aah perfec. simple and understandable.
now lets hope, peter, bigdog, kent and 9taisl understand this.
"What is Science"?
17 Comments - 3006 Views
Submitted By doctorofscience on 09/04/06
FreeHovind, doctorofscience, Creation and Evolution
I recently came across an essay by a writer named Paul Lutus, who attempts to explain science in a way that is accessible to the layman - while also addressing some common misconceptions:
There are a few points which are directly relevant to the evolution/creation "debate" in general - and many of the threads here in particular.
His explanation of a point that I've made here a few times (that NO theory is every considered proven in science):
scientific theories cannot ever be proven true, but may perpetually be proven false by new evidence. An explanation of this was perhaps best offered by philosopher John Stuart Mill,
who said, "No amount of observations of white swans can allow the
inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single
black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion."
His summary of the elements of science:
Here is a concise list of the elements of science:
- The highest priority is given to evidence.
- A theory is an idea supported by evidence.
- A hypothesis is an idea not supported by evidence.
- Evidence must eventually result in a theory that:
- addresses existing evidence.
- generalizes specific cases.
- can be tested using, and potentially be falsified by, evidence.
- An idea with no supporting evidence is assumed to be false (the null hypothesis).
- A field with evidence but no theories is not scientific.
- A field with theories but no evidence is not scientific.
His explanation of the "null hypothesis," a concept that explains why most scientists do not accept supernatural explanations:
There is one key property of scientific thinking that is often overlooked but crucial to understanding how science works. That property is the null hypothesis. In practice and to simplify a technical point, under the null hypothesis a claim is assumed to be false unless and until it is supported by evidence. In normal human communications, things are assumed to be true unless proven false, but in science, that outlook is too undisciplined to lead to anything useful. It is because of the null hypothesis that scientists are regarded as skeptical of ideas unaccompanied by evidence.
His explanation of why logical fallacies should be avoided:
Students of debate learn to avoid what are called "logical fallacies", tactics that have no place in a productive debate and that can only waste the time of the participants.
[...]
It is important to understand that logical fallacies are not merely
weak debate tactics, they represent arguments that have no validity
whatever and have no place in intelligent debate.
And he also makes a few specific points about creationism/intelligent design:
Religious pseudoscientists, like the advocates of "intelligent design", e.g. creationists,
have the same goal and use the same strategy as psychologists. If
science can be defined as something that doesn't require evidence, then
pseudoscience becomes science by decree.
[...]
Achievement of this goal would require the acceptance of untestable
supernatural agencies and the abandonment within science of evidence,
experiment and testable theories. As before, everything is gone but the
name.
This demand has its roots in the
realization that science can produce vaccines and in other ways
alleviate human suffering to a degree that prayer doesn't seem able to
match, and rather than reconsider their attachment to an untestable
belief system, truly dedicated religious believers would prefer to
dismantle the modern world, starting with science (nothing is so
offensive to a religious believer as an effective non-religious life
strategy).
» Reply to CommentRe:
thebiblewascompiledin325AD
5 days - 8,032v
Posted 2009/04/07 - 7:20 GMT
now lets hope, peter, bigdog, kent and 9taisl understand this.
Sadly, I doubt it will convince anyone. I mainly posted it as something that can be referred back to, rather than explaining the same points over and over again (which is also why the author wrote it, I believe).
With most people, when you point that they're relying on logical fallacies or flawed arguments, they will adjust their tactics. Even if it's just to avoid handing their opposition an easy counter-argument.
Not so with creationists, at least not in my experience. I guess that's what happens when someone considers intellectual honesty to be less-important than simply being steadfast in their beliefs.
Of course, that trait isn't exclusive to creationists - I've noticed the same thing from secular proponents of psuedoscientific ideas (E.g., moon landing hoax, homeopathy, "UFOlogy," etc).
why are we even here sci? -_- seems like we are waisting so much valuable time on this pointless crap. it'll be more effectice to go to the biblebelt, stand on a soapbox and logitroll the crap out of them.
