And it appears to be done so solely for the purpose of compartmentalization.
In the same way that YECs use microevolution and macroevolution to place a dividing line between evolution they accept and evolution they don’t.
2 Likes
The future? And assume it happened in the past as well Paul. Experiments are designed to capture principles and processes that apply through space and time. Abduce that.
Repeatable experiments (consistent with physical modelling of the basic forces) give us rates of radioactive decay. That’s evidence. Abductive reasoning thus tells us that the earth is billions of years old.
We can observe annual events such as varve formation. That is applicable evidence. Abductive reasoning tells us that varve formations, which are also verified by other independent metrics such as radiocarbon dating, extend back tens of thousands of years and beyond.
We can observe the rate of tectonic drift over hotspots such as Hawaii, and see that the seamount chain rate of erosion matches with the measured rate of a couple of inches per year. That is evidence. Abductive logic tells us that this process has been going on for tens of millions of years.
So it is clear from operational science and adbuctive reasoning that the earth is ancient. Enough of YEC pseudo-intellectial word games. Not only does YEC fail on the evidence, its foundational rhetoric is incoherent. It is classic if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, bamboozle them with BS.
6 Likes
Here is a simple outline of what is done:
-
A hypothesis (or ideally, more than one) is formed about the historical processes through which certain observed data may have come about. This is the abduction step.
-
Don’t stop there!
-
Using our knowledge of natural sciences we deduct what other observable phenomena would logically result from the hypothesised process(es), and also what phenomena would be highly unlikely if the hypothesised processes would indeed have taken place
-
We go to the lab and/or to the field and look for both types of phenomena
-
Depending on the data we find we can justifiably support or falsify our hypothesis/es
-
If the hypothesis is supported, keep working at it to refine our understanding
-
If the hypothesis is falsified, adjust or replace it
What makes explanations of past events often less reliable and detailed than explanations of ongoing events is not so much a difference in data and methodology but rather a matter of resolution. What often lowers our confidence in the results of historical investigations is sparsity of data and low signal to noise, inevitable byproducts of a lot of time having elapsed since the events of interest. Even so, predictions can and are made on the basis of our hypotheses and these predictions are routinely tested, thereby impacting our confidence.
3 Likes
Paternity tests, smear tests, breath tests, pregnancy tests, parafin tests, Turing tests, litmus tests, fingerprint tests, Rorschach tests, cloud chamber tests, …
Tests require observation of the consequences of the event in question, not necessarily the event itself.
This is especially true of the branch of science that is particularly known for its use of tests - forensics.
So no, you don’t have knowhow. Not even the basics.
P.S. ‘Confidence’ is a statistical quantity that’s independent of whether what is being measured relates to historical events.
4 Likes
Howdy Dan! Well work here has really slowed down lately; thought I’d stop by. (And “kick the nest” a little).
Good to see Paul Price back ( @UncensoredPilgrims ).
BTW I noticed this thread as well, after it had closed (and read through most of it):
Affirming 6×24‑hour days, using asah to support Gen 1:1 as the creation event
Good to see a thread stay on topic for 167 posts.
I noticed one interesting post @reichmaj made that no one responded to. It’s not a re-hashing of the existing discussion, more of a follow-up to his original topic. I’d like to be able to chat about it (if @reichmaj is still here). Is it possible to open that thread again?
If you don’t want to open to topic up again I can be reached at reichmanj@sbcglobal.net
Jeff Reichman
Our analysis of what is or is not likely is riddled with subjectivity, and is limited by the scope of our imagination.
Historical hypotheses cannot be falsified. You can always come up with a story to explain why the evidence you expected to find wasn’t found, or why evidence you didn’t expect to find was found.
You hit the nail on the head here, that’s exactly right. And the more time that has elapsed, the lower the signal-to-noise ratio becomes.
If you ignore natural physical constraints (e.g. physical laws), then sure, you can imagine anything.
Within the context of science, explanations are limited to that which is bound by physical reality.
1 Like
Kindly present the analysis supporting your claims to know:
-
the identity of the original host for influenza virus, and
-
that infection of this curiously unspecified host was nonpathogenic.
Aren’t both of those historical?
2 Likes
I always love how these conversations about GE veer into philosophical well actually stuff when the real problem is that we can look at situations that, if GE is real, are impossible. For example, mutation-saturated viral populations achieving a fitness equilibrium, cloned mice recovering fitness via sexual recombination, mice existing at all…if the math, if you can call it that, underlying GE is correct, that stuff is impossible.
