Definition of True Science?

lucaspa · Oct 17, 2003

Ryoko Ozaki said:
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.

It's more correct to say that science can't prove that some supernatural being (God) did not cause them, at least in part. This is the limitation of science called Methological Materialism (or Naturalism). Any of the material processes we discover by science could have a supernatural component.

lucaspa · Oct 17, 2003

Bushido216 said:
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.

The order hasn't been that way. As someone pointed out, your example doesn't even work. Black holes were hypothesized long before they were observed.

Here's another example of hypothesis before evidence:

Volume 13, #22 The Scientist November 8, 1999
http://www.the-scientist.library.upenn.edu/yr1999/nov/halim_p1b_991108.html
Nobel Laureate Ready To Head Back to Lab
Author: Nadia S. Halim
Date: November 8, 1999
Courtesy of Rockefeller University
Nobel laureate Günter Blobel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Günter Blobel and David Sabatini first proposed the signal hypothesis in 1971, the whole thing was simply ignored. There was not a shred of evidence to support it.

Jet Black · Oct 17, 2003

I get a page not found error

lucaspa · Oct 17, 2003

Jet Black said:
I get a page not found error

They moved it: http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1999/nov/halim1_p1_991108.html

And you may have to register. Go to the Home page, do Archives, then 1999 and then Nov. 8. Then you may have to register.

Bushido216 · Oct 17, 2003

lucaspa said:
The order hasn't been that way. As someone pointed out, your example doesn't even work. Black holes were hypothesized long before they were observed.

Here's another example of hypothesis before evidence:

Volume 13, #22 The Scientist November 8, 1999
http://www.the-scientist.library.upenn.edu/yr1999/nov/halim_p1b_991108.html
Nobel Laureate Ready To Head Back to Lab
Author: Nadia S. Halim
Date: November 8, 1999
Courtesy of Rockefeller University
Nobel laureate Günter Blobel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Günter Blobel and David Sabatini first proposed the signal hypothesis in 1971, the whole thing was simply ignored. There was not a shred of evidence to support it.

Yes, but they don't know that.

Sorry, I was tired and Black Holes were the first thought that popped into my mind. I'll think of something else.

Even still, though, we had the mathematics to explain their existence. I've never seen a scientist come up with something out of nothing.

Freodin · Oct 18, 2003

Bushido216 said:
Yes, but they don't know that.

Sorry, I was tired and Black Holes were the first thought that popped into my mind. I'll think of something else.

Even still, though, we had the mathematics to explain their existence. I've never seen a scientist come up with something out of nothing.

Of course they did not get their hypothesises "out of nothing". All of science is based on an initial observation.

But so is creation science. The observation is "There is a world" - and then they started searching for explanations, and evidence for these explanations.

Bushido216 · Oct 18, 2003

True, true.

I could argue this point down more but it's not really worth it.

Taffsadar · Oct 18, 2003

Freodin said:
But so is creation science. The observation is "There is a world" - and then they started searching for explanations, and evidence for these explanations.

Actually they doesn't really search for an explanation since they usually know where they have put their bible.

billwald · Oct 18, 2003

Science is predictive, falsifiable, and tentative (relative)until better data is discovered. Metaphysics is absolute to the believer but neither falsifiable nor predictive.

History is a gray area that is neither science nor metaphysics. It begins as current events, evolves into history and then myth. "Myth" denotes a creation story or a story of beginnings and is neutral with respect to truth claims.

The problem of "first cause" is metaphysical. There are only two answers, "God created" and "always was."

Some claims of evolution and cosmology are metaphysical or historical, some scientific.

lucaspa · Oct 19, 2003

Bushido216 said:
Yes, but they don't know that.

Sorry, I was tired and Black Holes were the first thought that popped into my mind. I'll think of something else.

Even still, though, we had the mathematics to explain their existence. I've never seen a scientist come up with something out of nothing.

We had the math that pointed to the existence of black holes being possible. Dirac's mathematical work with antiprotons came from "nothing" in the sense that there was no previous math or observations. For that matter, there were no observations for the hypothesis on signalling transduction when it was first proposed, either.

lucaspa · Oct 19, 2003

Taffsadar said:
But so is creation science. The observation is "There is a world" - and then they started searching for explanations, and evidence for these explanations. Actually they doesn't really search for an explanation since they usually know where they have put their bible.

That's modern day creation science. But that wasn't how creation science started. It started as Freodin says: hypothesis based on observation and a literal reading of the Bible. The creation scientists of the 18th and early 19th centuries were true scientists, and some of the more famous scientists in history, including all the founders of geology. They were such good scientists that they actually falsified the theory of young earth creationism.

