How do you define SCIENCE?

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 ,
I didn’t write the books, I just found them. They are presenting the evidence, I’m just reporting it.

Reporting it? You won't even answer my question!!!!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@IndigoChild5559 ,
If the Australian aborigines had no written record, how do scientists know they’ve been there 70,000 years?


I think the evidence presented by those two researchers, regarding the commonality of these far-flung festivals of the dead & found also in Australia, discredit any “60,000 to 70,000 years” hypothesis.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 ,
If the Australian aborigines had no written record, how do scientists know they’ve been there 70,000 years?

No, that was NOT my question. sheesh. my question was how do they know they have these festivals.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No, that was NOT my question. sheesh. my question was how do they know they have these festivals.

So, I did properly understand your question, and I did answer it, in post #458…

I said, “because these cultures still celebrate them (the festivals of the dead), or were still celebrating them at the time they (these cultures) were discovered”.

Goodnight.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So, I did properly understand your question, and I did answer it, in post #458…

I said, “because these cultures still celebrate them (the festivals of the dead), or were still celebrating them at the time they (these cultures) were discovered”.

Goodnight.

ROFL no, sir. the fact that festival X is celebrated today is certainly NO EVIDENCE that it was celebrated 60,000 years ago. But at least you tried.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

ROFL no, sir. the fact that festival X is celebrated today is certainly NO EVIDENCE that it was celebrated 60,000 years ago. But at least you tried.

Oh my goodness. :facepalm;

@YoursTrue , did you follow me?
I thought I was clear that I was arguing against 60,000-year scenario.

In fact, the commonality of these festivals, held at the same time of year that the Biblical Flood occurred, is evidence for the Flood!

YoursTrue, let me know if you understood where I was going with that. Yes?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Oh my goodness. :facepalm;

@YoursTrue , did you follow me?
I thought I was clear that I was arguing against 60,000-year scenario.

In fact, the commonality of these festivals, held at the same time of year that the Biblical Flood occurred, is evidence for the Flood!

YoursTrue, let me know if you understood where I was going with that. Yes?

You are confusing the issue at hand by conflating it with a separate argument. Let's set aside our disagreement about whether the flood is a historical event.

You made the remark that they had these death festivals going, lets say "way back in time" (so that we don't get into a separate discussion how far back these people go). My question to you was, and remain, how would you know this if there is no written record of that time?

Your answer was to say that because these people observe this festival today, this is proof it was celebrated long ago. That's just nonsense. In classic language, your conclusion is not warranted. You simply DO NOT KNOW if the festivals were being celebrates X number of years ago.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh my goodness. :facepalm;

@YoursTrue , did you follow me?
I thought I was clear that I was arguing against 60,000-year scenario.

In fact, the commonality of these festivals, held at the same time of year that the Biblical Flood occurred, is evidence for the Flood!

YoursTrue, let me know if you understood where I was going with that. Yes?

Hi, Hockeycowboy and Indigochild. I'm following this somewhat. I'm not sure since the conversation was between you and @IndigoChild5559 for the most part. My view is that because I believe the Bible's timetable regarding mankind's history, the 60-70,000 idea isn't true. You bring out that the celebrations of these particular people correspond to the biblical timing of the flood event and therefore suggests this civilization was not around 60-70,000 years ago. Do I understand this correctly? If so, that makes sense to me. If I misunderstood please try again and I will follow with the old expression, a fine tooth comb. Thanks. Insofar as the question posed by Indigochild about the possibility of written records 60-70,000 years ago, I'd have to ask, huh? To the question how would you know? Ummm okay I would say. So yes I see your point and it's logical and a good one. Since it's hard to communicate exactly our thoughts in writing, this leads me to think how difficult it is to get everything the Bible has in it to the exact absolute meaning. But we try with God's help to understand it.

You are confusing the issue at hand by conflating it with a separate argument. Let's set aside our disagreement about whether the flood is a historical event.

You made the remark that they had these death festivals going, lets say "way back in time" (so that we don't get into a separate discussion how far back these people go). My question to you was, and remain, how would you know this if there is no written record of that time?

Your answer was to say that because these people observe this festival today, this is proof it was celebrated long ago. That's just nonsense. In classic language, your conclusion is not warranted. You simply DO NOT KNOW if the festivals were being celebrates X number of years ago.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh my goodness. :facepalm;

@YoursTrue , did you follow me?
I thought I was clear that I was arguing against 60,000-year scenario.

In fact, the commonality of these festivals, held at the sam e time of year that the Biblical Flood occurred, is evidence for the Flood!

YoursTrue, let me know if you understood where I was going with that. Yes?

@IndigoChild5559 how did you figure Hockeycowboy was saying these people were around 60-70,000 years ago?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 how did you figure Hockeycowboy was saying these people were around 60-70,000 years ago?

They WERE around 60,000 years ago, but Hockey doesn't think so, because he bases his ideas on the idea that the world can't be older than 6000 years. That is a religious belief of his. It is not based on any evidence.

