Uniformitarianism

[Brad2009]

Just curious, but is there any reason (other than uniformitartianism) to believe that the extrapolations performed in the various dating techniques are necessarily an accurate picture of the past?

As I understand it, all radiometric dating techniques are based on the presupposition that universal constants and natural laws have been exactly the same since the beginning of the universe. This presupposition was expounded on primarily by 19th century geologists as a philosophy within science, called uniformitarianism. Link: Uniformitarianism (science) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems to me that this assumption can never be validated and simply must be taken as a given to arrive at final extrapolations of age. I find it very easy to imagine that there have been transients in physical constants and having observed those constants for maybe 200 years at a steady state can't tell us anything about the initial conditions of the universe, nor the age of any particular sample.

Is there any validation of this philosophy?

 

[Mallon]

We can validate the assumption by using different methods to come up with the same answer. This is done with radiometric dating all the time (corroborated by tree rings, ice cores, etc).

 

[sfs]

Just curious, but is there any reason (other than uniformitartianism) to believe that the extrapolations performed in the various dating techniques are necessarily an accurate picture of the past?

As I understand it, all radiometric dating techniques are based on the presupposition that universal constants and natural laws have been exactly the same since the beginning of the universe. This presupposition was expounded on primarily by 19th century geologists as a philosophy within science, called uniformitarianism. Link: Uniformitarianism (science) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems to me that this assumption can never be validated and simply must be taken as a given to arrive at final extrapolations of age. I find it very easy to imagine that there have been transients in physical constants and having observed those constants for maybe 200 years at a steady state can't tell us anything about the initial conditions of the universe, nor the age of any particular sample.

Is there any validation of this philosophy?

Searching for past variation in physical constants is a niche activity among physicists, but there are definitely those who do it. You can look at a variety of things. For example, looking at decay curves for radiation following supernova 1987A shows that radioactive decay rates were the same 150,000 years ago as they are now. Spectral absorption and emission lines show that atomic physics in distant astronomical regions acts the same as it does on Earth. The detailed workings of the Oklo natural uranium reactor show that nuclear physics worked the same a billion or more years ago as it does now.

Basically, you look at as many traces as you can from the past, and so far, they all look like uniformitarianism (of physical laws, not of physical conditions) is an excellent model for how the universe has behaved. Couple that with the complete absence of any coherent alternative that would explain the same data while violating uniformitarianism, and there isn't much of a contest.

 

[juvenissun]

Just curious, but is there any reason (other than uniformitartianism) to believe that the extrapolations performed in the various dating techniques are necessarily an accurate picture of the past?

As I understand it, all radiometric dating techniques are based on the presupposition that universal constants and natural laws have been exactly the same since the beginning of the universe. This presupposition was expounded on primarily by 19th century geologists as a philosophy within science, called uniformitarianism. Link: Uniformitarianism (science) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems to me that this assumption can never be validated and simply must be taken as a given to arrive at final extrapolations of age. I find it very easy to imagine that there have been transients in physical constants and having observed those constants for maybe 200 years at a steady state can't tell us anything about the initial conditions of the universe, nor the age of any particular sample.

Is there any validation of this philosophy?

Uniformitarianism is only conditionally correct. Just like the decay constants of various dating systems are only conditionally valid. Some key theological (and cosmological) variables are beyond those conditions, so uniformitarianism does not apply there.

Note: the term uniformitarianism only refers to normal surficial earth conditions. It is awkward to use it on radiometric dating system.

 

[gluadys]

Just curious, but is there any reason (other than uniformitartianism) to believe that the extrapolations performed in the various dating techniques are necessarily an accurate picture of the past?

As I understand it, all radiometric dating techniques are based on the presupposition that universal constants and natural laws have been exactly the same since the beginning of the universe. This presupposition was expounded on primarily by 19th century geologists as a philosophy within science, called uniformitarianism. Link: Uniformitarianism (science) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems to me that this assumption can never be validated and simply must be taken as a given to arrive at final extrapolations of age. I find it very easy to imagine that there have been transients in physical constants and having observed those constants for maybe 200 years at a steady state can't tell us anything about the initial conditions of the universe, nor the age of any particular sample.

Is there any validation of this philosophy?

The fact that using this assumption works in science, even when the sciences are very different. One of my favorite examples is the dating of the Hawaiian islands. The dates can be arrived at in two completely and unrelated ways. One can use radiometry on the rocks of various islands to get the dates. Or one can use the motion of the Pacific plate as it passes over the hot spot beneath the islands. Each type of measurement not only places the islands in the same chronological order. They also agree on what the dates were.

That would be utterly inexplicable on any basis of non-uniformity.