"No matter how much times you hit a creationist on the head with a gid stick. His skull won't become more logic premeable"
perhaps that quote migth go viral on teh internets?
why are we even here sci?
It can be an entertaining diversion from work :)
Oddly enough, I am actually grateful to Hovind and "Hovind-ites" for one thing: reading background information on their claims has brought me back up-to-date on topics I had a strong interest in when younger (astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, archaelogy, paleo-anthropology, etc).
Of course, I'm sure that's not the intended effect - since it usually doesn't take much research to realize the flaws in Hovind's arguments. Although I get the impression that he's not really trying to convert anyone. It seems more like Hovind's goal is to reassure "true believers" of their existing beliefs - he's a one-man echo chamber.
But I digress.
Science is the study of the unknown.
that is a bit of an oversilification.
Rswanson.
science isn't just the search, it also has a very specific method. and THAT is what people exclude a lot.
Nice attempt. Don't know about the logical fallacies. This is a different language from philosophy. If I remember my philosophy right I am quite certain a logical fallacy cannot exist. They were long on that point.
Oh and 325 what part of that was I not supposed to get.
This of course is not Darwinism. He spoke to provable arguments quite often. As far as intelligent design goes. I confess to being onside with that camp but I will use the psychological angle if need be this week. I can remember a few years ago the big bang was considered intelligent design, I am sure in some circles it still is so I guess I can wait for the next bus to come along.
I prefer not to associate with logical fallacies anyway. Im a little past that much prefering infallible logic which is what philosophy is based on and psychology is the child of philosophy.
I would prefer to deal with evidence that results in conclusions and not get trapped on the perpetual motion machine of evolution. Definitions are not as important as science, Especially self defeating and limiting ones.
Evolution is a fact not a theory. It can be proven, it is proven every day. What is not provable are the hair brained notions that have been included such as crossing the species line. The facts should be seperated out from such ideas then we could forget this evidence bs, relegate that to the theory bucket and proceed with more detailed logic and see where that leads.
I know how lonesome you guys get but like I have said their are 12 other theories and counting. I am a member of 1. They obviously do not all promote the same scam so you be happy in your small world And Ill do great in mine. We all get locked into the reality of our choosing. You know if we came up with a scientific law why wouldnt it be considered a philosophy? As a philosophy it would lose all the muck evolution gets stuck in. Now thats a goal. Luck. Im sure glad this Forum is not about evolution arent you?
Oh and 325 what part of that was I not supposed to get.
This of course is not Darwinism. He spoke to provable arguments quite often. As far as intelligent design goes. I confess to being onside with that camp but I will use the psychological angle if need be this week. I can remember a few years ago the big bang was considered intelligent design, I am sure in some circles it still is so I guess I can wait for the next bus to come along.
I prefer not to associate with logical fallacies anyway. Im a little past that much prefering infallible logic which is what philosophy is based on and psychology is the child of philosophy.
I would prefer to deal with evidence that results in conclusions and not get trapped on the perpetual motion machine of evolution. Definitions are not as important as science, Especially self defeating and limiting ones.
Evolution is a fact not a theory. It can be proven, it is proven every day. What is not provable are the hair brained notions that have been included such as crossing the species line. The facts should be seperated out from such ideas then we could forget this evidence bs, relegate that to the theory bucket and proceed with more detailed logic and see where that leads.
I know how lonesome you guys get but like I have said their are 12 other theories and counting. I am a member of 1. They obviously do not all promote the same scam so you be happy in your small world And Ill do great in mine. We all get locked into the reality of our choosing. You know if we came up with a scientific law why wouldnt it be considered a philosophy? As a philosophy it would lose all the muck evolution gets stuck in. Now thats a goal. Luck. Im sure glad this Forum is not about evolution arent you?
Nice attempt. Don't know about the logical fallacies. This is a different language from philosophy."
