Science falsely so called?

[Loudmouth]

Something to consider, from someone better acquainted with real science than a forensic companies website.

Many scientists believe that there is a uniform, interdisciplinary method for the practice of good science. The paradigmatic examples, however, are drawn from classical experimental science. Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.
http://www.bu.edu/hps-scied/files/2...imental-science-and-the-scientific-method.pdf​

 

[SkyWriting]

I see lots of accusations, but zero evidence to back them up.

Self analysis is not quick or easy.
Else you would be looking this up instead
of knee jerking my posts.

"The fourth step, viz., the te13ti ng of the final deductions
by artificial means, was also unKnown to the natural philosophers,
and without this final step science could have
made little advancement. Nearly all the generalizations of
science which have yet bee.n made, no matter how carefully
the data have been collected, have had to be abandoned
when the legitimate deductions from them have been subjected
to the test of experiment. "
http://web.stanford.edu/dept/spec_coll/uarch/commencement/SC1020_1899.pdf


Note how we are not talking about past events?

 

[Loudmouth]

Self analysis is not quick or easy.
Else you would be looking this up instead
of knee jerking my posts.

"The fourth step, viz., the te13ti ng of the final deductions
by artificial means, was also unKnown to the natural philosophers,
and without this final step science could have
made little advancement. Nearly all the generalizations of
science which have yet bee.n made, no matter how carefully
the data have been collected, have had to be abandoned
when the legitimate deductions from them have been subjected
to the test of experiment. "
http://web.stanford.edu/dept/spec_coll/uarch/commencement/SC1020_1899.pdf


Note how we are not talking about past events?

Didn't you post this?

"1. "The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing
scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its
standard form because it does not work for past events."

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

There is no such thing as "Historical Science".

You misquoted the article, which refers to '....historical sciences....' -- in this case that would probably be Biology and Physics ( relating to Evolution -- and the Big Bang ) --

 

[Strathos]

I'm confused by the idea that there are apparently steps between "no deity" and "atheism"...

 

[Split Rock]

This all fits creationism better than any real science. Lets take a look:

I will dig deeper at your urging.
Thanks, you asked for it.

PSEUDO-SCIENCE
Pseudoscience aimes to prove an idea.

God created man as he is today
A world-wide flood is responsible for most geology we see
The earth was created about 6,000 years ago

Starts with a conclusion and gives easy answers to complex problems.
Often driven by social, political or commercial goals.

Conclusion: My god desogned and created everything, especially man, about 6,000 years ago.

Drive: My religious dogma and pride. Also, I hate liberal "so-called" scientists in their Ivory Towers who look down at me and my holy book.

Easy answers: There are sediments in the geological column. Sediments are created by water. Therefore The Flood.

A field has not evolved a lot since the beginning. If any research is done, it is done to justify the claims, rather that expand them.

What research has been done with creationism since its inception? None. It is all a throw back to when we knew much less about nature.

An attempt to disprove the beliefs is considered hostile and unacceptable.

We see this every day in this forum. Baseless accusations of fraud and dishonesty and working with Satan, etc. Creationists often claim they are being "persecuted" because of their beliefs and that evolutionary science is hostile to them and their religion.

Results or observations that are not consistent with current beliefs are ignored.

Every valid dating method, phylogenetics, the fossil record, etc., all rejected out of hand by creationists here everyday.

Beliefs of the field can not usually be tested empirically so will likely not ever be proven wrong;
Thus,]Pseudo-scientists believe that they are right just because no one can prove them wrong.

Everything we see around us, every thing we discover is automatically "evidence for creation." No creation hypothesis can be tested or falsified.

Pseudo-Scientists are often not in touch with main-stream science and are often driven by the egos of the "scientists". Furthermore, famous names and testimonials are often used for support rather than scientific evidence.

This is all obvious. Creationists either ignore or quote-mine legitimate scientific sources. We see testimonials all the time from creationists claiming that God is telling them things.

Pseudoscience often uses very vague, yet seemingly technical terms.

Like "historical Science." or "Computational phylogenetics"

No, more like created "kinds," "complexity" and "information." None of which are measurable in the way creationists use these terms.

The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife.

 

[SkyWriting]

Didn't you post this?

"1. "The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing
scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its
standard form because it does not work for past events."

