why we do not believe secular scientists

[random_guy]

Hello random_guy,

Unless you want to delve into epistemology we can observe gravity. "space-time" is an attempt to explain it .Newton can best be said to describe gravity and to predict its behavior and create observed Laws. It is a force that changes at the square of the distance, just like a wave. Then we have explanations for it which are not observable which is really the point that you raise.

What we observe is mass attracts each other, a force called gravity. We think the force is inverse squared to the distance, but the fact is, we can't be 100% true. Law of Universal Gravitation is incorrect for high speeds, high mass and must be corrected with general relativity. If the Law of Universal Gravitation was shown to be incorrect in certain cases, how do we know that general relativity is also incorrect in other cases?

Likewise, we have observed allele frequencies changing in a gene pool, a phenomenon we call evolution. We have a theory that explains it, but again, it is always updated to include new observations.

They are not theories they are observed Laws.

Do you think Laws are a higher form of a theory or that laws are a kind of proof? If so, why is the Law of Universal Gravitation incorrect in situations?

It proves the law as observable and repeatable and a good definition to what we may regard as fact. It predicts, but does not explain.

Again, it's not a fact. The Law of Universal Gravitation failed to correctly predict the precession of Mercury's orbit. How can we consider the Law a fact if it's not correct for this situation?

The full scope of Evolution can never be proven based upon all methods we know. How are we going to observe and repeat Evolution? Speciation studies with fruit flies is not quite the same thing. It does however support the hypothesis that there is an engine to produce variability in life.

According to your analogy, almost nothing would be considered a science. We can't repeat many of the theories in astronomy. We can't repeat many of the theories in geology. We can't repeat many of the theories in forensic science. Again, none of the sciences will ever be based on proven methods because proofs don't exist in real life. Prove to me that chemistry really happens because electrons are being shared with each other and not some other phenomenon we haven't observed. Prove to me that mountains are formed from plate tectonics because 1 cm upward thrust isn't enough proof. Prove to me that Sun is working through nuclear reactions because we can't recreate the power of the Sun on Earth.

Let me ask you, how much science training have you had, because I bet almost anyone who has done experiments knows that repeatability and observation is a lot more than having to recreate the exact same event. We don't need to show tetrapods turning into birds to have a theory about the link between dinosaurs and birds, we only need evidence of such an event.

 

[Hnefi]

Determining which is faster is not "welding". What is faster is a quantifiable and scientifically calculable event. Preferring C# does not make it faster. If you actually need one, here:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/aa700840.aspx

I used welding as an analogy, because the use of a programming language is like the use of any other tool. We are obviously talking around each other here; I read your original post as claiming that choices like OO vs imperative programming (which you specifically mentioned) is a science, which it isn't. Since you mentioned three different examples (speed of PHP vs java, speed of Apache, OO vs imperative) I figured you were talking about issues related to all these.

Your broad definition also does not agree as languages are implementations of such algorithms. If you want to make up you own definitions, no will will understand you. If you did not dispute that I said which is faster then why are we talking about preferences? Its not a preference. If I intended that context I would have said better. That requires an understanding of English.

It made no sense when reading your original post to consider that you were only talking about benchmarking, especially since you brought up the OO vs imperative issue (which has nothing to do with speed).

You said it was like welding. How is bench marking web servers like like welding? A fine example of a non-sequitur.

I never said benchmarking was like welding. You never even mentioned benchmarking in your original post; you brought it up later. My point was that using software is like using tools in any other discipline.

You mean the bench marking of web servers? I have tried.

Again, there is no mention of benchmarking in your original post that I responded to. It is a tangent in itself.

Yes you did, frequently.

And yet, you show no examples.

I will now provide the full definition of the word cite. Since you cannot understand the meaning of words in context, I inform you that it would be #4 or recall of generally accepted facts. It is inane to cite a quotation for a blue sky. Do I need a PHD's quotation to cite gratitude? you don't know the meaning of the word or the implied context.

Definition #4, which you refer to, is not used in the context of referring to factual data as support in an argument or assertion. That would be definition #1. Note that the example in #4 refers to bringing up particularily subjective information, as opposed to #1 (and #2).

Then why do you keep insisting a preference was relevant and compared to welding? The subject was bias in benchmarking understood by the word "faster".

In that case, I misunderstood your original point since you brought up issues not related to speed or the benchmarking thereof.

