The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[balrog666]

"Virtual Ignore" is now in effect.

It's amazing what a perfect test subject this fool is for "invincible ignorance". Makes me wonder what "medved the second" would look like in German.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I've been to one of Behe's presentations on ID. He came across as a charlatan more than anything. He also made the usual claims from ignorance.

[js1138]

Still waiting for flood evidence placemarker.

[bondserv]

Einstein's observations were his thought experiments.

Symantics.

[gomaaa]

Einstein's observations were his thought experiments.

He used thought experiments to test his theoretical whims in his head, but his final conclusions were thorooughly tested by ASTRONOMICAL observation.

Also, Rach, will you please comment on what you think the fundamental differnce is between experiment and observation. I, and several others, contend that experimentation is merely observation in a slightly more controled condition. The stuff that goes on in the lab is no different than what happens in the real world. That's the whole point!

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

That you chose to embrace your 6th-grade teacher's opinion over Popper's in matters that Popper was the recognized expert is surely no reflection on him.

My intent was not to disparage Popper, but to try to point out that name-dropping is not an argument. Einstein was a patent examiner when he published Special Relativity. Maybe my 6th grade teacher was more brilliant than Popper. Maybe evolutionists redefine science in order to support their philosophy. Maybe they just like the name "scientist".

The fact remains that the established criteria for a scientific theory emphasizes its falsifiability (read: testability). That you choose to focus exclusively on one method of falsification ("experiment") while ignoring other equally valid methods, including OBSERVATION, such as is illustrated by the test of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity by OBSERVING the bending of starlight passing by the Sun during an eclipse, is no fault of Popper's

I have not ignored observastion but have tried to argue for the essential component of experimentation (which, obviously, produces observable results) and have presented specific arguments to that end (1574). These arguments have also pointed out serious problems when experimentation is not performed. Responding by name-dropping and quoting an article from said dropped-name that doesn't refer to experimentation but focuses on falsification is not convincing. It amounts to "Karl Popper said it. Believe it." I'm trying to get someone to actually engage intellectually instead of just pontificating. However, you did not deserve as harsh a response as I gave you and for that I am sorry. There are others on this forum however to whom it is more appropriately directed.

With regards to General Relativity, it is most certainly not devoid of experimental evidence. One such experiment confirmed the gravitational dilation of time by comparing atomic clocks flown in planes (less gravitational force) vs. clocks on the ground (more gravitational force).

[gomaaa]

I'm sorry, but the example you described about testing gravity did not illuminate any difference between experiment and observation. Yes, any experiment should be repeated. So should observations. You don't compare your stellar model to one observed star, you try dozens. One fossil proves nothing. Hundreds of fossils provide pretty compelling evidence. Thousands of stars and fossils later, you can conclude that your theory, whether astronomical of biological, is accurate. Repetition is important, but you can repeat observations as easily as you can repeat experiments because they are essentially the same!

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

Also, Rach, will you please comment on what you think the fundamental differnce is between experiment and observation. I, and several others, contend that experimentation is merely observation in a slightly more controled condition. The stuff that goes on in the lab is no different than what happens in the real world. That's the whole point

Once again, thank you for your civility.

If I may, I think the fundamental disagreement is between experimentation and prediction. Observations are used to test both. The crucial part of experimentation that is lacking in mere prediction is control of the variables. Moreover, experimentation almost always leads the experimenter to the realization that there are variables that need to be controlled that he never considered or even knew about before he did the experiment.

So, in your phraseology, i would say that experimentation is observation under controlled conditions. But, I would disagree that it is "slightly more controlled". I contend that, in general, observations of mere predictions are entirely uncontrolled.

I look forward to your dialog.

[gomaaa]

Hmmm... You know what, I think we've come to the crux of the matter. I beleive that while it is better to do controlled experiments, observations are fine in general and constitute good scientific practice.

You contend that this is just not enough. I'm not sure I can come up with any other arguments than I already have to convince you, but you are not swayed. The only other thing I can say is that you are throwing out a lot of good evidence about the world. Pretty much all of astronomy, cosmology, geology, paleontology, archaeology, biology, and chunks of anthropology. (Did I miss any?) There are a LOT of very smart people in these fields who would disagree with you vehemently on this topic.

I would also like to ask you about your motives for thinking that all of this is not valid. What is so wrong with this evidence that it is not worth even a cursory glance? What better evidence can you provide about the nature of distant stars that we can teach our kids? They have a right to know what little we do about how the world works. They're going to have questions about these things and if you don't think our current means of answering them are valid, what do you propose to replace them with?

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

Doesn't say much for biology.

Are you saying that comparing Darwin to Maxwell somehow diminishes biology?

Yes, but because of Darwin, not Maxwell. I was trying to say that my opinion of Darwin is so low compared to Maxwell that using Darwin as the giant of biology does it a profound disservice, to say nothing of the scientists who hold him in such high regard. But I can see how my comment was misinterpreted.

[Condorman]

I'm not sure I follow your point or to which of my posts you are referring

In 1574 you explained how an evolutionist would claim to "prove" gravity. In 1619 you lamented the fact that new versions of a theory arise to explain new observations, but again talked about this "proving" business. That new observations fit so easily within the existing framework does not prove the theory of evolution. An expected observation will never prove a theory. Because all it takes is one out of place fossil (a pre-Cambrian vertebrate, for example) to disprove the theory of evolution. Yet you appear to be complaining that theories are changed to fit the evidence.

do you believe that evolution has been proven? If not, why is it taught as fact?

