Can we now say that your defnition of science is:
Science is the knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study.
It's the body of knowledge accumulated by the application of the method.
In that case:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:August wrote:
Is science scientific? Using your argument above, the definition of science cannot stand up to its own requirements.
How so? Are you asking us to test a method? Should I have formed a hypothesis for using hypothesis before I can formulate a hypothesis? I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
You proposed a method for determining whether something is science or not. I then asked you to apply the method to science, which you said could not be done. By your reasoning then we cannot know if science is scientific, since the method cannot give an outcome in this case. But by definition (arrived through philosophical reasoning) science is scientific, yet the method that you proposed falis to prove that.
The point is that methodological demarcations, even at a general level, are prone to failure. If we get into specifics, as we have started to discuss lower down, for example the differences in observation, then the application of methodology as demarcation gets even weaker.
That also covers the point about astrologers and psychics, even though they claim to use the scientific method, I don't think that the application of the method qualifies it as science.
(In case you want to argue that they don't do it right, see here:
http://www.astrology-research.net ).
We don't actually see a flower what we think of as seeing is the brains interpretation of the light waves bouncing off the flower back to our eyes. We then interpret it as a flower because of previous exposure to the idea of a flower.
I understand what you are saying, but I think we previously agreed that even the most atheistic scientist
has to have faith in some things, among others the reliability of his observational powers. I don't disagree with you, but if we are to go down this road it may lead to radical skepticism, how can we ever know what we observe is a valid reflection of reality?
The cambrian explosion is not a scientific theory. It is a period in earths natural history, the fossils from which can act as peices of evidence for a theory. ie.observation.
I did not propose that it was a scientific theory. The point was that for the historical sciences repated experimentation is virtually impossible since the conditions which existed at the time of the phenomena does not exist any more. Even though we can observe the remnants, we cannot experimentally repeat what happened, simply because the conditions do not exist any more.
No but I do think it is a requirement for scientific testing.
See my post above, and what you wrote, this seems to contradict the necessity of repeatability, especially in the case of rare or one-off sets of conditions. We can attempt to interpret the evidence in light of theories and even hypothesis, but we cannot experimentally confirm it.
Here. And no, as in all human endeavors the definitions of words change. Also bear in mind that the general population tends to blur the definition of science. But all in all the process is what leads to discoveries. Methodically testing every combination will ultimately lead to something, don't you agree?
I honestly do not see where we went over the history of science there. You mentioned the Greeks there, who started the process with critical thinking, and then mention the addition of experimentation as necessary. It was Descarte, Bacon and later Popper who contributed to the history of science. I am especially interested in the development of scientific philosophy in the late 1800's to now.
You are mostly correct, but some methods of observation required at one time for inferences to be made to make sence of those observations. For instance sonograms. Originally when the concept was new and experimental the "image" was an inference of electrical signals and was not seen as a method of observation.
Mostly correct? I am 100% corrct.
I don't think we disagree here, there are different types of observation, some need to be interpreted in the context of known phenomena.
Simply finding rock layers is not an observation.
Again, this is not what I said. You really have to read more carefully.
Examining the strata...
Direct observation, because it is physically observable, and that is the point. We can physically observe certain phenomena, and others we cannot.
That is not a form of observation then is it? This would fall under hypothesis, and testable one's at that.
Sigh. Would you rather just debate yourself?
I said:
What do you mean by observation? Is science subject to the directly observable alone? Or can it include abductive inferences?
You said:
and dating it by using index fossils or argon/argon dating technique are also observations. These require further inference than simply biologic ones.
Once again, the definition of abductive inference is reasoning to the best explanation. This is exactly what your geologist does in the example above. Apart from his direct identification of the strata, he inferred the best possible approximation of the age of the strata through other methods. That is abductive inference. That is also what you did in your example of the Cambrian above. That is what the Russians did with their tool in the example I sent you.
But it did prove my point, there is inference, even in the observation stages.
Let's get back to the scientific validity of ID based on this next time.