On the Nature of Science
Kent
you might be interested in an article that appeared in the recent
issue of "Physics in Canada". A pdf version of the pape can be found
at http://trshare.triumf.ca/~jennings/PhysicsInCanada-63-2007-7.pdf
Kent
Earle Jones
"Kent" <musqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://trshare.triumf.ca/~jennings/PhysicsInCanada-63-2007-7.pdf
*
Kent: After a quick (too quick) reading, this seems like an
extremely well-though-out tutorial on the subject.
earle
*
Glenn
fact is a failure of categories and indicates a profound ignorance of
the nature of empirical knowledge."
If true there are many evolutionists here who are profoundly ignorant.
Earle Jones
Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
*
Glenn: Greetings!
I suggest you read the "Physics in Canada" article before you
conclude that evolutionists are "profoundly ignorant".
This very thoughtful tutorial description of today's science by
Byron Jennings covers many topics that you should know.
It really goes back to basics -- what is science? What is it we
know and what is it we don't know?
You might learn a bit by studying Jennings' paper.
earle
*
Glenn
> In article <1176773181.790926.101...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 11:23 am, "Kent" <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Since there is much discussion of what science is now this new group
> > > you might be interested in an article that appeared in the recent
> > > issue of "Physics in Canada". A pdf version of the pape can be found
> > > athttp://trshare.triumf.ca/~jennings/PhysicsInCanada-63-2007-7.pdf
>
> > "Trying to classify evolution or any empirical model as fact or non-
> > fact is a failure of categories and indicates a profound ignorance of
> > the nature of empirical knowledge."
>
> > If true there are many evolutionists here who are profoundly ignorant.
>
> *
> Glenn: Greetings!
>
> I suggest you read the "Physics in Canada" article before you
> conclude that evolutionists are "profoundly ignorant".
I suggest you learn how to read.
>
> This very thoughtful tutorial description of today's science by
> Byron Jennings covers many topics that you should know.
How do you know what I should know?
>
> It really goes back to basics -- what is science? What is it we
> know and what is it we don't know?
>
> You might learn a bit by studying Jennings' paper.
>
Which you apparently didn't.
Kent
Certainly the article is inconsistent with the evolution is a fact
FAQ. Much of the evolution is fact, no it isn't, yes it is etc that
goes on here is not very enlightening. Rather than worry about
whether or not evolution has passed some arbitrary standard to be
declared a fact, one should concentrate on the evidence. In
particular evolutions predictive ability.
Kent
Bloopen...@juno.com
I agree. So in your opinion, does it have a predictive ability?
Kent
Absolutely! Tiktaalik roseae was a nice confirmation of the
predictions of evolution (combined with geology etc). One can engage
in semantic arguments about whether or not it is a missing or
transitional from but it is clearly a successful prediction: fossils
of that type were predicted to be found in that type of rock.
Kent
Ray Martinez
> In article <1176773181.790926.101...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
Earle: Jennings is an evolutionist; therefore his assertions and
conclusions about what science is are very predictable and of course,
predetermined. What do you not understand?
Jennings belief that evolution is science is the epitome of biased
subjectivity. Objective persons know that science is not defined by
what the majority or minority believes it to be, but exists
independently: both parties attempt to show that their theories best
explain the facts of independent science.
Ray (Creationist)
snex
jesus said that true believers could drink poison and no harm would
come to them. how does this theory best explain the facts of
independent science?
Kent
I realize this is a strange suggestion, but you might actually read
the article before commenting on it.
Kent
Ye Old One
So. What do we have. Evolution -v-
Oh, nothing. At the moment there is no alternative theory.
>
>
>Ray (Creationist)
And worshiper of evil.
--
Bob.
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:1176843275....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Ray, can you please read and make a honest attempt at understanding what you
read? You start out by assuming that Jennings may safely be ignored, since
you already KNOW that what he says cannot be true, but must be false.
Objective persons seeking facts and understanding study their subject first,
and try to understand what they read in its own context, befor making a
judgement. I belive you never honestly have studied any argument from
science, from scientists, and never have studied the scientific evidence for
the theory of evolution.
Science is defined by people who knows and understands.
Criticism and denial comes from pople like you, who do not know, but are
blinded by faith.
Your criticism is worthless and leads nowhere. Who do you think you impress
with your ramblings? Whatever you say - it is nothing to refute. So why
bother refuting nonsense? It is more fun telling you what one thinks of you
and your sad comrades.