Some species of organisms exist today that did not exist in the past. Some species of organisms that existed in the past do not exist today. Humans have witnessed the evolution of a single species, and in a few cases have been lucky enough to observe the formation of brand-new species. The phenomenon of evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution does an excellent job of explaining how this happened.

In the same way, the phenomenon of gravity is a fact. Rocks fall. Planets orbit suns. Moons orbit planets. Tides flow and recede. The theory of gravity attempts to explain, with reasonable success, how it works.

Well, in fact, I very clearly have defined the role of experiments in 1574 which is in agreement with what you say above that I do not agree with. Please quote from me to the contrary.

But without evolution begin [sic] subject to experimentation, how does [the scientific process] apply?
1617 posted on 03/11/2003 10:11 AM EST by Rachumlakenschlaff

Experimentation is only one way to test the predictions of a theory. Variables can be more carefully controlled and isolated in a lab, but this in no way detracts from the value of field observations, expecially in cases where the phenomena described by the theory do not lend themselves to laboratory conditions. Even so, your above statement is wrong. For example there was a recent thread on a 20-year experiment to domesticate a small Russian Silver Fox population, with fascinating results. I can dig up a link if you want it.

[balrog666]

I would also like to ask you about your motives for thinking that all of this is not valid. What is so wrong with this evidence that it is not worth even a cursory glance? What better evidence can you provide about the nature of distant stars that we can teach our kids? They have a right to know what little we do about how the world works. They're going to have questions about these things and if you don't think our current means of answering them are valid, what do you propose to replace them with?

Hum, you must have thought his reply at 1631 was some kind of joke.
Now you seem to be getting the idea that he's the joke. ;^)

[gomaaa]

For example there was a recent thread on a 20-year experiment to domesticate a small Russian Silver Fox population, with fascinating results. I can dig up a link if you want it.

Dude! I remember reading about that! Very cool stuff. If I recall, the foxes were subjected to breeding criteria based primarily on freindliness and compatibility with humans. After numerous generations (and the study is still ongoing to my knowledge) the foxes have started to take on more of the PHYSICAL characteristics of domesticated dogs than they previously displayed. Not sure how much this proves, and the study isn't "finished" yet by any means, but it's certainly grounds to do other experiments with other species and see what happens.

[gomaaa]

I'd be a lot more merciless if it was just some scientific misconception (which it is, but it's not the whole story). One of the reasons I think these threads get so contentious is that religion is involved. If someone were to say to me, "Optics is a flawed branch of science and must be discarded!" I'll smile and nod and ignore him. If someone were to say something similar about my religion (back when I was religious, that is) I would get a lot more offended. You're not attacking a scientific concept then, your'e attacking something that is potentially a person's primary basis and motivation for functioning in the world. That's not something you should do lightly, which is why I get very incensed at overly forceful evangelists of any religion or worldview. I'm also not going to get into a good discussion about the religious aspect of this whole debate with Rach if I make fun of him in the middle of the forum. I very much want to hear what he's got to say on this, because I don't think it's been discussed much. At least not since I joined up.

This was a pretty serious response to what was intended to be a lighthearted jibe, but I think it needed to be said.

[js1138]

I contend that, in general, observations of mere predictions are entirely uncontrolled.

Utter rubbish. Experiments are not controlled because they are experiments. There are thousands of experiments dealing with ESP that are utterly worthless, even though the experimenters checked off all the formalisms of science.

Observations -- whether of laboratory or "natural" phenomena -- are useful when they are done by honest people and when they match predictions that would not have been made without the model being tested.

Were Newton's and Kepler's observations experiments, and if not were they not doing science?

[bondserv]

scientific theories make testable predictions and are given up when they fail their tests.

How do you fail an observation?

You can have a failed experiment that included observations.

You can fail a test that is part of an experiment.

When you test something you are engaging in an experiment.

[Condorman]

Silver Fox Thread (opens in a new window)

[Lurking Libertarian]

scientific theories make testable predictions and are given up when they fail their tests.

How do you fail an observation?

Newton's theory of gravity predicted that Mercury's orbit would wobble only slightly as it approached the sun. Einstein's theory of relativity predicted that it would wobble twice as much. When we finally had a telescope powerful enough to measure Mercury's orbit exactly, Einstein's predction was proved right (thus supporting, but not "proving" his theory) and Newton's theory was disproven.

Similar observations support, and could-- but haven't-- disprove evolution. We have found, as evolution predicted, transitional fossils between reptiles and mammals and between reptiles and birds. It would disprove evolution if we found transitional fossils between birds and mammals.

[PatrickHenry]

... the example you described about testing gravity ...

By the way, the Hafele and Keating experiment was a test of special relativity, not of the general theory.

[longshadow]

Einstein's observations were his thought experiments.

Q. Was the observation of the bending of starlight by the Sun during a Solar eclipse a gedanken experiment?

A. No, it wasn't.

Q. Was the observation of whether or not starlight was bent by the Sun capable of falsifiying Einstein's or Newton's Theory?

A. Yes it was.