Darwin would be ashamed

[Venom]

And that addresses Shestov's argument how exactly?



Yeah, I actually take time to read your posts. I really should stop doing that.

ill admit i can be an asshole and the modern day secular judiasm was a red herring.

i do however feel that it is legitimate to bring up the fact that the science method and the historical method are both "methods", and that generally the historical method is less reliable than the science method.

do you have any comment?

 

[Sniffles]

do you have any comment?

Yeah, the issue I'm discussing is not about history vs. science. It's not even about religion vs science. I have nothing against science per se. I do have a problem with science built on faulty philosophical precepts, and/or faulty philosophical precepts that tries to cloak itself as "science".

 

[Venom]

Yeah, the issue I'm discussing is not about history vs. science. It's not even about religion vs science. I have nothing against science per se. I do have a problem with science built on faulty philosophical precepts, and/or faulty philosophical precepts that tries to cloak itself as "science".

ok so we are in agreement that psudoscience sucks... now all we have to do is convince you of what things are indeed psudoscience

 

[kelric]

I will be provocative and say that evolution is not something you believe in.
It is true or it is false there is no third option.

I agreed with the rest of your post, AntisocialOne, but there IS another option. A very important one... "the best explanation for the available evidence." This is not the same thing as "true". It's also the only real option that actual science addresses. I know that I'm nitpicking here, but I think that in this case, the terminology used is important because it tells you *how* scientific conclusions are made. Complete black-and-white alternatives like "true" and "false" are too simplistic for the kind of conclusions that science actually draws. Now often it's convenient to simplify things to "true" and "false" in conversation, but science always leaves the possibility for additional data altering what conclusions are reasonable. By embracing change when, and only when the evidence warrants it leads, in general, to a more accurate and predictive set of concepts.

I am not a very religious person, but even from a scientist's perspective, you should eliminate any possibility, right?

Not altogether unreasonable, and questioning reality is a good thing, but refusing to eliminate possibilities that are unsupported by observations leads to unproductive concepts. It's really cliched, but why should I eliminate the possibility of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being offended at my consumption of non al-dente pasta and strangling me in my sleep with one of his innumerable noodly appendages? I should eliminate this because I (and the history of human knowledge in general) provides me with no evidence to give me a reason to be worried about this. Now if we start seeing a rash of soggy-pasta eating mystery nighttime strangle-ees, I might reconsider my opinion... but I don't expect to need to .

Not questioning reality is taking everything at surface value. Assuming that everything you see is all there is is making a very dangerous assumption.

Science is *all* about questioning things. But just because you (the scientific community in general) question things doesn't mean that you refuse to acknowledge what you *can* see. It means that you look for other ways to address your questions so that your results can be confirmed or not. Science *never* assumes that what you see is all that's there - it leaves open the options for current conclusions being changed by additional evidence (this happens all the time)... but it *does* require that evidence. It also allows you to continue to build on your body of knowledge using a base of concepts that have been repeatedly tested and are *still* the best explanation for (all of) the evidence. Anyone who's not convinced is still free to compose new tests (acquire new evidence) to see if the current conclusion might not be accurate (I'm sure there are Flat-Earthers out there looking for a world-edge). But people who decry the current scientific conclusion without providing evidence (or provide evidence that doesn't really address the question, or does so poorly and/or irreproducibly) aren't taken seriously.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

So for those who don't believe in evolution, which part of the theory do you disbelieve?

1) That generations of life have variation.
2) That the environment culls which part of life survives to create the next generation

Note, many scientists, ans religious people have stated that evolution and religion can co-exist.

I believe both of those things, so according to this definition I suppose I believe evolution. I become skeptical when scientists try to construct the past though. I doubt it is even possible to know what was occurring on Earth 1 million years ago (much less 1 billion years ago).