Industrial psychology? What does the application of psychology to workplace environments and issues have to do with what we're talking about? You're just bringing up yet another useless tangent. But this time I won't bite.

Science and the scientific method are not synonyms. Scientific methods require observation and repeatability. Evolution, Psychology, geology cannot conform to this. We can apply observed and repeatable facts for theory in these sciences.

Yes they do. Particularily evolution and geology provide repeatable observations and tests for testing hypotheses. Psychology is more difficult due to the malleable nature of what is being studied, but I would still consider the primary research done in the field to be science.

Yes they are as by definition. Doing benchmarks are observable and repeatable thus conforms to scientific methodology. Which one is faster on given hardware is not a preference.

Speed is not the only consideration. In fact, it is extremely rarely the primary consideration. I agree that benchmarking is a form of scientific inquiry, but other choices (such as OO vs imperative) are based on more subjective factors.

All that which cannot be observed or repeated and there is plenty. That you mix theory and scientific methods here make me think that you don't know what the terms mean to most other people.

Common useage of words like theory have little to do with how the term is used by laymen. The term, like many others, have different meanings in science and other fields. The scientific method is what scientists use to formulate theories, and is the essence of science.

Anyway, I'm going to drop this now. If you were specifically talking about benchmarking earlier you should not have brought up OO vs imperative or hybrids vs biofuels vs hydrogen. Either way, this discussion is meaningless.

 

[GooberJIL]

Since gravity has been already mentioned, I go with that. Come over to my house, stick out your foot, I'll get my bowling ball, and drop it on your foot: irrefutable evidence that gravity exists. What is flawed is our understand of it. So, to present our understand of it as an irrefutable fact is errant especially when it runs counter to something that has not been found to be errant.

You seem to be confusing observations of gravity with explanations of gravity. We still don't know why gravity occurs. We do know why evolution works.

Science can't answer 'why,' only 'how.'

Jesus changed water to wine, healed the sick, restored the crippled, raised the dead, 'levitated' to the third heaven, etc. All of these defy what we scientifically understand about these things because the science(our understanding) declares them to be impossible. This is unreasonable, yet science claims to based on reason and logic.

Specifically listed and witnessed miracles by God incarnate have nothing to do with known physical processes.

Yes, they do have something to do with know physical processes, because they violate what science claims is possible.

There's nothing in Genesis describing God miraculously creating the chalk formations of Dover.

...and your point is what, exactly?

 

[Dannager]

Science can't answer 'why,' only 'how.'

Oh man. Please, at least make an effort to think things through before saying them. Included in the concept of "why" is causality. Because this happens, that happens. Why does that happen? Because this happens. Why do you perceive words and pictures on this web page? Because photoreceptors in your eyes transmit signals to your brain.

Why does evolution occur? Because mutations within organisms in a given population accrue in particular features that are naturally selected for over successive generations, causing the population to diversify. The end result is what we call evolution.

Yes, they do have something to do with know physical processes, because they violate what science claims is possible.

If it's a miracle, it's God breaking reality anyway. Science says that it's not worth trying to figure out how miracles work because as far as we know miracles can make anything happen. This is why science sticks to the natural. It can be observed and tested.

 

[archaeologist]

This is why science sticks to the natural. It can be observed and tested.

which leads to the problem of science and the reason we can't believe secular scientists. they ignore data , mitigating factors, overpowering influences and then think they have the truth, when they actually have nothing at all.

We cannot "see" how the Sun works either, and no one has lived long enough to observe conjecture, inference and wishful thinking that photons, created deep in the heart of the Sun, take tens of thousands to tens of millions of years to finally escape as sunlight. Therefore, the Sun doesn't exist.

when you can contribte constructively and rationally, let me know as this is just absurd and makes me think you are just wasting everyone's time.

Except for the massive amounts of peer reviewed evidence that you're wilfully blinding yourself to.

but those all come from a pre-drawn conclusion that evolution exists and is responsible. but they came to that position by ignoring data, mitigating factors, over-powering influences and so on.

hardly worth the time to refute. oh, you all give the impression thatthe peer review is without fault, sorry that would be wrong.

 

[GooberJIL]

Oh man. Please, at least make an effort to think things through before saying them. Included in the concept of "why" is causality. Because this happens, that happens. Why does that happen? Because this happens. Why do you perceive words and pictures on this web page? Because photoreceptors in your eyes transmit signals to your brain.