What we have today is a falsified theory that some people refuse to admit is falsified. But you can't confuse the theory or its standing as science with the people who advocate it.

lucaspa · Oct 19, 2003

billwald said:
Science is predictive, falsifiable, and tentative (relative)until better data is discovered. Metaphysics is absolute to the believer but neither falsifiable nor predictive.

Science is not always falsifiable. Some hypotheses or theories are not falsifiable. That criteria to distinguish science from non-science has failed.

The problem of "first cause" is metaphysical. There are only two answers, "God created" and "always was."

"Always was" has been falsified. There are currently 5 hypotheses for First Cause. I did a thread on them a while back. If you scroll thru the pages you will find it.

Some claims of evolution and cosmology are metaphysical or historical, some scientific.

Care to list which claims you think are which? And then we will see whether they really are part of evolution and cosmology.

DayAge · Oct 20, 2003

lucaspa quoted and said,
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.
It is called symbiosis and there is a lot of it:
1) plant-microbe
http://www.nature.com/nsu/020624/020624-7.html
2) plant-fungus
http://www.nature.com/nsu/981112/981112-3.html
3) fungus-termites
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/23/14887?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&fulltext=symbiosis&searchid=1066627247382_4556&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance
4) hydrothermal vents and symbiosis
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/17/9962?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&fulltext=symbiosis+ants&searchid=1066627811099_4599&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance
5) see "ants, plants, and antibiotics", Nature, 398 (1999)
6) etc.

Sweet dreams Darwin.

God Bless!

David Gould · Oct 20, 2003

exclusive good

Think about what 'exclusive' means.

Then think about what benefits an organism might gain from producing something that benefits another organism.

Jet Black · Oct 20, 2003

DayAge said:
It is called symbiosis.

symbiosis = mutual, not exclusive.

billwald · Oct 20, 2003

"Science is not always falsifiable. Some hypotheses or theories are not falsifiable."

Please name some.

' "Always was" has been falsified. There are currently 5 hypotheses for First Cause."

How do you define the ultimate system? One can always hypothesize a larger system that contains it that always was.

>Some claims of evolution and cosmology are metaphysical or historical, some scientific.<

The claims that arise from lab experiments and direct observation are "scientific." The rest are either metaphysics or history.

DayAge · Oct 20, 2003

Jet Black,
The organisms do live in symbiosis with each other, but there are parts of their strutures that perform an exclusive role in the survival of the other organism.
Darwins test:
"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..."

Evolutionists are sounding more and more like Young Earth Creationists. Nothing any of you say can be falsified.

God Bless!

ThePhoenix · Oct 20, 2003

DayAge said:
Jet Black,
The organisms do live in symbiosis with each other, but there are parts of their strutures that perform an exclusive role in the survival of the other organism.
Darwins test:
"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..."

Evolutionists are sounding more and more like Young Earth Creationists. Nothing any of you say can be falsified.

God Bless!

So... The fact that you can't falsify our statements and you don't listen to falsifications means they're equivelent? Sounds like New Age fuzzy logic to me. Must be a product of our degenerate school systems.

David Gould · Oct 20, 2003

DayAge said:
Jet Black,
The organisms do live in symbiosis with each other, but there are parts of their strutures that perform an exclusive role in the survival of the other organism.
Darwins test:
"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..."

Evolutionists are sounding more and more like Young Earth Creationists. Nothing any of you say can be falsified.

God Bless!

What you mean is that you personally are unable to falsify it because you have not looked at the definition of the word 'exclusive'.

Symbiants gain mutual benefit, not exclusive benefit.

Now, if you could show that the host of a parasite has developed a structure that provides it with no benefit but benefits the parasite then you would have something.

Or the prey of a predator. For example, if the prey developed built in gravy that made it tastier for the predator but this gravy gave no benefit to the prey then you would have something indeed.

DayAge · Oct 20, 2003

I think we have a diference in our interpretation of what Darwin said. I interpret him to mean that a strucyure or part of a structure was developed to exclusively benefit another organism, but not that the other organism could not produce a structure that would exclusively benefit it (the original one).

If someone could get us more of the quote, maybe we could test our interpretations.

God Bless!

Definition of True Science?

Legend

Legend

Jet Black

Guest

Legend

Well-Known Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Well-Known Member

Followerof Quincy

Contributor

Legend

Legend

Legend

Active Member

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Jet Black

Guest

Contributor

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency