The Universe and all that is in it

gluadys said:

LOL. As it happens I have been a highschool English teacher.

And part of the curriculum was learning how to debate. I don't think my post was dealing with "minor flaws".

Click to expand...

And you're not half bad at it.

But, can you see my point now? The scientific process is dependant upon human cognitive functions. And those functions are in turn dependant upon many factors, which include one's existing view of reality.

notto said:

Three falsehoods in one sentence is certainly not minor. Keep it up gluadys.

Click to expand...

I believe I sufficiently explained myself in my last response to Mr. Williams regarding this. If you're just trying to discredit me, it won't be hard to do. I'm dirt. My knowledge is fallable and so is my wording. But then again one could say the same about you.

Sojourner<>< said:

And you're not half bad at it.

But, can you see my point now? The scientific process is dependant upon human cognitive functions. And those functions are in turn dependant upon many factors, which include one's existing view of reality.

Click to expand...

All human thought and understanding is dependant upon human cognitive functions. Look, I am familiar with both scientific paradigm shifts and linguistic theories. Had to learn some of the latter as in addition to teaching English, I also taught French and studied Latin, German and Spanish. Besides, languages fascinate me. I have oodles of "teach yourself" books on languages and several on linguistics.

I do agree that language shapes thought. What you don't have words for you can't think about. And I do agree that culture also shapes perception. In science, the cultural matrix often suggests not only what to investigate, but how to investigate it. Gould has numerous essays on this topic.

Notice, too, how often science has to invent new words to describe what scientists are seeing. Or co-opt words to new meanings.

What you are not taking account of is that humans speak many languages and operate in many cultures. Yet all of them are accessible to science, and all of them end up confirming the same scientific conclusions. The benefit of taking language, culture, social status, etc. into account is that if you open science up to many human practitioners from many linguistic, cultural and social environments, you increase the number of scientific questions that will be posed, the range of research to be done, and enrich the methodologies used. A Japanese scientist may research something an American scientist would never have thought of studying. A female scientist will pose questions, and use methods, male scientists would not have considered.

But when all is said and done, their conclusions will be accepted or rejected on the basis of supporting evidence, not on the basis of sex, nationality, language or culture. Geniune scientific truth cannot be one thing in Japan and something different in Brazil; one thing for a male Russian and something different for a female African.

In its own way, science is rather like music in this regard. Music is very tied into culture and each culture has its distinctive sound, yet music transcends culture because we can all learn each other's music. Culture, language, religion, many factors may determine what a scientist chooses to study and even some of the methodology of the study, but the results of the work transcend culture and can be shared with the whole world and will be valid for every culture.

Sojourner<>< said:

I believe I sufficiently explained myself in my last response to Mr. Williams regarding this. If you're just trying to discredit me, it won't be hard to do. I'm dirt. My knowledge is fallable and so is my wording. But then again one could say the same about you.

Click to expand...

It is not a matter of discrediting you. It is a matter of showing that your basic assumption puts the cart before the horse. You are assuming that there is a unified world-view behind science, and especially behind the theory of evolution. But there isn't.

Evolution can be incorporated into many different world-views and interpreted in many different philosophical frameworks. It can, and has been used, to justify atheism. But it is equally amenable to a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim theology, not to mention Buddhism or Wicca. It has even been sadly mis-applied as Social Darwinism.

But the basic scientific core of observed evidence and a theory which unifies many observations under one principle remains the same no matter what philosophical or theological inferences are drawn from it.

This is why religious attacks on evolution are mis-guided. If the problem is that atheists are calling on evolution (or science generally) in support of their view, show how they are wrong in doing so. Don't attack evolution. Attack the incorrect proposition that evolution = atheism.

gluadys said:

All human thought and understanding is dependant upon human cognitive functions. Look, I am familiar with both scientific paradigm shifts and linguistic theories. Had to learn some of the latter as in addition to teaching English, I also taught French and studied Latin, German and Spanish. Besides, languages fascinate me. I have oodles of "teach yourself" books on languages and several on linguistics.

I do agree that language shapes thought. What you don't have words for you can't think about. And I do agree that culture also shapes perception. In science, the cultural matrix often suggests not only what to investigate, but how to investigate it. Gould has numerous essays on this topic.

Notice, too, how often science has to invent new words to describe what scientists are seeing. Or co-opt words to new meanings.

What you are not taking account of is that humans speak many languages and operate in many cultures. Yet all of them are accessible to science, and all of them end up confirming the same scientific conclusions. The benefit of taking language, culture, social status, etc. into account is that if you open science up to many human practitioners from many linguistic, cultural and social environments, you increase the number of scientific questions that will be posed, the range of research to be done, and enrich the methodologies used. A Japanese scientist may research something an American scientist would never have thought of studying. A female scientist will pose questions, and use methods, male scientists would not have considered.

But when all is said and done, their conclusions will be accepted or rejected on the basis of supporting evidence, not on the basis of sex, nationality, language or culture. Geniune scientific truth cannot be one thing in Japan and something different in Brazil; one thing for a male Russian and something different for a female African.

In its own way, science is rather like music in this regard. Music is very tied into culture and each culture has its distinctive sound, yet music transcends culture because we can all learn each other's music. Culture, language, religion, many factors may determine what a scientist chooses to study and even some of the methodology of the study, but the results of the work transcend culture and can be shared with the whole world and will be valid for every culture.

Click to expand...

This is not actually about linguistics and cultural influence. It is about paradigms.

Human cognition is not universally consistent between individuals. Although the scientific method is consistent, the first and second steps of the method are dependant upon cognition, which is not. These steps are, of course, observation and forming a hypothesis, which depend upon perception and ingenuity, respectively. These functions are affected by a paradigm. Let me demonstrate.

Before I guessed that you were a highschool teacher, I observed your style of correction in your rebuttals. (perception)

I then identified this pattern through my own life experience of an infamous highschool English teacher, who shall remain unnamed, with her own pattern of correction and giving me F's in class.

I weighed the likelihood that the practice of teaching English class was the determinite factor in both cases and this seemed to be the most likely scenario. Now I have a kind of educated guess or hypothesis. (ingenuity)

Even though I didn't make a prediction based on my hypothesis, I decided to test my hypothesis by writing a response to your corrections that indicated that your rebuttal was similar to something about my high school English teacher in some unknown fashion. (bad science but who cares)

I observed the results of the experiment when you replied that you had, in fact, once been a highschool English teacher and now I have more evidence to support my theory that highschool English teachers make fearsome opponents. My view of reality has now been modified according to this evidence, as in your argument.

The point of the matter is that I wouldn't have gotten anywhere unless my existing view of reality had included my experience with my own highschool English teacher. Thus, a paradigm plays a major role in the scientific process. I don't have it backwards because the cart comes before the horse and after it. Even though the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is based on linguistics, it is an early understanding of this concept. (I believe it was developed some time in the 60's or 70's whereas Thomas Kuhn addressed it's affect on the science more in depth in the 90's)

When it comes to the origin of the Earth and all life on it, nobody can observe the formation of geological strata nor the process of evolution as they are assumed to have occured over billions of years by the majority of the scientific community. Because of this, a paradigm shift has much more of an effect on the community in this particular area of thought than it would on say medicine or technology, where test results can be observed within an individual's lifetime.

When it comes to the origin of the Earth and all life on it, nobody can observe the formation of geological strata nor the process of evolution as they are assumed to have occured over billions of years by the majority of the scientific community. Because of this, a paradigm shift has much more of an effect on the community in this particular area of thought than it would on say medicine or technology, where test results can be observed within an individual's lifetime.

Click to expand...

When i first saw AiG's division of origins and normal science i was amazed that they would take this blind alley. For in the philosophy of science it is a well known problem, and leads to a radical solipsism.

look at what you are saying.
only things that can be confirmed in an individual's lifetime are valid science, and anything that occurs in the distant past is inaccessible simply because of the time that has passed.

yesterday is no more accessible than is last week, as is last year as is 100 years ago. they all rely on memories, some within you personally as in what you ate for breakfast last thursday, some on institutional memories captured in books, some in physical 'memories' captured in the rock.

all science is not going to be rechecked and all experiments rerun each day, or each moment to fulfill your need for test results to be confirmable in an individuals lifetime. for that makes all history older than the oldest human being as inaccessible as your example of millions of years ago. that is why this line of reasoning leads inexorability to a radical solipsism, for it makes your memories key to scientific correctness, your analysis central to whether something is fact or is theory.

but fortunately science is radically intersubjective, the fact that you yourself do not perform an experiment doesn't change that experiment's validity or truth value. In fact, rarely do any of us confirm any of the beliefs we have. We would be unable to do so in most cases. we take the theories as well as the facts on authority. you can challenge this authority if you desire, as AiG and its companions do, but to do so on the grounds of a time differential alone as you do here is an intellectual deadend.

....

When i first saw AiG's division of origins and normal science i was amazed that they would take this blind alley. For in the philosophy of science it is a well known problem, and leads to a radical solipsism.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. The way I understood the division, it was between two valid and normal forms of science--origin (or forensic) and operation (or empirical). The former deals with investigating past singularities (like a murder or a big bang or OOL), whereas the latter deals repeatable, observable processes (like photosynthesis or gravity or natural selection). Both are done, but in different ways.

But I haven't seen AiG's version, so maybe they take a solipsistic road. Do you know where I could find it?

rmwilliamsll said:

When i first saw AiG's division of origins and normal science i was amazed that they would take this blind alley. For in the philosophy of science it is a well known problem, and leads to a radical solipsism.

look at what you are saying.
only things that can be confirmed in an individual's lifetime are valid science, and anything that occurs in the distant past is inaccessible simply because of the time that has passed.

yesterday is no more accessible than is last week, as is last year as is 100 years ago. they all rely on memories, some within you personally as in what you ate for breakfast last thursday, some on institutional memories captured in books, some in physical 'memories' captured in the rock.

all science is not going to be rechecked and all experiments rerun each day, or each moment to fulfill your need for test results to be confirmable in an individuals lifetime. for that makes all history older than the oldest human being as inaccessible as your example of millions of years ago. that is why this line of reasoning leads inexorability to a radical solipsism, for it makes your memories key to scientific correctness, your analysis central to whether something is fact or is theory.

but fortunately science is radically intersubjective, the fact that you yourself do not perform an experiment doesn't change that experiment's validity or truth value. In fact, rarely do any of us confirm any of the beliefs we have. We would be unable to do so in most cases. we take the theories as well as the facts on authority. you can challenge this authority if you desire, as AiG and its companions do, but to do so on the grounds of a time differential alone as you do here is an intellectual deadend.

....

Click to expand...

No theory has any absolute truth value unless confirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt by empirical evidence that renders it conclusively verifiable. Unfortunately for the scientific community, this much needed observation is indeed unattainable in the case of the origins of the universe, Earth and life.

Whether it is scientific of me to do so or not, I recognize that the truth is that nobody was there to see it happen, therefore all extrabiblical theories have not been confirmed as truth. What then am I to accept as the truth? That which has been tested, tried and confirmed in my life and the lives of countless others for over thousands of years: The Word of God. You don't have to be a scientist to know what truth is or to know the truth itself.

If you think that the truth will be proven by the sheer amount of non-empirical evidence out there, this amount of evidence can be explained by what's called a paradigm shift. You are a person, not a lemming. Think for yourself and don't assume the mass knows better than you.

What then am I to accept as the truth? That which has been tested, tried and confirmed in my life and the lives of countless others for over thousands of years: The Word of God. You don't have to be a scientist to know what truth is or to know the truth itself.

Click to expand...

this is fundamentally an epistemological question.
and you answer it that your confirming evidence is the action in human beings of the Word of God.
but .... what about the extraordinary divisions in the Word of God community? if this was a reliable epistemological device i would expect a single Church with a single set of doctrines that everyone believed since the Word of God was this confirming certain absolute (your words) epistemological device.

so we are back to the same problem
science for all of its faults is an epistemology that can be used by almost anyone without reference to their creeds, their nationality etc. as a result there really is a single scientific consensus on most all of the simple and elementary problems of that field. including geology, biology and a dozen other ologies that claim that the earth is very old.

OTOH we have a group of YECists who represent several hundred denominations of Christians who can not decide:
if baptism is to be adults or children
if baptism is to be spinkling, dipping, pouring, immersion
now those questions have been debated for about 500 years.

the age of the earth has been debated for about 200 years with now unanimity of opinion, the earth is not 10K years old but over 4billion. do you realize that is 5 orders of magnitude difference?

i believe that your epistemology basis doesn't work.
the same claim that leads you to believe that God is leading you to a statement of YECism as a provable proposition, leads you to claim that the Church speaks with one voice on baptism? wow. and the issue of baptism is religious and theological, you would expect a better answer in the field then from outside the field, say in geology.

no. your epistemology fails to convince me of its ability to lead to reliable, confirmed, defeasible, and warranted belief.
...

