How do you define SCIENCE?

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you're saying what works is true (pragmatic approach)?

I'm saying that what works, works.
Science works.

Tools / methods of inquiry are not about being "true". They are about "working". They are about achieving the desired results. If they do, then the tools / methods are usefull, efficient, trustworthy, reliable. Science is those things. It works. Evidence-based reasoning and logic is those things. It works.

Let's remember that the pragmatic test is not a logical or reasonable path. iow we ignore other possible causes, coincidences, luck of the draw and we just go w/ what works.

There is no "luck" involved.
Evidence based reasoning is a reliable pathway to truth.
This is demonstrated time and again.

When you approach a question about something with evidence-based reasoning, you have a good chance of obtaining reliable answers.
Approaching it from another angle rarely, if ever, yields reliable results.

Do the test.

Let's say we ask the question what person X ate last night.
I'll approach the question with evidence-based reasoning while you are not allowed to use evidence-based reasoning. You can however use any other method you like.

Who do you think will come up with the most reliable answer?

How do you propose to obtain a reliable answer to that question, if not through evidence-based reasoning?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The more I think about it, I don't think that dinosaurs, elephants, bees, had politics and newspapers that swayed the masses against or for certain aspects of their lives. Oh, and I forgot -- insofar as I know, none of them have newspapers to read in order to publish their prejudiced ideas if they want something or another. So it makes sense to me that mankind (not gorillakind) can affect or sway opinions as well as ruin the earth.

You had to "think about that" to come up with that drivel?

It must be fun in your head.

 

[exchemist]

So you're saying what works is true (pragmatic approach)? Let's remember that the pragmatic test is not a logical or reasonable path. iow we ignore other possible causes, coincidences, luck of the draw and we just go w/ what works.

I must admit I don't follow this. Surely relying on explanations of nature that "work" (which means producing correct predictions of how nature will behave) is eminently logical and reasonable. What else are we to do? Rely on explanations that fail to do this? Or reject explanations that do, on grounds of ideology?

The point about science, surely (though not always appreciated by those without familiarity with the philosophy of it), is that science makes models of reality, which enable us to predict the behaviour of nature. Science is generally wary of claiming "truth", because it is always an incomplete construction. History shows us that revisions to theories, sometimes radical, can be made necessary by new discoveries about nature. We can never be sure where the next one of those will come from. One way of expressing this is to say that in science, all truth is provisional. But while being open to the next unexpected discovery, we go with what works so far.

As for models, as a chemist I am quite used to having even multiple models for the same thing, choosing the one most appropriate to the problem at hand. That's because chemistry is so complex that most models can only be simplified approximations, rather than exact. But if they work i.e. they make testable and correct predictions, we use them - and sometimes the theoreticians have fun arguing about how to reconcile them.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I'm saying that what works, works.
Science works.

Tools / methods of inquiry are not about being "true". They are about "working". They are about achieving the desired results. If they do, then the tools / methods are usefull, efficient, trustworthy, reliable. Science is those things. It works. Evidence-based reasoning and logic is those things. It works.



There is no "luck" involved.
Evidence based reasoning is a reliable pathway to truth.
This is demonstrated time and again.

When you approach a question about something with evidence-based reasoning, you have a good chance of obtaining reliable answers.
Approaching it from another angle rarely, if ever, yields reliable results.

Do the test.

Let's say we ask the question what person X ate last night.
I'll approach the question with evidence-based reasoning while you are not allowed to use evidence-based reasoning. You can however use any other method you like.

Who do you think will come up with the most reliable answer?

How do you propose to obtain a reliable answer to that question, if not through evidence-based reasoning?

So you say pragmatism is logical and another person says it isn't. You say that the other person is wrong because you say so.

Me I don't care about your post, tho I can tell you that there are a lot of folks who would like things a bit more thought out.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I must admit I don't follow this. Surely relying on explanations of nature that "work" (which means producing correct predictions of how nature will behave) is eminently logical and reasonable. What else are we to do? Rely on explanations that fail to do this? Or reject explanations that do, on grounds of ideology?