I express this doubt not out of ignorance but out of knowledge. I'm too familiar with mathematics to not have doubts. In most contexts if you were to suggest extrapolating 1 million years beyond your data, then people would assume you are joking. In the context of radioactive decay people do the wildest extrapolations imaginable without batting an eye. From my perspective a lot of normally skeptical people are giving a free pass to scientists who attempt to construct the past.

 

[Not_Me]

Those who reject the theory of evolution are effectively claiming that religious dogma is a more effective method of discovering the universal truth than the scientific process. Is this belief justified? Let's explore.

The scientific process involves the formulation of a hypothesis which is tested against observed occurrences in nature. If there are contradictions, the hypothesis is improved and retested.

The religious dogma method of knowledge assumes that the truth is already revealed. If the "truth" does not agree with observed facts, the facts are discarded.

It doesn't take a genius to determine which method is more likely to converge upon the truth over time.

 

[Mycroft]

I express this doubt not out of ignorance but out of knowledge. I'm too familiar with mathematics to not have doubts. In most contexts if you were to suggest extrapolating 1 million years beyond your data, then people would assume you are joking. In the context of radioactive decay people do the wildest extrapolations imaginable without batting an eye. From my perspective a lot of normally skeptical people are giving a free pass to scientists who attempt to construct the past.

Either the theory behind radioactive decay is sound or it is not. If it is, the rest follows. The length of the time span is irrelevant.

(Also, kudos on one of the more subtle appeals to authority I've come across.)

 

[ptgatsby]

In most contexts if you were to suggest extrapolating 1 million years beyond your data, then people would assume you are joking.

Would you say the same if you could look back in time? Like we do with astronomy, for example. Or what if we have a record of sorts of the period, like the genetic 'archive' we carry with us (and all animals do)?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Either the theory behind radioactive decay is sound or it is not. If it is, the rest follows. The length of the time span is irrelevant.

(Also, kudos on one of the more subtle appeals to authority I've come across.)

If you want to deal with absolutes, then no time based mathematical model is sound when you extrapolate. In a practical sense, if you only extrapolate a small amount of time, then usually the differences in the projection are small enough that it doesn't matter much. The further you extrapolate, the less accuracy your projection has until the model becomes useless.

Would you say the same if you could look back in time? Like we do with astronomy, for example. Or what if we have a record of sorts of the period, like the genetic 'archive' we carry with us (and all animals do)?

I'm not sure what your point is here with astronomy, but my view on astronomy is

a) You can say you are viewing the past, but it is somewhat of a irrelevant statement. Like you can say, "I'm looking at a supernova that occurred 10,000 years ago", but that doesn't really matter because you have no idea what is happening in that spot right now. It doesn't matter how far you are looking into the past. If you stare into a telescope for one year, then you have one year's worth of observations. If you are looking at an event that occurred 10,000 years ago, you don't have a 10,000 year time interval worth of observations, just one year (or however long you looked into the telescope).

b) I don't particularly take most of astronomy seriously as a science, assuming we are talking about anything outside our solar system. There is no experimentation involved. It's just staring out of a telescope and then making a bunch of guesses. You can't come up with an application to any of the ideas, and you can't test if they are true. It's a mostly useless science.

 

[ptgatsby]

a) You can say you are viewing the past, but it is somewhat of a irrelevant statement. Like you can say, "I'm looking at a supernova that occurred 10,000 years ago", but that doesn't really matter because you have no idea what is happening in that spot right now. It doesn't matter how far you are looking into the past. If you stare into a telescope for one year, then you have one year's worth of observations. If you are looking at an event that occurred 10,000 years ago, you don't have a 10,000 year time interval worth of observations, just one year (or however long you looked into the telescope).

This is like saying that you can't know anything about humans because you can't look at every human at every moment. The point here is that you catalog your observations. It doesn't matter how distant they are, or how removed they are. It just means you have limitations on the observations you can make (ie: "experiment").

Just like with the human example, we can't say anything specific about a particular human that we have never met; but we can say a fair bit about humans in general.

