Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
A model:
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History
by Independent researchers Steven Austin, ICR, John Baumgardner, Los Alamos National Laboratory, D. Russell Humphreys, Sandia National Laboratories; Andrew Snelling, Answers in Genesis (USA); Larry Vardiman, ICR; Kurt Wise, Truett-McConnell CollegeOctober 27, 2010
http://http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/catastrophic-plate-tectonics
Some detailed research:
Conflicting ‘ages’ of Tertiary basalt and contained fossilised wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia
Andrew A. Snelling
http://http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/tj_v14n2_crinum.pdf
The sites and links can be followed to other research.
*****************************************************************************
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
How interested are you in why neither of those are scientific models? Cause if I go t the trouble of explaining and you just ignore the answer I'll be some what annoyed
0 -
-
-
-
We covered that before, but reached different conclusions.How interested are you in why neither of those are scientific models? Cause if I go t the trouble of explaining and you just ignore the answer I'll be some what annoyed
*****************************************************************************
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"Processes of comparison" are not culturally defined. Quantum mechanics is more correct than classical mechanics. Darwinian evolution is more correct than Lamarckian evolution.
for something to be "more" correct there has to be an ideally "perfectly correct" science which is an exact description of the universe. To return to a mathematical analogy we discussed elsewhere, the assumption is that science is attempting to find this book in the Library of Babel. c.f. George Louis Borges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_BabelIn any case, it is clear that a library containing all possible books, arranged at random, is equivalent (as a source of information) to a library containing zero books
So even if a fair assumption such a view of science is it seems logically equivalent to not having any knowledge of the natural world.
But let us examine "better" science. The logical/empiricist would view it as having a description which is capable of solving problems which the earlier system was not able to do. But these problems also remain domain specific e.g. making a silicon chip involves quantum theory , getting a satellite to the where Mercury will be in ten years time may involve relativity and classical mechanics would be less accurate, changing plants to adapt to environments may involve modern genetics and Lemarkian evolution would be hopeless. To solve cultural problems however requires going outside the domain. In spite of "advances" in weaponry and genetics no "super" science wil solve the problems of War or food production. Such is scientism. the answer to such problems isn't over the next hill in some scientifically "better" explanation but in the human heart.Are you suggesting there is a culture that could propose a system of comparison where, say, classical mechanics is more correct that quantum mechanics?
I'm not a Luddite but I do believe society would be better without war or famine and if we chose to embargo nuclear weapons cloning and other "advances" for this then yes that would be be a "better" world and "more correct" way of living. If Frankenstein germ warfare nuclear weapons and destruction of the environment are the results of "more correct" science are they really worth having ? What are they getting us nearer to? An exactly correct science where we are all dead?
My point is science on its own isn't really sufficient. We can't justify science on the basis it is scientifically "more correct" than the previous attempt even if such a basis for a description is true.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
for something to be "more" correct there has to be an ideally "perfectly correct" science which is an exact description of the universe. To return to a mathematical analogy we discussed elsewhere, the assumption is that science is attempting to find this book in the Library of Babel. c.f. George Louis Borges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel
So even if a fair assumption such a view of science is it seems logically equivalent to not having any knowledge of the natural world.
By more correct, I mean a more complete representation of the observed behaviour of nature.But let us examine "better" science. The logical/empiricist would view it as having a description which is capable of solving problems which the earlier system was not able to do. But these problems also remain domain specific e.g. making a silicon chip involves quantum theory , getting a satellite to the where Mercury will be in ten years time may involve relativity and classical mechanics would be less accurate, changing plants to adapt to environments may involve modern genetics and Lemarkian evolution would be hopeless. To solve cultural problems however requires going outside the domain. In spite of "advances" in weaponry and genetics no "super" science wil solve the problems of War or food production. Such is scientism. the answer to such problems isn't over the next hill in some scientifically "better" explanation but in the human heart.
My point is science on its own isn't really sufficient. We can't justify science on the basis it is scientifically "more correct" than the previous attempt even if such a basis for a description is true.
