Origins theory is not a science.

[juvenissun]

Clearly you are conflating the definition of science with the definition of art. This is clearly implied by your response and your propensity to place the word art in quotation marks.

I hope that when you define science as the definition of art to your students you clearly express this as your personal opinion and one that is not widely held. Misleading students is not a good thing.

I don't just tell them that Geology is an art, but explained to them why.

To most undergraduate students, Geology is still very much a science. Is geology still a science to you?

 

[Mallon]

Quote:
How can the hypothesis that the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's flood be falsified?

>By showing that the sediments forming the canyon walls could not have originated in flood conditions. This has been demonstrated time and again.

But 6 Dayers would say that it is scientific evidence that God poofed the layers that way.

And for that, they are rightfully ignored, along with the flat-earthers and alchemists.

 

[sfs]

You will be surprised that sometimes, they are correct.

Yes, nonscientists are sometimes correct when they tell scientists that science doesn't work the way they think it does. This isn't one of those times, however. Science does routinely study the past, including the prehistoric past.

 

[sfs]

In fact, I tell everyone about that, include my students (so they can't hold me responsible for what I told them .

Geological science IS a scientific art. One would NEVER know what happened exactly.

One also never knows exactly what happened in experimental sciences. By your criteria, then, all sciences are "scientific arts", so why use the term at all?

 

[sfs]

Agreed that it is not a science in that, it is not logical to approach the origin of the existence of something using scientific principles. Science is the study of natural processes, but it cannot use that understanding to tell us how they came into existence or being. After all, a thing cannot be the cause of itself.

I'm afraid this argument doesn't work. Geology is the study of geological processes, which are just the processes of physics and chemistry operating with a particular set of materials. Geology does not attempt to tell us how the processes themselves came into existence; all it does is explain how they have operated in a particular context. That is well within the purview of science

 

[juvenissun]

One also never knows exactly what happened in experimental sciences. By your criteria, then, all sciences are "scientific arts", so why use the term at all?

It is all about the level of understanding. The more one understands about science, any science, the more uncertain the science becomes. Then it gradually changes from logical science to illogical art. So, entrance student should be serious on the science part and Ph.D. student would start to appreciate the art part of the science work.

This is a classical view on the nature of science. An example in Christianity, one needs a currently illogical concept to understand the logical part of Genesis Flood.

 

[sfs]

It is all about the level of understanding. The more one understands about science, any science, the more uncertain the science becomes. Then it gradually changes from logical science to illogical art. So, entrance student should be serious on the science part and Ph.D. student would start to appreciate the art part of the science work.

That has not been my experience at all, in my ~25 years in two different sciences. To a newcomer, any science is a black box filled with mystery. As you actually work in a field, you learn what parts are fuzzy, what parts have real unsolved problems, and what parts to have high confidence in. All of it is (of course) subject to some level of uncertainty, but that's just part of being human, and isn't specific to science or to some scientific fields.

So I still don't see what's different about geology, or what the point of labeling it "scientific art" is.

 

[Molal]

I don't just tell them that Geology is an art, but explained to them why.

To most undergraduate students, Geology is still very much a science. Is geology still a science to you?

Of course it is. It most certainly is not art.

Art and science have their places in culture. Art is the product of a culture that has free time.

 

[Molal]

It is all about the level of understanding. The more one understands about science, any science, the more uncertain the science becomes. Then it gradually changes from logical science to illogical art. So, entrance student should be serious on the science part and Ph.D. student would start to appreciate the art part of the science work.

This is a classical view on the nature of science. An example in Christianity, one needs a currently illogical concept to understand the logical part of Genesis Flood.

This is a ludicrous statement - the more one knows about science, the more uncertain the science becomes.

Science is the very antithesis of this remark. The mroe one knows, the more concrete it becomes - the definition of a scientific theory.

It appears that you have taken to heart your personal understanding of science and have become artful in your approach to science. This is wrong on may levels and would prevent anyone, any one scientist, of performing their science duties.

 

[billwald]

"Scientific theory" = best guess so far.

 

[notto]

"Scientific theory" = best guess so far.

you left out
'that explains the mounds of data collected and can be used to make future predictions'.

If your argument is based on using an improper or incomplete definition of a word, you might consider looking for a better argument.

What you have stated here is simply falsehood and is a cherrypicking of reality to make your case.

Isn't that exactly what you are criticizing scientists of doing?

 

[juvenissun]

Of course it is. It most certainly is not art.

Art and science have their places in culture. Art is the product of a culture that has free time.

Have you heard that war (not a video game) is an art?

 

[lemmings]

Have you heard that war (not a video game) is an art?

Sun Tzu's The Art of War.

 

[shernren]

It is all about the level of understanding. The more one understands about science, any science, the more uncertain the science becomes. Then it gradually changes from logical science to illogical art. So, entrance student should be serious on the science part and Ph.D. student would start to appreciate the art part of the science work.

This is a classical view on the nature of science. An example in Christianity, one needs a currently illogical concept to understand the logical part of Genesis Flood.

You, like almost all the creationists here, need to read on the relativity of wrong:

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm