Free Republic

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.

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.

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).

"Virtual Ignore" is now in effect

"Norman, please coordinate."

Twice in the last 50 posts you have written how evolutionists like to claim their theory is proven. After the first time you agreed that theories are not proven, only to repeat your error a few posts later. A reconciliation of the two positions, or even some supporting evidence would be nice

I'm not sure I follow your point or to which of my posts you are referring, so let me ask this: do you believe that evolution has been proven? If not, why is it taught as fact?

and have persistently refused to recognize (or failed to understand, I'm not sure which) that experiments are designed to isolate specific conditions for the purpose of more precise observations.

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.

A quote and some withering replies

There's an incredibly vast difference between claiming a thing and proving it. This is what Behe's book so brilliantly points out. The quote from Behe is totally out of context. He never claimed that papers weren't published, he claimed that mechanisms had not been illucidated. Proposed certainly ( tiny bits and pieces, that is), but never proven or duplicated. The whole point of his book is to call attention to all of the hand-waving of details that evolutionists are so notorius for.

Notice that NOWHERE in Popper's comments on scientific theories does he use the word "EXPERIMENT". He uses the words "falsifiability" and "testability," and throughout his writings refers to scientific theories that are capable of refutation by OBSERVATION.

I trust this puts an end to you mistaken belief that theories that do not involve experimental reproduction of the phenomona within theire scope are somehow not "scientific."

I wasn't aware that scientific debate was decided by fiat (or, "My dad's stronger than your dad..."). Shall we worship Popper as the all-knowing god of science?

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

Speaking of religion, this is also the Biblical test of prophecy (Deut. 18:22 "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him."; 1John 4:1 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.")

I therefore proclaim that Judaism and Christianity are science and the Bible is a scientific document.

I never said that experiments prove theories.

Correct. You said that was how evolutionists view science.

Because your model adequately explains the motion of the 5 observed balls and, because you have 5 new observations of 5 other balls that fell from other heights whose motions also fit your model, you claim that your model (what you call a theory) is proved.

Huh?

Behe is an ID proponent who among his heavily criticized misstatements argues that there is as yet no discipline of molecular evolution at all.

Care to provide a quote?

Behe is very partisan and often very wrong.

As opposed to evolutionists were are totally objective and never wrong.

Darwin is good if you understand that he stands in biology about where Maxwell does in physics

Doesn't say much for biology.

Balrog has already addressed this, but there's more to be said. First, you most definitely did say (or certainly imply) that experiments prove theories. In 1574, you said that about predictions, which is what experiments actually are. But experiments are not the only way in which a theory can be falsified. Evolution could very easily be falsified if fossils turned up that couldn't possibly fit into the pattern of evolution. Every new fossil is thus a test of the theory of evolution. Evolution predicts that all of life, past and present, fits into the framework of the theory. There's thus a lot of room for falsification. Not so with creationism, which can't be falsified and which (as you agree) isn't science.

I suspect that on some of this, we are not so much disagreeing as we are using the terms in somewhat different ways. Someone said that "experiments test theories". I completely agree. Where I think we differ is that I do not believe that predictions, devoid of experimentation (testing) are sufficient to prove theories. I do not consider predictions, by themselves, to be a sufficient test of a theory (neither does the scientific method). Psychics make predictions, they do not test theories.

Of course, if a prediction is shown to be false, then the theory is disproved. However, a prediction shown to be true is along the lines of circumstantial evidence. And, as in evolution, when a prediction is shown to be false (e.g., gradualism), the theory is not disproved, it is simply changed. I am totally convinced that if large amounts of fossils were found totally out of order (and could not be explained away), someone would simply posit an entirely different form of evolutionary model to account for the facts and evolution would be claimed to still be proved, even though it is now an entirely different model.

Hopefully this will give them the opportunity to test some of their theories under more controlled circumstances, but the possibility that they will overturn years of theory based on observation as opposed to direct experimentation is vanishingly small. The astrophysicists know their stuff.

Experimentation is just detailed observation of the real world where you get to set the initial conditions yourself. It aids observation, but is not critical. Does the theory match the real world? That's the question.

Our understanding of the real world is based upon the observations of an almost insignificantly small corner of the universe. Our observations of distant stars are based entirely on what can be learned from the electromagnetic radiation received from them; and littered with the underlying hope that nothing has interfered with it on its journey across billions of light years. The data set that we have does not even approach a representative sample of the real data set. Simple illustration: whenever NASA has sent probes to the planets in our own solor system, the things we learn invariably turn upside down what we think we knew before. The reports are always littered with words like "surprise, unexpected, revolutionary".

This is actually a pretty darned good explanation of how scientific progress is made, including biology and studies of evolution. No one here is disputing you on this. You say, however, that this system does not apply to evolution, and it most assuredly does!

But without evolution begin subject to experimentation, how does it apply?

I'm less confused than you imagine. Experiments don't "prove" theories. They test theories. If a theory flunks an experiment, it's falsified. The key to being a scientific theory is the possibility of falsification. This is what separates science from, say, Genesis.

I never said that experiments prove theories. But, by your own definition - that falsification is dependendent on experimentation - evolution is not science, since evolution is not subject to experimentation and, therefore, cannot be falsified.

No problem. Done.

Thank you.

gomaa,

Thank you for your well-considered and civil response. I believe you are the first evolutionist who has done so (at least to my posts).

Eventually, though, quarks were instrumental in allowing physicists to produce the "Standard Model" which is one of the most complete and succesful THEORIES in the history of science. Nowadays quarks are widely accepted and proven to exist.

May I respectfully point out that the flaw in your argument from particle physics is that the study of particle physics is full of experimentation. The "tons of sub-atomic particles" to which you refer were discovered by smashing things together inside of particle acceslerators. (Who was it that made the analogy that it was like trying to discover how Swiss watches work by smashing them together and analyzing the broken pieces? :-)

EXPERIMENTATION IS REALLY JUST DETAILED OBSERVATION OF THE REAL WORLD. If you can control things, then great. If not, that doesn't mean you can't do good science, it just makes your job harder.

I'm not convinced. I look forward to your respone to 1574.

I hate it when a random mutation attacks my post! It always seems like some information gets lost in the process (Hmmmm.....). Here's the correct quote that I was responding to:

Perhaps it would be a better idea to suggest that those who are genuinely interested in a discussion -- instead of pontificating -- actively try to bring out the best possible presentation of the opposing position

I predict that this would do nothing stop those whose preferred debate strategy is it to call the other side names. How does that old nursery rhyme go?

I can never be guaranteed that someday my theory will not break under certain circumstance, but the more testing I do, the more confidence I will have. The best that your approach to "science" can offer is that you will continue to be assured that your model will continue to predict observations within the same narrow range of observations.

I predict that this would do nothing stop those whose preferred debate strategy is it to call the other side names. How does that old nursery rhyme go?

Being unable or unwilling to define science, you said,

This is the second rule you've invented in order to pervert science to your own creationist purposes. First, you demanded reproducable lab results, thus "outlawing" astronomy, geology, and of course evolution. Now you dismiss the element of making predictions, thus permitting creationism to claim scientific status. By the time you're done re-defining science, only Genesis will be left standing. Fortunately, the world of science is proceeding, notwithstanding your fantasy version of their enterprise.

You continue to confuse experimentation with predictions and what you said vs. what I said. I simply suggested (and clearly hedged by saying I hadn't given it much thought) that predictions of new phenomena may not be a requirement to prove a theory that explains an existing phenomenon. I also indicated that they were highly desirable nevertheless.

You, on the other hand, have clearly chosen to, and in fact advocate others to, ignore the essential ingredient of expermentation in the practice of science. That experimentation is part of the definition of the scientific method you did not address and yet you accuse me of re-defining science.

