- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
01 May 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI thought string theory was a theory by name only (as in mathematical model), that in fact
No, creationism is only a failure for positivism, which is a philosophy of science. In earlier ages it was believed that you could come to correct conclusions about nature on the basis of reason alone - this didn't mean that they weren't scientists. Positivism makes some claims to what science is which are at odds with how it is actually practis ...[text shortened]... ergy scales you need to reach are too high - despite this it is regarded as a scientific theory.
it's considered an hypothesis by everyone but theoretical physicists.
The fact that there's no empirical evidence for it at this moment (if that's the case), in no
way implies that the model can't be tested in the future. So it falls in the category of
potential scientific theories, whereas creationism fails by empirical standards from the get
go.
01 May 14
4 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSome people would argue that String Theory is NOT a scientific theory precisely because of positivism because it cannot ( currently ) be verified (and I personally think they have a perfectly valid point although that may change if a clever workaround is eventually found to verify the theory ) .
No, creationism is only a failure for positivism, which is a philosophy of science. In earlier ages it was believed that you could come to correct conclusions about nature on the basis of reason alone - this didn't mean that they weren't scientists. Positivism makes some claims to what science is which are at odds with how it is actually practis ...[text shortened]... ergy scales you need to reach are too high - despite this it is regarded as a scientific theory.
But, even if you allow String theory to be categorized as a scientific theory, that allowance still leaves a huge gulf between Creationism and String theory as far as how scientific each is because one is a supernatural explanation and the other isn't. Obviously, any theory that assumes the existence of the supernatural let alone a god, despite no proof of any such thing existing, MUST be, by any reasonable stretch of the definition of the word “scientific”, unscientific! And at least String theory doesn't assume the existence of a supernatural let alone a god!
I assume that any such 'stretched' definition of the word "scientific" would go more or less along the lines of it meaning "explanation of something observed which doesn't assume the existence of anything supernatural" -note how the word "verifiable" has been omitted from this definition which is how it is 'stretched' (and, perhaps arguably, TOO 'stretched'! )
01 May 14
Originally posted by C HessScience is grounded in empirical evidence, which means it is a result of a repeatable experiment.
If by experiment you mean observation, then my statement stands. Science is grounded in
empirical evidence, so creationism is by definition a failed hypothesis.
Trying to use science to prove anything other than what can be done is simply a misuse of science. This is where you are not getting it.
01 May 14
Originally posted by EladarNot all empirical evidence is "a result of a repeatable experiment." For example, there is strong empirical evidence the Holocaust happened, but I doubt scientists are willing to attempt to repeat it any time soon.
Science is grounded in empirical evidence, which means it is a result of a repeatable experiment.
Trying to use science to prove anything other than what can be done is simply a misuse of science. This is where you are not getting it.
01 May 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou can choose to believe that it happened or you can choose to deny it. It can't be proven by science. It is recorded by people and you can choose to believe it or reject it.
Not all empirical evidence is "a result of a repeatable experiment." For example, there is strong empirical evidence the Holocaust happened, but I doubt scientists are willing to attempt to repeat it any time soon.
Originally posted by EladarYou just proved that, just like RJHinds, you don't know what science is.
You can choose to believe that it happened or you can choose to deny it. It can't be proven by science. It is recorded by people and you can choose to believe it or reject it.
KazetNagorra is simply right about "Not all empirical evidence is "a result of a repeatable experiment."..."
and your assertion that: "..Science is grounded in empirical evidence, which means it is a result of a repeatable experiment. .." is not only wrong but illogical for the above is a false inference i.e. the conclusion of "which means it is a result of a repeatable experiment" is not logically implied by the premise of "Science is grounded in empirical evidence" thus, you don't only demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of what science actually is about but also your complete lack of understanding of pretty basic deductive logic.
It is a law of logic that for a deductive inference to be correct, there must necessarily be a logical contradiction between the premise being true the conclusion being false.
So where is the logical contradiction in "Science is grounded in empirical evidence" being true and " it is a result of a repeatable experiment" being false when examples of where the former is true and the latter false can be given? -answer, none.
For example, the empirical evidence of Shoemaker-Levy 9 Comet's hitting Jupiter:
http://www.space.com/19855-shoemaker-levy-9.html
-OK, is that empirical evidence of that event, YES OR NO? If YES, was that empirical evidence as a result "repeatable experiment"? YES OR NO? If YES, HOW so ? -do you need "repeatable experiment" just to look through a telescope at a one-time event? -that makes no sense. If NO, then that is an example of your inference being false and only one such example needs to be given (although I can give many more examples ) to prove the whole deductive inference false i.e not logically valid.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt was right in the science books long before radiometric dating was invented to make the dating seem scientific. Radiometric dating has already been shown to be unreliable and generally always wrong.
So now you are an expert on geology as well as evolution a life origins?
Instead of just believing anything some assswipe says on a video who is an avowed creationist, why don't you instead ask a geologist?
You will get straight answers and the history of dating rocks to boot.
That so-called circular reasoning thing was how they did it in the 19t ...[text shortened]... is.
Much as your buddies will try to use politics to deflect that truth, that IS the truth.
I don't believe what any asswipe says. That is why I don't believe in the theory of evolution and in millions and billions of years.