Sorry, my error. Please note how the paragraph below does not cover past events because they are outside of scientific examination. You may dream or imagine, recon, and suppose, but not confirm with science, history or past events :

"The fourth step, viz., the te13ti ng of the final deductions
by artificial means, was also unKnown to the natural philosophers,
and without this final step science could have
made little advancement. Nearly all the generalizations of
science which have yet bee.n made, no matter how carefully
the data have been collected, have had to be abandoned
when the legitimate deductions from them have been subjected
to the test of experiment. "
http://web.stanford.edu/dept/spec_co...C1020_1899.pdf

 

[Davian]

I'm confused by the idea that there are apparently steps between "no deity" and "atheism"...

I'm confused by it being labeled as a "descent" instead of an "ascent".

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm confused by it being labeled as a "descent" instead of an "ascent".

Hell would be the lower floor, subtly left off the message.

Here is more background on the image:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...sts,_E._J._Pace,_Christian_Cartoons,_1922.jpg

 

[SkyWriting]

This all fits creationism better than any real science.

I don't deny that. But you can't fight a lack of authenticity with more pseudo-scientific behavior such as posters use while "fighting back."

Scientific theories (and posters who claim to support the scientific method)
should be characterized by:

(a) being based on empirical observation
(b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena;
(c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory;
(d) being confirmed by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts;
(e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone
(f) being dynamic and fecund
(g) being approached with skepticism
(h) being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth as infallible or inerrant.

 

[SkyWriting]

You misquoted the article, which refers to '....historical sciences....

True....there are no "historical sciences".

The author had to make up a term because
the term is an oxymoron.

 

[SkyWriting]

As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.
http://www.bu.edu/hps-scied/files/2...imental-science-and-the-scientific-method.pdf[/indent]

Reading the paper, she makes a good plea for her specialty.
Sadly, the conclusion has no logic.

"Furthermore, the differences in methodology that actually
do exist between historical and experimental science are keyed to an
objective and pervasive feature of nature, the asymmetry of overdetermination.
I"

If I can't re-experience your conclusions through experimentation
then your conclusions suck.

Let me give an example from HER field.

I have this quart of synthetic oil.

I claim that it came from a process which converts carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide & and methane.
You can TEST my claim by following my published formula, or recipe.





Now you claim this sample of oil came from plants.

Because your claim is tied to sunlight & time & heat & plants, then your claim is equal to mine.

Nobody can support that their imagined views are equal to experienced repeatable observations.
Her paper does not appear to have been quoted outside of the "historical science" circles she keeps.

This doesn't make her wrong, just not well accepted.

 

[IamNazarene]

Science contradicts everything in the bible.
It denies God, Big bang adn evolution are all theories Science has that deny the Great I Am!

The fact Science says the sun sits still denies the bible. Joshua prayed for the sun to sit still so clearly it is moving.

Science says the earth orbits the sun yet the bible clearly says the eart is founded and still.

Science has one purpose.

Deny the LORD ALMIGHTY!

 

[SkyWriting]

Science contradicts everything in the bible.

It doesn't "contradict" anything in the scriptures. But the
scriptures do illustrate the problem. When the scientist
at the party said "this is great wine!" he evidently didn't
know it was just water a few minutes earlier.

So the scriptures illustrate the problems that come from
divine intervention. People will be "confused" if they try
to draw conclusions about the past based on creation.



The "scientific process" assumes that people are sinners
so it forces them to write down their claims.

Sinners hate to see others getting the glory of being
published, so other sinners check the claims of the
first sinner.

If they agree on the facts, then the claim holds up
for one more day.

That's all science is, a series of sinners reluctantly
agreeing that they observe the same thing.

The process doesn't produce "truth."
But it eventually screens out the least compatible
views that the general population holds.

It can't test history, but scientists can create science-fictions
that fit observations and hope people like their fictions.

 

[IamNazarene]

Science is not what people experience and think it real, They think it is fact and that is truth above the bible.

Science tells the opposite to the bible.

Unfortunate Science is deceiving believers

 

[SkyWriting]

Science is not what people experience and think it real, They think it is fact and that is truth above the bible.
(

They just don't realize that sciences attempting
to recreate the past are just guessing.

Experimental Science followers think that everything
a scientist says can be tested, and that is not correct.

Most of science is experimental and worthy of support.
But not all of it.

Having been in research and development all my career
I can assure you experimental science has value for us
poor sinners.

 

[IamNazarene]

Is it proverbs that says Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly.

Not listening to science is the best thing I ever did

Listen to God not science

 

[SkyWriting]

Is it proverbs that says Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly.

Jesus brought a twist on that older separatist stand.
They didn't have any good news to spread in those older days.

 

[IamNazarene]

ou do realise the words of the old testament come from Jesus right?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I'm confused by it being labeled as a "descent" instead of an "ascent".

It's a deliberate satirical cartoon.