David Paszkiewicz's idea of science

[Bryan]

No it doesn't. It comes down to the fact that young-earth creationists aren't doing science. See the below.

Below where ... you respond to the same statement from me but with different words? Are you suffering from MPD or what?

Then you don't understand science. They're not doing science because they're not following scientific method.

I keep hearing your side claim that but without addressing the demarcation problem. You understand the demarcation problem, right? Is that why you keep avoiding it? And then take the easy way out by intimating that I don't understand science?

They are merely taking the conclusions from people who have done the science and claiming that the Bible says the same thing - even though people didn't figure these things out from the Bible but only after science did its work. So not only are they not following scientific method, but they are also ignoring history.

We're no longer talking about dinosaurs and the issues where YECs and naturalistic scientists agree. We're talking about where the two diverge as to their presuppositions. Your argument above is completely nonsensical in that context. There is no occasion for "taking the conclusions from people who have done the science" in the present context.

[Bryan]

Well, Bryan, you are hopelessly, miserably wrong yet again. The necessary interplay between the rigors of daily science and the artistic-like creative spurts of scientific advancement in no way suggests a contradiction. In their daily work, scientists must rigorously apply established methods. Occasionally someone has to step outside the usual parameters or paradigm and do something different, often on a hunch. There is no contradiction. They are two parts of the same thing.

I didn't say anything about a contradiction. Would you like some help stomping down this straw man?

After we're done then maybe you'll consider dealing with what I actually wrote instead of the argument that your imagination substituted for my reasoning. Figure out what I really said and then tell me whether I'm wrong or not. Thanks.

[Bryan]

You're a prime example of a (very) little knowledge being a dangerous thing. You know big words but you don't know how they fit in. Counterexamples aren’t enough when its main thrust is to say that the Bible can be used in place of science.

Is that through the Miracle of the Fallacy of Special Pleading or some similarly wonderful logical artifact?

The mere fact that they accept some science doesn’t mean that they understand scientific method or accept it as the only way of learning about the natural world, which it is.

I was told that science questions everything. Does that not count the supposition that science is the only way of learning about the natural world? How could science be so unscientific?

The point has been made repeatedly that you can't solve a math problem by doing the first few steps and fudging the rest. It's a point you have consistently ignored for obvious reasons.

Ignored the point? Nonsense. I gave it the space it deserved and moved on. And I'll reiterate and expand the point:

False analogy, since we have many math problems before us rather than one. Though in terms of an overarching TOE I suppose that analogy can still fly ... except that you'd pretty much have to admit that mainstream science has flubbed its equations with regularity.

By all means, keep trying to resurrect the analogy to stave off the criticism. I don't expect you'll end up with what you were aiming for.

You have been told many times why the mere presentation of some facts in a collection of misleading exhibits can be anti-scientific. In this instance, it is.

Great. Then since this thread is still a relatively short seven pages in length, it should be relatively easy for you to link to one of those many times and thus prove me wrong.

Hopefully you won't have to rely on one of the miserably failed attempts. Good luck to you.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=97181 There have been many others. You didn’t argue against these observations, you just asked questions about them. The links make the point clearly.

I took that post apart in detail here.

And it doesn't really see fair to claim that I did not argue against the observations. I showed, for example, that one of the so-called observations was self-contradictory.

The brave soul responsible for the post you linked did not address my reply, AFAICT.

They don’t present it. They just distort it. This link is an argument for supernaturalist explanations for natural phenomena. It’s an attack on evolution from a non-scientific perspective. One of the questions at the bottom asks why evolution should be taught in the schools but not creationism. There are at least two compelling answers to this question. One is that evolution is science and creationism is not. For a good explanation of this, see http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

The Kitzmiller case was far more political theater than philosophy of science.

The other is that creationism doesn’t increase anyone’s fund of knowledge. It can’t be tested or verified, it doesn’t make any useful predictions and it hasn’t contributed a thing to medicine or any other body of science.

If it can't be tested or verified then how do you know that it doesn't increase anyone's fund of knowledge? Did you make that determination without any testing or verification?

Evolution meets all those tests with flying colors, which is why scientists are practically universal in their acceptance of it, to such an extent that evolution is identified as the organizing principle for all of biology.

Not all of the claims of evolution meet those tests with flying colors, and more to the point the philosophical assumptions underpinning the conclusions are themselves incapable of critical types of testing or verification. It is at the latter stage in particular where your side tends to grow careless in distinguishing science from whatever they suppose is not science.

