Science Babble vs Truth

[Polymath257]

When babble comes up against truth, babble will remain babble, and never will it become truth.
Allow me to babble for a while in this thread.

This is known as a 'quote mine'. It is a quote taken out of context in such a way that it appears that the person is claiming something very different than what they were actually meaning. Quote mines are very common in creationist literature. For that reason, it is always a good idea to find the original source of the quote to see what was actually being said. others have given the correct context for this quote.

Quote mines are one form of creationist dishonesty.

Is there any truth to the claim that science has gives us answers based on evidence, whereas religion does not?

Trying to be as brief as possible, i'm taking a few quotes from here.
******************************************************************************************
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak.

I'm going to slightly disagree with this definition. Evidence is something that *changes* the likelihood that a claim is correct. It can change either way (being for or against the claim) and it can be weak or strong (changing a little or a lot). But it isn't evidence if it doesn't change the likelihood of the claim either way. At that point, it is irrelevant.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

Using this definition, direct evidence *never* exists. There is *always* an inference. Even if you are looking at a chair in broad daylight, it is an *inference* that there is a chair there: you are basing your claim on the assumption that the light is giving correct information about an object, that there is nothing interfering with that light, etc.

The only 'direct' thing you can say is what amounts to an observation, for example, 'I saw light of this color from that direction' or the scanner said the amount of C14 in the same was .3 micrograms'. According to your definition, it is an *inference* that the actual amount of C14 is .3 micrograms.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another.
Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences.
When we make an inference, we draw a conclusion based on the evidence that we have available.

And, again, there is always more than one way to interpret any given piece of evidence. That is why we *test* our interpretations by trying to see where they go *wrong*. zthat way, we know the limits of our knowledge.

inferred evidence

to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.

How Scientists Make Inferences
Some scientists investigate things that they cannot observe directly.
Once scientists have gathered evidence, they use it to make inferences about the things they are investigating.
Scientists answer questions by gathering and evaluating evidence. One way scientists gather evidence is through firsthand observation; however, sometimes scientists ask questions about things that are not immediately observable.
...scientists use inferential reasoning to figure out answers to their questions based on evidence gathered through observations and from information that they or other scientists have already discovered about the topic. Scientists understand that inferences are always subject to revision as new evidence becomes available or new ways of thinking emerge.
******************************************************************************************

More to the point, scientists create hypotheses to explain the observations made. They then test those hypotheses, trying to break them. When they do NOT break, the scientist can use that hypothesis as the basis of inferences.

But is is *always* possible that new information will show the hypothesis doesn't work in some cases. That puts a limit on when that hypothesis can be used AND requires a new hypothesis be formulated that matches *all* the previous evidence and the new evidence as well.

@Polymath257 asked How do you know that the source you experience is actually God? What evidence do you have of that?
In other words, how do you know that your perceptions about this are reliable?

There is *always* the possibility that the perceptions and inferences are faulty. That is why all hypotheses need to be extensively tested, why all observations have to be critiqued to be sure they are repeatable and have made no mistakes, and why it is important to beware of 'confirmation bias' by actively trying to show when the hypotheses are *wrong*.

I will answer these questions, and at the same time I want to ask the same of you. How do you know that the scientists perception about the things they infer, are reliable?

The conclusions are reliable in the topics that have been extensively tested and to the accuracy that they have been tested. part of the reliability comes from the attempts to show the ideas to be *wrong*. If such attempts fail repeatedly, that leads to reliability.

This thread will also explain why no amount of science babble will trump truth - Biblical truth first and foremost.

Good luck!

Before I start, I want to be sure we have the same understanding of evidence, since it seems apparent to me that skeptics here, want to equate evidence to conclusions.

Spoiler: Evidence is not a conclusion

Three Ways to Date the Destruction at Jericho
Carbon-14 is normally accurate to within 15 years, but the older the sample, the more necessary it is to calibrate and corroborate dates using other means. Indeed, there is a current debate in the field of archaeology concerning how accurate Carbon-14 dating is in the Levant9, as well as whether there is a need to recalibrate the curve used in radiocarbon calculations.

Over the years several samples of charcoal and grain seeds from the final Canaanite city at Jericho have been tested for C-14 levels. The current Italian-Palestinian excavation team, directed by Lorenzo Nigro, tested two samples from the final destruction of the city in 2000; one sample dated to 1347 BC (+/- 85 years) and the other dated to 1597 (+/- 91 years).11 Archaeologist, Dr. Titus Kennedy, has summarized: “The first of these dates fits roughly around the proposed 1400 BC destruction, while the other is closer to the proposed 1550 BC destruction…these dates are so broad that they are useless in contributing to solving the problem for the date of destruction. Overall, the C-14 dates from the destruction of the Bronze Age city of Jericho range from as high as 1883 BC to as low as 1262 BC - a range of over 600 years.” Clearly we will need to look to other methods to determine when Jericho was destroyed.

Regarding the second, the article says that Archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon's earlier interpretation that Jericho was abandoned at the time of the Conquest of Canaan in 1406 BC is incorrect, when considering all the evidence demonstrating that Jericho was still in existence through 1500 BCE.

On the third, one archaeologist - Dr. Bryant Wood, considered to be an expert in Canaanite pottery noted that another Archaeologist - Kathleen Kenyon, had based her dating of the destruction of Jericho solely on "the absence of imported pottery". Her conclusions that Jericho was unoccupied at the time Joshua is said to have conquered and destroyed Jericho was based on... The author of the article put in his bit... (She would have done well to follow esteemed Egyptologist, Kenneth Kitchen’s maxim, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”)

What's the point?
Both Garstang and Kenyon conducted significant excavations at Jericho. Both were excellent field archaeologists Garstang meticulously analyzed the pottery he excavated and Kenyon carefully improved excavation methodology in general. Yet both differed on their interpretation of the data.

Evidence is not conclusion. Evidence requires interpreting. Different interpretations lead to different conclusions. Those conclusions may be wrong.
This is why scientists will disagree with each other, because interpretations don't mean the same thing.

And the way to resolve such disagreements is by searching for and evaluating *more* evidence. Each hypothesis needs to be tested, challenged, and critiqued. Each side gets to evaluate the evidence of the other side and point out flaws of methods and reasoning. More evidence can be sought to test both sides and see whether one is more supported than the other.

This is how research works: people form hypotheses based on their interpretation of the evidence and then those hypotheses are *challenged* by the evidence. The fact that there are differences of conclusions is part of the process. When the evidence is sufficient to convince ALL sides that one view or the other is correct, that is when there is a consensus. And it is that consensus view that is more reliable than any of the views prior to consensus because it has been tested against both other views and the evidence.

So to be sure, is there anything you disagree with in this OP? Please specify or add anything you would like to... related to th OP, please.

So, how are religious views challenged? if one person thinks that the Islamic version of God is correct and another than the JW view is correct, what process is done to challenge *both* views and see which one (if either) is correct?

 

[Polymath257]

What does science — mainstream, anyways — reject?

Unfortunately, now (it wasn’t always this way), scientists are required to begin, continue, and end their research on the premise that a First cause, an Intelligent Mind, doesn’t exist.
That’s the flaw.

No, they are not. But, as Lagrange said, 'I do not need that hypothesis'. Such an assumption is literally irrelevant to anything scientists have discovered or investigated.

In fact, it isn't clear at all how to use the 'mind hypothesis' to actually answer any questions. For example, how would that hypothesis change the interpretation of supernova data for an accelerating expansion of the universe? How would it change the interpretation of the fossils of early birds (like Archeopterix) that also have many characteristics of some dinosaurs? How would it affect the analysis of genetic data?

I have studied a fair amount of science. But I have *never* seen a context where the existence of a first cause that is a mind would have *any* bearing on any of the conclusions made.

 

[Regiomontanus]

No, they are not. But, as Lagrange said, 'I do not need that hypothesis'. Such an assumption is literally irrelevant to anything scientists have discovered or investigated.

In fact, it isn't clear at all how to use the 'mind hypothesis' to actually answer any questions. For example, how would that hypothesis change the interpretation of supernova data for an accelerating expansion of the universe? How would it change the interpretation of the fossils of early birds (like Archeopterix) that also have many characteristics of some dinosaurs? How would it affect the analysis of genetic data?

I have studied a fair amount of science. But I have *never* seen a context where the existence of a first cause that is a mind would have *any* bearing on any of the conclusions made.

You mean Laplace. He said that to Napoleon.

 

[tas8831]

What does science — mainstream, anyways — reject?

Unfortunately, now (it wasn’t always this way), scientists are required to begin, continue, and end their research on the premise that a First cause, an Intelligent Mind, doesn’t exist.
That’s the flaw.

Cool strawman, bro.

Now do creationism. What doesn't exist in creationism/idc?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is known as a 'quote mine'. It is a quote taken out of context in such a way that it appears that the person is claiming something very different than what they were actually meaning. Quote mines are very common in creationist literature. For that reason, it is always a good idea to find the original source of the quote to see what was actually being said. others have given the correct context for this quote.

Quote mines are one form of creationist dishonesty.



I'm going to slightly disagree with this definition. Evidence is something that *changes* the likelihood that a claim is correct. It can change either way (being for or against the claim) and it can be weak or strong (changing a little or a lot). But it isn't evidence if it doesn't change the likelihood of the claim either way. At that point, it is irrelevant.



Using this definition, direct evidence *never* exists. There is *always* an inference. Even if you are looking at a chair in broad daylight, it is an *inference* that there is a chair there: you are basing your claim on the assumption that the light is giving correct information about an object, that there is nothing interfering with that light, etc.

The only 'direct' thing you can say is what amounts to an observation, for example, 'I saw light of this color from that direction' or the scanner said the amount of C14 in the same was .3 micrograms'. According to your definition, it is an *inference* that the actual amount of C14 is .3 micrograms.



And, again, there is always more than one way to interpret any given piece of evidence. That is why we *test* our interpretations by trying to see where they go *wrong*. zthat way, we know the limits of our knowledge.


More to the point, scientists create hypotheses to explain the observations made. They then test those hypotheses, trying to break them. When they do NOT break, the scientist can use that hypothesis as the basis of inferences.

But is is *always* possible that new information will show the hypothesis doesn't work in some cases. That puts a limit on when that hypothesis can be used AND requires a new hypothesis be formulated that matches *all* the previous evidence and the new evidence as well.



There is *always* the possibility that the perceptions and inferences are faulty. That is why all hypotheses need to be extensively tested, why all observations have to be critiqued to be sure they are repeatable and have made no mistakes, and why it is important to beware of 'confirmation bias' by actively trying to show when the hypotheses are *wrong*.



The conclusions are reliable in the topics that have been extensively tested and to the accuracy that they have been tested. part of the reliability comes from the attempts to show the ideas to be *wrong*. If such attempts fail repeatedly, that leads to reliability.



Good luck!

And one point that I like to bring up. A scientist must put his idea into the form of a testable hypothesis to even have evidence for it in the first place. It is not until his idea has been tested and passed that he can begin to have evidence. There is nothing stopping creationists from forming an idea explaining the observations of life in the form of a testable hypothesis. That they refuse to do so is very telling.

Wait, I do have to give Behe at least credit for trying to do so for irreversible complexity. Unfortunately for him his idea was refuted.

 

[Polymath257]

You mean Laplace. He said that to Napoleon.

Correct, I always get those two mixed up. My bad.

 

[Regiomontanus]

I mean, a five-second google search will confirm that Archaeopteryx was dated to a time period between dinosaurs fossils and bird fossils, and it has some unique traits of dinosaurs as well as some unique traits of birds. And its discovery was predicted by scientific models of evolution, paleontology, geology, and physics, which are themselves supported by mountains of other confirmed predictions and evidence.

Or is that clear line of reasoning and evidence just "paleobabble?" Are you holding up a cute derogatory word as some kind of flimsy shield against clear, repeatable observations of reality? And your counter is what, your particular interpretation of an ambiguously worded anonymous record of tribal legend? Ok?

If you can go out into reality and point at some observable part of reality, and use your biblical model to make repeated accurate predictions about supernatural claims, then that's useful as evidence. I've never seen that happen, though. There is currently no evidence that anything supernatural exists or is possible. There are handfulls of poorly-sourced anecdotes, sure, but formal studies with large sample sizes always show that any claimed supernatural intervention happens at the same rate as random chance. And evidence that the bible mentions some people and places that were real isn't evidence of any supernatural claims. For the same reason, the existence of New York City is not evidence that Spiderman is real, nor is the historical record of Prince Gautama (the Buddha) evidence that his birth was heralded by every flowering plant in the world blooming and all sick people being healed as he emerged from his mother, as Buddhist scriptures state.

Can you see why interpretations of wild stories will always be superseded by observable reality that either fails to support or directly contradicts such claims?

Happy Birthday!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cool strawman, bro.

As I pointed out that is the sin of creationists. Every creation site that I know of has there "Statement of faith" that they require their workers or those wishing to publish sign. There is no such oath needed in the sciences.

 

[Regiomontanus]

What does science — mainstream, anyways — reject?

Unfortunately, now (it wasn’t always this way), scientists are required to begin, continue, and end their research on the premise that a First cause, an Intelligent Mind, doesn’t exist.
That’s the flaw.

My knowing that there is a Creator would not change how I would have, say, analyzed/interpreted radio telescope data. But it is certainly true Christians in grad school, for example, will often be made to feel uncomfortable. I was guilty of that kind of intolerance when I was in college.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I mean, a five-second google search will confirm that Archaeopteryx was dated to a time period between dinosaurs fossils and bird fossils, and it has some unique traits of dinosaurs as well as some unique traits of birds. And its discovery was predicted by scientific models of evolution, paleontology, geology, and physics, which are themselves supported by mountains of other confirmed predictions and evidence.

Or is that clear line of reasoning and evidence just "paleobabble?" Are you holding up a cute derogatory word as some kind of flimsy shield against clear, repeatable observations of reality? And your counter is what, your particular interpretation of an ambiguously worded anonymous record of tribal legend? Ok?

If you can go out into reality and point at some observable part of reality, and use your biblical model to make repeated accurate predictions about supernatural claims, then that's useful as evidence. I've never seen that happen, though. There is currently no evidence that anything supernatural exists or is possible. There are handfulls of poorly-sourced anecdotes, sure, but formal studies with large sample sizes always show that any claimed supernatural intervention happens at the same rate as random chance. And evidence that the bible mentions some people and places that were real isn't evidence of any supernatural claims. For the same reason, the existence of New York City is not evidence that Spiderman is real, nor is the historical record of Prince Gautama (the Buddha) evidence that his birth was heralded by every flowering plant in the world blooming and all sick people being healed as he emerged from his mother, as Buddhist scriptures state.

Can you see why interpretations of wild stories will always be superseded by observable reality that either fails to support or directly contradicts such claims?

One small correction. Other dinosaurs were alive and well at the time of archaeopteryx. That was roughly 150 million years ago and nonavian dinosaurs went extinct 64 million years ago. So a 85 million year overlap. They are thought to be likely a very distant uncle and not a direct ancestor due to some of their own unique traits. One of them being flight feathers on their legs:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

And Happy Birthday!

 

[Subduction Zone]

My knowing that there is a Creator would not change how I would have, say, analyzed/interpreted radio telescope data. But it is certainly true Christians in grad school, for example, will often be made to feel uncomfortable. I was guilty of that kind of intolerance when I was in college.

One need not be an atheist to accept what the evidence tells us. Evolution does not refute God. It only refutes a clearly mistaken version of him. But then the science that tells us that the Earth is roughly spherical does not refute God either. There are Flat Earthers that believe that because of the Bible. The YEC's do not like it, but there is little difference between them and Flat Earthers.

 

[Polymath257]

And one point that I like to bring up. A scientist must put his idea into the form of a testable hypothesis to even have evidence for it in the first place. It is not until his idea has been tested and passed that he can begin to have evidence. There is nothing stopping creationists from forming an idea explaining the observations of life in the form of a testable hypothesis. That they refuse to do so is very telling.

Wait, I do have to give Behe at least credit for trying to do so for irreversible complexity. Unfortunately for him his idea was refuted.

I agree. All too many people don't realize the absolute necessity of this step. But it goes to the nature of evidence.

To be evidence doesn't simply mean an observation is *consistent* with a hypothesis. It means that the likelihood of that hypothesis *changes* when confronted with the evidence: it is either more or less likely to be true.

So, for example, I can hypothesize that angels are pushing the planets in orbit around the sun. or I could hypothesize Newton's law of gravity and his dynamic hypothesis (three laws of motion). Of those, only the second is testable. And it is testable in exquisite detail. If a planet is not found where those laws of motion predict, that is enough to show that some hypothesis is wrong.

The hypothesis of angels pushing the planets is *consistent* with absolutely *any* observation made of the planets. And that is *precisely* why this hypothesis must be rejected: there is no possible evidence that can change the likelihood of it being correct or not.

Any 'hypothesis' that is consistent with *every possible* set of observations simply *cannot* be an explanation for anything. It is absolutely worthless if the goal is explanations.

 

[viole]

The JW's are a very strange sect. They think that controversy is an indication that everyone is wrong. The problem is that they do not apply that to their own beliefs. The beliefs of JW's are often highly disputed by other sects of Christianity so you his own standards his beliefs are wrong since there is controversy about them.

Well, then Christianity would be wrong, since they all seem to disagree on the most basic stuff

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Unfortunately, now (it wasn’t always this way), scientists are required to begin, continue, and end their research on the premise that a First cause, an Intelligent Mind, doesn’t exist.

Probably because many instances of so called design, especially in complex living beings, look totally stupid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, then Christianity would be wrong, since they all seem to disagree on the most basic stuff

Ciao

- viole

It is not my standard, but it does appear to be the standard of many creationists.

 

[viole]

How do you know that the scientists perception about the things they infer, are reliable?

I would say that using the products of science, like computers, semi-conductors, laser communication systems, etc. to send you this message, appear to be very reliable.

Try to do the same by praying to your brand of God and you are in business. Otherwise, well, every kid would tell you what to trust. One works, the other never

Ciao

- viole

 

[ChristineM]

When babble comes up against truth, babble will remain babble, and never will it become truth.
Allow me to babble for a while in this thread.

Is there any truth to the claim that science has gives us answers based on evidence, whereas religion does not?

Trying to be as brief as possible, i'm taking a few quotes from here.
******************************************************************************************
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another.
Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences.
When we make an inference, we draw a conclusion based on the evidence that we have available.

inferred evidence
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.
How Scientists Make Inferences
Some scientists investigate things that they cannot observe directly.
Once scientists have gathered evidence, they use it to make inferences about the things they are investigating.
Scientists answer questions by gathering and evaluating evidence. One way scientists gather evidence is through firsthand observation; however, sometimes scientists ask questions about things that are not immediately observable.
...scientists use inferential reasoning to figure out answers to their questions based on evidence gathered through observations and from information that they or other scientists have already discovered about the topic. Scientists understand that inferences are always subject to revision as new evidence becomes available or new ways of thinking emerge.
******************************************************************************************

@Polymath257 asked How do you know that the source you experience is actually God? What evidence do you have of that?
In other words, how do you know that your perceptions about this are reliable?

I will answer these questions, and at the same time I want to ask the same of you. How do you know that the scientists perception about the things they infer, are reliable?
This thread will also explain why no amount of science babble will trump truth - Biblical truth first and foremost.

Before I start, I want to be sure we have the same understanding of evidence, since it seems apparent to me that skeptics here, want to equate evidence to conclusions.

Spoiler: Evidence is not a conclusion

Three Ways to Date the Destruction at Jericho
Carbon-14 is normally accurate to within 15 years, but the older the sample, the more necessary it is to calibrate and corroborate dates using other means. Indeed, there is a current debate in the field of archaeology concerning how accurate Carbon-14 dating is in the Levant9, as well as whether there is a need to recalibrate the curve used in radiocarbon calculations.

Over the years several samples of charcoal and grain seeds from the final Canaanite city at Jericho have been tested for C-14 levels. The current Italian-Palestinian excavation team, directed by Lorenzo Nigro, tested two samples from the final destruction of the city in 2000; one sample dated to 1347 BC (+/- 85 years) and the other dated to 1597 (+/- 91 years).11 Archaeologist, Dr. Titus Kennedy, has summarized: “The first of these dates fits roughly around the proposed 1400 BC destruction, while the other is closer to the proposed 1550 BC destruction…these dates are so broad that they are useless in contributing to solving the problem for the date of destruction. Overall, the C-14 dates from the destruction of the Bronze Age city of Jericho range from as high as 1883 BC to as low as 1262 BC - a range of over 600 years.” Clearly we will need to look to other methods to determine when Jericho was destroyed.

Regarding the second, the article says that Archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon's earlier interpretation that Jericho was abandoned at the time of the Conquest of Canaan in 1406 BC is incorrect, when considering all the evidence demonstrating that Jericho was still in existence through 1500 BCE.

On the third, one archaeologist - Dr. Bryant Wood, considered to be an expert in Canaanite pottery noted that another Archaeologist - Kathleen Kenyon, had based her dating of the destruction of Jericho solely on "the absence of imported pottery". Her conclusions that Jericho was unoccupied at the time Joshua is said to have conquered and destroyed Jericho was based on... The author of the article put in his bit... (She would have done well to follow esteemed Egyptologist, Kenneth Kitchen’s maxim, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”)

What's the point?
Both Garstang and Kenyon conducted significant excavations at Jericho. Both were excellent field archaeologists Garstang meticulously analyzed the pottery he excavated and Kenyon carefully improved excavation methodology in general. Yet both differed on their interpretation of the data.

Evidence is not conclusion. Evidence requires interpreting. Different interpretations lead to different conclusions. Those conclusions may be wrong.
This is why scientists will disagree with each other, because interpretations don't mean the same thing.

So to be sure, is there anything you disagree with in this OP? Please specify or add anything you would like to... related to th OP, please.

Don't you just love the way some people embrace and use the results of science to dis and mock the very think they embrace and use.

I do find this rather hypocritical but hey, that's just my view, you may have a different take on it

 

[Revoltingest]

Science is the lens through which we learn about the wonder of God's world. To deny science is to reject that God-given lens.

But what is one to do when belief in the inerrant truth
of the Bible conflicts with what one observes in the
real world? Call those observations "babble".

 

[stvdv]

Dismiss away, if you want,

It was not about "to dismiss or not to dismiss"

You pointed out to @Hockeycowboy "assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

And in the same line, you did exactly that, make an "assertion without evidence"

Hence I mirrored your own words

 

[tas8831]

My knowing that there is a Creator would not change how I would have, say, analyzed/interpreted radio telescope data. But it is certainly true Christians in grad school, for example, will often be made to feel uncomfortable. I was guilty of that kind of intolerance when I was in college.

'Intolerance'? Were these graduate students trying to insinuate their deity into their research?