5 Likes
This is adjacent to my own argument against GE; should there exist a population with a very narrow range of fitness (within the “window selection can see”), then you might see a decline in fitness as GE proposes. Where the math comes in, is that each new mutation ADDS to the variability of fitness in the population. Pretty soon the range of fitness is wider than the “selection window”, and purifying selection kicks-in again.
Mathematically, the variance of a random distribution can only stay the same or increase when new members are added. To avoid this would require some non-random mechanism removing members of the population that isn’t normal purifying selection.
1 Like
Codswallop.
That ‘story’ would be a new hypothesis to replace the one that was falsified.
2 Likes
I realise that the whole point is to cast doubt on deep time but really this is more an indictment of YEC. It is YECs who attempt to come up with stories to explain away the evidence far more than mainstream scientists. And the reason is obvious - the evidence is firmly against YEC.
3 Likes
Yes there is subjectivity in working out what is likely and what is less likely. There are techniques though to minimise this: because so much of this work is nowadays done quantitatively we can use statistics to make a stab at it. Furthermore, the risk of bias is well recognised which is why best practice is to decide on the probabilties through a review-and-challenge panel.
More than our imagination, a hugely important limiting factor is the absolute requirment that our models must conform to the known laws of nature. The miracle department is down the hall.
Of course historical hypotheses can be falsified. That happens all the time! Every dry hole is a direct falsification of the model that went into its planning. The ‘story’ that we can come up with to modify it in case of failure is a revision of the original ideas guided by the new data obtained. This procedure is just hypothesis formulation by trial-and-error: by experiment, in effect.
By the way, can you explain why creationists are so keen on being considered scientists if what they do cannot be falsified and is therefore not science?
2 Likes
Wow. You sure about that?
4 Likes
I like to think that I have falsified a great many historical hypotheses during my career, for example the hypothesis that ratites are monophyletic. Perhaps I am wrong about that?
4 Likes
Yeah, I’m quite sure. You should try reading my journal article where is is explained, with citations. Even evolutionist philosophers of science like Dr. Carol Cleland are able to understand this point. Historical claims cannot be strictly falsified.
13 posts were split to a new topic: Genetic Mutations and Information Entropy
If it was a real journal article, you would not be claiming that someone else is responsible for anything in it, because real journals require that all authors certify their responsibility for everything in the real journal article.
Do the citations support your explanation? The mere presence of citations is a very poor marker for the validity of anything in your article. The fact that you would point only to their presence is a good marker for your article being pseudoscience.
You have claimed to know the identity of the original host of influenza virus and that it is not pathogenic in that host. Why haven’t you named it despite multiple requests?
2 Likes
Cleland is dubious of falsification for experimental science as well.
Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method
The falsity of an auxiliary assumption (versus the target hypothesis) could be responsible for a failed prediction. Every science student is implicitly aware of this because repetitions of classical experiments in laboratory exercises often go wrong not because the hypothesis being tested is false, but because, for example, equipment malfunctions or the sample is contaminated. Moreover, this difficulty cannot be circumvented by varying the conditions under which a hypothesis is tested, given that the number of auxiliary conditions involved in any real-world situation is unknown and potentially infinite; it is impossible to control for them all. The famous Popperian directive to bite the bullet and reject the hypothesis in the face of a failed prediction has no logical force
When it comes to testing hypotheses, historical science is not inferior to classical experimental science. Traditional accounts of the scientific method cannot be used to support the superiority of experimental work.
Paul directly replies to Cleland’s work in Examining the usage and scope of historical science—a response to Dr Carol Cleland and a defence of terminology
Some Darwinists assert that historical science should be considered equal to operational science, such as prominent philosopher of science Dr Carol Cleland. Her arguments will be examined and refuted, while the use of the terminology in question will be explained and defended.
Cleland argued that this is true of experimental science as well. You just did it yourself with Genetic Entropy, where you replied to counter examples of presently observable, fast reproducing but thriving species, by coming up with ad hoc stories to deflect falsification.
If you are thinking clearly, it is trivial to falsify a young earth, and in fact there is scarcely a published geological survey or industry mineral resource paper that does not incidentally render YEC untenable by any reasonable standard. History predates the flood.
4 Likes