The point about science, surely (though not always appreciated by those without familiarity with the philosophy of it), is that science makes models of reality, which enable us to predict the behaviour of nature. Science is generally wary of claiming "truth", because it is always an incomplete construction. History shows us that revisions to theories, sometimes radical, can be made necessary by new discoveries about nature. We can never be sure where the next one of those will come from. One way of expressing this is to say that in science, all truth is provisional. But while being open to the next unexpected discovery, we go with what works so far.

As for models, as a chemist I am quite used to having even multiple models for the same thing, choosing the one most appropriate to the problem at hand. That's because chemistry is so complex that most models can only be simplified approximations, rather than exact. But if they work i.e. they make testable and correct predictions, we use them - and sometimes the theoreticians have fun arguing about how to reconcile them.

You're saying that pragmatism is right because "it works" and that's good enough for you. At the same time there are a lot of others who will say that it's not good enough for them. You say they're wrong and they say that you are wrong. This is not a new debate, it's a controversy that folks have fought over for thousands of years. It would be different if we could measure it w/ an enormous "logicometer" that would prove how logical it is. We don't so we can't.

 

[exchemist]

You're saying that pragmatism is right because "it works" and that's good enough for you. At the same time there are a lot of others who will say that it's not good enough for them. You say they're wrong and they say that you are wrong. This is not a new debate, it's a controversy that folks have fought over for thousands of years. It would be different if we could measure it w/ an enormous "logicometer" that would prove how logical it is. We don't so we can't.

I’m not describing my own beliefs. I’m describing how science functions.

I don’t understand what you mean about these “others”, who reject the methodology of science. Who are they what do they advocate? Can you give an example?

 

[Ponder This]

You do not seem to understand how experiments are done in the sciences. There are all sorts of experiments for macroevolution. It has been observed in the lab and in the field in real time. You probably do not understand the concept of macroevolution. No creationist every does.

Meanwhile believers in Noah and his magic boat often believe in hypermacroevolution with new species appearing at record rates.

Macroevolution refers to events above the species level, whereas microevolution refers to evolutionary changes within populations.

I have to put two and two together. I believe in God. I believe also that He inspired the Bible. I believe in God because when I look at life and the universe I think it is spectacular and wonderful and beyond human wisdom. To clarify, however, I did not always believe in God. So my thinking changed. Did God prove himself to me? Yes, in a way He did. Do I regularly pray? Yes. Does that mean I understand everything about God? Of course not. But I am awaiting better things that I believe God has in store for mankind. As Jesus taught his disciples to pray for God's kingdom to come and His will be done on the earth as it is in heaven.

How do you define religion? I think this may be necessary before we can move forward with a discussion of science, creation, and religion.

Give me an example of a "primary" scientific method and I can point to several instances within the sciences that do not adhere to it.

"the sciences" refers to various branches of scientific study as opposed to refering directly to science.

Scientific practices are derived from the philosophy of science. To this day, some languages still refer to science as "natural philosophy" and doctorates in scientific fields are still called Philosophy Doctorates or PhDs for short.

There is not a clean division between science and philosophy. Rather, I think science is better understood as applied philosophy.

Applied science refers to the practical application of scientific knowledge.
We should be clear about what we are talking about. If @YoursTrue would like to talk about philosophy, I am not opposed.

The only difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is time. They're the same process. We also have observed macroevolution, at least as far as that term is defined within biology, due to our direct observations of speciation.

There are many breeds of dogs, but there is still only one dog species, Canis Familiaris. Just because birds have engaged in selective breeding practices, doesn't mean they've macroevolved. If you have an unambiguous example of observed macroevolution, please share. There is disagreement as to whether or not observed evolution within, for example, Finches constitutes speciation (or "macroevolution").

