How to make a your posts scientific.

[Micaiah]

Many on this forum are atheist and argue that the scientific method is the only way to discover and explain our origins. You'd expect to see this reflected in the way they post. So what are some of the things you'd expect to see in a post that reflects the scientific method.

A couple to get the ball rolling.

1. The comments are based on evidence that is adequate to support claims.

2. The person is honest enough to admit they don't know.

 

[Jet Black]

3) they are willing to admit they are wrong if the evidence says so (that should apply to both sides)

 

[USincognito]

4) Predicatability, repeatability and falsifiability.

 

[Micaiah]

4) Predicatability, repeatability and falsifiability.

Yes I think that is a good description of the arguments made by evolutionists.

 

[Tomk80]

Yes I think that is a good description of the arguments made by evolutionists.

Do you really want to go the way down a flame battle in the 4th post of your own thread, Micaiah? I see no reason for your post other than that?


Anyway, on with it:
5. the arguments made form a logically consistent path from evidence to argument.
6. scripture is not a basis for scientific arguments

 

[Mystman]

To be honest, the fast majority of posts made on this forum aren't in the "scientific essay" style. Simply because it takes way too much time, and isn't worth the effort..


..as evidenced by the Quiet Thread (and various other scientific posts that no one replies to seriously )

 

[Micaiah]

Tomk80, sorry, I couldn't resist.

Mystman, I've seen some good debate and have learned a lot on these forums. I agree this is not the place for a thesis, however the discussion should in some ways reflect the scientific process.

 

[Jet Black]

Mystman, I've seen some good debate and have learned a lot on these forums. I agree this is not the place for a thesis, however the discussion should in some ways reflect the scientific process.

if only the creationists put forward some science.

 

[USincognito]

Yes I think that is a good description of the arguments made by evolutionists.

Tom, did I miss something? Oddly enough, like a stopped watch being correct twice a day, Micaiah is correct. The stipulations I offered are both scientific and in line with evolutionary theory.

-- Evolutionary theory makes predictions - see the 29+ Evidences essay.
-- Those predictions will be repeatable - see every discovery in the fields of geography, paleontology and genetics since 1859.
-- Those predictions will be falsifiable - like finding Plesiosaurs with whales and humans with Trilobites... and yet, we never find such things.

On the other hand we find all the evidence falsifying the ad hoc predictions of YECism and since the Creation and Flood only happened once, I'm not entirely sure how were supposed to determine what constitutes "repeatability" regarding the evidence.

ID suffers from the same problem when it comes to falsification. If the answer to every question is God (or wink wink unnamed Intelligent Designer) did it), where God (or wink wink) is held to be omnipitent, then how are we supposed to falsify that? It's not science. It's bad dogma posing as a pale shadow of science.

Even more damming for ID is that it only focuses on the minutae. They can't point to a single example of noval "design" except in blood clotting or bacterial flagellum (which I recall have been answered since Behe published DBB), but they can never point to a bird with arms or a seal with gills - which would falsify the homology argument for evolution, and yet they cannot answe why the designer (not God, wink wink) would use such bad design as our lower backs - not "designed for upright stature" or our esophagus/trachea layout - not designed to breath and swallow at the same time as being more intelligent than humans without relying on Creationist red herrings like the "will of God" or such things being the result of "the Fall."

So, how about Michaiah actually address the points I made rather than just offer a pithy comments. Those might work in the revival tent, but in the world of actual science, you need to put up or shut up.

 

[Jet Black]

Even more damming for ID is that it only focuses on the minutae.

I like to think of this as "God of the Obscure Protein"

 

[TheBear]

7. Do not allow religious beliefs to trump empirical evidence.

8. Do not start with a conclusion, then look for evidence to support it.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. The comments are based on evidence that is adequate to support claims.

I would change it to empirical evidence. Without that qualifier, personal revelations become part of science, which they are not.

2. The person is honest enough to admit they don't know.

That is one of the more important characteristics for any scientist. An ability to face our ignorance with curiosity is what has driven our species to it's present technological peak.

I would like to add a few:

9. Quotes are not evidence. Evidence is evidence.

10. When possible, you should refer to primary literature. This source is written by the scientists who did the experiments, who produced the results, and the primary lit is reviewed by other scientists for accuracy and proper methodology. Sites like Answers in Genesis and Talkorigins are secondary sources of information. They rely on their reputation for accurately reporting what the consensus opinion is amongst scientists in reference to primary literature. One should never trust unpublished sources or out of date sources. (sorry, that one is kind of long).

11. Understand opposing theories.

 

[tocis]

Yes I think that is a good description of the arguments made by evolutionists.

Depends.

As far as I can tell, from the experience I gathered since May 2003, creationist arguments are remarkably predictable (they all come from the same shallow pool of pseudo-evidence), they get repeated ad nauseam (because the creationists have nothing else) and they have all been falsified a long time ago... which doesn't stop the creationists from regurgiposting them time and again.

(Of course, as they have nothing else, they have no choice...)

Again, this is my personal opinion based on my personal opinion. In case you are about to get wild because of this posting, please remember this comment. Thank you.