I am addressing the notion that scientific theories are culturally influenced, due to "processes of comparison".I'm not a Luddite but I do believe society would be better without war or famine and if we chose to embargo nuclear weapons cloning and other "advances" for this then yes that would be be a "better" world and "more correct" way of living. If Frankenstein germ warfare nuclear weapons and destruction of the environment are the results of "more correct" science are they really worth having ? What are they getting us nearer to? An exactly correct science where we are all dead?
Classical mechanics is not a way of living. It is a set of statements about how things behave. These statements say nothing about moral choices or applications.
As an aside: The science of germs has saved billions of lives over the years, more than all the lives biological and nuclear weaponry has destroyed.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
And with that in mind, what are alternative scientific criteria for "more correct"?
As there is no idealised progression to any "better" there isn't any "more correct" there is only what we have as being more accurate in terms of what we have as compared to what we had. We can't say what we will have will be better ( I mean in terms of accuracy) as
1. empirical measurement isn't objective but culturally influenced
2. Science isnt progeessive or cululative
depending on the philosophy 1 or 2 may apply
the idea of something being "more correct" is loading the question with such an assumption. I happen to subscribe to that assumption personally but it isnt being objective
to state other interpretations dont exist or are invalid.You are constructing a false dichotomy. (Either science is a mechanical, unbiased series of progressions towards an absolute truth, or it is culturally influenced).
Personally I think a bit of both but you have ot be careful about what you mean by "absolute truth"In reality, the biases that can seep into science mentioned by the website are squeezed out by future scientific investigations.
Into "science" as a culture no. Into "scientific measurement" i.e. empirical science ? - well that again presuposed that empirical science is gradually moving towards some absolute objective truthIt may take several decades for a better theory to be accepted,
Better in terms of the culture of the later theory? And again if "better" means "more accurate in terms of predicting or describing the world" we are back into the problems of empiricism being objective or influenced by culture.and this may be due to imperfect, biased peer review (read the history of the theory of plate-tectonics for example), but the faults are exposed regardless.
So "scientists sometimes get it wrong" . But according to what? According to some ultimately absolute objective laws of nature ( which we can't prove) or according to the culture of the day which say the last bunch got it wrong ( and who later will be said to actually be wrong) ?In the above link, it is assumed that, once a theory is accepted by any given biased portion of the scientific community, it is enshrined and immune to attacks in the future. This is not the case, and as I said in an earlier discussion, the personal bias of a scientist or group of scientists might delay a sound theory, or temporarily give life to an unsound theory, but these faults are weeded out by the scientific process as a whole.
the above link does not make the assumption that a paradigm is immune to attacks but as Kuhn would say the culture of the day protects the accepted view from attacks. In his view it is the mavericks who lead revolutions.
Science is a Western thing based on Greek reasoning in Chalmers view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_This_Thing_Called_Science%3F
Your view seems closer to Wolpert's
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/apr/07/science.highereducationI would teach the world that science is the best way to understand the world, and that for any set of observations, there is only one correct explanation. Also, science is value-free, as it explains the world as it is. Ethical issues arise only when science is applied to technology – from medicine to industry...
and
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelfoundation/symposia/interdisciplinary/ns120/lectures/wolpert.pdf
page 6I regard it
as ethically unacceptable and impractical to censor any aspect of trying to
understand the nature of our world.
But note his earlier comment page 3Whatever new technology is introduced, it is not for
the scientists to make the moral or ethical decisions. They have neither
special rights nor skills in areas involving moral or ethical issues.
Take your Geological theories for example.
Most Biblical theories are catastrophic . the gradualist movement contradicted this. Evolution began as a gradualist theory. today we have catastrophist evolution i.e. they believe nothing much happens for very long periods and species settle down. Then along comes global warming or an ice age or Volcanoes or an extraterrestrial impact and whole blocks of species are extincted and within a very short time new species evolve to fill the gaps and evolution then settles down for another long period.