Suppose we have observations of 5 balls falling from a certain height. Your approach to science would make an hypothesis as to the undelying law of gravity that governs the motion of the balls and would create a model that describes your observations. Because your model adequately explains the motion of the 5 observed balls and, because you have 5 new observations of 5 other balls that fell from other heights whose motions also fit your model, you claim that your model (what you call a theory) is proved.

My version of science (the one that follows the scientific method, by the way), requires me to perform experiments on falling balls under many different circumstances, with many different sized balls of many different type of materials, and controlling as many variables as possible. By doing so, I discover that your model is incorrect and am able to develop a theory that is based upon my controlled experimentation. Furthermore, it turns out to be predictive of new experiments that I perform with more variables controlled. In doing so, I discover something called "air" and learn that I must exclude it from my experiments in order to properly describe the law of gravity. I then go on to study this substance called "air", develop the equations that describe its drag on objects, the relationship between velocity and pressure, and eventually invent the airplane (but I digress, uh... progress :-)

Why was your theory wrong? Because all of your observations were of balls made of styrofoam that were dropped from large heights and you had no way of controlling for wind resistance. But you had no choice. Because you were constrained simply to model the observations you had, you could not control the conditions nor cause the balls to fall. In addition, you didn't even know that such a thing as air existed, much less that there might be wind. This is the folly of equating models with scientific theories.

I can never be guaranteed that someday my theory will not break under certain circumstances, but the more testing I do, the more confidence I will have. The best that your approach to "science" can offer is that you will continue to be assured that your model will continue to predict observations within the same narrow range of observations.

Evolutionists cannot control the conditions of the past and they cannot cause apes to turn into people.By the same token, creationsists cannot control the conditions of the past and they cannot create people ex nihilo. Conclusion: neither evolution nor creation are science as they are commonly practiced. (I'll bet your surprised to hear my say that.)

By the way, thank you for attributing to me the experimentation phase of the scientific method ("the second rule I invented"), but I must be honest in that I first learned of it from my sixth grade teacher.

Is it possible for you to refute my position on the scientific method with more than a claim of "I'm right and your an idiot"? Still waiting.

I haven't noticed very many models of emotion or animal behavior, except in film making and video games.

And, at the end of the day, if we succeed in creating AI, we will have shown that intelligence can be created by intelligent beings.

Scientists only agree..................to disagree!!

Dear bondserv,

The scientists on this forum cannot even agree on the definition of science! It's now wonder much of this discussion is nothing more than name-calling and vain attempts to categorize people into the enlightened (evolutionists) and the ignorant (those who reject evolution). May I say that your posts are decidedly devoid of these attempts to avoid discussion. On the contrary, you have provided valuable insight into the real underlying issues.

The evolutionists on this forum claim that creation-science is not science because it does not make predictions. Predictions, though not formally a part of the scientific method, are generally implicit within it and are a normal part of its practice. I've never given it much thought before, but it may very well be that predictions are not an essential part of the scientific method. However, they are natural outcomes of theory.

What I mean is, if the goal of the scientific method is to explain a phenomenon, than the only prediction that is required of the explanatory hypothesis is the prediction of the phenomenon itself. I don't think it's required (although it is highly desirable) that the hypothesis predict new phenomena.

Now, when I confronted the evolutionists with the premise that the theory of evolution is not scientific because it is, in general, not subject to experimentation (a crucial step in the scientific method), they responded by saying that experimentation is not necessary. In other words, they simply redefine science. This is the same ploy that they use with evolution itself. They keep redefining it but don't change the name.

No one disagreed with the definition of the scientific method, it was (and is) simply ignored. Other disciplines that do the same were cited as proof that it's OK to ignore experimentation. This proves nothing, of course. It just means that there are a lot of scientists out there who don't even know that they are not practicing science. I can understand their resistance, of course, as it's hard to admit that you haven't really understood you life's pursuit.

So, evolutionists and non-evolutionists alike, how about we try to come to a consensus on the definition of science before we continue? It seems to me that we'll never get anywhere without agreeing on this. I'm looking for a serious effort in this regard that rises above "my definition is the right one and you're an idiot". There, now no one has to say it.