A related point is that evolutionary theory was developed not because people decided in advance that they wanted to believe it; just the opposite, until the 19th century, virtually no one had ever considered evolution.

As Joe Biden might say, "God love ya!"

"Evolutionary thought, the conception that species change over time, has its roots in antiquity, in the ideas of the Greeks, Romans, Chinese and Arabs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

It is also true that this evolutionary thinking, inspired by the re-examination of the wisdom of the ancients, was popularized well prior to the 19th century. Darwin's theory of natural selection was simply the most successful method of supporting the already-popularized evolutionary thinking.

Don't they teach this stuff in school any longer?

It was developed because that is where the evidence leads.

Partially correct, but the amount of stuff you're leaving out suggest either you don't know much about it or you're trying to mislead others.

By contrast, the only thing “supporting” creationism is that this is what people wish to believe. Of the two, the discovery of evolutionary theory has the far more compelling claim to truth.

Again, you're radically oversimplifying things.

The link whines about various forms of science, and yet by following scientific method, scientists have revolutionized the world. Anyone can make an argument, Bryan, as you prove here every time you write. It is quite another matter to back that argument up with facts. Evolutionary theory, and science in general, have the facts on their side, including a history of progress and development. Theology and creationism have none of that.

But the argument isn't really about evolution versus creationism. It is about what is or isn't anti-science and whether exposure to other ideas such as YEC is enduringly harmful. When you substitute the type of argument you're presenting for the type of argument we ought to be having, one might wonder what motivates the switch.

Bryan, if you would bother reading the links you post, you might see that they don’t support your argument.

I'm quite open to hearing specifics. But I'm not that interested in glib claims that double as personal attacks.

No reputable scientists says that creationism is a substitute for science.

Did I argue otherwise? Feel free to refresh my memory. Until then, I find it difficult to sustain my interest in your writings.

Here’s the essence of your problem. The quotation can be found under the section on Kuhn in your link: “Kuhn instead argued that a new paradigm is accepted mainly because it has a superior ability to solve problems that arise in the process of doing normal science.” Creationism doesn’t solve any problems. Evolutionary theory does, as demonstrated by its numerous applications in medicine and its entry into the study of every dynamic system, including the social sciences.

Great. How is that a problem for me? Be as specific as you are able.

You keep making the same mistake over and over, Bryan.

And what is that supposed mistake? Do tell.

You’re so enamored with your philosophy that you’ve neglected to take a look at the world and see whether anything actually supports your claims. And you still haven’t addressed the fact that without scientific method, there is no science.

Doesn't that suggest that perhaps there is no science if the demarcation problem isn't solved?

You brave anonymous Guests amuse me. You love to point out my supposed problems, but they seem to always turn out to be straw men or the like. Supposedly I haven't deal with the "fact" that without scientific method there is no science. But it is clearly fact that I have introduced the demarcation problem in reply to that supposition, and the demarcation problem has not been addressed by your side. Emphasizing Kuhn's focus on paradigm shifts does not seem quite adequate to sweep that issue under the rug, IMHO.

Though perhaps you can wish differently.

[Guest Guest]

I keep hearing your side claim that but without addressing the demarcation problem. You understand the demarcation problem, right? Is that why you keep avoiding it? And then take the easy way out by intimating that I don't understand science?

The demarcation problem exists at the margins of science, not spanning the vast chasm between science and creationism. Yet again you try to reduce everything to a simplistic category without looking at the substance of what you're trying to address.

We're no longer talking about dinosaurs and the issues where YECs and naturalistic scientists agree. We're talking about where the two diverge as to their presuppositions. Your argument above is completely nonsensical in that context. There is no occasion for "taking the conclusions from people who have done the science" in the present context.

They don't just diverge in their presuppositions. They also diverge in their methods. Theologians did not do the research that produced evolutionary theory. Scientists did that.

On both accounts, yet again, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Guest Guest]

The Kitzmiller case was far more political theater than philosophy of science.

In other words, you didn't agree with the result. Judge Jones issued a carefully reasoned decision. On what basis do you criticize this decision from a federal judge who is far more intelligent and far more mature than you are? He worked very hard on the case, as is obvious from the depth of the decision.

If it can't be tested or verified then how do you know that it doesn't increase anyone's fund of knowledge? Did you make that determination without any testing or verification?

Santa Claus doesn't increase anyone's fund of knowledge either. The reason has nothing to do with an ability to test or verify it. It has to do with the fact that it doesn't add anything to the fund of knowledge. Good grief, you're an idiot!

[Guest Guest]

Not all of the claims of evolution meet those tests with flying colors, and more to the point the philosophical assumptions underpinning the conclusions are themselves incapable of critical types of testing or verification. It is at the latter stage in particular where your side tends to grow careless in distinguishing science from whatever they suppose is not science.

Then how do you explain the fact that evolution is the organizing principle for all of biology?

How do you explain the fact that it accurately predicts how the gaps in the existing record will be filled in?

How do you explain the fact that before scientists knew how to test DNA, evolutionary theory predicted the pattern that DNA testing would later reveal?

How do you explain the fact that evolution has been replicated in simple organisms, and that the replication can be repeated at will?

How do you explain evolutionary theory's many applications in medicine?

How do you explain the fact that it has revolutionized the social sciences?

How do you explain the fact that it has spawned new disciplines like game theory?

How do you explain the fact that scientists are almost unanimous in disagreeing with you?

How do you justify relying on airy-fairy philosophy when a mountain of scientific data demolishes your claims?

[Bryan]

The demarcation problem exists at the margins of science, not spanning the vast chasm between science and creationism. Yet again you try to reduce everything to a simplistic category without looking at the substance of what you're trying to address.

If you can't identify the border then how do you know it doesn't cross any chasm at all? Do you hope to get by on bluster?

They don't just diverge in their presuppositions. They also diverge in their methods. Theologians did not do the research that produced evolutionary theory. Scientists did that.

On both accounts, yet again, you don't know what you're talking about.

So your irony was intentional?

Charles Darwin studied theology in school.

http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300136081

1828 – 1831: Attended and graduated from Cambridge University, intending to become a clergyman.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:gyJ4_T...=clnk&gl=us

You Guests are great. Really.

[Guest Guest]

Bryan, just because you claim to have demolished every argument you've ever encountered doesn't mean you did.

And your opinions are hardly humble.

[Guest Guest]

If you can't identify the border then how do you know it doesn't cross any chasm at all? Do you hope to get by on bluster?

The same way I know that my flowers have died when the petals fall off. Just because I can't pinpoint the moment of death doesn't mean I can't tell the difference between life and death.

The same way I know which boxer won the match when one of them is dancing around and the other is flat on his back and out cold. Just because I couldn't tell a moment before the KO doesn't mean there isn't a point when the winner is obvious.

The same way I know that a piece of meat is contaminated when it has mold on it and smells awful. Just because I didn't see the first bacterium divide doesn't mean I can't tell an obviously contaminated piece of meat when I see one.

Bryan, are you really that stupid, or just incredibly stubborn?

So your irony was intentional?

Charles Darwin studied theology in school.

http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300136081

1828 – 1831: Attended and graduated from Cambridge University, intending to become a clergyman.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:gyJ4_T...=clnk&gl=us

Yeah, and the Pope studied science and Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat. So what? Darwin did his research as a scientist, not a theologian.

[Guest Abner's brother]

If you can't identify the border then how do you know it doesn't cross any chasm at all? Do you hope to get by on bluster?

Bryan, you haven’t learned a damned thing in more than a year. Your arguments are still as ridiculous as they were then. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/lofiversi.../t24651-50.html

*******************

Abner

Mar 26 2008, 07:35 AM

Uncle Wilber never smelt good anyhow. He lived all by hisself in that little shack down the road ever since his pappy kicked him out when he were about nineteen. It gits right lonesome out in the country, and sometimes a boy – well, we ain’t gotta get inta that.

Anyhow, Wilber was a big feller and kinda round. He liked to eat them greasy pork rinds. Sometime’ we figger them’s all he et. And he weren’t partial to water neither. We was used to smells in the country, but when city folk would come by, they didn’t much seem ta wanna stop by Uncle Wilber’s place. But I liked him just the same, he were just about my fav’rit.

One day some of our cousins come by from the city, so a few of us went on down for a visit. Uncle Wilber were sittin’ in his fav’rit chair. He had part of a pork rind sittin’ on his chest, and at first we figgered he was a-sleepin’. But then we noticed that his eyes was wide and starin’ like, and his skin was blue and he warn’t breathin’. We figgered sure he was daid, but my cousin Bryan said we couldn’t be sure. He said somethin’ about Wilber were probably daid, but maybe there was a 1 in 10^16 chance he were alive.