I am aware of the technology and science not being the same but for cultural reasons take the sword. The Eastern cultures had gun powder. They stuck with the sword and arrow in spite of having already developed guns.
When the Europeans got gun powder they developed it and came back and conquered Japan and China with them.
As tosqueezed out by future scientific investigations
this apparently applies to all scientific theories ever written down. and it suggests no regressive steps ever happen, that science always progresses. But again this accepts that most of science can be wrong and that science will eventually accept that the maverick who is right is actually right. Acience has accepted the new paradigm but what does that say for the science that rejected it for say a generation? If science can do this then what in the future is to stop an atheistic regime using a weapon like the atomic bomb before we later accept they were wrong and squeeze them out?To paraphrase a great physics graduate: "Science knows it doesn't know everything. Otherwise it would stop.". As long as science never stops, bias and impartiality will be exposed and removed.
I think you meant "partiality" but again this is an appeal to the pure ideal of science . In practice science does not operate on that. It operates on grants and budgets. a lot of pure science is dropped not because it is poor science but because the budgets are not there. To suggest that science has some form of self regulating mechanism which makes sure the best science is eventually done without any budgetary and political and cultural influence I would say is both reification and naive.And that assumption is evidenced by the statistical distribution of galaxies in the universe, and the isotropic cosmic microwave background radiation.
I didn't say there are no grounds to assume that matter is evenly spread in the univers or that the laws of physics work the same in all parts of the universe. I din't say that assumptiona like " that there exists an external objective reality, that our senses are generally reliable, and so forth. " are not reasonable. But they are assumptions none the less. We believe them to be true and work form there. It is important because when we get to meta science we have to remember for example we are using say "objective reality"
as a beginning and using our developments in areas of "subjective reality" for example will be invalid.
I come across this with some posters who will base an argument on sound scientific principles to argue about say subjective reality. But the principles themselves are based on science developed on axioms of objective reality. As Descartes I think said if you build a house on faulty foundations it will fall down.If you want to discuss a fundamental assumption, consider the one I mentioned in the Atheist Elite College thread: Uniformitarianism. These kinds of assumptions are essential for science to even exist, and aren't specific to any culture or society.
And look above to where evolutionary gradualism opposed creationism which was catrophist and also uniform. But later evolutionary theories such as punctuated evolution is unioform and catastrophist and involves rapid evolution following catastrophies.This is simply untrue. New technology is often the direct application of modern scientific theories. Light-emitting-diodes, unlike candles and light bulbs, rely heavily on quantum mechanics. And you can find a rich history of experimental tests for quantum mechanics and relativity in physics journals.
So what? You have the logic backwards. It didn't argue that developments come from new science. It argued old devices still work e.g. candles even though we no longer believe the element of fire was being liberated from the element of earth in the candle and moving towards the sphere of fire above us.This is an oversimplification. Classical mechanics is not "wrong", for example. It was merely found to approximate only a limited range of behaviour. And Darwinian evolution has been so thoroughly tested that, while there are still open questions about the details, we can have a great deal of confidence in it. But again, that does not mean it will stop being investigated.
But this idea that "science is always improving in accuracy and extending it's domain" ids neither a proof it will ever reach an ultimate goal nor an objective definition of "more right"Since scientific research never stops, ad-hoc modifications to an unsound theory can only delay, and never prevent, the criticism and rejection of a theory. Nobody is going to continuously append ad-hoc corrections to a theory for all time.
LOL with "dark matter theory" you could have fooled me
And how do you know? In fact if science is gradually changing over time how can you say science isnt a load of ad hoc additions to a few core ideals?Knowledge is socially constructed insofar as scientific theories are man-made explanations of observations. But the key point is the success of a theory is not based on any man-made cultural or social bias. It is based on it's ability to form a working predictive framework.
Of an objective reality which would exist independent of any sentient being?
Two problems arise here
1. How do yo know that?
2. People interpret things in different ways.
Science deals with 1 by assuming a particular philosophical stance. That stance isnt unique and may differ depending on the culture of the science and scientists. I tend to subscribe to "western Science" i.e. as developed from greek rationality.
