How do you define SCIENCE?

[YoursTrue]

Might I just point out that "It doesn't mean that God had no connection with the construction" does not mean that he does. To make that case, you still have all your work ahead of you. Until you can demonstrate your deity actually doing anything at all, you are on no better footing than you allow for me.

But I will say this -- the god theory has anecdotes (which is really all scripture is), but there is an awful freaking lot of science to bring to bear on my side. And in the end, anything that can be asserted WITHOUT EVIDENCE can be dismissed WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I have some -- you don't.

I realize your argument can be popular. Doesn't mean it's true, though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They got lots of AGW folks working at all the oil/energy companies.

It's interesting the way the lawsuits never get very far out of control because the leftist leader often gets hired by the oil/energy company to head up some new-fangled environmental ecology office at a HUGE salary. If you look online to Exxon.com you can easily find their "Environmental Performance" page where they spout off about how serious AGW is, They HAVE to present that view because of a huge number of factors. Meanwhile, they sell gasoline and everyone buys it.

We live in a world w/ everyone saying one thing and doing another.

You completely missed the point.

 

[cladking]

Science is Observation > Experiment in its simplest metaphysics.

You can't understand science unless you understand the nature of observation and experiment. "Observation" is a very complex process that lies at the very heart of consciousness. "Experiment" is complex only to the degree it must be interpreted.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Science is Observation > Experiment in its simplest metaphysics.

You can't understand science unless you understand the nature of observation and experiment. "Observation" is a very complex process that lies at the very heart of consciousness. "Experiment" is complex only to the degree it must be interpreted.

This the basic paradox of science. Some folks like to strut and proclaim that science alone is reasonable and logical, and they're so surprised to find out that using the logical/reasonable definition means they have had to first decide that they prefer truth over falsehood, then they have to decide that logic and reason are valid criteria for searching for the truth.

All those prior decisions are profoundly moral and spiritual decisions.

 

[cladking]

This the basic paradox of science. Some folks like to strut and proclaim that science alone is reasonable and logical, and they're so surprised to find out that using the logical/reasonable definition means they have had to first decide that they prefer truth over falsehood, then they have to decide that logic and reason are valid criteria for searching for the truth.

All those prior decisions are profoundly moral and spiritual decisions.

Exactly!!!

But consciousness even in our species seeks patterns and predictability. We can't see it like all other consciousness but logic lies at the heart of reality. Reality is a manifestation of logic and consciousness its incarnation. We fell back on science because experiment shows bits and pieces of reality and its logic.

Many people think science is the answer where it is far more like a question and this is NOT funny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly!!!

But consciousness even in our species seeks patterns and predictability. We can't see it like all other consciousness but logic lies at the heart of reality. Reality is a manifestation of logic and consciousness its incarnation. We fell back on science because experiment shows bits and pieces of reality and its logic.

Many people think science is the answer where it is far more like a question and this is NOT funny.

It is not a good sign that you have to repeatedly claim that your posts are not funny. It sort of implies the opposite.

 

[Ponder This]

I would like to agree with this. However, I think it is worth pointing out that there technically is no singular scientific method.

I don't know what you mean. Please give an example of a secondary scientific method.

there is a distinction between "science" in the sense of the philosophy of science and "science" in the sense of the academic sciences.

Philosophy is philosophy. There is all sorts of philosophy, even philosophy of science.

So with that in mind I was thinking what is the science behind macroevolution?

It is notoriously difficult to do science for macroevolution. There are ongoing experiments with rapidly reproducing organisms such as e. coli bacteria and tsetse flies. Still, as yet, no macroevolution observed, but the theory is that macroevolution takes a long time.
There is science for microevolution. For example, when one population of e.coli adapted to the growth medium and evolved the ability to aerobically metabolize citrate. Evolution has been observed, and this supports the theory of macroevolution.
Because macroevolution takes such a long time to occur, most of the theory of macroevolution is based on the fossil record. This evaluation is pseudoscientific, but credible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know what you mean. Please give an example of a secondary scientific method.


Philosophy is philosophy. There is all sorts of philosophy, even philosophy of science.


It is notoriously difficult to do science for macroevolution. There are ongoing experiments with rapidly reproducing organisms such as e. coli bacteria and tsetse flies. Still, as yet, no macroevolution observed, but the theory is that macroevolution takes a long time.
There is science for microevolution. For example, when one population of e.coli adapted to the growth medium and evolved the ability to aerobically metabolize citrate. Evolution has been observed, and this supports the theory of macroevolution.
Because macroevolution takes such a long time to occur, most of the theory of macroevolution is based on the fossil record. This evaluation is pseudoscientific, but credible.

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.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know what you mean. Please give an example of a secondary scientific method.


Philosophy is philosophy. There is all sorts of philosophy, even philosophy of science.


