Re: Your Communication Problems

Raymond Griffith wrote:
> in article icWdnaLzyPmIhmXfRVn-qA@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Zachriel at
> "http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com wrote on
> 8/8/05 10:51 PM:
>
> >
> > "Stephen Montgomery-Smith" <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1123514357.951269.110350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> I am now going to admit that I honestly don't know if you ToE guys are
> >> right or not, and I will go back and look at the evidence (which may
> >> well take me a lot of time.)
> >>
> >> In the meantime, permit me to make a few observations as to why you
> >> guys are doing quite so badly in the public eye. You really want to
> >> listen to this - not get defensive - but use me as resource. I do have
> >> a reasonably keen sense of science, but I also have a good feeling for
> >> the fundamentalist mindset. I really think that I can help you. So
> >> instead of your usual snotty remarks that some of you make, why don't
> >> you ask me honest probing questions?
> >>
> >> Let me start with a story that I think will illustrate my point.
> >>
> >> About a year ago there appeared in my local paper "The Columbia
> >> Tribune" an article written by university professors called
> >> "Intelligent Design is Not Science." (Looking back I can now see that
> >> the article failed to make a clear distinction between the I.D.
> >> paradigm, which might or might not have merit, and the I.D. movement,
> >> which I can agree with you that at least some of its members are
> >> charletons.)
> >>
> >> Now this article had a web site where I could find a list of profs who
> >> had signed on to this article. One of these was a good friend of mine,
> >> so I went to visit him and asked if he could explain the evidence of
> >> evolution. He told me that actually he didn't really know too much
> >> about the subject, and that he had signed it because he saw the article
> >> as being essentially anti-Bush. This was definitely a dissapointing
> >> experience for me.
> >
> >
> > One person's experience is not the basis for determining the validity of a
> > scientific theory. Once you have satisfied yourself of the evidence, then
> > these other issues will no longer be of any importance. Darwin wrote
> > hundreds of pages on his observations of barnacles. Why did he spend so much
> > time on such minutae? It certainly wasn't for the entertainment of the
> > masses.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> You guys are really having problems, because a lot of scientifically
> >> trained professionals are buying into this I.D. paradigm.
> >
> >
> > Very few in the relevant fields of study.
> > http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18
> >
> >
> >> For example,
> >> I notice that many graduate math students are christians like I am (I
> >> would be happy to use the label "fundamentalist" but I don't think that
> >> they would be - so please regard "fundamentalist" as a label, not as
> >> necessarily descriptive). Another example - I get the sense that a
> >> large proportion of the engineering faculty and grad students are
> >> pro-Bush, and surely in many ways he is your worst enemy.
> >
> >
> > Mathematics is not empirical science. Nor is engineering. Neither use the
> > scientific method, which is essentially inductive and iterative.
> >
>
> I would disagree with you on this point. Good mathematics uses the
> scientific method. There are vast areas of unknowns where hypothesis,
> prediction, testing, observation, validation, and repetition are used to
> good effect in mathematics.
>
> Of course, once something is established, people can go back to mathematics
> as nothing more than a revealed rulebook. But the best mathematicians do not
> think that way. Particularly not those who make the advances in theory.


I try not to make a habit of disagreeing with those who may have a
valid point. ;-)

One could say that engineers, mathematicians, doctors and plumbers use
some method of empirical induction every day in their fields of study.
However, we don't usually consider engineers, doctors or plumbers to be
scientists.

Mathematical "exploration" has become increasingly important. But let's
consider a simpler case; the number of primes. Certainly exploration
and extrapolation were an important component of the study of numbers.
It certainly seemed to the Ancients that there were an unlimited number
of primes. Eventually, they devised a *proof* of this, but what
occurred before that, the exploratory phase, was at the very least
arithmetic. With fractals, mathematicians are definitely working
through a process of exploration. But rarely do they consider this
sufficient. Mathematicians nearly always attempt to *prove* a grand
generalization. But maybe that's just old-fashioned. Still, no one
considered the four-color map problem solved until it was *proved*.
Close enough was just not good enough. But perhaps that's just old hat.

What about plumbers? Don't they also figure out problems, make
generalizations, develop workable hypotheses? Sometimes even formally?
And the same of engineers?

So when does induction become science? In fact, most scientists do not
work with a formalized scientific method. For most, it is just plain
old puzzle-solving, or grunt work in the lab scribbling notes.

In fact, most universities distinguish between science and mathematics
because of their widely differing methods. Hence, "Science and
Mathematics", "College of Science and Mathematics", are very common
phrases, seemingly linked, but apparently not redundant.

Is this just a semantic difference, or substantive?


>
> Just a note.
>
> Regards,
>
> Raymond E. Griffith
>
> >
> >>
> >> Indeed many years ago, I looked at a book called something like "After
> >> the Flood" written by out and out creationist scientists (young earth,
> >> etc). Even though I have taken many science classes in school, it
> >> became obvious to me that I simply didn't have the scientific
> >> background to be able to make a genuine assessment.
> >
> >
> > First, you need to understand the scientific method. It is how we match
> > theory and observation: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
> > repeat.
> >
> > You can verify many aspects of science by making the same fundamental
> > observations others have made. You can build a telescope and watch moons
> > orbit Jupiter. You can peer into a microscope and see animicules swimming in
> > lake water. You can take a walk and examine your own local strata and
> > possibly even find common fossils. What do you think the chances are that
> > your observations will match that of geologists and paleontologists who have
> > already examined those strata?
> >
> > Then scientists use these observations to make predictions. Johanson knew
> > about the discoveries of homo habilis and homo erectus. He understood that
> > the Theory of Evolution requires that all organisms share a common ancestor,
> > and in particular, that humans and apes shared a (most recent) common
> > ancestor. So he decided to go to Africa and look at 3.5 million year old
> > strata and found Lucy.
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html
> >
> > These sorts of predictions are not accidents. homo didn't find
> > Australopithecus afarensis in his backyard, but spent years working up to
> > such an expedition. Lucy is certainly not a modern human. Lucy is certainly
> > nothing like any modern ape. She is something else. And the existence of
> > creatures with intermediate characteristics between humans and apes was
> > predicted before she was ever found. That's science.
> >
> > And this process of making predictions and finding evidence has been going
> > on in paleontology for quite some time. In fact, there was some reasonable
> > dispute about the origins of whales. The genetic evidence pointed to an
> > ancestor in among artiodactyls. Using this genetic evidence, fossils were
> > found in the appropriate geological strata (age).
> > http://www.sciencenewsdaily.org/story-2806.html
> >
> >
> >> And if I didn't
> >> have this background, you can be sure that a large number of other
> >> scientific professionals (doctors, economists, agriculturalists,
> >> mathematicians, physicists) also don't have this background. I mean, I
> >> did get this sense that the photos of men's footprints next to dinasour
> >> footprints was fishy, but this was simply based upon a "smell" sense,
> >> and nothing more.
> >
> >
> > Well, if it contradicts what the vast majority of experts in the field are
> > saying, you should be somewhat skeptical, at least until you understand the
> > evidence.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Now you guys do have this faq which tries to explain the ideas. But
> >> (1) it is written either over-simplistically or over-technically, and
> >> (2) large parts of it are very vitreolic. If I come in as someone with
> >> an open mind who really just wants to know, it is hard for me to
> >> seperate out the science. I also get the sense that someone is trying
> >> to put something over me.
> >
> >
> > Scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat.
> > If you want to call an assertion science, it must be put to the test of the
> > scientific method. There are lots of assertions that are not scientific.
> > Here are a few:
> >
> > Beauty exists.
> > Murder is wrong.
> > There is no (perfect) justice.
> > Elwood P. Dowd has a friend named Harvey.
> > Living in freedom is better than living in chains.
> > A Streetcar Named Desire is tragic.
> > We hold these truths to be self-evident.
> > My soul is purg'd from grudging hate.
> > A kiss is just a kiss.
> >
> > However, Intelligent Design claims to have a scientific basis. It does not,
> > so Intelligent Design is a false assertion.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> This communication method shows in your newsgroup. So, in sci.math, we
> >> get a lot of posts about how 1 is not 0.999..., or about their latest
> >> short proof of Fermat's last theorem. Now sure, these guys do get a
> >> lot of snotty remarks. But they also get a very large number of
> >> posters who very patiently try to explain to them why their argument is
> >> wrong. Most times this patience is wasted, but once in a while it
> >> really pays off. And despite the overwhelming bad experiences, these
> >> teachers simply never seem to give up in their attempts to help these
> >> people.
> >>
> >> On the contrary, when I ask for the evidence on your group, I mostly
> >> got snotty remarks, or huge web sites - just the occassional person
> >> really tries to help. It might be that the evidence is just too
> >> technical and hard to explain in short emails, I don't know. But this
> >> lack of ability to explain your position "standing on one foot" is a
> >> big negative.
> >
> >
> > I posted it in the previous thread, but there is a wide variety of evidence
> > in support of the theory of evolution. First and foremost is the *nested
> > hierarchy* seen in extant life, extinct life, biochemistry, biogeography,
> > embryonics and now genetics.
> >
> > There is a very good reason why having mammaries means having three ear
> > bones. And why bats have skin for wings instead of feathers. And why you
> > will never find a centaur or a griffin.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Indeed, it was most disheartening to see the argument between Ken Shaw
> >> and Rich Townsend on the other thread which I started. For starters it
> >> was just very difficult for me to see precisely where they disagreed -
> >> it was almost as if they carefully studied each other's posts looking
> >> hard for reasons to be offended.
> >
> >
> > It was a sub-thread about a philosophical point, which you could have simply
> > ignored. It got rather heated for no apparent reason. But then again, the
> > validity of a scientific theory doesn't depend on the understanding or
> > misunderstanding or courtesy of any one person. Neither the Theory of
> > Evolution nor Atomic Theory depends on the understanding of the two
> > disputants, or the resolution of which theory has the "best" evidence. Atoms
> > and evolution are both considered scientific facts to any reasonable degree
> > of certainty.
> >
> > Examine the evidence.
> >
> >
> >> In one place, I got this sense where
> >> Rich was begging Ken (and here I openly admit I am putting words into
> >> his mouth, but) "I love ToE and I'm sure that it is a great theory, but
> >> please, can you give me some examples where ToE's ability to predict is
> >> as amazing as is the theory of atoms." Yes, I thought, I cannot wait
> >> for Ken's answer - this will really help me. But it didn't help one
> >> bit. I do understand that it is "apples and oranges" but there wasn't
> >> even an attempt.
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >>
> >
> >
> > When Galileo insisted the Earth moved, he didn't expect anyone to just take
> > his word for it. He wanted them to look and see for themselves. Eppur si
> > muove!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: canRe: Moderatorial Note
    ... > where possible are pretty much the core of it. ... > Evidence, rationality, ... I presume that if one were to omit "quantitative" from that list, one might no longer be talking about science, though even there you seem to regard it desirable but not essential. ... even among scientists, puts some limits on how severe any ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fundies worry about their own kids. Oh, the horror!
    ... If you assert that I am referring to science as a "new god" you are ... It was accepted because the evidence showed that the events ... We have observed evolution through mutation and natural selection ... You should try reading articles from scientists. ...
    (talk.origins)