On the whole observation = useless thing, observation is pretty foundational to creating hypothesizes in which to test - there are reams of things that we will never be able to test on, more than astronomy (landers on mars? solar orbiters? etc.), and are still worth 'observing'. The concept that they are so far apart is misplaced, IMO.

 

[Mycroft]

If you want to deal with absolutes, then no time based mathematical model is sound when you extrapolate. In a practical sense, if you only extrapolate a small amount of time, then usually the differences in the projection are small enough that it doesn't matter much. The further you extrapolate, the less accuracy your projection has until the model becomes useless.

How is this relevant to the question of whether the theory behind carbon dating is sound?

 

[Oberon]

I think it's profoundly ironic that people on both sides of the issue discuss creation vs. evolution as a matter of faith.

Which one must do, because none of us was there to witness either process firsthand.

From Ambrose Bierce:

"MYTHOLOGY, n. The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished from the true accounts which it invents later."

The other thing that is hilarious to me is that people pit a metaphysical operation against a physical process, as if the two are mutually exclusive.

The third thing that amazes me is that people argue for Darwin as though it's utterly settled science, like there are no problems with his theory or gaps in what it explains.

At present, Darwin's thesis is the leading theory, just as Newton once was the final word in physics. There's no flies on Darwin's work, to be sure, but the science on that process is not complete by a long shot. One day soon some sharp guy will come along with a better model, and Darwin will become theorist emeritus just like Newton eventually took a backseat to Einstein.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Btw carbon dating is not good for dating this kinds of things since its half-life time is too short.

What serves for this purposes are Sr, Rb , K , Ar isotopes. Becuse half-life(s) times are much much longer.

On the other hand if evolution rellys purely on this, the argument worldn't be so strong. There are other things here as well.

The distribution of fossl record plays a part here.

Today scientists can track down the rate of ocean crust creation. What means they know the rate of ocean expansion. Since it is very slow process the growth rate around the world oceans is between 3-6 cm per year.
What means that in the past continents were closer.

Here is what is actually interesting here.

Since the fossil record is distrubuted this way and we know that the ocean crust is growing so it is reasonable to presume that there was a different world out there long long ago. Plus methods that are already mentioned plus astronomy.

The only real argument that is left to religion is that God is testing us.

 

[Oberon]

The only real argument that is left to religion is that God is testing us.

Eh. I don't have much respect for creationists whose worldview is so narrow that they couldn't imagine your diagram applying to a created earth. I'd have even less respect for a scientist who believed that because your diagram is accurate, it follows that God doesn't exist.

 

[nozflubber]

Why would you "believe" in any theory whatsoever? Poorly worded polls demonstrate nothing... cartoons are fun though:

 

[Mycroft]

Oberon, "not entirely correct" and "wrong" are not one and the same.

Newton's theories have been displayed to have errors and limitations. They have not been demonstrated to be an utter bunch of wrongheaded rubbish.

The same has happened with Darwin's theories upon the discovery of DNA, etc. At this point, while it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility, it's rather unlikely that Darwin's observations will shown to be utterly incorrect.

 

[ptgatsby]

Which one must do, because none of us was there to witness either process firsthand.

Hmmm, I keep hearing this - but evolution is being witnessed first hand. Not the creation of life, which is not fundamental to evolution, but both micro and macro evolution can now be seen and tested in the lab. Darwin's theory is old now, and while him (and many others) discovered the fossil records that led to understanding evolution at work in the natural world, it's long since been surpassed with modern theories. For that matter, it's not 'Darwin's' theory anymore, if it ever was. The only reason he got any credit is because more and more people were discovering it and were approaching publication. He just wanted to get it out first. I mean, we can argue about particulars parts of the records, or some such, because it is fuzzy - the past gives itself up reluctantly - but the core part of the theory... the mechanisms, the current day experiments, genetic archives... those are not exactly "full of holes". The point here is that it isn't a one man show, taken on faith... not then, and not now.

Heh, at this point, even engineering is done with genetic algorithms descended from understanding evolution.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

This is like saying that you can't know anything about humans because you can't look at every human at every moment. The point here is that you catalog your observations. It doesn't matter how distant they are, or how removed they are. It just means you have limitations on the observations you can make (ie: "experiment").

Humans are not the same as objects in other solar systems. You can perform experiments on humans. You can take any theory developed about humans and apply it if the theory is sound. You cannot perform experiments on heavenly bodies in other solar systems, and you cannot apply any theories you have about them.

On the whole observation = useless thing, observation is pretty foundational to creating hypothesizes in which to test - there are reams of things that we will never be able to test on, more than astronomy (landers on mars? solar orbiters? etc.), and are still worth 'observing'. The concept that they are so far apart is misplaced, IMO.

Yes observation is key to creating hypotheses. If you can't test the hypothesis, then all you have is a hypothesis. It might be an interesting idea, but it's untested. Personally I don't put much confidence in ideas like this. It might make interesting conversation, but ultimately there is not much there to give confidence to the validity of the ideas.

How is this relevant to the question of whether the theory behind carbon dating is sound?

Radioactive dating is not a theory as much as a technique. (Radioactive decay is a theory. Radioactive dating is a technique.) There can be a big difference between theory and application. In application every mathematical time projection losses accuracy the further you extrapolate. Since radioactive dating is a mathematical time projection, this applies. It must lose accuracy the further out you go, since they all do. I have serious doubts about all of the dates that are say 1 million years or more. I don't think we can accurately project what happened 1 million years ago or what will happen 1 million years from now.

Today scientists can track down the rate of ocean crust creation. What means they know the rate of ocean expansion. Since it is very slow process the growth rate around the world oceans is between 3-6 cm per year.
What means that in the past continents were closer.

This is something I will probably have to look into. I looked into some of the calculations explaining the past about 10 years ago, and I found out that other projections into the past didn't fit with the commonly explained view. I don't think ocean crust creation was one I looked into, but that is the sort of thing I look for. I.e. if we do projections into the past based on ocean crust creation do the dates synch up to the radioactive decay dates?

What I've found so far is that the dates don't match up most of the time. Most biologists and geologists seem to take the math for granted, at least that is what it looks like to me. If I can find enough models which actually match radioactive decay then I will probably be convinced, but what I usually find is evidence to give me less confidence in how the past is explained.

 

[ptgatsby]

Yes observation is key to creating hypotheses. If you can't test the hypothesis, then all you have is a hypothesis. It might be an interesting idea, but it's untested. Personally I don't put much confidence in ideas like this. It might make interesting conversation, but ultimately there is not much there to give confidence to the validity of the ideas.

All results from experiments is simply data.

If you make an observation, create a hypothesis, any search for evidence is an experiment. If you observe the creation of a star and observe the conclusion, you create a hypothesis of intermediate steps. Then, you look for them. If you find them, then the hypothesis is evidenced and gains support. It's not different than experimentation. In many ways there is more information available for astronomers than human experimenters, so to speak.

Is it weaker than being able to run infinite controlled experiments? Yes... but the original point is that time cannot be generalized- in many cases we can see back a long long way (ie: to the start of the universe) or have a actual archive of information (ie: genetics). It is possible to trace back and understand underlying conditions.

 

[Mycroft]

Radioactive dating is not a theory as much as a technique. (Radioactive decay is a theory. Radioactive dating is a technique.) There can be a big difference between theory and application. In application every mathematical time projection losses accuracy the further you extrapolate. Since radioactive dating is a mathematical time projection, this applies. It must lose accuracy the further out you go, since they all do. I have serious doubts about all of the dates that are say 1 million years or more. I don't think we can accurately project what happened 1 million years ago or what will happen 1 million years from now.

Either elements have the half-lives we believe them to or they don't. If they do, dating is a matter of basic 7th grade algebra. I don't see how "mathematical projections" would come into play.