There is also nothing pseudoscientific about studying the fossil record to form conclusions. Studies on the fossil record are a good example of how science is not always about testing hypotheses, though, because much of it relies on extrapolating what we already know from other fields. The fact that it does not adhere to some kind of "primary scientific method" does not make it pseudoscience, which I explained in my previous post.

That said, we can make predictions about what we expect to find in the fossil record based on hypothetical models, and we have done that. So even if the problem was that we do not use the scientific method when investigating the fossil record, which by itself is not as big of an issue as you might think, we do actually still use the scientific method when studying the fossil record.

That's why we have fossil discoveries that make headlines when they "prove" or "debunk" various niche hypothetical models.

It would probably make more sense to you if you went back to my previous post and re-read it, because I don't think you know what science is or how it differs from pseudoscience if you're going to call the evidence for macroevolution in the fossil record "psuedoscientific."

Studying the fossil record is only one step in the scientific method. Any "scientific" process which skips experiment hasn't completed the scientific method. This isn't a disparagement of fossil record study. Observation, study, and research are important steps in the scientific method.

Your mistake, which is a mistake just about all creationists make, is thinking that micro evolution and macro evolution are somehow different processes.

They are not.

Consider the analogy of walking.
The process is just "walking".

"micro walking" is taking 5 steps.
"macro walking" is taking 1000 steps.

Both are just walking.

The theory says they are the same process, which is different than saying an experiment has confirmed it. It's a subtle point, but that doesn't make it insignificant. Observing someone walk 5 steps, doesn't mean you've observed someone leave the room. This isn't a disparagement of the theory of evolution. If macroevolution didn't appear to make sense as a corollary to microevolution, then it wouldn't be part of the theory.

 

[cladking]

The theory says they are the same process, which is different than saying an experiment has confirmed it. It's a subtle point, but that doesn't make it insignificant. Observing someone walk 5 steps, doesn't mean you've observed someone leave the room. This isn't a disparagement of the theory of evolution. If macroevolution didn't appear to make sense as a corollary to microevolution, then it wouldn't be part of the theory.

In this case we've seen a couple of steps and this has been extrapolated as a walk to the moon and back.

 

[YoursTrue]

How do you define religion? I think this may be necessary before we can move forward with a discussion of science, creation, and religion.

Here's how I define religion: religion is basically a form of worship, beliefs, and practices whether personal, or put forth by an organization.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I’m not describing my own beliefs. I’m describing how science functions.

There are a lot of folks who have a lot of different ideas on how science should function. You have yours and I have mine. My guess is that you and I have a lot of common ground and that we can work together on scientific pursuits.

I don’t understand what you mean about these “others”, who reject the methodology of science. Who are they what do they advocate? Can you give an example?

A scientist does not have to "reject the methodology of science" to disagree w/ what you said here. For example, I see the scientific method as a useful tool based on moral principles. As far as the body of knowledge that the scientific community has amassed, my guess is that they're mostly right.

 

[Ponder This]

Here's how I define religion: religion is basically a form of worship, beliefs, and practices whether personal, or put forth by an organization.

It seems to me that science and religion don't necessarily have much to do with each other.

 

[YoursTrue]

It seems to me that science and religion don't necessarily have much to do with each other.

The Bible is not a science textbook. Scientists may say they know -- but they don't in the long run, meaning there is no doubt there are pieces missing in the puzzle of bones and DNA which will never be conclusively determined to be part of the process of evolution because they aren't there...no matter what scientists propose about this.
www.britannica.com/science/life/The-origin-of-life

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible is not a science textbook. Scientists may say they know -- but they don't in the long run, meaning there is no doubt there are pieces missing in the puzzle of bones and DNA which will never be conclusively determined to be part of the process of evolution because they aren't there...no matter what scientists propose about this.
www.britannica.com/science/life/The-origin-of-life

An inability to understand basic science on your part does not mean that it is false.