Why does evolution occur? Because mutations within organisms in a given population accrue in particular features that are naturally selected for over successive generations, causing the population to diversify. The end result is what we call evolution.

Your examples answer the why with a how. Science can never explain why anything exists, it only attempt to answer how it came into existence.

If it's a miracle, it's God breaking reality anyway. Science says that it's not worth trying to figure out how miracles work because as far as we know miracles can make anything happen. This is why science sticks to the natural. It can be observed and tested.

Are you claiming that science accepts that God exists?

 

[Dannager]

which leads to the problem of science and the reason we can't believe secular scientists. they ignore data , mitigating factors, overpowering influences and then think they have the truth, when they actually have nothing at all.

No, see that actually does a much better job describing creationist organizations like AiG, whose statement of faith requires that they ignore and discard any evidence or data that conflicts with their interpretation of scripture.

when you can contribte constructively and rationally, let me know as this is just absurd and makes me think you are just wasting everyone's time.

His post was satirizing the absurdity of your style of logic. You need to understand that the way you think creates some insanely twisted conundrums when it comes to the world around you. The mental gymnastics you continually exhibit are your mind's way of dealing with the problems your beliefs have created for you.

but those all come from a pre-drawn conclusion that evolution exists and is responsible. but they came to that position by ignoring data, mitigating factors, over-powering influences and so on.

No, again, that's what creationists do.

If you feel otherwise, could you please explain what data evolutionists have ignored? We'd really love to see it, so that we can stop ignoring it and incorporate it into theory.

hardly worth the time to refute. oh, you all give the impression thatthe peer review is without fault, sorry that would be wrong.

If you're going to slander the scientific community, at least have the cajones about you to back it up.

 

[Dannager]

Your examples answer the why with a how. Science can never explain why anything exists, it only attempt to answer how it came into existence.

You're talking about philosophical "why". That's not what USincognito or myself were talking about. Please don't screw around with semantics. We're talking about causative "why". Science can and does answer that, all the time.

Are you claiming that science accepts that God exists?

Science is agnostic with respect to God. The only thing that scientific methodology says about the supernatural is if it exists, it cannot be measured by science. As soon as the supernatural can be observed and tested, it falls under the purview of the natural world.

 

[GooberJIL]

You're talking about philosophical "why". That's not what USincognito or myself were talking about. Please don't screw around with semantics. We're talking about causative "why". Science can and does answer that, all the time.

So you admit that science can not answer the why, that is progress. I know you wanna steer the conversation clear of the philosophical, because it is a basic question of humanity; Why are we here, what does all this universe mean, what is the purpose for all this?

just for fun...

2.5.3 Doctor Program
GD 81T1 Science of Philosophy (Mandatory, 2 credits)
Course Description

Talk about poor grammar and spelling... and this is for a PhD!!!!

Science is agnostic with respect to God. The only thing that scientific methodology says about the supernatural is if it exists, it cannot be measured by science. As soon as the supernatural can be observed and tested, it falls under the purview of the natural world.

Science can not be agnostic concerning origins! The priori of "there is a God" or "there is not a God" is foundational. It is where science and religion clash.

You now saying "if it exists" is quite a spin from "If it's a miracle, it's God breaking reality anyway." Don't all miracles happen in 'reality' or are you saying that a person that is healed by a miracle is unreal? If something is unreal then it doesn't exist.

All the miracles that I mentioned occurred in the natural. Which one was not observed? Most of them happened repeatedly with the same expected result.

1. must be observable
2. must be repeatable
3. must produce the expected result.

 

[USincognito]

So you admit that science can not answer the why, that is progress. I know you wanna steer the conversation clear of the philosophical, because it is a basic question of humanity; Why are we here, what does all this universe mean, what is the purpose for all this?

just for fun...

Stop twisting his words. He's trying to explain to you exactly what I was trying to explain to you. Scientific theories explain causational whys "why is the sky blue" - "because the chemical composition scatters sunlight at wavelenghts we see as 'blue'". They do not address the metaphysical why. "why is the sky blue" - "because God chose that color". Conflating the causational questions with metaphysical questions is quite a transparent tactic.

And we can discuss the philisophical questions all you want. The discussions will at that point leave the arena of science though.