I don't have to tell you anymore, you know darn well I rate you as
equivalent with the rear end of a bull.
Rolf (Knower of truth)
> Ray (Creationist)
>
Kermit
Quote mining, Glen?
>From the paper:
"Trying to classify evolution or any empirical model as fact or not-
fact is a failure of categories and indicates a profound ignorance of
the nature of empirical knowledge. Evolution is a model, hence
tentative, but a model with extraordinary predictive power. That is
high praise, the highest science can give."
Kermit
richardal...@googlemail.com
What I *do* understand is that when you make assertions such as this I
can call you a bigot and and idiot without any fear of contradiction
(at least, not by anyone who is not a bigot and an idiot).
RF
Ray Martinez
Identification of "bigotry" by innuendo. Why do persons do this?
Answer: Because there is no bigotry.
Since Forrest is an Atheist-Evolutionist and I am a Theist-Creationist
the slander is explained by this fact alone.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> skrev i meldingnews:1176843275....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Negative.
I pointed out that Jennings is an evolutionist; therefore, his
opinions about what is, and is not science, is very predictable.
> Objective persons seeking facts and understanding study their subject first,
> and try to understand what they read in its own context, before making a
> judgement. I believe you never honestly have studied any argument from
> science, from scientists, and never have studied the scientific evidence for
> the theory of evolution.
>
Or maybe the fact that you are a Darwinist and I am a Creationist
explain your belief?
> Science is defined by people who knows and understands.
> Criticism and denial comes from pople like you, who do not know, but are
> blinded by faith.
>
Again, what you consider science I consider atheist faith. In reality,
science presupposes God as Creator because observation justifies.
Don't agree? We don't expect atheists to agree.
> Your criticism is worthless and leads nowhere. Who do you think you impress
> with your ramblings? Whatever you say - it is nothing to refute. So why
> bother refuting nonsense? It is more fun telling you what one thinks of you
> and your sad comrades.
>
> I don't have to tell you anymore, you know darn well I rate you as
> equivalent with the rear end of a bull.
>
> Rolf (Knower of truth)
>
Since you are a Darwinist and I am a Creationist why should I feel
insulted? I am actually comforted that a Darwinist disapproves of me.
When a Darwinist approves of me I then become as you say or even
worse. What don't you undertstand?
Ray
Bloopen...@juno.com
> Again, what you consider science I consider atheist faith. In
reality,
> science presupposes God as Creator because observation justifies.
> Don't agree? We don't expect atheists to agree.
Well, I, for one, wouldn't expect atheists to agree, because I can't
understand what you're saying. What do you mean, "observation
justifies?" And why is it relevant?
DJT
> > Ray, can you please read and make a honest attempt at understanding what you
> > read? You start out by assuming that Jennings may safely be ignored, since
> > you already KNOW that what he says cannot be true, but must be false.
>
> Negative.
Denial.
>
> I pointed out that Jennings is an evolutionist; therefore, his
> opinions about what is, and is not science, is very predictable.
It may be "predictable" but it's also correct. If you feel that
Jennings is wrong, you'd need to present some evidence that he is
wrong about what is science.
>
> > Objective persons seeking facts and understanding study their subject first,
> > and try to understand what they read in its own context, before making a
> > judgement. I believe you never honestly have studied any argument from
> > science, from scientists, and never have studied the scientific evidence for
> > the theory of evolution.
>
> Or maybe the fact that you are a Darwinist and I am a Creationist
> explain your belief?
Again, Ray, ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Rolf being a
"Darwinist" has nothing to do with whether or not his assessment is
correct. You really don't show any signs of understanding the theory
of evolution, or the evidence that supports that theory.
>
> > Science is defined by people who knows and understands.
> > Criticism and denial comes from pople like you, who do not know, but are
> > blinded by faith.
>
> Again, what you consider science I consider atheist faith.
But opinions are not all equal. Science is not an atheist faith, and
there is no evidence that evolutionary theory is any more "atheist"
than any other science. Since atheists don't believe in God, speaking
about an "atheist faith" is an oxymoron.
> In reality,
> science presupposes God as Creator because observation justifies.