None of us ever understood half a’ what Bryan said. Like I say, he were from the city and he liked to use them fancy words. But he seemed pretty sure of hisself, so we just figgered he musta knowed what he was talkin’ about.

When somebody die, most folk put ‘em in a box, dig a hole, put ‘em in the hole and cover the hole over with dirt. After cousin Bryan said Wilber might not be daid, we figgered we had to give him a chance ta wake up. So we locked up his place and let him set there. We figgered if he were gonna wake up the best place ta do it would be in his fav’rit chair, and he warn’t botherin’ nobody long as they don't come in.

I come by ta check on Wilber ever’ day that week. The first few days nothin’ seemed ta change, ‘cep’ on top of all the old smells that was always in his place, a new smell seemed to be a-growin’. It warn’t too pleasin’ but you could stand it them first couple-a days. Fourth day, that smell were overpowerin’, even in Wilber’s place. It were kinda like a whole bunch-a giant stinkweeds overtook an oat field. We wrote my cousin Bryan to ask if we could be sure Wilber were daid yet, and after a couple weeks he wrote back and said we still couldn’t be 100% sure. So let him a-set thar.

That summer I would go by ever’ few days to see if old Wilber were a-stirrin’. After a few weeks that powerful stink went down some, but Wilber weren’t lookin’ no better. In fact, he seemed to be losin’ weight. His cheeks was kinda hollow and his clothes was fittin’ loose. After a few months, I come in one day and found he had moved, kinda slumped over to one side. I figgered maybe he had shifted ta make hisself more comfortabul, so I let him set there. He weren’t a hurtin’ nobody and the smell seemed to keep the prowlers away most a’ the summer, and the critters too.

Wilber never did wake up. By next summer, when cousin Bryan and his family come by for another visit, Uncle Wilber weren’t nothin’ but bones, still sittin’ there in his fav’rit chair. We asked cousin Bryan if we could be sure he were daid yet, and he said no, we still couldn’t be sure. That’s when some of the kin started thinkin’ maybe old cousin Bryan didn’t know so much as he let on.

But I wouldn’t do nothin’ different. I just couldn’t stand ta put old Wilber under the ground if there were a chance he might come back ta life. He warn’t hurtin’ nobody sittin’ there in his own place, and like I said, Uncle Wilber never smelt good anyhow.

[Guest Kearny Christian]

Then how do you explain the fact that evolution is the organizing principle for all of biology?

How do you explain the fact that it accurately predicts how the gaps in the existing record will be filled in?

How do you explain the fact that before scientists knew how to test DNA, evolutionary theory predicted the pattern that DNA testing would later reveal?

How do you explain the fact that evolution has been replicated in simple organisms, and that the replication can be repeated at will?

How do you explain evolutionary theory's many applications in medicine?

How do you explain the fact that it has revolutionized the social sciences?

How do you explain the fact that it has spawned new disciplines like game theory?

How do you explain the fact that scientists are almost unanimous in disagreeing with you?

How do you justify relying on airy-fairy philosophy when a mountain of scientific data demolishes your claims?

How do you explain the spontaneous disappearance of a malignant tumor after praying for a cure?

[WilliamK]

How do you explain the spontaneous disappearance of a malignant tumor after praying for a cure?

One man's evidence of misdiagnosis (and that's assuming that your knowledge of this is something much better than just having heard some unsubstantiated second-hand anecdote, in which case it's just evidence of hokum being passed around among the credulous) is another man's solid proof of miracles. Only one of those two positions is rational, and I'll not bother saying which. Everyone knows the answer, but some will not want to acknowledge it.

[Guest Kearny Christian]

One man's evidence of misdiagnosis (and that's assuming that your knowledge of this is something much better than just having heard some unsubstantiated second-hand anecdote, in which case it's just evidence of hokum being passed around among the credulous) is another man's solid proof of miracles. Only one of those two positions is rational, and I'll not bother saying which. Everyone knows the answer, but some will not want to acknowledge it.

MRI's and Scans tell it as it is whether BillyBoy likes it or not.

[Guest Guest]

How do you explain the spontaneous disappearance of a malignant tumor after praying for a cure?

William's answer is absolutely right, and besides:

1. How do you explain the existence of the tumor in the first place?

2. How do you explain that if getting rid of the cancer is good, why didn't God do it without having to be asked?

3. How do you explain the fact that even if these claims weren't easily explainable as misdiagnoses, at best it works only rarely?

If prayer worked as you suggest, we wouldn't have doctors. We wouldn't need them.

