The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Sam]

Well I have seen lectures by Lisle where he does object to this viewpoint, but he does it on theological grounds. You can't really object to it scientifically because if it were in fact valid we would observe exactly what we do observe about the cosmos today. I don't think there is anything to be concerned with there.

So you think that I cannot have any scientific objection to a theory which violates the laws of conservation? Furthermore, this 'theory' doesn't actually do what science is supposed to - provide an explanation. Instead it simply wishes distant starlight into existence at an arbitrary point because it is required.

So on the contrary Statler - there is a lot to to be concerned with there.

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='102251' dateline='1288320083']

You cannot conduct any science without some form of pre-suppositions. So you cannot prevent your pre-suppositions from effecting your science. I mean afterall, "I can trust my senses", "I can think rationally", and "logic is real" are all pre-suppositions that must be held before anyone can conduct science. Evolutionists will often admit to their pre-suppositions, even the evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin said, ‘We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door’. So no matter what the evidnece seems to suggest he will never allow a divine explaination. So he will just derrive "rescue mechanisms" to explain away the evidence that does point to a Creator. There was even an article in Nature a few years ago that said that even if all the evidence pointed to intelligent design, it could never be a scientific conclusion. Ruling out possible explainations before examining the evidence is done by everyone, the Creation guys are just more intellectually honest about their pre-suppositions. I applaud their honesty.

So, in order to conduct any science there must be pre-supposition or assumptions such as 'Logic is Real', 'My Brain is not made of cheese' and so on . . .

When I was talking about the assumption in science Statler I assumed you could differetiate between simple assumption about the nature of life and assumptions based on ones worldviews. Evidently, this is not the case.

Simple assumptions, such as the examples you pointed out above have no affect on the scientific process so there is no need to consider them overly during a study. Conversley taking into account your own knowledge about the world (Your 'worldview') is relatively easy and where neccesary, it easy to distance that from the interpretive process.

'We cannot allow a divine foot in the door' . . . So, a scientist is saying that he will always consider natural as opposed to super-natural explanations first. I see no flaw in this; there is no evidence of the supernatural and by it definition it would be entirely beyond our natural observations therefore; if the evidence can be fit to a natural model it should be, as this is infinetely more plausible than a hitherto unknown supernatural existence.

This article in nature; link or DOI available? - I wouldn't like to comment without reading it.

I disagree that 'possible' explanations are ever rules out. As with all good science explanations are considered based on plausibility and the existing work in the field. So the most plausible explanations are explored first. IF there is extraordinary evidence that the current understanding is wrong then this is considered on the merits of the research and possibly re-tested to confirm their results.

Finally, science is one of the most self critical professions with most of the people in the field being uniquely aware of their assumptions - it is often noted in their methodologies and conclusions so claiming they are in some way 'less honest' than your 'Creation guys' is foolish.

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='102251' dateline='1288320083']

Refuted claims? I don't think anyone has refuted my claims of mine to date. Everything I have posted dealing with the issue of Scientific Bias have been true stories and quotes. You may not choose to believe them, but I think this is just another example of how you let your bias effect your conclusions.

Have you been reading the thread? You mention cases of 'Bad Science' among secular scientists and someone points out how the scientific community actually requested clarification of the results before publiching the material . . . How did this not refute your claim of scientific prejudice to evidence that goes against current knowledge?

Really? You think that is me letting my personal bias affect my judegement? I would think you would applaud the honesty and scientific integrity. After all, you are asking to be believe something simply because you say it is so. Why should I if you cannot provide me with evidence or the names of the charecters in these stories?

Well their pre-suppositions about radiometric dating and the like is a problem considering these methods only point to an old Earth if you use uniformitarian pre-suppositions. Which of course scripture says uniformitarianism is in error, so to asribe to this assumption is assuming scripture is false and is in itself assuming the proof. You are using assumptions that assume scripture is false to prove scripture is false? Not good. The Creationists can do very good science that uses these same dating methods to support their side. What the Scientists did in the Discovery article was just an example of how their pre-suppositions were effecting their interpretations. Trying to deny the results from being published was wrong though.