What "reality" is that? You don't get to pick and choose what
reality says. The rules of science as it's practiced here on Earth
don't allow presupposition of a supernatural being. Such
presuppositions are inherently unscientific. What you are calling
"observation" is really only your opinion, which is affected by your,
not science's suppositions.
> Don't agree? We don't expect atheists to agree.
I'm not an atheist, and I don't agree. Science doesn't change for
"theists" and "atheists". It's all the same science.
>
> > Your criticism is worthless and leads nowhere. Who do you think you impress
> > with your ramblings? Whatever you say - it is nothing to refute. So why
> > bother refuting nonsense? It is more fun telling you what one thinks of you
> > and your sad comrades.
>
> > I don't have to tell you anymore, you know darn well I rate you as
> > equivalent with the rear end of a bull.
>
> > Rolf (Knower of truth)
>
> Since you are a Darwinist and I am a Creationist why should I feel
> insulted?
Why do you think the truth should be an insult?
> I am actually comforted that a Darwinist disapproves of me.
That doesn't appear to be true, as evidenced by your response.
> When a Darwinist approves of me I then become as you say or even
> worse.
Ray, you often are happy to accept a "Darwinist" who agrees with
you.
What don't you undertstand?
Your claim, as it does not make any sense.
DJT
richardal...@googlemail.com
Why do you think that I am an atheist?
Or do you think that being opposed to dishonesty makes me an atheist?
You may prefer not to think what that tells people about your
morality, but it's very clear to everyone else.
RF
Kent
> On Apr 18, 9:56 am, "Rolf" <r...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
>
> Again, what you consider science I consider atheist faith. In reality,
> science presupposes God as Creator because observation justifies.
> Don't agree? We don't expect atheists to agree.
>
I humbly suggest you read the paper. Most of it does not deal with
evolution but is working scientist's (physicist's) view of what
science is.
Kent
DJT
Ray, anyone familiar with your posts is aware that it's not an
innuendo.
> Answer: Because there is no bigotry.
So, your hatred of Muslums, "infidel Jews" and anyone who disagrees
with you is no biogotry?
>
> Since Forrest is an Atheist-Evolutionist and I am a Theist-Creationist
> the slander is explained by this fact alone.
That's not slander, Ray, and ad hominem is still a logical fallacy.
DJT
CreateThis
Which, by the way, smacks of bigotry.
CT
>
>DJT
Kermit
Nope. He is predictable because he is a good scientist. You, however,
cannot predict what he is going to say because you do not understand
scientific methodology, nor the theory of evolution.
>
> > Objective persons seeking facts and understanding study their subject first,
> > and try to understand what they read in its own context, before making a
> > judgement. I believe you never honestly have studied any argument from
> > science, from scientists, and never have studied the scientific evidence for
> > the theory of evolution.
>
> Or maybe the fact that you are a Darwinist and I am a Creationist
> explain your belief?
No; that flies in the face of facts. I think Rolf characterized it
pretty succinctly. You have never given any indication that you
understand what evolutionary theory is; you have never properly
described scientific methodology; when you assert facts of biology or
history or linguistics you are invariably wrong, and demonstrably so.
This shows a malevolent or pathological intent to ignore reality. You
seem almost congenitally incapable of understanding that there is an
objective reality.
>
> > Science is defined by people who knows and understands.
> > Criticism and denial comes from pople like you, who do not know, but are
> > blinded by faith.
>
> Again, what you consider science I consider atheist faith.
Ray, you can consider it to be a succulent strawberry parfait for all
it matters. Your opinions on this are so detached from reality that
you change nobody's mind, do not affect the behavior of scientists and
their support structure one iota, and make as little a dent on reality
as it does on you.
> In reality,
> science presupposes God as Creator because observation justifies.
To the degree that this makes sense, it's wrong. Science presupposes
nothing except that the effort to understand reality is worthwhile.
Science will study God when God makes himself known in any perceptible
and verifiable way.
> Don't agree? We don't expect atheists to agree.
Of course this is true, if "Atheist" is defined as "Anyone who
disagrees with Ray on anything". It is, in fact, a tautology. But
nobody else uses the word that way, and it only contributes to the
annoyed or bemused frustration that follows your posts.
>
> > Your criticism is worthless and leads nowhere. Who do you think you impress
> > with your ramblings? Whatever you say - it is nothing to refute. So why
> > bother refuting nonsense? It is more fun telling you what one thinks of you
> > and your sad comrades.