But at any rate, our argument was not on this point. He made the statement that these people were having certain death festivals back in prehistoric times. I asked him how he could know this, since there was no written record of it. His answer made no sense -- he basically said that the fact that they have this festival today proves that they had it in prehistoric times. At which point, I basically gave up trying to have a discussion with him, since he doesn't think rationally.

 

[shunyadragon]

Good question.

Regarding ancient sea levels…. There are many areas where we see river channels extending far beyond the continental shelves. Indicating water levels were lower.

It’s fascinating to study!

This change in sea level is the result of the end of the Ice Age more than 11,000 years ago.

 

[shunyadragon]

@IndigoChild5559 ,
If the Australian aborigines had no written record, how do scientists know they’ve been there 70,000 years?


I think the evidence presented by those two researchers, regarding the commonality of these far-flung festivals of the dead & found also in Australia, discredit any “60,000 to 70,000 years” hypothesis.

The dating of cultures like the Aborigines has nothing to do with the holidays they observed, They are dated by radiometric dating and stratigraphy of the archaeological evidence.

 

[cladking]

Concerning the subject of the thread in the nature of Science.

I can confirm one thing probability has nothing to do with whether science can determine or predict the chain of cause-and-effect outcomes of the nature of our physical existence. The predictable outcomes of the chain of cause-and-effect events are falsified by Methodological Naturalism.

Science today is defined by the results of Methodological Naturalism not opinions.

Probability may be a factor in confirming the validity of the sampling of the population in a research project. See:

Probability Sampling: Definition, Methods and Examples

Probability sampling is a technique which the researcher chooses samples from a larger population using a method based on probability theory.

www.questionpro.com

I can estimate the odds of a great number of things existing or not or of their coming into existence or having been in existence. One can estimate the odds of many many things but because these are mere "estimates" rather than calculations they are more akin to guesses than repeatable or testable knowledge.

But there are far more things that a wise person won't even try to estimate because terms are too poorly defined and knowledge too highly limited.
I do not consider even calculated odds to be science. Even where they are repeatable and consistent they are not equivalent to theory or fact. If 5% of cigarette smokers get cancer it doesn't mean cigarettes cause cancer merely that if you smoke you have a higher chance of getting cancer. Much of what passes for "science" now days is something very different.

Now days Soup of the Day science, statistics, expert opinion, computer modeling and all sorts of hunches and extrapolations pass as "science". Some of this may constitute data or knowledge but it is not science.

 

[YoursTrue]

They WERE around 60,000 years ago, but Hockey doesn't think so, because he bases his ideas on the idea that the world can't be older than 6000 years. That is a religious belief of his. It is not based on any evidence.

But at any rate, our argument was not on this point. He made the statement that these people were having certain death festivals back in prehistoric times. I asked him how he could know this, since there was no written record of it. His answer made no sense -- he basically said that the fact that they have this festival today proves that they had it in prehistoric times. At which point, I basically gave up trying to have a discussion with him, since he doesn't think rationally.

Have you asked Hockeycowboy if he thinks the world is no older than 6000 years?

 

[YoursTrue]

They WERE around 60,000 years ago, but Hockey doesn't think so, because he bases his ideas on the idea that the world can't be older than 6000 years. That is a religious belief of his. It is not based on any evidence.

But at any rate, our argument was not on this point. He made the statement that these people were having certain death festivals back in prehistoric times. I asked him how he could know this, since there was no written record of it. His answer made no sense -- he basically said that the fact that they have this festival today proves that they had it in prehistoric times. At which point, I basically gave up trying to have a discussion with him, since he doesn't think rationally.

It's important to clarify what you think Hockeycowboy means when you say he thinks the world is no older than 6000 years. So I hope he's reading this and right now I don't have too much time but I'll look for the conversation about this ASAP because it's an important point. Thanks.

 

[shunyadragon]

I can estimate the odds of a great number of things existing or not or of their coming into existence or having been in existence. One can estimate the odds of many many things but because these are mere "estimates" rather than calculations they are more akin to guesses than repeatable or testable knowledge.

Yes you can do this, but it would not meet the standards of Methodological Naturalism as defined in science.

But there are far more things that a wise person won't even try to estimate because terms are too poorly defined and knowledge too highly limited.

Science defines its terms objectively to meet the standards of Methodological Naturalism

I do not consider even calculated odds to be science.

True

Even where they are repeatable and consistent they are not equivalent to theory or fact. If 5% of cigarette smokers get cancer it doesn't mean cigarettes cause cancer merely that if you smoke you have a higher chance of getting cancer. Much of what passes for "science" now days is something very different.

Now days Soup of the Day science, statistics, expert opinion, computer modeling and all sorts of hunches and extrapolations pass as "science". Some of this may constitute data or knowledge but it is not science.

