Purely a historic inquiry. Scientific evidence may assist us with the inquiry, but the theory is not scientific.

 

[metherion]

You've been watching too much CSI. I don't think a blood spatter expert would go that far. She'd probably say, based on the science, the spatter is consistent with blood trajected from this point of blunt impact. But the conclusion is based on the science; its application to the set of facts in the case is not a scientific theory

Quite probably. I was also trying to exaggerate a bit to make sure I was saying it right.

Well, not exactly. Science can give us evidences A, B and C. Good ole police work can give us evidences D, E and F. Assessing whether the hypothesis of the case is consistent with A-F is not science, is it? That's just using your brain.

But making sure it did fit with A, B, and C, the scientific evidences, would still be science, right? If it contradicted A, B, or C, the science would show it. It would take the non science application to get if it fit with D-F, but if it fit with A-C would still be the science.

So I guess the next bit would be, which parts of origins studies do you think would fall as being D, E, of F as opposed to A, B, or C.

Metherion

 

[sfs]

There is no neat, universally applicable set of criteria that demarcate what is and what is not science, but there is a good working definition: if it is done by scientists as part of their job, funded by science agencies, published in scientific journals, lectured about in meetings of scientific societies, studied by philosophers and historians of science and taught by members of science faculties, it's science. Some sciences are experimental and some purely observational; several are largely historical. Paleontology, evolutionary biology, geology and most astronomy are mostly historical, but they are all sciences. If you have a definition of science that says they're not, then you need a new definition.

 

[oncelost]

There is no neat, universally applicable set of criteria that demarcate what is and what is not science, but there is a good working definition: if it is done by scientists as part of their job, funded by science agencies, published in scientific journals, lectured about in meetings of scientific societies, studied by philosophers and historians of science and taught by members of science faculties, it's science. Some sciences are experimental and some purely observational; several are largely historical. Paleontology, evolutionary biology, geology and most astronomy are mostly historical, but they are all sciences. If you have a definition of science that says they're not, then you need a new definition.

That's a pretty broad brush. I guess with those criteria, whatever Mallon says is scientific is scientific.

Is a theory scientific if it cannot be subjected to scientific method? Can an inquiry into history be subjected to scientific method?

I'm not saying that a scientist who studies origins is not a scientist. I'm skeptical of whether TOE should be called a scientific theory. It's a cluster of evidences, some based on science, some not so much, that proponents of the theory interpret as the best explanation. It's historical and more akin to a criminal theory or theory to explain how Stonehenge came to be, neither of which is generally considered a scientific theory.

 

[oncelost]

But making sure it did fit with A, B, and C, the scientific evidences, would still be science, right?

See, that's where I'd say no. I hope we're not splitting hairs with semantics. Based on science, we can establish certain evidences. How we interpret that evidence, to answer a historical question, is just that: an interpretation of evidence -- not a scientific theory from a scientific method.

So I guess the next bit would be, which parts of origins studies do you think would fall as being D, E, of F as opposed to A, B, or C.

Good question. I guess digging up fossils and plugging them into a continuum doesn't seem all that scientific, whereas radiometric dating or genetics seems much more scientific.