>
> > I don't have to tell you anymore, you know darn well I rate you as
> > equivalent with the rear end of a bull.
>
> > Rolf (Knower of truth)
>
> Since you are a Darwinist and I am a Creationist why should I feel
> insulted? I am actually comforted that a Darwinist disapproves of me.
I am frankly baffled why anyone would take pride in never learning.
> When a Darwinist approves of me I then become as you say or even
> worse. What don't you undertstand?
Determined ignorance.
>
> Ray
Kermit
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Lying again Dishonest Ray? Your gods will be pleased with you.
>
>I pointed out that Jennings is an evolutionist; therefore, his
>opinions about what is, and is not science, is very predictable.
And as a creationist your opinions about what is, and isn't science,
are also very predictable.
>
>
>> Objective persons seeking facts and understanding study their subject first,
>> and try to understand what they read in its own context, before making a
>> judgement. I believe you never honestly have studied any argument from
>> science, from scientists, and never have studied the scientific evidence for
>> the theory of evolution.
>>
>
>Or maybe the fact that you are a Darwinist and I am a Creationist
>explain your belief?
No, reality explains his belief. Your dishonesty explains yours.
>
>
>> Science is defined by people who knows and understands.
>> Criticism and denial comes from pople like you, who do not know, but are
>> blinded by faith.
>>
>
>Again, what you consider science I consider atheist faith.
Atheists do not have faith - that is part of the definition of an
atheist.
> In reality,
>science presupposes God as Creator
Liar! Science does nothing of the sort.
>because observation justifies.
Justifies what? Certainly not a god, there is no evidence for one.
>Don't agree? We don't expect atheists to agree.
But atheists do agree, and so do a lot of creationists, we all agree
that you are dishonest.
>
>> Your criticism is worthless and leads nowhere. Who do you think you impress
>> with your ramblings? Whatever you say - it is nothing to refute. So why
>> bother refuting nonsense? It is more fun telling you what one thinks of you
>> and your sad comrades.
>>
>> I don't have to tell you anymore, you know darn well I rate you as
>> equivalent with the rear end of a bull.
>>
>> Rolf (Knower of truth)
>>
>
>Since you are a Darwinist and I am a Creationist why should I feel
>insulted?
Because, dishonest though you are, you know it is true.
>I am actually comforted that a Darwinist disapproves of me.
>When a Darwinist approves of me I then become as you say or even
>worse. What don't you undertstand?
What we don't understand is why you are such an ignorant, dishonest,
lying arsehole.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Except from you.
>
>Since Forrest is an Atheist-Evolutionist and I am a Theist-Creationist
>the slander is explained by this fact alone.
Yes, because most creationists are bigots like you.
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
Glenn
"As should be obvious from the discussions in this paper, evolution is
a model. A model, by its very nature, never becomes a "fact" that is
it never becomes certain but always remains tentative."
Ray Martinez
When we remember that you are an Evolutionist and I am a Creationist
your comment then "makes sense."
>
>
> > > Objective persons seeking facts and understanding study their subject first,
> > > and try to understand what they read in its own context, before making a
> > > judgement. I believe you never honestly have studied any argument from
> > > science, from scientists, and never have studied the scientific evidence for
> > > the theory of evolution.
>
> > Or maybe the fact that you are a Darwinist and I am a Creationist
> > explain your belief?
>
> No; that flies in the face of facts. I think Rolf characterized it
> pretty succinctly. You have never given any indication that you
> understand what evolutionary theory is; you have never properly
> described scientific methodology; when you assert facts of biology or
> history or linguistics you are invariably wrong, and demonstrably so.
> This shows a malevolent or pathological intent to ignore reality. You
> seem almost congenitally incapable of understanding that there is an
> objective reality.
>
Again, when we remember that the person who wrote above comments is an
Evolutionist and I am a Creationist all is explained. There is no
reason for me to take offence since, for all intents and purposes, all
Evolutionists feel this way about all Creationists (and vice-versa).
>
>
> > > Science is defined by people who knows and understands.
> > > Criticism and denial comes from pople like you, who do not know, but are
> > > blinded by faith.
>
> > Again, what you consider science I consider atheist faith.
>
> Ray, you can consider it to be a succulent strawberry parfait for all
> it matters. Your opinions on this are so detached from reality that
> you change nobody's mind, do not affect the behavior of scientists and
> their support structure one iota, and make as little a dent on reality
> as it does on you.