The above is confusing and does not address how probability is used "properly" in science. Yes, "Much of what passes for "science" nowadays is something very different," but what you are describing is not science. Let's address what is science and how it is defined in terms of standard international academic science recognized by all the major universities of the world. instead of rambling as to what you believe about science.
i
You still have failed to define what is "casino" science.

Still waiting . . .

 

[cladking]

The above is confusing and does not address how probability is used "properly" in science. Yes, "Much of what passes for "science" nowadays is something very different." Let's address what is science and how it is defined in terms of standard international academic science recognized by all the major universities of the world. instead of rambling as to what you believe about science.
i
You still have failed to define what is "casino" science.

Still waiting . . .

Essentially what I mean by "Look and See Science" or "Soup of the Day Science" is anything not founded strictly in experiment. This includes vast swathes of modern science and much of it is probably reasonably accurate but "reasonably accurate" is not the same as theory or established science. Experts have no more ability to look and see reality than anyone else. We each see what we believe so experts look and see the prevailing paradigm that changes one funeral at a time. No paradigm is science. Paradigms are interpretations and extrapolations of experiment and evidence. Even the most fundamental paradigm can be in error because all human knowledge depends on metaphysics, consciousness, and language.

Modern homo omniscience science is observation > experiment. There are no short cuts possible because this is the metaphysical foundation of our perceived reality. This is reality itself as seen by modern humans.

I didn't mean to suggest that estimates of reality are used by science. They are used by me and generated by my models. As such they are important to MY hypothesis formation and aid in charting a course through my reality. Repeatable calculations are much more useful for science and many use them in hypothesis formation. If 5% of smokers get cancer there is an implication that it might cause lung irritation or changes suggesting hypotheses and experiment.

"Standard academic science" is irrelevant because all terms mean what the speakers wants them to mean and then every listener takes his own unique meaning. It's a moving target that changes meaning very rapidly. Many people today think that there is no science until Peers sign off on it. Most don't realize that consciousness, language, and beliefs can not be factored out of either experiment interpretation or paradigm formation. It can't even be factored out of our perception without modelling.

So all science is individual and is modelling of experiment and knowledge. It is dependent on language. Science changes one funeral at a time because it is individual and few individuals ever change their minds or reconstruct their models even in an entire lifetime.


Many other kinds of science exist but they are mostly invisible to a species that thinks. Abstraction and logic based systems are not compatible. There are also experiential sciences but these are not easily repeatable. One of the strengths of modern science is its repeatability and that many are thereby able to work on the same problems.

I propose that we use multiple sciences working in tandem each a check on the others. I believe they would act like a drill cutting through the leading edge.


When the quisling media reports new science you can be sure it's neither true nor science. This problem is spreading through the entire culture.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can estimate the odds of a great number of things existing or not or of their coming into existence or having been in existence. One can estimate the odds of many many things but because these are mere "estimates" rather than calculations they are more akin to guesses than repeatable or testable knowledge.

But there are far more things that a wise person won't even try to estimate because terms are too poorly defined and knowledge too highly limited.
I do not consider even calculated odds to be science. Even where they are repeatable and consistent they are not equivalent to theory or fact. If 5% of cigarette smokers get cancer it doesn't mean cigarettes cause cancer merely that if you smoke you have a higher chance of getting cancer. Much of what passes for "science" now days is something very different.

Now days Soup of the Day science, statistics, expert opinion, computer modeling and all sorts of hunches and extrapolations pass as "science". Some of this may constitute data or knowledge but it is not science.

Oh you mentioned soup of the day. Thank you! I will think what soup to get today! I like some soups better than others.

 

[shunyadragon]

Essentially what I mean by "Look and See Science" or "Soup of the Day Science" is anything not founded strictly in experiment.

The problem here is not all science is falsified by Methodological Naturalism is based on only experiments. Discoveries, peer-reviewed research, and objective verifiably verifiable evidence are at the foundation of every experiment. Even Isaac Newton did not rely on only experiments.

Modern example: The discovery of some massive distant galaxies changed the Cosmological view of how galaxies formed in the early universe. No experiments were involved with this discovery.

Do you support and believe in Methodological Naturalism which is the foundation of science as defined and described and is supported by every major university in the world? This is the subject of the thread.

The rest of this was just noise. Respond specifically to the question at hand as to how science is defined and functions in the evolving body of knowledge of our physical existence.

Hedging, long rants, and getting splinters in your butt not addressing the specific question is meaningless.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hockey doesn't think so, because he bases his ideas on the idea that the world can't be older than 6000 years.

Sorry, but I’m not a Young Earth Creationist.

He made the statement that these people were having certain death festivals back in prehistoric times.

I didn’t say that at all. I said the Australians, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the Peruvians, etc., all celebrate, or in past centuries did celebrate, their festivals of the dead at the same time of year.

That indicates a common connection between these cultures, far earlier than 60,000 years.


I think rationally just fine, thank you.