So how do you explain your ridiculous belief in the supernatural except that this is what you choose to believe?

[Bryan]

Bryan, you haven’t learned a damned thing in more than a year. Your arguments are still as ridiculous as they were then.

Well, if you can't address the questions then you might as well engage in personal attacks and fallacious appeals to ridicule.

[Bryan]

Bryan, just because you claim to have demolished every argument you've ever encountered doesn't mean you did.

Where do I claim to have demolished every argument I've ever encountered? Or are you just vying for a Red Herring Award?

And your opinions are hardly humble.

Thanks?

[WilliamK]

MRI's and Scans tell it as it is whether BillyBoy likes it or not.

And just which "MRI's and scans" would those be, KC? Were they described to you by some other credulous believer, who heard about it from yet another? Did you hear about it in a sermon in church? A pamphlet that someone left on a train seat? A religious web site? A TV preacher? Or maybe you just made it up, figuring that your belief that these "MRI's and scans" must exist makes it not really lying, even though you don't actually have any knowledge of such. Come on, KC. Fess up. What's your source? Do you have some special source of knowledge that the rest of the world isn't privy to? Or is your claim backed by nothing more than your desire to believe it?

[Bryan]

If you can't identify the border then how do you know it doesn't cross any chasm at all? Do you hope to get by on bluster?

The same way I know that my flowers have died when the petals fall off.

I don't think you understand the issue. If a flower is dead when the petals fall off, then you have a demarcation criterion establishing the difference between live flowers and dead flowers. So can you identify the analogous borders of science or not? Apparently you intend to get by on bluster.

Just because I can't pinpoint the moment of death doesn't mean I can't tell the difference between life and death.

Fine, but that doesn't address the issue. We have "science" with petals still attached, by analogy. Can we have 9 out of 10 petals detached and call it dead and also have 9 out of 10 petals detached and call it alive? That is the issue that cries to be addressed. You give us avoidance. If you're willing to throw out the science that fails to meet all Popperian criteria, then fine. But I hope you know what you're doing.

Bryan, are you really that stupid, or just incredibly stubborn?

Sometimes a false dilemma is also an ad hominem fallacy. Address the issue, brave "Guest."

Yeah, and the Pope studied science and Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat. So what?

So this is false:

Theologians did not do the research that produced evolutionary theory. Scientists did that.

A person educated in theology (what we call a "theologian") did some of the key research that produced evolutionary theory. A person who knew Darwin's background would have been stupid to make that claim. It's just another example of anti-religious bigotry.

Darwin did his research as a scientist, not a theologian.

What did he do, exactly, to stop being a theologian while he did his science? Surely you must know, if you're going to make a claim like that. Did he have a stroke and forget his theological education?

[Guest Guest]

MRI's and Scans tell it as it is whether BillyBoy likes it or not.

Then you need to cite the evidence supporting your claim.

[Guest Guest]

If a flower is dead when the petals fall off, then you have a demarcation criterion establishing the difference between live flowers and dead flowers.

No you don't. That's not the point of demarcation. That's just a sign that the demarcation point has already been passed.

The same way I know that my flowers have died when the petals fall off.

I don't think you understand the issue. If a flower is dead when the petals fall off, then you have a demarcation criterion establishing the difference between live flowers and dead flowers. So can you identify the analogous borders of science or not? Apparently you intend to get by on bluster.

Fine, but that doesn't address the issue. We have "science" with petals still attached, by analogy. Can we have 9 out of 10 petals detached and call it dead and also have 9 out of 10 petals detached and call it alive? That is the issue that cries to be addressed. You give us avoidance. If you're willing to throw out the science that fails to meet all Popperian criteria, then fine. But I hope you know what you're doing.

Dumbo, it was dead before the petals started falling off. That's why they fell off. I don't have to be able to demarcate the exact point of death to know that when it has dropped all its petals, it's dead.

What did he do, exactly, to stop being a theologian while he did his science? Surely you must know, if you're going to make a claim like that. Did he have a stroke and forget his theological education?

No, he just didn't use it to do his scientific research.

[Bryan]

No you don't.

Yes you do. You're just misreading my statement. Put another way, if the flower is considered dead at the point when all the petals fall off and for that particular reason, then that is the demarcation point.

No, he just didn't use it to do his scientific research.

If that was the issue then "Guest" should have said that theologians aren't doing theology when they do science.

But that isn't what "Guest" wrote, is it?