>
Re-read above observation.
> > In reality,
> > science presupposes God as Creator because observation justifies.
>
> To the degree that this makes sense, it's wrong. Science presupposes
> nothing except that the effort to understand reality is worthwhile.
> Science will study God when God makes himself known in any perceptible
> and verifiable way.
>
Science has always, since the beginning of calendar history,
presupposed a Creator for nature because the facts support. In
between, that is, between c.1874 until the present, a schism is in
progress which denies that the appearance of design corresponds to
invisible Designer. The schism is atheism-based and employs a
multitude of "theists" to protect its atheist intelligencia. Atheists
would not support the Theory of Evolution unless it corresponded to
their worldview. Said "theists" are phony or deluded or ignorant or
any combination thereof.
> > Don't agree? We don't expect atheists to agree.
>
> Of course this is true, if "Atheist" is defined as "Anyone who
> disagrees with Ray on anything". It is, in fact, a tautology. But
> nobody else uses the word that way, and it only contributes to the
> annoyed or bemused frustration that follows your posts.
>
Why do all atheists rabidly support evolution?
Question is rhetorical, of course.
Ray
SNIP...
Richard Clayton
[snip]
> Science has always, since the beginning of calendar history,
> presupposed a Creator for nature because the facts support. In
> between, that is, between c.1874 until the present, a schism is in
> progress which denies that the appearance of design corresponds to
> invisible Designer. The schism is atheism-based and employs a
> multitude of "theists" to protect its atheist intelligencia. Atheists
> would not support the Theory of Evolution unless it corresponded to
> their worldview. Said "theists" are phony or deluded or ignorant or
> any combination thereof.
[snip]
I'm still waiting for an example of this pre-1874 supernatural science,
Ray.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." — Joss Whedon
Kent
> Science has always, since the beginning of calendar history,
> presupposed a Creator for nature because the facts support. In
> between, that is, between c.1874 until the present, a schism is in
> progress which denies that the appearance of design corresponds to
> invisible Designer. The schism is atheism-based and employs a
> multitude of "theists" to protect its atheist intelligencia. Atheists
> would not support the Theory of Evolution unless it corresponded to
> their worldview. Said "theists" are phony or deluded or ignorant or
> any combination thereof.
>
Laplace (1749-1827) would not agree. See his exchange with Napoleon.
Kent
Stile4aly
<snip>
> > Of course this is true, if "Atheist" is defined as "Anyone who
> > disagrees with Ray on anything". It is, in fact, a tautology. But
> > nobody else uses the word that way, and it only contributes to the
> > annoyed or bemused frustration that follows your posts.
>
> Why do all atheists rabidly support evolution?
>
> Question is rhetorical, of course.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP...
Ray, the Raelian cult are not evolutionists, they are Intelligent
Design Advocates. Now, are you prepared to admit that not all
atheists "rabidly support evolution"?
Earle Jones
"Rolf" <ro...@tele2.no> wrote:
> > explain the facts of independent science...
*
It would be nice if you would explain your theories that offer a
better explanation than the evolutionary theory.
The theory of evolution, as broadened and improved over the last 150
years seems to be the one that science (as represented by the
overwhelming majority of the scientific community) has accepted. I
believe that most religious people believe in the evolutionary
theory. They have been able to reconcile the scientific findings
with their faith. However, some of the religious community
(especially the fundamentalist community) tend to disagree. But to
my knowledge they have not offered an alternative explanation.
Perhaps you can do so.
As you correctly state, "...science is not defined by what the
majority or minority believes it to be, but exists independently."
What is your theory?
earle
*
PS: If it is possible to state your theory without Biblical
quotations, that would be most appreciated. Thanks.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 18, 12:06 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 6:26 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 16, 11:23 am, "Kent" <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote:> Since there is much discussion of what science is now this new group
>> > > you might be interested in an article that appeared in the recent
>> > > issue of "Physics in Canada". A pdf version of the pape can be found
>> > > athttp://trshare.triumf.ca/~jennings/PhysicsInCanada-63-2007-7.pdf
>>
>> > "Trying to classify evolution or any empirical model as fact or non-
>> > fact is a failure of categories and indicates a profound ignorance of
>> > the nature of empirical knowledge."
>>
>> > If true there are many evolutionists here who are profoundly ignorant.