Western Science deals with 2 by appealing to "empiricism" I have already shown the problems with this.0 -
As there is no idealised progression to any "better" there isn't any "more correct" there is only what we have as being more accurate in terms of what we have as compared to what we had.
This is what I defined as more correct earlier. I.e. A theory is "more correct" if it provides a more complete description of a set of phenomena. I am asking you for an alternative definition. If there are none, then the charge that physics and biology are culturally influenced largely evaporates.We can't say what we will have will be better ( I mean in terms of accuracy) as
1. empirical measurement isn't objective but culturally influenced
2. Science isnt progeessive or cululative
depending on the philosophy 1 or 2 may apply
We can easily say what we have will be more accurate. Quantum mechanics is more accurate than classical mechanics, and we can see this in the prediction of molecular properties. Quantum field theory is more accurate than quantum mechanics, and we can see this in the properties of superconductors, or in high-energy experiments. And science is progressive and cumulative. You only need to glance at the abstracts of any journal through the years to see that.the idea of something being "more correct" is loading the question with such an assumption. I happen to subscribe to that assumption personally but it isnt being objective to state other interpretations dont exist or are invalid.
I have defined the term. You are saying physics is culturally influenced. I am saying that, if more correct is interpreted as "more accurate/complete/predictive" then it is not culturally influenced in any meaningful sense. You then said there are other definitions of "more correct" which might render science as culturally influenced. I am asking you for alternative interpretations.Into "science" as a culture no. Into "scientific measurement" i.e. empirical science ? - well that again presuposed that empirical science is gradually moving towards some absolute objective truth
Better in terms of the culture of the later theory? And again if "better" means "more accurate in terms of predicting or describing the world" we are back into the problems of empiricism being objective or influenced by culture.
And how are empirical measurements influenced by culture? There is no culture, for example, where the accuracy of hartree-fock theory will not be improved by a configuration interaction calculation afterwards. We can say a configuration interaction calculation provides a more accurate picture than a hartree-fock calculation without having to qualify it with "in our culture anyway".So "scientists sometimes get it wrong" . But according to what? According to some ultimately absolute objective laws of nature ( which we can't prove) or according to the culture of the day which say the last bunch got it wrong ( and who later will be said to actually be wrong) ?
According to the criteria of accuracy, predictability, explanatory power etc. Nobody is claiming absolute truth.the above link does not make the assumption that a paradigm is immune to attacks but as Kuhn would say the culture of the day protects the accepted view from attacks. In his view it is the mavericks who lead revolutions.
Science is a Western thing based on Greek reasoning in Chalmers view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_This_Thing_Called_Science%3F
Actually, I have to say that, when this does happen in science, it is philosophy that is to blame.
"Against Philosophy" by Weinberg
But I do accept that there can exist "pet theories" in some circles of scientists. But I would also say that such theories will ultimately depend on successful support by experiment and observations.Your view seems closer to Wolpert's
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/apr/07/science.highereducation
and
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelfoundation/symposia/interdisciplinary/ns120/lectures/wolpert.pdf
page 6
But note his earlier comment page 3
...
I am aware of the technology and science not being the same but for cultural reasons take the sword. The Eastern cultures had gun powder. They stuck with the sword and arrow in spite of having already developed guns.
When the Europeans got gun powder they developed it and came back and conquered Japan and China with them.
I have no issue with the separation of scientific research from the ethical use of the research.Take your Geological theories for example.
Most Biblical theories are catastrophic . the gradualist movement contradicted this. Evolution began as a gradualist theory. today we have catastrophist evolution i.e. they believe nothing much happens for very long periods and species settle down. Then along comes global warming or an ice age or Volcanoes or an extraterrestrial impact and whole blocks of species are extincted and within a very short time new species evolve to fill the gaps and evolution then settles down for another long period.
...
And look above to where evolutionary gradualism opposed creationism which was catrophist and also uniform. But later evolutionary theories such as punctuated evolution is unioform and catastrophist and involves rapid evolution following catastrophies.
