The left's anti-science: The culture of speculation, Global Warming and Evolution

World Net Daily ^ | April 4, 2014 | Jonathon Moseley

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Science is limited by the Problem of Induction.

Science has never proven anything absolutely true and never will. All that science has ever done is developed formulas and theoretical statements that explain what happened in the past and what might happen in the future with varying degrees of probability.

[P-Marlowe]

But neither ID or LT are useful in predicting what will happen going forward.

Of course they are. Things are the way God created them. You work forward from that premise and your method will be as scientifically valid as the idiot that thinks the life arose from some primordial soup rather than from the hand of God.

[Moseley]

But neither ID or LT are useful in predicting what will happen going forward.

A thing is not true because it would be useful if it were true.

That is self-delusion.

[freedumb2003]

>>First, I studied physics for several years at Hampshire College, taking classes at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst through the exchange of the Five College system.<<

I will take your word for it.

>>The hypothesis of evolution is incapable of being tested scientifically.<<

It has been and is. It meets every single criteria for a Scientific Theory. If it is lacking, please specifically state where.

>>Part of the Scientific Method is to formulate a hypothesis that is CAPABLE of being tested as true or false — technically the null hypothesis is capable of being proven false.<<

That is the way Physics works. We need to create a planet to explain how the Earth was created?

>>The next step is to design an experiment capable of proving the hypothesis true or false (proving the null hypothesis false).<<

You ignore the NY flies specific example I cited. So, string theory and monopoles — there is no point in exploring based on physical data available?

>>The Scientific Method demands that the hypothesis be up to the standard of being testable, and also demands that the experiment be WELL-designed... not just any experiment.<<

Again, make an Earth or decry Geology. Likewise, feel free to explain how The Theory of Gravity must now be abandoned since we cannot create a gravitational fieeld.

>>The hypothesis of evolution is incapable of being tested by experimental results.

One of the most important steps when using a tool is to KNOW the LIMITS of your tool: When does it work and when does it not work.

What happened before the consciousness of humans began or history started being recorded is impossible for science to investigate.<<

This science that looks at a femur 12 million years old should just toss it in the wastebasket.

>>Science can only investigate phenomenon that can be observed NOW, in the present, with repeated experiments now in the present.<<

That statement belies your opening statement.

>>Where science has been corrupted and has gone off the rails is that SPECULATION has replaced the Scientific Method.

So people get all excited and emotionally invested in what COULD be true, and then assume it is true.<<

You really don’t understand science.

>>Possibility is not proof.

But mere possibility is all that modern science has degenerated into.

Again:

Possibility is not proof.<<

Proof can certainly create a probable scenario. I would say billions of consistent data points and physical evidence is pretty good proof.

You didn’t pay attention in your “science” classes (assuming you paid attention). Your cute summary of the Scientific Method is misapplied in this case. And I see you didn’t even bother to walk through what a Scientific Theory is.

[P-Marlowe]

ID is just a satisfying emotional middleground.

You wouldn't be here to push evolution if it weren't for ID.

Your failure to see the hand of God in creation is your problem. You will stand before the creator some day. You can tell him then that his creation would have been the same even if HE didn't exist.

God is responsible for you being here today. He could have created you as a slug, but instead he created you as an intelligent being. It's a shame you can't recognize that but for the grace of God you could have been a slug.

[ifinnegan]

“Sometimes an expert is worse than an ignoramus.”

Perhaps more than sometimes. Often is more like it.

Yet I don’t freedumb2003 is an expert.

There’s a line about a little bit of knowledge.

Freedumb2003, you are too defensive and lose your objectivity.

Or you simply are a liberal.

[Vision]

bm

[freedumb2003]

>>Sometimes an expert is worse than an ignoramus.<<

That is an argument?

You would go to your garbage man for a brain operation? Since an ignoramus is better than an expert.

And need I repeat the old saw about a lawyer who represents himself?

I have made it clear that AGW meets no Scientific Theory criteria (note they have never held themselves to that standard).

It is in no way like TToE.

Or do you think physics, chemistry, cosmology and The Theory of Gravity (which doesn’t even come CLOSE to the level of TToE) are also OK with ignoramus’ at the helm?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

*** When the fraud of man-made global warming finally dies, folks will start thinking: What else were we lied to about?***

No they won’t because by then the scientists will have found some other thing to keep the public frightened.

The purpose of a politician is to keep the public frightened of an imaginary booger man that only the politician can protect you from.

[freedumb2003]

>>Freedumb2003, you are too defensive and lose your objectivity.<<

Explaining science to laypeople isn’t defensive. It is education.

>>Or you simply are a liberal.<<

I see it didn’t take long for the ad homimum to come out when you didn’t address a single scientific argument I made.

Translation: “I don’t know science and don’t understand your arguments, FD, so I will call you a poopy-head.”

*sigh*

Lurkers now now there are Conservatives who know what science is. And, sadly, those who do not.