>>
>> Quote mining, Glen?
>>
>> >From the paper:
>>
>> "Trying to classify evolution or any empirical model as fact or not-
>> fact is a failure of categories and indicates a profound ignorance of
>> the nature of empirical knowledge. Evolution is a model, hence
>> tentative, but a model with extraordinary predictive power. That is
>> high praise, the highest science can give."
>>
>Quote mining, Kermit?
>
>"As should be obvious from the discussions in this paper, evolution is
>a model. A model, by its very nature, never becomes a "fact" that is
>it never becomes certain but always remains tentative."
In reality, evolution is a fact. The ToE does a good job of providing
a model of how that reality works.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Science has always, since the beginning of calendar history,
>presupposed a Creator for nature because the facts support.
Two lies in one sentence. Your god Gene 'Expletive Deleted' Scott
would be so proud of you if he was still around (thankfully, he
isn't).
--
Bob.
Kent
> In reality, evolution is a fact. The ToE does a good job of providing
> a model of how that reality works.
>
One of the points of the article is that in science "fact" is not a
useful concept. Evolution in all senses is just a model or models.
Kent
Glenn
science fact is not a useful concept". What he means is that calling
models facts are not useful in science. But observations are facts,
and in fact observation is part of the scientific method. Don't
confuse empirical knowledge with empirical data. From the article:
"The only important, enduring property of a model is its predictions
for observations." ..."Since science is based on observation..." ...
"Darwin, Einstein and Bohr are not the ultimate authorities in
science, the observations are." ... "I would add "I observe" to this
list of facts (sum, cogito, inspecto). Beyond that everything depends
on assumptions that cannot be rigorously proven."
Kent
>
> No, Jennings is speaking about models and knowledge. He didn't say "in
> science fact is not a useful concept". What he means is that calling
> models facts are not useful in science. But observations are facts,
> and in fact observation is part of the scientific method. Don't
> confuse empirical knowledge with empirical data. From the article:
> "The only important, enduring property of a model is its predictions
> for observations." ..."Since science is based on observation..." ...
> "Darwin, Einstein and Bohr are not the ultimate authorities in
> science, the observations are." ... "I would add "I observe" to this
> list of facts (sum, cogito, inspecto). Beyond that everything depends
> on assumptions that cannot be rigorously proven."
Observations are observations. Calling observations facts does not get
us anywhere. You should note how infrequently the word fact is used
in the article. Science deals with observations and models. The
problem with observations is that their interpretation is model
dependent. This was one of Kuhn's points about paradigms.
Kent
Glenn
calling observations facts doesn't get us anywhere is not supported by
the tautology, not supported by Jennings in the article, and false on
it's face. I don't know why you think it pertinent to note that the
word fact is used infrequently in the article, but that the author is
relating to scientific models is clear. Calling models facts does show
a profound ignorance of science. I'd say your claim about calling
observations facts does as well. Science is *based* on observations.
Predictions are *based* on observations. Observations are the one
*objective* element of science, and are what is defined as *scientific
facts*. Jennings does include observation to the list of "fact" in
science. It's true that observations are often "theory laden", but
that is a *problem*, not a reason to not characterize observations as
facts or not to distinguish facts from models. It does indeed "get us
anywhere" to understand the nature of the modern scientific method.
Ray Martinez
Before you said they were "atheist creationists," now they are IDists.
Nobody can be an atheist-creationist unless non-conventional meanings
of each word are being used. But none of this matters, here is why:
You are attempting to feign as if you do not understand my point (all
atheists are evolutionists). The observation is an axiomatic truth and
cannot be harmed by allegedly producing a freak or two. All that your
"attempt" does is to show how far a Darwinist will go to avoid self-
evident truth (all atheists are evolutionists).
By the way: where did I say ToE or Evolution makes sense?
Ray
wf3h
Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> I pointed out that Jennings is an evolutionist; therefore, his
> opinions about what is, and is not science, is very predictable.
>
so are the opinions of chemists and physicists...for the same reason
> > >
>
> Again, what you consider science I consider atheist faith. In reality,
> science presupposes God as Creator because observation justifies.
> Don't agree? We don't expect atheists to agree.
what about christians who don't agree with you?
oh...i forgot...you're the last christian left
yes,...creationists generally think they're the only true christians.
>
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
Nononono, you misunderstand me.
Ok, weather is a fact. Meteorology is an attempt to explain/understand
it.
Evolution is a fact. The ToE, and a lot of others, try to explain it.
>
>Kent
--
Bob.
Kent
> Ok, weather is a fact. Meteorology is an attempt to explain/understand
> it.
>
> Evolution is a fact. The ToE, and a lot of others, try to explain it.
>
>
In science we deal with two things: observations and models. In the
article scientific theories are called models for reasons discussed
there. Evolution, in the sense of common descent, is not an
observation. It is a model. Model is not meant to be an insult. The
earth going around the sun is a model, General relativity is a
model. Read the article you may find it informative.
Kent
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 19, 1:40 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>> Ok, weather is a fact. Meteorology is an attempt to explain/understand
>> it.
>>
>> Evolution is a fact. The ToE, and a lot of others, try to explain it.
>>
>>
>
>In science we deal with two things: observations and models. In the
>article scientific theories are called models for reasons discussed
>there. Evolution, in the sense of common descent, is not an
>observation.
Yes it is.
>It is a model. Model is not meant to be an insult.
Nor would I take it as such.
> The
>earth going around the sun is a model,
No, that is a fact.
> General relativity is a
>model. Read the article you may find it informative.
I did.
>
>Kent
--
Bob.
Al
> You are attempting to feign as if you do not understand my point (all
> atheists are evolutionists). The observation is an axiomatic truth and
> cannot be harmed by allegedly producing a freak or two. All that your
> "attempt" does is to show how far a Darwinist will go to avoid self-
> evident truth (all atheists are evolutionists).
No, wrong. Not all athiests are Darwinists. That's just plain wrong,
and faulty logic. I'm dead certain there are Christian Darwinists (eg
Darwin, at least early on), and there are non-darwinist Athiests. If
you want an example, here's a fairly well documented one; Communist
USSR, esp during Stalin's reign. Violently Athiest (not a term that
pops up frequently) that rejected Darwinist evolution in favour of the
semi-mystical Lamarckian.
(http://skepdic.com/lysenko.html)
Many Atheists would agree with at least the basics of Darwinian Theory
of Evolution. Given a full understanding of the Darwinian Theory of
Evolution, a person no longer requires a god (or flying speghetti
monster etc) hypothesis to explain biological complexity, and thus
sometimes leads to atheism. That does not mean the two are
equivalent.
Rolf
"Kent" <musqu...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:1177006941.3...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Gravity has been observed, it is an observation. Are we entitled to consider
gravity a fact as well,
or has any observation since Newton confirmed that it is but a theory - and
not a fact that we may rely on? Should we wait a couple of centuries more
before we may accept gravity as a fact?
How paranoid about the workings of the real world should we be? Can we
assume that anything is a fact, can we trust our own senses? Maybe we are
just a dream in some superbeing's mind? Who knows, who can tell with
authority and certainty? Now, how was it about the pope's beard again?
I think the bottom line now as always is, use some common sense paired with
knowledge and understanding and the world isn't such a bad place after all.
> Kent
>
DJT
snipping
\
...
>
> > Ray, the Raelian cult are not evolutionists, they are Intelligent
> > Design Advocates. Now, are you prepared to admit that not all
> > atheists "rabidly support evolution"?
>
> Before you said they were "atheist creationists," now they are IDists.
Basically the same thing. IDists are creationists, so it's accurate
to say that they are atheist creationists.
> Nobody can be an atheist-creationist unless non-conventional meanings
> of each word are being used.
bald assertions do not make it true.
> But none of this matters, here is why:
>
> You are attempting to feign as if you do not understand my point (all
> atheists are evolutionists).
He's not trying to "feign" anything. You are applying your own
standard of dishonesty to everyone else. As he pointed out, not all
atheists are "evolutionist", something you have admitted yourself.
(Velikovsky anyone?)
> the observation is an axiomatic truth and
> cannot be harmed by allegedly producing a freak or two.
an assertion is not an "axiomatic truth" just because you say it. If
you claim that "all" are of one group, counterexamples of members of
that group who are not as you claim count to refute that point.
> All that your
> "attempt" does is to show how far a Darwinist will go to avoid self-
> evident truth (all atheists are evolutionists).
But it's not "self evident" or "truth".
>
> By the way: where did I say ToE or Evolution makes sense?