I still don't see why you have to insist that your own God is a liar.

 

[gnostic]

The Bible is not a science textbook. Scientists may say they know -- but they don't in the long run, meaning there is no doubt there are pieces missing in the puzzle of bones and DNA which will never be conclusively determined to be part of the process of evolution because they aren't there...no matter what scientists propose about this.
www.britannica.com/science/life/The-origin-of-life

That you talk of process of evolution, but you post a link on the origin of life, showed that you still don’t understand the differences between evolution and abiogenesis.

And it is clear that you haven’t even read, nor understood the Britannica article.


A great way to show your ignorance, and your lac of willingness to understand the link you posted up. But it is about what I expected, that you would include article that you haven’t read, nor understood, that the article actually, in no way, refute the theory of Evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

That you talk of process of evolution, but you post a link on the origin of life, showed that you still don’t understand the differences between evolution and abiogenesis.

And it is clear that you haven’t even read, nor understood the Britannica article.


A great way to show your ignorance, and your lac of willingness to understand the link you posted up. But it is about what I expected, that you would include article that you haven’t read, nor understood, that the article actually, in no way, refute the theory of Evolution.

Actually, you just don't understand my reasoning. I've explained it several times. But it's ok. Have a good one.

 

[Astrophile]

The Bible is not a science textbook. Scientists may say they know -- but they don't in the long run, meaning there is no doubt there are pieces missing in the puzzle of bones and DNA which will never be conclusively determined to be part of the process of evolution because they aren't there...no matter what scientists propose about this.
www.britannica.com/science/life/The-origin-of-life

Everything that has ever lived was or is part of the process of evolution since it had parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. which were slightly different from itself, and these small differences accumulated from one generation to the next. This is why, for example, scientists don't find fossils of humans or modern apes, or modern horses, in rocks from the Miocene epoch; the ancestors of these modern animals undoubtedly existed, but they were so different from their modern descendants that they belonged to a different species.

The mere fact that some of the pieces (generations) between modern living things and their Miocene ancestors are missing from the fossil record is not important; these missing pieces must have existed, and they must have been part of the process of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Everything that has ever lived was or is part of the process of evolution since it had parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. which were slightly different from itself, and these small differences accumulated from one generation to the next. This is why, for example, scientists don't find fossils of humans or modern apes, or modern horses, in rocks from the Miocene epoch; the ancestors of these modern animals undoubtedly existed, but they were so different from their modern descendants that they belonged to a different species.

The mere fact that some of the pieces (generations) between modern living things and their Miocene ancestors are missing from the fossil record is not important; these missing pieces must have existed, and they must have been part of the process of evolution.

I'm not going to argue this. I learned about evolution in biology class and believed every word they said because I didn't know any better. I did not have knowledge of God and the Bible back then. I was an honor-scholarship student so had no problem learning. I no longer believe everything scientists conjecture about how life as we know it came about. Probably many scientists would say, some things may be true about their beliefs or viewpoints and some may not be.

 

[Ponder This]

The Bible is not a science textbook. Scientists may say they know -- but they don't in the long run, meaning there is no doubt there are pieces missing in the puzzle of bones and DNA which will never be conclusively determined to be part of the process of evolution because they aren't there...no matter what scientists propose about this.
www.britannica.com/science/life/The-origin-of-life

I agree the Bible is not a science textbook.
I also agree that there are limits to what science currently concludes.

As for the future of science, who can say?
Macroevolution appears to be the current theory with the most support and remains consistent with the notion that all life, as we know it, has a common origin.

On the other hand, perhaps religion can help inform us as to our spiritual and moral responsibilities lest people get carried away in their desire to manipulate and control the world.

 

[Jimmy]

Perfect for describing and labeling the natural world. Poor at defining the real world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perfect for describing and labeling the natural world. Poor at defining the real world.

Why do you think that the real world needs defining? Perhaps you are making up your own definitions.