The Distant Starlight Problem

[Spock]

Time out for one brief observation-

This discussion seems to be going round and a round instead of moving forward. In fact, I feel like I've read these same words on three other threads. Can we get past what the definition and capabilities of science?

Ok, you may continue.

Spock with one big headache out

[Enoch2021]

Taken from Misconceptions about science

 

MISCONCEPTION: Experiments are a necessary part of the scientific process. Without an experiment, a study is not rigorous or scientific.

 

CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method and popular portrayals of science emphasize experiments, many people think that science can't be done without an experiment. In fact, there are many ways to test almost any scientific idea; experimentation is only one approach. Some ideas are best tested by setting up a controlled experiment in a lab, some by making detailed observations of the natural world, and some with a combination of strategies. To study detailed examples of how scientific ideas can be tested fairly, with and without experiments, check out our side trip Fair tests: A do-it-yourself guide.

 

~~

 

MISCONCEPTION: There is a single Scientific Method that all scientists follow.

 

CORRECTION: "The Scientific Method" is often taught in science courses as a simple way to understand the basics of scientific testing. In fact, the Scientific Method represents how scientists usually write up the results of their studies (and how a few investigations are actually done), but it is a grossly oversimplified representation of how scientists generally build knowledge. The process of science is exciting, complex, and unpredictable. It involves many different people, engaged in many different activities, in many different orders. To review a more accurate representation of the process of science, explore our flowchart.

 

 

(The two links at the ends of the paragraphs give more detail, but they are too long to post here.)

 

Berkeley.......      I can't tell you how many times on different forums evolutionists quoted from Berkeley...it's over 300 easy.  What's next Talk Origins??

 

Most importantly, you forgot to Define "Scientific Evidence"??

 

Lets go ahead and put this one to bed.....

 

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

[nebula]

Berkeley.......     

 

Logical fallacy - attack the source (ad hominen)

 

http://www.springhole.net/logical-fallacies/attack-the-source.htm

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

[Enoch2021]

 

Berkeley.......     

 

Logical fallacy - attack the source (ad hominen)

 

http://www.springhole.net/logical-fallacies/attack-the-source.htm

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

 

 

Touche, I knew it was but I took a chance @ sneaking it past you    I really didn't want to go into the reasons....I ASSUMED it was evident with their fairytale evolution spin. If you wish, we could waste some more time and I can post VOLUMES of drivel from their site....do you wish Many Many More Volumes from Talk Origins also?

 

Thanks for the TWO Cited sources of Ad Hominems....I got a chuckle, I needed it

 

Nice dodge for the Definition of Scientific Evidence.

 

Any comment on the "putting this to bed" and the veracity thereof??

 

Are we done "discussing" what color the sky is?

[nebula]

The problem, Enoch, is that you limit science to a laboratory in your understanding of "the scientific method".

 

Any scientist will inform you that the method of gathering data and making inferences on that data is a valid method for determining things that cannot be replicated in a laboratory.

 

The important thing to note is the the inferences do run through scientific scrutiny - Does it work? Does it fit with other facts?

 

In other words, the "falsifiability" relies on research, modeling and testing the models, etc.

 

For example, what the earth looks like beneath the surface can be modeled with other round objects (ball, orange, peach, onion, etc.). Tests can be performed with seismology (and perhaps other methods, but I do not recall off the top of my head what all was utilized) and analyzed. I don't know where my notes are buried to relay the entire discussion, but in the end, the "onion" model - multiple layers - best fit the data and the other models were falsified out.

[Enoch2021]

Time out for one brief observation-

This discussion seems to be going round and a round instead of moving forward. In fact, I feel like I've read these same words on three other threads. Can we get past what the definition and capabilities of science?

Ok, you may continue.

Spock with one big headache out

 

No we can't get past it.  It's the Creme de la Creme, The Big Kahuna, The Elephant in the Room, The Full Monty.

 

Words...they mean things    To communicate there must be convention

 

And it's not the capabilities of science, it's What is Scientific Evidence the "Scientific Method" (7th grade science) and the Tenets Thereof.

 

If we're trying to bake a cake and I say flour is flour but you disagree and say that flour is metal shavings then our cake isn't gonna turn out well. 

 

And since the vast majority of the discussions are BASED on "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE", don't you think it's a good idea to establish the meaning?

 

I'll tell you what, I table the discussion until I perceive "Scientific Evidence" implied or overtly portrayed, which then I liken too.....

 

In case you were wondering, in the apt illustration...I'm the metaphorical beehive.  And Mr. No Legs is gonna need a bigger stick!!

[nebula]

Enoch, are you a lawyer? If not, you should be.

[Enoch2021]

Enoch, are you a lawyer? If not, you should be.

 

LOL

[Enoch2021]

The problem, Enoch, is that you limit science to a laboratory in your understanding of "the scientific method".

 

Any scientist will inform you that the method of gathering data and making inferences on that data is a valid method for determining things that cannot be replicated in a laboratory.

 

The important thing to note is the the inferences do run through scientific scrutiny - Does it work? Does it fit with other facts?

 

In other words, the "falsifiability" relies on research, modeling and testing the models, etc.

 

For example, what the earth looks like beneath the surface can be modeled with other round objects (ball, orange, peach, onion, etc.). Tests can be performed with seismology (and perhaps other methods, but I do not recall off the top of my head what all was utilized) and analyzed. I don't know where my notes are buried to relay the entire discussion, but in the end, the "onion" model - multiple layers - best fit the data and the other models were falsified out.

 

"Any scientist will inform you that the method of gathering data and making inferences on that data is a valid method for determining things that cannot be replicated in a laboratory."

 

Look up synonyms for "Inferences" guess what the first word that Pops up is....Assumptions

 

Inferences/assumptions have no place in the "Scientific Method", Clearly.  The 1st Step is Observe a Phenomenon.  You gather/analyze DATA after the Experiment Step 5 ....the Experiment is where you get the DATA.  They're placed in Steps for a reason.

 

 

"The important thing to note is the the inferences do run through scientific scrutiny -"

 

The only thing you get from scrutinizing Assumptions/Inferences is Gobbledy Gook downstream.  And scrutinizing Assumptions is not a step in the Scientific Method.

 

 

"In other words, the "falsifiability" relies on research, modeling and testing the models, etc"

 

I guess that would depend on Where and How you got the "Model".

 

 

"For example, what the earth looks like beneath the surface"

 

We've been through this before; Remember....."get the shovel"   and you agreed!!!

[nebula]

"Any scientist will inform you that the method of gathering data and making inferences on that data is a valid method for determining things that cannot be replicated in a laboratory."

 

Look up synonyms for "Inferences" guess what the first word that Pops up is....Assumptions

 

Inferences/assumptions have no place in the "Scientific Method", Clearly.  The 1st Step is Observe a Phenomenon.  You gather/analyze DATA after the Experiment Step 5 ....the Experiment is where you get the DATA.  They're placed in Steps for a reason.

 

 

"The important thing to note is the the inferences do run through scientific scrutiny -"

 

The only thing you get from scrutinizing Assumptions/Inferences is Gobbledy Gook downstream.  And scrutinizing Assumptions is not a step in the Scientific Method.

 

Do you realize the crime-solving often utilizes this method, and judges consider the conclusions valid evidence in a court of law?

 

Would you throw out such if you were a judge?