Where have you ever shown it to not make sense?
DJT
TomS
<1176773181.7...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Glenn stated..."
>
>On Apr 16, 11:23 am, "Kent" <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since there is much discussion of what science is now this new group
>> you might be interested in an article that appeared in the recent
>> issue of "Physics in Canada". A pdf version of the pape can be found
>> athttp://trshare.triumf.ca/~jennings/PhysicsInCanada-63-2007-7.pdf
>>
>"Trying to classify evolution or any empirical model as fact or non-
>fact is a failure of categories and indicates a profound ignorance of
>the nature of empirical knowledge."
>
>If true there are many evolutionists here who are profoundly ignorant.
"When people use the _X is not a fact or _Y is not proven gambits it
is a tacit admission they have lost the science argument and they are
just trying to downplay the significance of that failing."
The final sentence of that article.
--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
Kent
> Gravity has been observed, it is an observation. Are we entitled to consider
> gravity a fact as well,
To be precise, gravity has not been observed. What has been observed
is things falling. The attraction that causes this is called
gravity.
> or has any observation since Newton confirmed that it is but a theory - and
> not a fact that we may rely on? Should we wait a couple of centuries more
> before we may accept gravity as a fact?
>
Note the false dichotomy: theory vs. fact. I would never accept any
model as a fact.
> How paranoid about the workings of the real world should we be? Can we
> assume that anything is a fact, can we trust our own senses? Maybe we are
> just a dream in some superbeing's mind? Who knows, who can tell with
> authority and certainty? Now, how was it about the pope's beard again?
>
We should not be paranoid just realistic about what one can and can
not be know.
Kent
Glenn
> "On 16 Apr 2007 18:26:21 -0700, in article
>
>
>
> >On Apr 16, 11:23 am, "Kent" <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Since there is much discussion of what science is now this new group
> >> you might be interested in an article that appeared in the recent
> >> issue of "Physics in Canada". A pdf version of the pape can be found
> >> athttp://trshare.triumf.ca/~jennings/PhysicsInCanada-63-2007-7.pdf
>
> >"Trying to classify evolution or any empirical model as fact or non-
> >fact is a failure of categories and indicates a profound ignorance of
> >the nature of empirical knowledge."
>
> >If true there are many evolutionists here who are profoundly ignorant.
>
> "When people use the _X is not a fact or _Y is not proven gambits it
> is a tacit admission they have lost the science argument and they are
> just trying to downplay the significance of that failing."
>
> The final sentence of that article.
>
TomS
<1177088800.0...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Glenn stated..."
I suppose that I could point out that your lame response is a
tacit admission of the poverty of your thoughts. But I won't
do that.
Perhaps you didn't notice that this quotation is taken from the
article that the original poster was citing as an authority. Perhaps
you didn't read the argumentation presented in that article to
back up the concluding statement.
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
Glenn
> "On 20 Apr 2007 10:06:40 -0700, in article
this source provides support for that. My response to you was not lame
at all; I simply used what was in the article: "Trying to classify
evolution as ... fact...is a failure...and indicates a profound
ignorance of the nature of empirical knowledge." When you are
profoundly ignorant, idiot, you stand a good chance of "losing the
science argument".
The whole last paragraph, for idiots that don't think anyone else can
open the file and read for themselves:
"Evolution is a model with extraordinary predictive power. That is the
highest praise science can give."
"Trying to classify evolution or any empirical model as fact or not-
fact is a failure of categories and indicates a profound ignorance of
the nature of empirical knowledge. Evolution is a model, hence
tentative, but a model with extraordinary predictive power. That is
high praise, the highest science can give. Similar arguments are also
made against other models: science has not proven X. For example X
might be global warming due to green-house gases. Of course science
has not proven X. Proofs are the domain of mathematics, not the
empirical sciences. When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not
proven gambits it is a tacit admission they have lost the science
argument and they are just trying to downplay the significance of that
failing."
End paragraph*********
TomS
<1177363075.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Glenn stated..."
Many people confuse evolution - something that happens - with the
theory that explains how it happens. Or, maybe, one can be
charitable and say that it is a loose or informal use of language, to
say "evolution" when "the theory of evolution" is meant.
Glenn
> "On 23 Apr 2007 14:17:55 -0700, in article
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
> admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
> downplay the significance of that failing."
>
> - Show quoted text -