LAWL. ANY arguement even when it's NOT philospical needs to be backed up by a logically corret arguement in order for it to be sound.
did you really think it only applied to philosophy?!! maan where would science be if logic DIDN;"T need to apply to it...
"If I remember my philosophy right I am quite certain a logical fallacy cannot exist."
so circular reasoning, false dichtramony, appeals to... and ad hominems do not exist?
" I can remember a few years ago the big bang was considered intelligent design"
If you do not accept stellar and cosloligical formation theories (natural explinations) that is.
"Definitions are not as important as science,"
oh rly? soo we don't fix a theory doesn't compirse of specific hypothesis that accurately explain specific points?
i think you migth want to look up HOW thebranchign and common ancestory work. no crocoduck there. and alos i would suggest logical absolutes.
outside of science and logic. you have only made up your own imagination, aka what you pull out your ass.
"We all get locked into the reality of our choosing."
IF you have a closed mind that is.
"You know if we came up with a scientific law why wouldnt it be considered a philosophy"
a law is" as long as Y and X are THIS, Z will happen" like newtons laws.
but to compare scientific laws to a philosophy is, well.. i really don't see the relevance in that.
If I remember my philosophy right I am quite certain a logical fallacy cannot exist. They were long on that point.
According to which school of philosophy? I doubt any but the most wishy-washy post-modernists would make the claim that "a logical fallacy cannot exist."
I will use the psychological angle if need be this week.
What does psychology have to do with it?
I can remember a few years ago the big bang was considered intelligent design,
Not in sense that the term "intelligent design" is used today. The Big Bang was endorsed by some Christians because it was seen as more compatible with their beliefs than the previous idea of a "Steady State" universe. In other words, some (Catholics particularly) latched onto the idea that, if the universe had a beginning, then there could have been a creator.
The problem with that stance is, as I've pointed out many many times: POSSIBLITY does not even imply PROBABILITY, let alone LIKELIHOOD.
Im a little past that much prefering infallible logic which is what
philosophy is based on and psychology is the child of philosophy.
The concept of logical fallacy actually comes from philosophy - or, if you want to split hairs, it at least comes from philosophers:
I would prefer to deal with evidence that results in conclusions and
not get trapped on the perpetual motion machine of evolution.
That's going about it backwards. There's no sense in moving onto to the evidence gathering/research stage until after a claim has been found to be AT LEAST logically-sound. In the same way that you don't get to go to graduate school if you haven't finished elementary school first.
What is not provable are the hair brained notions that have been included such as crossing the species line.
To repeat the first quote that I included in the opening post:
scientific theories cannot ever be proven true, but may perpetually be
proven false by new evidence. An explanation of this was perhaps best
offered by philosopher John Stuart Mill,
who said, "No amount of observations of white swans can allow the
inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single
black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion."
Please, tell us: what is the "black swan" that refutes evolution?
like I have said their are 12 other theories and counting.
If you're talking about things like creationism and intelligent design, they are - at BEST - hypotheses. Not theories. The best evidence in favour of intelligent design was refuted fairly easily (irreducible complexity) - as for creationism, there was no evidence supporting it to begin with. And no, the Bible does not count as evidence, except in the minds of fundamentalists like Kent Hovind.
They obviously do not all promote the same scam so
Referring to it as a scam reveals your biases (not that they weren't already evident, of course).
you be happy in your small world
You mean the world where people evaluate claims based on the evidence that does (or doesn't) support them? Yes, I am quite happy in that world. As you should be, assuming you derive any pleasure from that glowing thing you're sitting in front of right now.
And Ill do great in mine.
Great. So why are you here, then?
You know if we came up with a scientific law why wouldnt it be
considered a philosophy?
Where do you think science comes from? Here's a hint:
As a philosophy it would lose all the muck
evolution gets stuck in. Now thats a goal. Luck. Im sure glad this
Forum is not about evolution arent you?