Okay . . . so scripture says the principal of unifromatarianism is wrong? So what? I'm not trying to prove scripture wrong. I'm trying to work out the age of the earth based on empirical evidence not what a two thousand year old book says. So, we look at the evidence, we take account of the assumption inherent in it and then interpret that. If the result is an age of billions of years ... then that is what it is. If subsequently this is confirmed by every experiment after it, then we can start to assume it is correct for future work.

Think of it this way; I want to know how old the earth is ... for simplicity there are two options 6000-7000 years or a number of billions of years. Using the techniques available to us (and there tolerances established by previous experiments/mathematic proofs etc . . .) we test these assumption in several fields; seismology, geology, paleontology etc ... and go from there. There is no need to assume scripture is false. Thats besides the point because 'scripture' has no place in science.

So you are suggesting the Christian is lying? I have a tough time believing that someone who believes lying is wrong is lying, while someone like Richard Dawkins who has admitted he does not believe in good or evil is telling the truth. People rarely act in a manner contrary to their worldview, if a person believes lying is wrong they are far less likely to do it than someone who doesn't think there is a reason to not lie. I think you are just letting your pre-suppositions effect your conclusions when you assume the CMI geologist is lying just because you do not like what he says.

So now all atheist are inherently liers because they do not share your moral compass? And you lecture me about pre-suppositions. I'm not saying he is lying per say I'm just saying that you have made such a big thing of pre-suppositions that using the story of a CMI geologist is just showing how your own presuppositions far favour your own 'side' - the hypocrissy is killing me.

Also; you struggle to believe someone who believes lying is wrong would lie? Tell me Statler - What do you call the concelament of the paedophillia problem by the church?

I don't care what he says, it might be true, it might not ... on its own the story is irrelevant and does not constitue any form of proof or even a clear argument.

So you pretty much just said, "The only thing secular journals look at is Methodolgoy and Scientific Practice", but in the next paragraph you say that if a journal had good methodology but did not agree with everyone else it would get rejected? That makes no sense at all, how are we supposed to move science forward if we are not allowed to disagree with other Scientists? Science is not some club, it's a way of obtaining knowledge. Good science always is honest about its assumptions and shows how the data is interpreted using these assumptions. The Creation guys believe Scripture is valid, so of course they are going to say how they use scripture to interpret scientific observations. This is good science. You may not like it, that does not change the fact that they are following the methods Bacon developed. Develop a model, make predictioons using that model, devise an experiment to text your predictions, detail your conclusions. Believing that Methodolgocial Naturalism is the only proper science is actually rather naive in my humble opinion.
I am sure you are aware that a Technical Journal does not actually conduct research, it just publishes it. So when the Creation Journals say they are wanting to publish a particular kind of research they are doing nothing wrong.
I am actually reading through the technical work that was just published by a few CMI guys on accelerated radiometric decay. They made predictions, published their predictions so they had to stick to them, collected numerous samples, had the samples tested at a secular lab that was blind to their predictions, the results were in line with their initial predicted findings. This is good science and I would highly recommend you pick up a copy of the work.

No Statler, thats just not what I said ... you're either mis-reading my posts or just trying to decieve. I said that your 'Worlds Best Research Paper' had excellent methodology but did not interpret the results OR provide the extraordinary evidnce needed to justify this departure it would be rejected or returned. Please point out how this is unscientific if you still want to argue.

Yes but using scriptue has a few problems Statler, it vague, doubtful historicaly and can be interpreted differently. Also a belief in the supernatural allows you to invoke this at will whenever you get stuck. So why should secular science accept scripture without any proof of its validity?

Yes Statler ... I am aware than Journals are a means of publication not research institutions.

How do you not see the flaw in their publication rules? Controlling the exact details/nature of all published articles is nothing short of censorship ... keeping your readers ignorant of all conflicting viewpoints. Again ... I challenge you to find a secular journal which demands that all submitted papers fir within one particularly narrow and niche theory.

Let me give you an example. The current mantle plume debate is a key issue in inner earth geology and seismology. There are no journals which only allow papers supporting one of these theories to be publsihed. All papers are welcome regardless of what theory they support.

Also ... and please read this carefully Statler. Pointing out a logical fallacy shows a weakness in the argument its self not the idea being represented. It is not enough for you and Mr Lisle to simply say 'Thats a logical fallacy so you're wrong ... haha' in order to refute a claim you must also prove the claim incorrect. Honestly ... do a little reading you'll see I'm right.

Cheers

Sam