It is notoriously difficult to do science for macroevolution. There are ongoing experiments with rapidly reproducing organisms such as e. coli bacteria and tsetse flies. Still, as yet, no macroevolution observed, but the theory is that macroevolution takes a long time.
There is science for microevolution. For example, when one population of e.coli adapted to the growth medium and evolved the ability to aerobically metabolize citrate. Evolution has been observed, and this supports the theory of macroevolution.
Because macroevolution takes such a long time to occur, most of the theory of macroevolution is based on the fossil record. This evaluation is pseudoscientific, but credible.

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.

 

[Ella S.]

I don't know what you mean. Please give an example of a secondary scientific method.

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.

Philosophy is philosophy. There is all sorts of philosophy, even philosophy of 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.

It is notoriously difficult to do science for macroevolution. There are ongoing experiments with rapidly reproducing organisms such as e. coli bacteria and tsetse flies. Still, as yet, no macroevolution observed, but the theory is that macroevolution takes a long time.
There is science for microevolution. For example, when one population of e.coli adapted to the growth medium and evolved the ability to aerobically metabolize citrate. Evolution has been observed, and this supports the theory of macroevolution.
Because macroevolution takes such a long time to occur, most of the theory of macroevolution is based on the fossil record. This evaluation is pseudoscientific, but credible.

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 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."

 

[exchemist]

huh, didn't even notice our subject had gone that far...

Well it has. Anthropogenic climate change is now beyond serious debate. The arguments have moved on to how to mitigate it and and at what speed and what costs to societies.

There is a danger that some Americans live in a bit of a domestic bubble, in which they pick and choose their news sources. Reliance on Murdoch or other right wing media can give the erroneous impression that the jury is still out on this topic. But anyone with an international mindset, and who follows current affairs, will appreciate we're way beyond all that now. (I speak as someone retired from a 30 year international career in the fossil fuel industry, which accounts for my particular perspective on this.)

As I may already have mentioned, I take the Financial Times, a business newspaper with an international outlook. Every day now there is at least one article related to climate change or the countermeasures under way to deal with it, ranging from changes in agriculture to the strategic dependence of the West on China's refining capacity for lithium,or the pros and cons of green hydrogen as an alternative to electricity as a means of power storage and transmission. It is a huge issue, affecting a vast range of businesses and governments all over the world.

Nobody serious, anywhere, is still trying to persuade the world it is not happening. That's long over.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Well it has. Anthropogenic climate change is now beyond serious debate. The arguments have moved on to how to mitigate it and and at what speed and what costs to societies.

There is a danger that some Americans live in a bit of a domestic bubble, in which they pick and choose their news sources. Reliance on Murdoch or other right wing media can give the erroneous impression that the jury is still out on this topic. But anyone with an international mindset, and who follows current affairs, will appreciate we're way beyond all that now. (I speak as someone retired from a 30 year international career in the fossil fuel industry, which accounts for my particular perspective on this.)

As I may already have mentioned, I take the Financial Times, a business newspaper with an international outlook. Every day now there is at least one article related to climate change or the countermeasures under way to deal with it, ranging from changes in agriculture to the strategic dependence of the West on China's refining capacity for lithium,or the pros and cons of green hydrogen as an alternative to electricity as a means of power storage and transmission. It is a huge issue, affecting a vast range of businesses and governments all over the world.

Nobody serious, anywhere, is still trying to persuade the world it is not happening. That's long over.

We got different approaches on how to understand what's happening. Sounds like you've got your impressions and feelings about what folks are thinking and my approach is into finding hard numbers. Here's what the Pew folks have come up with (from here):

My next thought is the fact that this table only shows U.S. interests and w/ the U.S. only being 1/20th of the world population I'm trying to find out what the rest of the word cares about. The world is a lot harder to get info on, The closest I got was here and they didn't even have word on India --the world's most populous nation. However, even they didn't seem to ever get into climate as a concern.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Exactly!!!

But consciousness even in our species seeks patterns and predictability. We can't see it like all other consciousness but logic lies at the heart of reality. Reality is a manifestation of logic and consciousness its incarnation. We fell back on science because experiment shows bits and pieces of reality and its logic.

Many people think science is the answer where it is far more like a question and this is NOT funny.

my personal view is that we can in fact work w/ most folks. Sure, many on this forum only want to quarrel but my take is that people are good and as such want to connect.

 

[exchemist]

We got different approaches on how to understand what's happening. Sounds like you've got your impressions and feelings about what folks are thinking and my approach is into finding hard numbers. Here's what the Pew folks have come up with (from here):

View attachment 82028
My next thought is the fact that this table only shows U.S. interests and w/ the U.S. only being 1/20th of the world population I'm trying to find out what the rest of the word cares about. The world is a lot harder to get info on, The closest I got was here and they didn't even have word on India --the world's most populous nation. However, even they didn't seem to ever get into climate as a concern.

This is not very relevant, on at least 2 counts.