I think you've lost the plot, mate - I've re-read those sentences four times over and still can't make any sense out of them.
like I have said their are 12 other theories and counting.
If you're talking about things like creationism and
intelligent design, they are - at BEST - hypotheses. Not theories. The
best evidence in favour of intelligent design was refuted fairly easily
(irreducible complexity) - as for creationism, there was no evidence
supporting it to begin with. And no, the Bible does not count as
evidence, except in the minds of fundamentalists like Kent Hovind.""
Sci i think kent is referring to the theories and hypothesi incorporated into the theory of evolution. like single commen ancestory, natural selection, common ancestory and speciation.
but it's still cherry picking, just taking out what suits you best so you can call yourself "evolutionist". and just saying the rest "is held by 86% of the dumd people".
btw kent there's something called a consensus withing the scientific community. and that consensus agrees on common ancertory and natural selection and speciation. not god created everything and then everything changed a little.
I see you had some questions up I missed sci. It was mostly western philosophy of course, a little eastern. I wont be much more specific other then to say broad. If you have any questions on it though fire away. A logical fallacy was ruled out by all of western philosophy for quite a few years now as far as I know. You got a quote let me know. What does psychology have to do with it? Not much, Psychology deals more with logic less with theory. It is poorer for defining science then philosophy. At 1 time all of science and religion came under phiplosophy. I assumed you knew this. As far as I can remember you are right on the big bang.
did you read my post? Oh right you cant read. Its obvious why you dont see the intelligence now isnt it? Really come on when was the last time you caught a glimmer of intelligence?
would you quit with the bashing and tell me with what part of me response you take issue with?
you really aught to act more mature and intellegent if you think yourself so much better then me. a real enlightened mind would not needlessly bash but directly confront the issue and take it down. with proper arguements that is.
something that really look nothign like
"Oh right you cant read. Its obvious why you dont see the intelligence
now isnt it? Really come on when was the last time you caught a glimmer
of intelligence?"
..oh well if i can;t read then how did i just make remarks to specifc point i quoted? OOH ITS A MIRACLE..THAT PROVES IT! GOD EXISTS!
Oh right you cant read.
You're criticizing someone else's comprehension of the English language? Really?
Since you opened the door: there's this fantastic new punctuation mark used to indicate possession and to separate contractions. It's called the "apostrophe" - maybe you've heard of it?
Of course, maybe you should work on mastering the "comma" before you move onto more advanced punctuation.
If you dont shut up Sci Im going to start checking your punctuation. No got a better idea the next time 325 says something incomprehendable Ill just ask you to translate. Have you ever considered reality?
A logical fallacy is something that hides the truth 325. Youve got it backwards. It is the opposite of good logic. Philosophy clearly refutes fallacy. I cant remember ever seeing those 2 words together thats why I made the comment. Evolution is supposed to refute fallacy as well, right after it gets smacked in the head with a jaw bone from a prehistoric ass. Its kinda hard for me to make sence out of wording that borders on being an oxymoron. By the way 325 I see you are learning more big english words like jackass. Real good you just keep practicing. And Im not bashing you because i think I am more intelligent then you Im bashing you into a realization of what that feels like so you will quit bashing everyone else who disagrees with you. Really I can stop this any time.
"A logical fallacy is something that hides the truth 325"
like an ad hominem hides the truth that you have no idea how to refute the arugment.
or a strawman that you know you cannot bunk the real aguement.
or circulare reasoning because you an only use soemthing to reassurt itself.
or a false comparison where you compare 2 completely different things that appear the same to make your point. like saying written and spoke debates are the same.
or the fallacy of over generalization. aka :on ething makes a rule.
ect..
"It is the opposite of good logic"
which why i have been using the exposure to dicredit your arguements...
or in other words. i know and i ahve expressed that i know that from the very beginning.
None of this site's content is copyrighted, unless it specifically says otherwise.