01 May 14
Originally posted by humyI don't agree with positivism, I don't think it's possible to construct a Philosophy of Science which is complete and non-contradictory. Either the sentence "To be true an idea has to have been rigorously compared with empirical data." can't be tested and so can't count as a scientific truth (incompleteness), or to avoid a contradiction you do what Popper did and reverse the burden of proof. In Popper's approach the sentence becomes something along the lines of: "To be true a theory must not be contradicted by experiment." the problem then is that one only has contingent truth, including of the basis of one's scientific method. Besides how does one falsify the statement? It's already a bad theory by its own standards. So I don't think positivism can succeed in it's mission of abolishing meta-physics. As a practical approach I've no problem with it, but I feel one has to accept that the reliance on empirical confirmation to distinguish theories is not based on empiricism.
Some people would argue that String Theory is NOT a scientific theory precisely because of positivism because it cannot ( currently ) be verified (and I personally think they have a perfectly valid point although that may change if a clever workaround is eventually found to verify the theory ) .
But, even if you allow String theory to be categorized as a sc ...[text shortened]... d from this definition which is how it is 'stretched' (and, perhaps arguably, TOO 'stretched'! )
The other problem with positivism is that it doesn't describe how science works. If a theory makes testable predictions and they are found to agree with an experiment then the theory is regarded as true - at least to within the precision of the experiment. The problem with the falsification argument is that you'd have to disprove the theory using its own language, which means that you can only test it on predictions it makes rather than phenomena that it doesn't account for but should (assuming no such phenomena are known prior to the theory being tested), so you don't know what to look for.
For example with the Higgs the Standard Model is basically confirmed by the discovery of a suitable particle with a mass of 125 GeV. They'll continue to make measurements to ensure it behaves the way the Standard Model predicts. But to falsify the Higgs Mechanism you'd have to find a phenomenon which actually contradicts the model and it's difficult to know what to look for without just searching for anomalies.
From my view, the real problem with creationism as a scientific theory is that it explains whatever one wants it to without actually predicting anything. So, it's impossible to distinguish from any other theory (assuming God isn't going to suddenly appear and say: "It was me after all..." ). I don't think it's invalid per say, it's just scientifically unhelpful.
01 May 14
Originally posted by C HessIt appears to me that the Theory of Evolution fails your four minimum standards:
A scientific hypothesis must, at a minimum fit with these points that creationism fails:
1. A scientific hypothesis is falsifiable. Nothing supernatural can be tested, therefore no
hypothesis involving the supernatural can be falsified; creationism fails.
2. A scientific hypothesis must be dropped when reality produce evidence to contradict it.
Such ...[text shortened]... y tells us; creationism fails.
If you have any points, feel free to add them. I must run now.
1. The Theory of Evolution relies on the supernatural ability of the god called "evolution" to do things that can not be tested. Evolution fails.
2. There seems to me to be many things that conflicts with and disproves the Theory of Evolution, but the faithful hang on to it anyway. One example is a process called metamorphosis. To become a butterfly, a caterpillar first digests itself. But certain groups of cells survive, turning the soup into eyes, wings, antennae and other adult structures to produce a butterfly. Evolution fails.
3. The order, complexity, and purpose revealed in the creations in nature is not something that would be expected by a random process suggested by the Theory of Evolution. Programming code used in the DNA with living cells seems to suggest an intelligent mind behind the processes rather than the mindless random chance of the Theory of Evolution. Evolution fails.
4. If the hypothesis is correct there should be no need to keep changing it like is happening with evolution. Evolution fails.
02 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsR.J. - this is fairly silly, even by your standards.
It appears to me that the Theory of Evolution fails your four minimum standards:
1. The Theory of Evolution relies on the supernatural ability of the god called "evolution" to do things that can not be tested. Evolution fails.
2. There seems to me to be many things that conflicts with and disproves the Theory of Evolution, but the faithful hang on to ...[text shortened]... t there should be no need to keep changing it like is happening with evolution. Evolution fails.
1) The theory of Evolution does not rely on any supernatural ingredients.
2) Metamorphosis of butterflies does not disprove evolutionary theory.
3) Evolution is not a random process. There is no evidence for a designer in DNA.
4) The paradigm (species evolve into different species over large numbers of generations) has not changed. The precise mechanisms involved have as science has advanced.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. Evolution requires errors to introduce mutations that are necessary for evolution to take place, so the DNA replication process itself is designed to fight against evolution.
R.J. - this is fairly silly, even by your standards.
1) The theory of Evolution does not rely on any supernatural ingredients.
2) Metamorphosis of butterflies does not disprove evolutionary theory.
3) Evolution is not a random process. There is no evidence for a designer in DNA.
4) The paradigm (species evolve into different species over lar ...[text shortened]... of generations) has not changed. The precise mechanisms involved have as science has advanced.
The Intelligent Designer did not intend to use evolution to produce the varieties of living organism or else He would not have made these error checking and correcting mechanisms to prevent mutations. This is strong evidence against the theory of evolution.
Part 18: Error Corrections in DNA Guard Against Random Mutations
Part 19: Error Corrections in DNA pt 2
02 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThat's not science. Didn't you know science? You told us so? Shame on you!
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. Evolution requires errors to introduce mutations that are necessary for evolution to take place, so the DNA replication process itself is designed to fight against evolution.
The Intelligent Designer did not ...[text shortened]... cting mechanisms to prevent mutations. This is strong evidence against the theory of evolution.
Go to the Spiritual Forum if you want to preach about intelligent design.