Matisyahu said:

That's interesting. The way I understood the division, it was between two valid and normal forms of science--origin (or forensic) and operation (or empirical). The former deals with investigating past singularities (like a murder or a big bang or OOL), whereas the latter deals repeatable, observable processes (like photosynthesis or gravity or natural selection). Both are done, but in different ways.

But I haven't seen AiG's version, so maybe they take a solipsistic road. Do you know where I could find it?

Click to expand...

from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp

However, we can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s Creation—repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a ‘time machine’ to travel back into the past to observe). Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.

Click to expand...

it looks a lot like the historical experimental division in the philosophy of science. but it falls prey to the brain in the vat problem by making the distinction on of past not open to verification, while at the same time insisting that experiments must take place in the "here and now". They may claim that origins involves "singluarities" but it is a smokescreen since science doesn't claim to be able to detect what they call singularities but what they mean are supernatural miracles.
so either their claim is supernatural vs. natural science or between things in the present vs things in the past, in either case they ought to do a little philosophy of science reading. the problem of time, memories, brains in the vat, last thursdayism etc are well known and discussed at length in every intro to Philo of sci class i've ever known.

....

I don't know where to begin.

First off, science does not equate to religion. Those who are trying to perpetuate this, are grabbing at straws. They are trying to level the playing field. This is intellectually dishonest, and is not the best witness for Christ.

I'll get back to some other points later. There's a lot of misconceptions in this thread. The 'science = religion' misconception needs to be abandoned.

TheBear said:

I don't know where to begin.

First off, science does not equate to religion. Those who are trying to perpetuate this, are grabbing at straws. They are trying to level the playing field. This is intellectually dishonest, and is not the best witness for Christ.

I'll get back to some other points later. There's a lot of misconceptions in this thread. The 'science = religion' misconception needs to be abandoned.

Click to expand...

IMO It's intellectually dishonest to deny science has replace religion for many and evolution as far as origins is on the same level as creation. so science can very well equal religion. This is why people defend TOE so dogmaticly in these forums. Evolution does not want their dogma to be on a level playing field which why the attack was made on Richard Sternberg.

Smidlee said:

IMO It's intellectually dishonest to deny science has replace religion for many and evolution as far as origins is on the same level as creation. so science can very well equal religion.

Click to expand...

Except that religion is about so much more than origins...anyone who is only getting that much out of Christianity is getting the short end of it.

This is why people defend TOE so dogmaticly in these forums. Evolution does not want their dogma to be on a level playing field which why the attack was made on Richard Sternberg.

Click to expand...

Perhaps he was "attacked" because he was trying to pass off bad science as good?

Smidlee said:

IMO It's intellectually dishonest to deny science has replace religion for many and evolution as far as origins is on the same level as creation. so science can very well equal religion. This is why people defend TOE so dogmaticly in these forums. Evolution does not want their dogma to be on a level playing field which why the attack was made on Richard Sternberg.

Click to expand...

The process of evolution is not only observed in everyday science, it is also applied science, used in biotherapeutics today. Molecular Evolution research is how we get things like antibiotics, medication. and other pharmaceuticals for all kinds of illnesses and disease. A lot based on bio-evolution.


Now you tell me.

What are some of the 'applied creationist science' achievements?

TheBear said:

The process of evolution is not only observed in everyday science, it is also applied science, used in biotherapeutics today. Molecular Evolution research is how we get things like antibiotics, medication. and other pharmaceuticals for all kinds of illnesses and disease. A lot based on bio-evolution.

Click to expand...

Evolution through natural selection is proven and can be clearly observed in many competative systems such as in economics. Genetic drift has also been observed and verified. However, as I stated earlier, the DNA molecule is clearly a testamant to the sheer genius of our Creator, and does not contradict the concept of each animal being created according to its own kind as presented by Genesis. In genetic evolution, the DNA molecule was created to allow for changes in its horizontal structure, not its vertical structure, which is what is required for mutation between species. Such changes have only been observed as birth defects as a result of damaged DNA. Regardless, this provides absolutely no empirical evidence that verifies any theory on the creation of life.