I am done here.

[Moseley]

So the Big Bang theory is not science because we won’t be able to test it?

That's correct. The Scientific Method -- which pulled humanity out of the Dark Ages and times of superstition -- require:

1) Observe a phenomenon. We observe that the universe is expanding, including with the observation that if we rolled it back in reverse it appears that it would converge (in reverse) at a single point.

2) Formulate a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. Note that whether the hypothesis is very broad or very narrow or many degrees in between has a gigantic impact on how you think about and understand all of these things. You might have a hypothesis that very powerfully explains a very tiny aspect of astrophysics and celestial mechanics, but have more and more trouble the wider you open your lens.

The big bang theory is a HYPOTHESIS. It is a possible explanation that fits what we observe.

This is what modern science has degenerated into -- confusing a HYPOTHESIS with proof of reality. We have become experts at flights of fantasy. This is one of the stpes of the Scientific Method: FORMULATE A HYPOTHESIS. Great creativity goes into dreaming up a POSSIBLE explanation for what we see.

But unless a hypothesis is tested, it remains a hypothesis. 2)

[ifinnegan]

You don’t explain science. You defend spaghetti monster.

Big difference

You actually provide a false impression of science.

Are you claiming to be a biologist?

[ifinnegan]

Are you the guy who wrote the article?

[P-Marlowe]

Sometimes an expert is worse than an ignoramus.” Perhaps more than sometimes. Often is more like it.

I have cross examined many an expert only to find they are ignoramuses.

[Moseley]

We need to create a planet to explain how the Earth was created?

Basically, yes. But if WE created a planet, that would still not tell us how it happened originally. That would only tell us how WE created a planet.

A historical event -- the creation of life from non-life -- has nothing in common with a scientific theory.

A theory is timeless and happening NOW.

Science is not suited to investigating something that happened ONLY in the past -- and not in the present.

That includes Intelligent Design. I can prove that God exists. I can talk to Him. But I can no more prove that the Earth and life is here by Intelligent Design than anyone can prove life came from evolution.

A relationship between electricity and magnetism can be proven as a theory. That is happening NOW. We can test it.

But what part of the Scientific Method applies to something that ONLY happened in the past, and has never been repeated and is incapable of being repeated?

[P-Marlowe]

It is in no way like TToE.

And I suppose you are an expert in both?

[Moseley]

So, string theory and monopoles — there is no point in exploring based on physical data available?

Gathering data is always useful. For every one who has the luxury of sitting back and trying to figure out how to explain what we observe, there are thousands of people who gather data.

Without the people who patiently measured the movements of the planets in the cold night and painstakingly recorded their observations, the theories of celestial mechanics could not have been developed.

But a search for truth -- as opposed to entertainment -- requires a humility that modern society has lost.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Again, science has never "proved" anything. All it has ever done is come up with equations or statements that are more or less likely to be true.

Some hypotheses are more likely than others. The Big Bang hypotheses is a very good bet to take.

We can see trees growing and take samples of their tree rings. We can see that the tree rings are thicker during wetter years and thinner during drier years. We can then extrapolate backwards to make assumptions about how old certain trees are and what kind of weather it experienced over its life. We can even look at petrified trees and extrapolate information about events that happened hundreds, or even thousands, of years ago. Clever scientists have even matched tree ring patterns across various trees to go back quite far in time.

Similar scientific methods have been used to analyze ice core samples, rock layers, etc. Processes we see going on today can be extrapolated backwards in time to make intelligent estimates about the age of certain geological structures and the earth itself.

We also can look out and see stars being formed (or at least the light that is now hitting us from those star formation events) and use that data to speculate intelligently about how our star was formed.

I am a scientist too. This artificial wall you are putting up between the study of things that happened before today and the study of things that happen after today was never stressed as having any real importance whatsoever.

Certain theories may only be supported by data gathered from controlled experiments, but other theories can be bolstered by careful analysis of existing data.

[Moseley]

>>The next step is to design an experiment capable of proving the hypothesis true or false (proving the null hypothesis false).<< You ignore the NY flies specific example I cited.

New York flies? This is the problem: How do you define evolution? The definition of evolution CHANGES when you ask tough questions to a supporter of evolution. How can there be proof of evolution, if evolution is not precisely defined? How can there be proof of something that is vague and ambiguous and ever-shifting?

The only useful meaning of "evolution" is that non-life spontaneously turned into life.

So do the flies in New York prove something? Well, that depends on what the QUESTION is. Whether the flies prove something depends on what it is you are proposing to prove.

Do flies in New York tell us that life spring from non-life? If "evolution" means that non-life turned into life then what proves that?

And yet we have never even seen a species turn into a different species.

Note that if there are 10 donuts and 10 croissants on the table and I eat all the donuts, that does not mean that the donuts turned into croissants. I now see only croissants, but not a single donut transformed itself into a croissant.

[Texas Songwriter]

bttt