 

[archaeologist]

[QUOTEHis post was satirizing the absurdity of your style of logic. You need to understand that the way you think creates some insanely twisted conundrums when it comes to the world around you. The mental gymnastics you continually exhibit are your mind's way of dealing with the problems your beliefs have created for you.
][/QUOTE]

not at all. i will stand by my words.

No, see that actually does a much better job describing creationist organizations like AiG, whose statement of faith requires that they ignore and discard any evidence or data that conflicts with their interpretation of scripture.

exact same thing Te's. P.C's and evolutionists do. except you all throw out scripture with the bath water as well.

the rest of your post i will wait till you provide evidence for your position. as i see it, you are no different than those you complain about.

 

[Psudopod]

Science can not be agnostic concerning origins! The priori of "there is a God" or "there is not a God" is foundational. It is where science and religion clash

This is not true. Science can make no comments about God or miracles, but it is agnostic on their existance.
Scientists believe or disbelieve in God, as any human does, but it does not affect the scientific method.

 

[archaeologist]

but it does not affect the scientific method.

yes, it does.

 

[Psudopod]

Please explain how it does. How does an indevidual scientist's beliefs change the way the scientific method works, and how, if it does, do all those scientists of diffrering religeons still manage to repeat results?

 

[theFijian]

yes, it does.

Like this?

Experiment A:
Test reaction of solution A and Enzyme B

Experiment B
Test reaction of solution A and Enzyme B, and believe in God.

 

[gwynedd1]

What we observe is mass attracts each other, a force called gravity. We think the force is inverse squared to the distance, but the fact is, we can't be 100% true. Law of Universal Gravitation is incorrect for high speeds, high mass and must be corrected with general relativity. If the Law of Universal Gravitation was shown to be incorrect in certain cases, how do we know that general relativity is also incorrect in other cases?

Likewise, we have observed allele frequencies changing in a gene pool, a phenomenon we call evolution. We have a theory that explains it, but again, it is always updated to include new observations.



Do you think Laws are a higher form of a theory or that laws are a kind of proof? If so, why is the Law of Universal Gravitation incorrect in situations?



Again, it's not a fact. The Law of Universal Gravitation failed to correctly predict the precession of Mercury's orbit. How can we consider the Law a fact if it's not correct for this situation?



According to your analogy, almost nothing would be considered a science. We can't repeat many of the theories in astronomy. We can't repeat many of the theories in geology. We can't repeat many of the theories in forensic science. Again, none of the sciences will ever be based on proven methods because proofs don't exist in real life. Prove to me that chemistry really happens because electrons are being shared with each other and not some other phenomenon we haven't observed. Prove to me that mountains are formed from plate tectonics because 1 cm upward thrust isn't enough proof. Prove to me that Sun is working through nuclear reactions because we can't recreate the power of the Sun on Earth.

Let me ask you, how much science training have you had, because I bet almost anyone who has done experiments knows that repeatability and observation is a lot more than having to recreate the exact same event. We don't need to show tetrapods turning into birds to have a theory about the link between dinosaurs and birds, we only need evidence of such an event.

Hello random_guy,

Its up to you if you want to look at it that way however you will encounter a bit of confusion over terms. Newton, for example, never attempted to explain. So Newton is a theory of sorts but more or less on predicting. I can predict that someone will wait at the bus stop because I have observed them consistently. Newton never tried to guess it was because they were "going to work" in that example.
As to the latter, science does not have a strict definition but the "scientific method" does. I was trained in research methods in clinical psychology.

 

[gwynedd1]

I used welding as an analogy, because the use of a programming language is like the use of any other tool. We are obviously talking around each other here; I read your original post as claiming that choices like OO vs imperative programming (which you specifically mentioned) is a science, which it isn't. Since you mentioned three different examples (speed of PHP vs java, speed of Apache, OO vs imperative) I figured you were talking about issues related to all these.

It made no sense when reading your original post to consider that you were only talking about benchmarking, especially since you brought up the OO vs imperative issue (which has nothing to do with speed).

I never said benchmarking was like welding. You never even mentioned benchmarking in your original post; you brought it up later. My point was that using software is like using tools in any other discipline.

Again, there is no mention of benchmarking in your original post that I responded to. It is a tangent in itself.


And yet, you show no examples.

Definition #4, which you refer to, is not used in the context of referring to factual data as support in an argument or assertion. That would be definition #1. Note that the example in #4 refers to bringing up particularily subjective information, as opposed to #1 (and #2).