 

[tocis]

8. Do not start with a conclusion, then look for evidence to support it.

Mild objection:

I think that everyone who comes to a conclusion would definitely love to find evidence confirming that conclusion. Maybe one should rephrase that as "Don't look only for evidence confirming it, in other words, don't throw out anything just because you find that it happens to contradict the conclusion you'd like to confirm".

 

[notto]

12. If your argument depends on research and evidence, present it, otherwise it will be assumed that it doesn't exist. Don't base your argument on the other side needing to show that such research doesn't exist.

 

[USincognito]

13. Philosophy and Metaphysics are different areas of contemplation than science.

14. Straw man - learn it. love it. avoid it.

 

[Tomk80]

12. If your argument depends on research and evidence, present it, otherwise it will be assumed that it doesn't exist. Don't base your argument on the other side needing to show that such research doesn't exist.

Is it just me, or is the parallel of this argument with a certain other thread a mere coincidence?

 

[madbear]

Hi

As a professional biologist I spent ten years researching cell-level biophysical processes, and have the doctorate and the t-shirt to prove it. Putting my cards on the table straight off, I should say that I am most assuredly not a young-earth creationist

Nevertheless, I know enough about the scientific method to see why it doesn't automatically apply very well to `deep issues'. In my opinion, the problem with turning our scientific method to something like the origin of life is not that we don't have the right scientific process, but that we don't have the right epistemology.

Here is an example. As scientists, one of the things we seek from our theories is falsifiability. But we don't usually stop to wonder why falsifiability is desirable. To most scientists, it's just too obvious to worry about. But I think that the real reason we insist on falsifiability is that it sort of works. We turn the scientific method to a great many similar problems, and we develop an idea of the probability of falsifiability that a theory must have to be considered worthwhile alongside other theories relating to problems in the same domain.

Where the origin of life is concerned, there simply aren't any problems in the same domain. It is a unique (we assume) problem. So when somebody says, for example, finding human remains alongside trilobites would falsify the theory of evolution -- yes it would; but so what? Does the environment provide us with sufficient opportunities for falsification that non-falsification is epistemelogically meaningful? How would we know one way or the other?

There is a similar problem with predictive power -- we assume that a sound theory will allow us to make predictions about future observations, but we don't have a clear way of judging how many predictions, how often, are required to validate the theory?

None of this is much of a problem when we do day-to-day science, because we develop an intuitive understanding of the epistemelogical power of our theories by considering the success or failure of theories in the same problem domain. Where there are no problems in the same domain, our ability to do this is weakened. What is required, I submit, is not a different scientific method, or even (Heaven forbid) a non-scientific method, but a deeper investigation of the whether our assumptions about the scientific method stand up in the face of unique problems.

For what it's worth, although I'm not much of a supporter of the Intelligent Design movement myself, it isn't really a criticism to say that it `focuses on minutiae'. Modern biology as a discipline is concerned with minuitiae. Minuitiae is where it's at right now. It is commonly thought that the real challenge -- if there is one -- to the neo-Darwinian model of evolution is to explain how (say) complex structures like the mammalian eye arise. But the processes that go on inside the cell nucleus are of such staggering complexity that they make the eye look like Lego model.

I should also point out also that `irreducible complexity' of the flagellum is still very much a live issue. Arguments that the flagellum has a functional precursor in the type-III secretory system (TTSS) have proven to be ill-founded -- it now seems that the TTSS is derived from the flagellum rather than the other way about.

But I doubt that this is a good place to discuss, say, irreducible complexity -- it's just too technical for a general readership to take much of an interest in, in my opinion.

Best wishes
MadBear

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

But I doubt that this is a good place to discuss, say, irreducible complexity -- it's just too technical for a general readership to take much of an interest in, in my opinion.

Heck no… reading a post like this is a breath of fresh air around here and I, for one, as well as at least a dozen others, I think, would love for you to post more if you have the time.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

For what it's worth, although I'm not much of a supporter of the Intelligent Design movement myself, it isn't really a criticism to say that it `focuses on minutiae'.

Just a note… I really don’t see this complaint. The only real problem with ID is that it’s not scientific. From what I can ascertain it’s simply a criticism of the ToE (Theory of Evolution) with a giant logical leap to a designer thrown in for good measure. I have seen nothing thus far to make me believe that this “intelligent designer” hypotheses amounts to anything more than conjecture based on an argument from ignorance.

I should also point out also that `irreducible complexity' of the flagellum is still very much a live issue. Arguments that the flagellum has a functional precursor in the type-III secretory system (TTSS) have proven to be ill-founded -- it now seems that the TTSS is derived from the flagellum rather than the other way about.

Even if we do not yet understand how certain naturally occurring structures such as this develop. Is it prudent to conclude there was an intelligent designer? Doesn’t this just smack of “god of the gaps” rationale? Unless there is some empirical evidence of a designer then logic dictates that it is more likely that the structure developed like every other structure. Even if I were to suppose that the “ID hypothesis” (sans supernatural speculation) is an equally valid hypotheses regarding structures that lack empirical evidence as to their development, ID still falls well short of something that should be taught in school much less be considered a valid alternative to the ToE.