Empiricism

[TheOutsider]

Several Creationists have admitted that when they say that they are opposed to "evolutionism" they mean that they are opposed to the use of empiricism to come to the conclusion that (macro)evolution has occurred, that the earth is over 10,000 years old, that man evolved from primitive apes, etc. I would like to know what exactly it is about Empiricism that you disagree with. Wikipedia defines it thusly:

In the philosophy of science, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements. It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.

Why do you believe the current evidence presented by "evolutionists" is not empirical? Should the empirical method be abandoned by all branches of science or just biology/geology/archeology? If we abandon the Empirical method what method should we use in it's place?

 

[TheOutsider]

I knew that it was a bad idea to start this thread at 2:30 in the morning.

 

[HarlequinTrouper]

I'm not a creationist, but I thought that I'd throw my two cents in anyway. I think most creationist objections to empirical science come from not understanding the rules of the game.

Scientists, when studying the natural world, will make observations and draw a hypothesis from their observations. They will then look for ways to falsify their hypothesis - think of how it might be proven wrong and test to see if it is.

Creationists tend to do it backwards. They have already come to a conclusion - the earth is 6,000 years old, gogdidit, etc. They then proceed to look for evidence to support their claim. Most of the time they wouldn't even considering looking for evidence that could falsify it. Naturally, the problem is that this is not how science is done. When people point this out and invalidate their work because of it, they will think that (often because they don't understand scientific methodology and the mistake is an innocent one) "the establishment" is simpy shutting them out.

So long story short, I think creationists just don't understand the process of empirical science. Not to mention not understanding what the bloody word "theory" means in a scientific context.

 

[TheOutsider]

So, nothing from the Creationists? That's kind of telling. Are they opposed to science for no reason at all?

 

[food4thought]

I am a former YEC with a healthy dose of skepticism towards origins science. My problem would mostly be regarding the assumptions that must be made in order to begin an expiriment regarding what we cannot directly observe. Like the whole radioisotope dating process. We have to make assumptions regarding the original composition of elements within the sample before we can have a start point to begin our measurements. We reach these startpoints mostly through uniformitarian assumptions. By definition, creationists believe that processes haven't always been uniform. We also must make assumptions about how chemical evolution produced the first replicating systems. What kind of atmosphere was there? Did it happen in deep sea environents or in shallow tidepools? None of this can be empirically studied today without making a great many assumptions.

I don't have a problem with empiricism per say, but I do have a problem having people call a study built upon a great many unprovable assumptions being passed off as empirical.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I am a former YEC with a healthy dose of skepticism towards origins science. My problem would mostly be regarding the assumptions that must be made in order to begin an expiriment regarding what we cannot directly observe. Like the whole radioisotope dating process. We have to make assumptions regarding the original composition of elements within the sample before we can have a start point to begin our measurements. We reach these startpoints mostly through uniformitarian assumptions. By definition, creationists believe that processes haven't always been uniform.

Assumptions are implicit, but thankfully many topics, such as radiometric dating don't need the original contents, this is called isochron dating. (Read about it here.)

So indeed whoever fails to believe radiometric dating because of assumptions of known amounts in the initial state need no longer fear this.

As for Uniformitarian Assumptions, you are correct it is an assumption that the present is the key to the past. But the key is that when we find modern features in soft sediments forming today and we find those exact same features in ancient rocks that these features probably required the exact same rates as the modern analogues. To assume differently without any particularly obvious reason is to do anti-science.

So for those YEC's who dislike uniformitarian assumptions, they need to remember, that you can't just impose factors without reason in a given model.

I don't have a problem with empiricism per say, but I do have a problem having people call a study built upon a great many unprovable assumptions being passed off as empirical.

I am glad you are no longer a YEC and I am glad you have presented the thought process. I hope that those who currently are still YEC will realize that the phrase "unprovable assumptions" is a dangerous gloss of the detail that goes into making assumptions.

Assumptions are often utilized at the beginning of a study, but are readily jettisoned should they be a detriment to the analys of the whole data set.

Uniformitarianism is a reasonable assumption based on what we know and see. Look at things like ripple marks on the beach. We find the exact same features in ancient rocks. Do we assume that these were formed by some amazingly different process that didn't run at all like the current process? Why would we assume that? Without any data it is a wrong assumption to invoke bizarre explanations beyond what data we do have.

 

[TheOutsider]

Thank you for responding. I was afraid that this thread was going to be completely ignored.

I am a former YEC with a healthy dose of skepticism towards origins science. My problem would mostly be regarding the assumptions that must be made in order to begin an expiriment regarding what we cannot directly observe. Like the whole radioisotope dating process. We have to make assumptions regarding the original composition of elements within the sample before we can have a start point to begin our measurements. We reach these startpoints mostly through uniformitarian assumptions. By definition, creationists believe that processes haven't always been uniform.

The reason that we make this assumptions is because we have never seen evidence to the contrary. The physical constants (h, G, c, ε0, e) have never been observed to be anything other than what they are now. That's why they are called constants. He have used to the Hubble telescope and others to look about as far into the past as possible and haven't seen anything other than what we have now. Yes, it is an assumption but it's a very safe assumption to make.

Give me a bit to research your other point.

 

[TheOutsider]

Uniformitarianism is a reasonable assumption based on what we know and see. Look at things like ripple marks on the beach. We find the exact same features in ancient rocks. Do we assume that these were formed by some amazingly different process that didn't run at all like the current process? Why would we assume that? Without any data it is a wrong assumption to invoke bizarre explanations beyond what data we do have.

Dang, you said it a lot better than I ever could. Thanks.