In that case, I misunderstood your original point since you brought up issues not related to speed or the benchmarking thereof.

Industrial psychology? What does the application of psychology to workplace environments and issues have to do with what we're talking about? You're just bringing up yet another useless tangent. But this time I won't bite.

Yes they do. Particularily evolution and geology provide repeatable observations and tests for testing hypotheses. Psychology is more difficult due to the malleable nature of what is being studied, but I would still consider the primary research done in the field to be science.

Speed is not the only consideration. In fact, it is extremely rarely the primary consideration. I agree that benchmarking is a form of scientific inquiry, but other choices (such as OO vs imperative) are based on more subjective factors.

Common useage of words like theory have little to do with how the term is used by laymen. The term, like many others, have different meanings in science and other fields. The scientific method is what scientists use to formulate theories, and is the essence of science.

Anyway, I'm going to drop this now. If you were specifically talking about benchmarking earlier you should not have brought up OO vs imperative or hybrids vs biofuels vs hydrogen. Either way, this discussion is meaningless.

I am skimming this post as we appear only to waste each others time. Howver for example.


You said

Definition #4, which you refer to, is not used in the context of referring to factual data as support in an argument or assertion. That would be definition #1. Note that the example in #4 refers to bringing up particularily subjective information, as opposed to #1 (and #2).

The context I used in the word cite was in reaction to your claim I mentioned "using" a web server when I "cited" speed. I do not need to prove I said speed in that context. You did not know what it means, apparently, as I have proven. I will admit, I should know better than to leave room for this kind of mischief.

You said

Speed is not the only consideration. In fact, it is extremely rarely the primary consideration. I agree that benchmarking is a form of scientific inquiry, but other choices (such as OO vs imperative) are based on more subjective factors.

Which once again is completly irrelavent to the subject as I have repeated over and over and over again. Speed is a quantifiable measurable componant that may be benchmarked and erroneously assumed to be better by those that wish to represent the data inappropriately. Which is the topic I raised.

All I can surmise from this conversation is that you do not engage in activities that require unabigious expressions and precision. Perhaps English is not you native language? Who knows?....

 

[GooberJIL]

This is not true. Science can make no comments about God or miracles, but it is agnostic on their existance.

IOW: when modern science is confronted with the fact that there is more to this physical existence than what meets eye it turns tail and runs... runs from God like it has for the last 200 years. In this controversy there is no neutral ground.

Luke 11:23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

Scientists believe or disbelieve in God, as any human does, but it does not affect the scientific method.

The scientific method can not be used because there is no direct observation of a prehistoric event.

What is the ``scientific method''? The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
• 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

 

[GooberJIL]

Stop twisting his words. He's trying to explain to you exactly what I was trying to explain to you. Scientific theories explain causational whys "why is the sky blue" - "because the chemical composition scatters sunlight at wavelenghts we see as 'blue'". They do not address the metaphysical why. "why is the sky blue" - "because God chose that color". Conflating the causational questions with metaphysical questions is quite a transparent tactic.

And we can discuss the philisophical questions all you want. The discussions will at that point leave the arena of science though.

What is the cause of .... at some point you have to run into the original cause, God. There is no avoiding that and to start from the premise that there maybe no God would skew all interpretation/observation from there on.

That's why I did the "just for fun" because there is a Science of Philosophy and I knew that the assertion would be made that philosophy is not science.

Here's the next "just for fun"

PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Sponsored by The Philosophy of Science Association


About the Journal
Since its inception in 1934, Philosophy of Science, along with its sponsoring society, The Philosophy of Science Association, has been dedicated to the furthering of studies and free discussion from diverse standpoints in the philosophy of science. The journal contains essays, discussion articles, and book reviews.

Philosophy is such a big part of science that it has an association and journal dedicated to it. There is also an electronic version here: http://www.jstor.org/journals/00318248.html

This is just the first one I tripped over, I'm sure there are more.

Philosophy of Science

Course Page


Biology and Darwin

Google search results: [SIZE=-1]Results 1 - 10 of about 1,510,000 for "philosophy of science".[/SIZE]

I hope you can see that science is married to philosophy, coming and going.

 

[KerrMetric]

The scientific method can not be used because there is no direct observation of a prehistoric event.

Yes it can. A fossil being tested and examined is an observation. Such observations can be used to create an hypothesis which can then be tested by further observations. By your criteria no astronomy could be performed or geology.