Science > Physics > Scientific theories -- the good vs the true (was: Biogenesis and Natural Law)
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Patrick Reany" |
| Date: |
13 Apr 2004 09:40:51 AM |
| Object: |
Scientific theories -- the good vs the true (was: Biogenesis and Natural Law) |
(Gerald L. O'Barr) wrote in message news:<e9b03d3c.0404122117.11cb38bc@posting.google.com>...
In <844a1b64.0404120905.77b34922@posting.google.com>
reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
In <e9b03d3c.0404120619.54236605@posting.google.com>
(Gerald L. O'Barr) wrote:
In <844a1b64.0404111007.398de9d7@posting.google.com>
reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
In <e9b03d3c.0404101956.7b9928fd@posting.google.com>
[snip]
O'Barr wrote: . . .
You said that there are 'circumstancial evidence
that species do change over time....' Well, if all
we had was this, this might be fine. But what you
did not say, and which must be said if you were
going to be fair, going to be scientific, is that
we also have evidence, direct evidence (which means
evidence that is stronger than just circumstantial
evidence), that species do not change over time!
ET = "evolutionary theory"
Reany wrote:
You think of science as about truth; I think of it
as about theories that work. I claimed geologic
evidence that ET works as a theory, which you
totally ignored. To be a good theory is not
necessarily to be TRUE.
Gerald L. O'Barr < > comments:
You could be correct. I do think that the purpose
of science is to determine the truth.
I know you do; I have long known this. So, I'll ask you to comment on
this claim:
It takes truth to beget truth.
Tell me what you think about it. Do you think it is true or false or
what? Does it imply anything for the scientific method? What is the
scientific method a method of?
And I am sure
you like theories that work.
I believe that science can prove whether or not a scientific theory
works, but that it can prove no more than that. Science should be
characterized by what it can actually prove, not by what people merely
wish it could prove. The models used within successful theories are
not necessarily true of reality. And theories that work do not
necessarily provide us with "true" explanations of how the world
"really" works. (Science is NOT natural philosophy.) As scientific
theories go, ET is a "good" theory, which says nothing about whether
or not it is a "true" theory.
And I know you have to
agree that if we had a theory that was the truth,
then it would work. So what is your problem?
Of course I agree with that. The BIG question is then, How do we ever
know that we have truth as a starting point?
Let us be clear: In order for you to accept your
evolution theory, you do not have to lie about it and
claim scientific support where there is none.
I do NOT accept ET as a "true" theory. I accept it as a "good" theory
judged by the formal requirements placed on all scientific theories. A
"good" scientific theory
1) makes a good agreement between its predictions on its domain of
applicability and empirical tests of those predictions, and
2) is able to incorporate new empricial data with little "disturbance"
to the main principles of the theory (Lakatos).
It is never the case that a scientific theory has to "explain"
everything about a data set to be "good." (We probably could never
have gotten science started if we demanded that much of a theory.)
[snip]
Reany wrote:
You haven't even mentioned the geologic record on
its merit. Why not? Are you intending to avoid that
forever?
O'Barr comments:
It is the fossil records that are used by the
punctuated equilibrium people. They say that the
fossil records show no evolution.
It is true that the fossil record by itself only shows fossils in
rocks, not the evolution of species per se. As a general
classification, ET is one of many "explanations" for the fossil record
as we know it.
That is, they show
only horizontal time lines. That is, no changes in
specific species in the fossil records, and for many,
this is for millions of years. And so why is there
no evidence? They say because evolution mainly
occurs during times of stress. These times of stress
occur only over short times (speaking geologically),
and these times are too short for the changes to
become embedded.
Let's start of with a definition: Evolution means "change over time."
Now, the geologic strata shows us that not all species were leaving
remains in all strata. Why? Well, to answer that we invent a theory.
Theories are part subjective. They incorporate our formal point of
views, don't they?
If we accept that different strata are the result of processes working
at different times and that the fossils found in these different
strata are statistically fair representations of the flora and fauna
of the life forms living at the time when the strata were laid, then
we have a justification for claiming that not all life forms (we infer
to have ever existed) did ever exist at the same time in any location
or at any geologic time interval, and that there is an overall
increase in biological complexity over geologic time as judged by the
fossil record. Now, there is no unique explanation for these facts and
simple inferences. There are various evolutionary and creationist
theories to "explain" the geologic record. Any theory, scientific or
otherwise, which you want to consider as "true" has to be taken so on
faith.
O'Barr, my sole interest in discussing ET was to discuss the nature of
the scientific theory.
Patrick
.
|
|
| User: "Gerald L. OBarr" |
|
| Title: Re: Scientific theories -- the good vs the true (was: Biogenesis and Natural Law) |
13 Apr 2004 11:50:07 PM |
|
|
In <844a1b64.0404130640.2e641b75@posting.google.com>
reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
. . .
<deletes by O'Barr>
Reany wrote:
ET = "evolutionary theory"
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com> wrote:
. . . I do think that the purpose
of science is to determine the truth. . . .
Reany wrote:
I know you do; I have long known this. So, I'll ask
you to comment on this claim:
It takes truth to beget truth.
Tell me what you think about it. Do you think it is
true or false or what? Does it imply anything for
the scientific method? What is the scientific
method a method of?
O'Barr comments:
'Truth is knowledge of things as they were, and as
they are, and as they will become.' You, Reany, you
exist, you have knowledge, you know about many things
as they were, and as they are, and as they might
become. And to that extent, you have that much
truth. We all have enough truth to say some of these
things.
The scientific method involves the concept that
there is truth (or a reality) that is fixed,
repeatable, and capable of being known. Because it
is 'repeatable,' then a process of using tests has
been found to be useful to confirm our understanding
or knowledge of this reality. Science involves this
process of testing, and using the results of these
tests with our intelligence to decide on correct
theories about our reality. To the extent that this
all works, then it does not matter what people we
might be, speaking what language, believing in what
religion, having different degrees of smartness, we
will all eventually come to the same conclusions!
O'Barr wrote
And I am sure you like theories that work.
Reany wrote:
I believe that science can prove whether or not a
scientific theory works, but that it can prove no
more than that.
O'Barr comments:
You could be more careful in your thinking.
Science cannot really do anything. But scientists
can do much by using science. I am sure you can see
and observe many areas where we presently stand
helpless to know many things. It was designed to be
so. But at the same time, we have the power to know
many other things, very important things. It is far
from the position you seem to want to establish.
Reany wrote:
Science should be characterized by what it can
actually prove, not by what people merely
wish it could prove. The models used within
successful theories are not necessarily true of
reality. And theories that work do not necessarily
provide us with "true" explanations of how the world
"really" works. (Science is NOT natural philosophy.)
As scientific theories go, ET is a "good" theory,
which says nothing about whether or not it is a
"true" theory.
O'Barr comments:
I guess that what I would say is this: I
understand why you said everything you said above.
There are situations where such things you say are
even true. But what I would say is that your
thinking is incomplete. Not all science is equal.
Not all theories are equal. Not all facts are equal.
Once we get to have multiple reinforcements of some
theory or fact, once you get multiple duplications,
having independent confirmations, using different
approaches and getting the same conclusions, there
does come a time when the confidence is improved to
the point that if you do not conclude that it is
true, then you are becoming irresponsible. You seem
to want to have things in such a way that you can
never be responsible. But this will never be
allowed. You are responsible for what you determine
to be correct, and you will never be able to escape
into la la land.
O'Barr wrote:
And I know you have to
agree that if we had a theory that was the truth,
then it would work. So what is your problem?
Reany wrote:
Of course I agree with that. The BIG question is
then, How do we ever know that we have truth as a
starting point?
O'Barr comments:
Truth never conflicts with truth. So take that
which you are the most confident about, and begin to
build. As long as everything correctly fits with
this, then continue to build.
O'Barr wrote:
Let us be clear: In order for you to accept your
evolution theory, you do not have to lie about it
and claim scientific support where there is none.
Reany wrote:
I do NOT accept ET as a "true" theory. I accept it
as a "good" theory judged by the formal requirements
placed on all scientific theories. A "good"
scientific theory
1) makes a good agreement between its predictions on
its domain of applicability and empirical tests of
those predictions, ...
O'Barr comments:
I ought to call you a liar. But I really do not
do this until you have to be corrected more than a
few times. Let me tell you a few things that
evolution theory has personally done to my family.
My poor mother was often under the care of doctors,
doctors who were raised with evolution. Back in my
days, when medical doctors did not really know much,
if a person needed a tonsil to come out, it came out.
And why did the tonsils come out? Because tonsils
were just a left over from some pre-human evolution
process, and we had no more need for it. Did you
hear that? Evolution was being used as justification
to remove human parts. And the health care that my
mother got, and the rest of my family, was not good,
some of it justified by these false evolution
concepts.
And today, of course, we know that this automatic
removal is not correct. So you tell me how correct
evolution theory has been to our family! If they had
had the concept that the body was make to be as it
was, then better decisions would have been made.
<deletes by O'Barr>
Reany wrote: . . .
Any theory, scientific or otherwise, which you
want to consider as "true" has to be taken so on
faith.
O'Barr comments:
True, but the amount of faith needed depends on
that being assumed. You cannot use your statement as
justification for saying you can never believe
anything, or that all beliefs are equal.
Reany wrote:
O'Barr, my sole interest in discussing ET was to
discuss the nature of the scientific theory.
O'Barr comments:
And of course you failed.
I am going to end this non-relativity discussion.
But I assure you; evolution is not good science.
There are millions of facts in evolution that are
correct, and should be learned and studied. But the
main conclusions are unsupportable. I hope I will
not hear you say again that evolution is good
science. It is a weak science, and needs to be
improved as much as SR.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com>
P.S. The day will come when some will take the time
and trouble to research the harm that has been done
by having false concepts such as are seen in
evolution, and other so called advanced theories. It
will not be nice to be around during these times!
How about doing this now? It could be done now, if
we were really honest about all these things!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
