Re: Evolution and Observation Gap


Jack Crenshaw wrote:
SeppoP wrote:
Jack Crenshaw wrote:

<snip>

As someone else on this thread has noted, physics (and math, and
chemistry, and other hard sciences)are based on the Scientific method.
The essence of the scientific method is the sequence, Hypothesis,
Experiment, Observation.


Interesting... I've always thought that math is part of formal logic, which, again, is part of philosophy and as such,
an essential tool of science, but not *science* per se. Could you elaborate?


When Newton developed his Theory of Gravity, he didn't do it overnight.
He proposed the theory (along with his three laws of motion), then he
and other folks effectively said, "Ok, let's see where this leads us."
They did their math, made predictions, then observed to see if the
predictions came true. Each time that a prediction proved true, it
added to the confidence in the theory.

By contrast, Darwin proposed a theory. All of his followers said
"Sounds good to us," and have been saying so ever since.

Show me your math; show me your predictions; show me how your
observations match your predictions. Otherwise, stop going on about
your "science."



Perhaps you might want to describe to us what *your* view of science is

Ok. I think I have the same view as about 99% of the scientists on the
planet, which is that there are distinct differences between the hard
sciences like Physics, the intermediate sciences like chemistry, and the
fringe sciences like psychology. I suppose we should find a place in
there somewhere for things like behavioral science and medicine.

There's no doubt that all are sciences, in the sense that they require
training, rational thought, and observations of Nature. But surely even
you would conced that measuring, say, the rest mass of an electron is
fundamentally different than measuring the effect of smoking on heart
disease, or the effectiveness of behavior modification.

I realize that there are some scientists who get perturbed by the notion
that some sciences are harder than others, especially if they believe,
as you might, that it's a condescending physicist making the statement.
Nevertheless, it's still a true statement, and anyone who doesn't see
the distinction has probably never studied physicd, math, or chemistry.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but real physicists don't sell
other physicists on the validity of their theory, by calling the other
guys names.

Jack

Emm...they do on occasion. So do scientists in other fields. Scientists
are human, after all.

In the end theories gain acceptance on the basis of their ability to
model phenomena, and make predictions.

However, to quote your own words back at you:

"You are making a serious mistake when you try to defend a historical
science like Evolution by equating it with a hard science like physics.
It's a commonly used practice, but also one that is logically, if not
intellectually, bankrupt.

As someone else on this thread has noted, physics (and math, and
chemistry, and other hard sciences)are based on the Scientific method.
The essence of the scientific method is the sequence, Hypothesis,
Experiment, Observation. "

The clear implication of this is that evolutionary science is either
"less scientific" than physics, mathematics (which is. I have pointed
out elsewhere, not considered to be a science by many of it's own
proponents) and chemistry, or is not based on the Scientific method,
and is therefore not science at all.

The distinction made in discussions on the nature of different branches
of science is also not "historical" vs. "hard" sciences, but "hard" vs.
"soft" sciences. In this sort of discussion, biology and geology, under
whose umbrella the evolutionary sciences fall, are categorised as
"hard" sciences. The "soft" sciences are those such as sociology and
phychology, which by their nature contain strong elements of antecdotal
evidence.

As for "historical" science: this is not a term of much value or
meaning, and is rarely used except in creationist sources to denigrate
the evolutionary sciences. In a sense all sciences are "historical", in
that they can only study events which occured in the past. One thing we
can't do is to observe and measure events which have not yet happened
(though no doubt such things are possible in the bizarre world of
quantum physics)

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution and Observation Gap
    ... chemistry, and other hard sciences)are based on the Scientific method. ... The essence of the scientific method is the sequence, Hypothesis, ... an essential tool of science, ... science like Evolution by equating it with a hard science like physics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: branches of science
    ... We often speak of the "branches" of science. ... is obvious that some disciplines derive from more general disciplines. ... Some cases where it is clearer - physics has pretty well excused itself ... Is chemistry a subspecies of physics? ...
    (soc.history.science)
  • Re: The scientific method is an epistemology
    ... > The credibility of any theory in physics is determined by the physics ... > When I said last week that the purpose of the scientific method was to ... how can science be about knowledge but ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Scientific Errors
    ... And if the pressure of a ... A science forum is no place to preach such ... the scientific method nor have you chosen to inform PTP of your ... As you have no formal training in Physics it explains why ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Science is a Philosophy
    ... "Belief in the scientific method is faith, ... He needs to clarify what he means by "an objective" reality. ... The important point to remember is that science constrains itself to ... rely on 'personal revelation', either directly or indirectly. ...
    (talk.origins)