The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[longshadow]

My intent was not to disparage Popper, but to try to point out that name-dropping is not an argument.

Quoting the 20th century's pre-eminent philospher of science on his widely accepted insights into the nature of scientific theory isn't "name-dropping".... it's pointing out that you and your 6th-grade teacher are at odds with the people who actually are experts in this matter. If that is "name-dropping, then so is pointing out the error of saying that "gravity varies in inverse proportion to distance" by quoting Newton as saying:

F=Gm₁m₂/r²

Einstein was a patent examiner when he published Special Relativity. Maybe my 6th grade teacher was more brilliant than Popper.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[snip] 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. [snip]

Then why don't you read Popper; then you'll understand why he says what he says, and maybe someone will then be willing to "engage you intellectually" -- as it stands, you are putting your fingers in your ears and saying "Why should I believe Popper instead of my 6th-grade teacher?" It's not my job to spoon-fed Popper's thought process to you.... if you're interested, you'll do the heavy lifting yourself.

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).

Do you really not understand the point that valid objective means of falsification include, but are not limited to, experimentation, observation, counter-example, etc.? The fact that variables cannot be "controlled" (as in set to any value you might desire) in an observation, as opposed to a lab experiment, does not in any way detract from the ability of an observation to falsify a theoretical prediction, and hence the theory that made it.

[PatrickHenry]

Considering your labors here, you should become familiar with the tale of Sisyphus. It is said that [quoting from a source here] in the realm of the dead, he is forced to roll a block of stone up a steep hill, which tumbles back down when he reaches the top. Then the whole process starts again, lasting all eternity.

[bondserv]

Einstein thinks "I should try an experiment to verify this idea I have, the experiment will involve scientific equipment that will allow me to test, in this experiment, if starlight will be bent as it passes the Sun."

"The experiment takes some planning, yes here is a calendar, and a solar eclipse will be on March 5th, 1905. For this experiment I will go to the Griffith Observatory where they have the necessary photo sensory plates to verify the data for my experiment."

OR

Einstein thinks "My wife can look at the sun, so I can call this only an observation, not an experiment. Here are some sunglasses Honey, we don't want to have to sue longshadow. Honey that is a train, not the sun get off the tracks. Phew good thing I was at the train station and relative to the train I saw the light before I heard the whistle. I somehow feel to old. Maybe it's these brown suits, hmmm."

Relative time, names, places and dates have been changed to protect the innocent.

This is fun.

[VadeRetro]

This is fun.

But is it science?

[js1138]

bondserv has mind melded with effdot.

[VadeRetro]

If science is a construction job, creationism is a group of unemployed louts having a few beers and jeering the work from their rent-controlled apartment steps across the street.

[bondserv]

But is it science?

But seriously, I must let the nat go, it has been strained.

Placemarker.

effdot? Where is my google bookmark?

Mr. Spock says: Fascinating is a word I use for the unexpected.

[js1138]

This is fun.

This is on of the strangest posts I've ever seen. We have had posts the charged ahead in the face of withering fire. We have had posters who imitate e e cummings.

But this one is simply psychedelic. Names and dates changed? For what possible reason? How is an observation made during an eclipse an experiment rather than an observation?

[bondserv]

OK I change my answer.

His observation was an observation. Sorry for the silly little detour.

Is Griffith Observatory near Union Station?

[bondserv]

He's to chubby to do that for very long.

[longshadow]

"The experiment takes some planning, yes here is a calendar, and a solar eclipse will be on March 5th, 1905. [emphasis added]

Not to spoil your fun, but in what year did Einstein proposed his theory that predicted the bending of starlight by the sun?

[bondserv]

Hence the disclaimer.

[bondserv]

Such an effect was observed in 1919.

[bondserv]

Success in a subsequent measurement in 1922.

[bondserv]

Cool video and Pics Here.

Link

[Doctor Stochastic]

This is the end of Post-Modern-Deconstructionism?

[bondserv]

Proposed in his general theory of relativity in 1915.

Eclipse in 1919 helped confirm theory of relativity.

Sorry for the multi-posts.

[js1138]

Not to spoil your fun, but in what year did Einstein proposed his theory that predicted the bending of starlight by the sun?

It is not necessary to understand science in order to mock it. In fact, lack of understanding is required.

[longshadow]

It is not necessary to understand science in order to mock it. In fact, lack of understanding is required.

The evidence OBSERVED on this thread fails to falsify your hypothesis.

;-)

[gomaaa]

Bump for junk science thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/863025/posts