You are consistent!
Please continue to be Exhibit A - “The Man that Wants Science to be Dogma!”
“....
Reily, was your intent to talk behind my back, or did you forget to ping me?
….”
Paranoid much?
Since its an open forum and postings are seen by many how can I be “talking behind your back”? After all you’ve addressed me in postings where I never initiated the conversation.
Please look up the word “theory”.
Maybe you do understand, you just haven’t demonstrated it.
Theory is an explanation that best fits the evidence. The evidence changes the theory changes or is eventually subsumed into a greater explanation or theory. That’s science all else is dogma.
Empirical Science
“.. The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions, or hypotheses, and then acquiring the knowledge through observations and experiments to either support or disprove a specific theory. …”
And yes some scientists are horrible at this! They’re human beings subject to all the foibles of all humans!
Even then there are useful things embedded in some theories that aren’t observable!
It seems your understanding of the word empirical science is “shaky” also. “Historical science” - what’s that? Is it Aristotelian mechanics, Galen’s Medical Theory, etc. That’s the only thing I can think of that qualifies.
It all comes back to “evidence” at what you accept vs what I, BroJoK and others accept. All science is linked if BroJoK, I and others were as wrong as you say we are, we would not be pounding on computers talking via the Internet.
There are always other viewpoints & interpretations to anything. If you require others to only see things only your way, we’re back to dogma! So again your mad that science isn’t dogma & dogma is isn’t science.
Calling me an evolutionist is inaccurate at least in the manner you seem to mean it.
By the way I am perfectly happy if we ignore each other! However I will continue to post on this issue if I think I have something to say.
>>Paranoid much?
It is common courtesy to notify those you are talking about so you don’t come across as a back-biter.
*************
>>Since its an open forum and postings are seen by many how can I be “talking behind your back”? After all you’ve addressed me in postings where I never initiated the conversation.
It is a big forum.
*************
>>Please look up the word “theory”. Maybe you do understand, you just haven’t demonstrated it. Theory is an explanation that best fits the evidence. The evidence changes the theory changes or is eventually subsumed into a greater explanation or theory. That’s science all else is dogma.
Why so condescending?
*************
>>Empirical Science. “The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions, or hypotheses, and then acquiring the knowledge through observations and experiments to either support or disprove a specific theory. …”
That is what I have been saying all long. Evolution has not been observed in 160 years of painstaking laboratory research and physical digging in the rock layers. If anyone claims there is observable evidence for evolution, they should be able to present it, without obfuscation. The evidence is in the details.
*************
>>And yes some scientists are horrible at this! They’re human beings subject to all the foibles of all humans! Even then there are useful things embedded in some theories that aren’t observable!
Name some.
*************
>>It seems your understanding of the word empirical science is “shaky” also.
Perhaps your understanding of empirical science is the “shaky” one.
*************
>> “Historical science” - what’s that? Is it Aristotelian mechanics, Galen’s Medical Theory, etc. That’s the only thing I can think of that qualifies.
Evolutionary biology is a historical science:
“Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” [Ernst Mayr, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought.” Scientific American, Nov 24, 2009]
So is Paleontology. Perhaps you were one of those Jack Horner was referring to:
“There is no equivalent in paleontology to the law of gravity, no equations that apply to the behavior of one kind of dinosaur under one set of circumstances, still less to all kinds under all circumstances, no mathematical procedures for predicting exactly where or how fossils will be deposited. Moreover, unlike botany or zoology, which also concern living things, paleontology is a historical science, a science based on circumstantial evidence, after the fact. We can never reach hard-and-fast conclusions in our study of ancient plants and animals, points beyond which no further debate or research would be necessary. These days it’s easy to go to school for a good many years, sometimes even through college, without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusive. But in fact paleontology is closer in spirit to the traditional definition of science—a method rather than a set of principles, a form of systematic doubt, a way of testing ideas.” [Horner & Dobb, “Dinosaur Lives - Unearthing An Evolutionary Saga.” Harcourt Brace & Company, 1997, Chap.2, p.19]
The historical nature of Darwin’s theory was probably the reason the fossil record was so important to him. He understood that his theory would be in trouble, if the fossil record didn’t “come around”:
“[W]hy, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” [Difficulties on Theory, in, Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection.” John Murray, 1st Ed, 1859, Chap.IV,p.172]
“All these causes taken conjointly, must have tended to make the geological record extremely imperfect, and will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.” [Geological Succession, in, Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection.” John Murray, 1st Ed, 1859, Chap X, p.342]
Of course, Charlie didn’t realize at the time there would be multitudes of followers who would do anything and everything to keep his theory alive, even promoting the pretense that the absence of evidence is evidence.
*************
>> It all comes back to “evidence” at what you accept vs what I, BroJoK and others accept. All science is linked if BroJoK, I and others were as wrong as you say we are, we would not be pounding on computers talking via the Internet.
Empirical Science is why we are pounding on computers; but evolution is not empirical science. It is historical, and is not linked to the empirical, as you suggest, unless verifiable and repeatable evidence is discovered.
You can “accept” whatever you want; but when you try to pass it off as evidence, sooner or later someone like me will come along and hold your feet to the fire by saying, “prove it!”.
*************
>>There are always other viewpoints & interpretations to anything. If you require others to only see things only your way, we’re back to dogma! So again your mad that science isn’t dogma & dogma is isn’t science.
Very few things make me mad, except lies, with slanderous lies the the most vile.
*************
>>Calling me an evolutionist is inaccurate at least in the manner you seem to mean it.
Evolutionists believe in common descent. If you don’t believe in common descent, you are not an evolutionist. The key word is “believe”. There is no evidence for common descent, so the belief is based strictly on faith.
*************
>>By the way I am perfectly happy if we ignore each other! However I will continue to post on this issue if I think I have something to say.
That is what forums are for. But if you have anything to say to or about me, please be courteous and let me know.
Mr. Kalamata