Firstly, what matters regarding the truth of a technical issue such as this, is what informed people think, not just where the mass of public opinion happens to be at a moment in time. It is the job of leaders - in government, industry and elsewhere - to act as opinion leaders, to educate and alert people as to what is going on. This takes time. (Actually, if 42% of Americans now think climate change should be a "top priority", that shows the issue has real salience now.)

Secondly, how public opinion ranks various issues relative to one another does not tell you anything about whether they think the issues in question are real or not, which is what you have been questioning. On that question, it seems that, in 2021, ~ 75% of Americans recognised climate change is real: 10 Percent of Americans Don't Believe in Climate Change, 15 Percent Unsure. That proportion will not have gone down in the 2 years since, I would imagine.

 

[cladking]

Firstly, what matters with a technical issue such as this, is what informed people think, not just where the mass of public opinion happens to be at a moment in time.

This isn't necessarily true. Sometimes consensus is wrong and common sense is right.

But even if consensus is right why is everything done in the name of global warming highly beneficial to the rich and detrimental to everyone else and results in even more CO2 production. Meanwhile things that would be beneficial to the average man and have a dramatic impact on CO2 production are not being done because most would hurt the rich who brought us global warming if it really does exist?

This is more like class warfare and the poor (99%) are losing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This the basic paradox of science. Some folks like to strut and proclaim that science alone is reasonable and logical, and they're so surprised to find out that using the logical/reasonable definition means they have had to first decide that they prefer truth over falsehood, then they have to decide that logic and reason are valid criteria for searching for the truth.

Nonsense.

None of this has to be "assumed". There's a continued track record of succes you can fall back on, which is evidence that supports the idea that evidence based reason and logic are reliable pathways to get accurate answers to questions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't know what you mean. Please give an example of a secondary scientific method.


Philosophy is philosophy. There is all sorts of philosophy, even philosophy of science.


It is notoriously difficult to do science for macroevolution. There are ongoing experiments with rapidly reproducing organisms such as e. coli bacteria and tsetse flies. Still, as yet, no macroevolution observed, but the theory is that macroevolution takes a long time.
There is science for microevolution. For example, when one population of e.coli adapted to the growth medium and evolved the ability to aerobically metabolize citrate. Evolution has been observed, and this supports the theory of macroevolution.
Because macroevolution takes such a long time to occur, most of the theory of macroevolution is based on the fossil record. This evaluation is pseudoscientific, but credible.

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But even if consensus is right why is everything done in the name of global warming highly beneficial to the rich and detrimental to everyone else and results in even more CO2 production.

Because the rich are the ones that hold the keys to society's technology. And the rich like money.
Also because politicians are the ones that have to make the decisions to force society in a different direction. But politicians also happen to be in the pocket of the rich. Donations, campaign funding, etc... They also need the rich (the big industries etc) to get anything done.

The failure of capitalistic society to address the problem head on and the lack of "political balls" to make the hard decisions, has no bearing on the science however.

Think about it. A company like Exxon, or just about all sheiks in Saudi Arabia and alike, or big industrialists who will see their expenses / costs sky rocket to turn their business around from the ground up... Do you think these people will happily out of the goodness of their heart literally dry up their own money-making waterfalls?

Fossil fuels are literally their bread and butter. Many of them would literally have to completely stop their business for carbon emissions to reach 0. Completely.

Big oil companies would literally have to abbandon their entire business model and retool everything, literally everything, from the ground up, to switch to providing clear energy sources.

Oil tankers, drilling platforms, oil raffineries,.... All of it would have to close down and be dismantles and replaced with nuclear stations, solar power stations, wind stations, etc etc.

Even at this critical time in human history, politicians pretty much haven't gone much further then "asking them politely" to do so.

Meanwhile things that would be beneficial to the average man and have a dramatic impact on CO2 production are not being done because most would hurt the rich who brought us global warming

Exactly.
I, as an average Joe, can "do my part" by taking my bike instead of my car. By setting the heat to 19°C instead of 21.
But as an impact on the big picture, that is just a bad joke.

Impactful change has to occur at the root of the problem. But nobody seems to have the balls to force them to do so, because of many many many conflicts of interest.

if it really does exist?

It does. I can't for the life of me imagine how people can still doubt this.

This is more like class warfare and the poor (99%) are losing.

Imo, the poor always lose unless they put the rich in the guilotines in situations like this.
And afterwards, new rich people take the place of the displaced ones and it simply starts over.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Nonsense.

None of this has to be "assumed". There's a continued track record of succes you can fall back on, which is evidence that supports the idea that evidence based reason and logic are reliable pathways to get accurate answers to questions.

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.

 

[YoursTrue]

This isn't necessarily true. Sometimes consensus is wrong and common sense is right.

But even if consensus is right why is everything done in the name of global warming highly beneficial to the rich and detrimental to everyone else and results in even more CO2 production. Meanwhile things that would be beneficial to the average man and have a dramatic impact on CO2 production are not being done because most would hurt the rich who brought us global warming if it really does exist?

This is more like class warfare and the poor (99%) are losing.

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.