TheBear said:

Now you tell me.

What are some of the 'applied creationist science' achievements?

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ and His apostles to name a few. Oh but that is not science you say? You're right. Science is a fallible pursuit of truth, but truth is not science.

Sojourner<>< said:

Evolution through natural selection is proven and can be clearly observed in many competative systems such as in economics. Genetic drift has also been observed and verified. However, as I stated earlier, the DNA molecule is clearly a testamant to the sheer genius of our Creator, and does not contradict the concept of each animal being created according to its own kind as presented by Genesis. In genetic evolution, the DNA molecule was created to allow for changes in its horizontal structure, not its vertical structure, which is what is required for mutation between species. Such changes have only been observed as birth defects as a result of damaged DNA. Regardless, this provides absolutely no empirical evidence that verifies any theory on the creation of life.

Click to expand...

Overall, I agree.

The more we learn of God's creation, (our natural world and universe), the more awed I am at His work.

Jesus Christ and His apostles to name a few. Oh but that is not science you say? You're right. Science is a fallible pursuit of truth, but truth is not science.

Click to expand...

I asked for 'applied creation science' achievements, not 'applied Gospel' achievements. Nice try though.

And just so you'll know, science does not work by proving facts. The only facts would be mathematics, and raw data. Beyond that, science has never once claimed anything as fact or the 'truth'. And for the life of me, I don't know why this keeps coming up in these discussions.

And yes, science is fallible....just like man's interpretation of scripture is fallible.



One more try at this.

I've provided examples of applied bio-evolution science achievements. Can you tell me of some 'applied creationist science' achievements?

Exactly. It's not science. So why insist that it is?

I would still believe that the most honest approach to YECism would be to separate it from Christian science. You can go ahead and believe that the world is 6000 years old. But it would be very difficult to find scientific evidence for it that hasn't been falsified. If you can show me a scientifically self-consistent YEC viewpoint I'll be the first to sign up!

If the choice is between:
a YEC viewpoint which is slightly more scripturally self-consistent, but scientifically completely un-self-consistent,
and a TE viewpoint which may be slightly less scripturally self-consistent, but scientifically self-consistent,

guess which I choose?

shernren said:

If the choice is between:
a YEC viewpoint which is slightly more scripturally self-consistent, but scientifically completely un-self-consistent,
and a TE viewpoint which may be slightly less scripturally self-consistent, but scientifically self-consistent,

guess which I choose?

Click to expand...

FYI - TE's are generally more consistant in scripture than YEC's.

TheBear said:

The process of evolution is not only observed in everyday science, it is also applied science, used in biotherapeutics today. Molecular Evolution research is how we get things like antibiotics, medication. and other pharmaceuticals for all kinds of illnesses and disease. A lot based on bio-evolution.


Now you tell me.

What are some of the 'applied creationist science' achievements?

Click to expand...

Oure knowledge of antiboiotics, medication, and other research has nothing to do with origins. This is another deception evolutionist love to use to claim all research is for them. Creationist does not deny the processes of evolution we observed everyday is science, it's the dogma that these processes are the results of origins of all species and complexies is what's being questioned. So according to your statements even creationist is evolutionists in these research since we believe God did give species the ability to adapt to it's surroundings. so I can just as easily claims these research is based on bio-creation.

Sojourner<>< said:

In genetic evolution, the DNA molecule was created to allow for changes in its horizontal structure, not its vertical structure, which is what is required for mutation between species.

Click to expand...

The mechanisms that cause speciation have been observed. Speciation has been observed.

What mechanisms are you suggesting are needed for 'verticle structure' changes in DNA? Please be specific.

What does 'horizontal' and 'vertical' mean in the context you are using it?

There is no demonstratable limit to changes that can happen in DNA that would prevent speciation and drastic changes in populations over multiple generations.

If you want to try to claim that speciation can't happen, then you need to discuss the actual mechanisms involved and not simply label speciation as 'vertical' and everything else as 'horizontal'. You are stating something is impossible by definition, without clarifying the defintion and giving a physical description of the difference in mechanisms needed to distinquish your classificiations.

What is needed for speciation that hasn't been observed?