We have had this discussion before, and I will again say that catastrophism, in the biblical sense, has been rejected by the scientific community, and that punctuated equilibrium is a gradualist theory. Nobody would argue that large-scale extinction events haven't altered the history of life, and this is sometimes called "neocatastrophism", but I find that term unhelpful, and if you must use it, it is important to make the distinction between it and the more traditional, Biblical catastrophism. So while catastrophic events can and do occur (and this has never been contentious), geology is still gradualistic.this apparently applies to all scientific theories ever written down. and it suggests no regressive steps ever happen, that science always progresses. But again this accepts that most of science can be wrong and that science will eventually accept that the maverick who is right is actually right. Acience has accepted the new paradigm but what does that say for the science that rejected it for say a generation? If science can do this then what in the future is to stop an atheistic regime using a weapon like the atomic bomb before we later accept they were wrong and squeeze them out?
It only suggests that, while regressive steps do happen, the overall trend is progressive. And any regression cannot be blamed on culural influence, but rather on the simple fact that we do not know everything, and sometimes get it wrong.I think you meant "partiality" but again this is an appeal to the pure ideal of science . In practice science does not operate on that. It operates on grants and budgets. a lot of pure science is dropped not because it is poor science but because the budgets are not there. To suggest that science has some form of self regulating mechanism which makes sure the best science is eventually done without any budgetary and political and cultural influence I would say is both reification and naive.
I am not saying science is ideal from day to day. I am saying, in the long term, cultural bias is removed.
And yes, funding bodies are always an issue, and scientists can be pressed to make their research "relevant". But this is largely in technology/applications areas, like drug development. And when junk science does occur, it is called out by the open-research community.I didn't say there are no grounds to assume that matter is evenly spread in the univers or that the laws of physics work the same in all parts of the universe. I din't say that assumptiona like " that there exists an external objective reality, that our senses are generally reliable, and so forth. " are not reasonable. But they are assumptions none the less. We believe them to be true and work form there. It is important because when we get to meta science we have to remember for example we are using say "objective reality" as a beginning and using our developments in areas of "subjective reality" for example will be invalid. I come across this with some posters who will base an argument on sound scientific principles to argue about say subjective reality. But the principles themselves are based on science developed on axioms of objective reality. As Descartes I think said if you build a house on faulty foundations it will fall down.
You implied the homogeneous assumption was a cultural assumption, as opposed to an assumption that is held based on evidence. If you accept that it is not a cultural assumption then there is no issue.So what? You have the logic backwards. It didn't argue that developments come from new science. It argued old devices still work e.g. candles even though we no longer believe the element of fire was being liberated from the element of earth in the candle and moving towards the sphere of fire above us.
Yes, and I'm saying even though old devices still work, new devices don't, as they are more reliant on scientific theory. I.e. If quantum mechanics wasn't more correct than "fire liberation" theory, new devices wouldn't work.LOL with "dark matter theory" you could have fooled me
Scientists fully accept that general relativity is only an approximation, even if they disagree as to where the theory breaks down. Dark matter, (and especially dark energy) are anomalies that we cannot fully explain with current theories, and we certainly aren't interpreting them as "quick-fixes" to theories which are clearly incomplete. Furthermore, thereAnd how do you know? In fact if science is gradually changing over time how can you say science isnt a load of ad hoc additions to a few core ideals?
I can easily say that, as it is obvious from the structure of the theories. What, for examples, are the few core ideas in physics, with a load of ad-hoc additions?Of an objective reality which would exist independent of any sentient being?
Two problems arise here
1. How do yo know that?
2. People interpret things in different ways.
Science deals with 1 by assuming a particular philosophical stance. That stance isnt unique and may differ depending on the culture of the science and scientists. I tend to subscribe to "western Science" i.e. as developed from greek rationality.
Western Science deals with 2 by appealing to "empiricism" I have already shown the problems with this.
What are the alternative sciences?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement