NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm currently taking a World History class at my high school. We just started the second semester so the first unit of this class is the origins of the human. I droned to think about what debates people in my class were going to start and all that junk. Worst of all I was afraid that the teacher would favour either the creation side or the evolution side and disregard the other as mindless dribble.

However to my surprise my teacher didn't talk about either theories, and instead, like all great history teachers, we watched a movie on the subject. Or more specific, a documentary, two of them actually.

The first one was about the man coming from the ape. It talked about Lucy, and Neanderthals, and what-not. Typical documentary about evolution.

The second documentary was about the search for the Garden of Eden. Instead of talking about what the Garden of Eden was, and how human beings came to be in the garden since everybody, or at least anybody interested, all ready knows about that, the documentary talked about finding out where the Garden is. And, (surprise, surprise!) it used scientific data to locate where different stuff was, and stuff about rock minerals, and etc. Basically to sum it up, the documentary used science.

Now my point is...well actually I really don't have a point. I'm just saying, although this is far from a solution between teaching creation vs. evolution, I thought this was a good start. Anyone agree? disagree? Would you support this if it were in your class?

*EDIT: I should also explain that I live in a small town where the majority of the students are either white Christians (usually right-winged), but there is a small percentage of people labeled as 'other'.

No.

Next question.

I'm currently taking a World History class at my high school. We just started the second semester so the first unit of this class is the origins of the human. I droned to think about what debates people in my class were going to start and all that junk. Worst of all I was afraid that the teacher would favour either the creation side or the evolution side and disregard the other as mindless dribble.

However to my surprise my teacher didn't talk about either theories, and instead, like all great history teachers, we watched a movie on the subject. Or more specific, a documentary, two of them actually.

The first one was about the man coming from the ape. It talked about Lucy, and Neanderthals, and what-not. Typical documentary about evolution.

The second documentary was about the search for the Garden of Eden. Instead of talking about what the Garden of Eden was, and how human beings came to be in the garden since everybody, or at least anybody interested, all ready knows about that, the documentary talked about finding out where the Garden is. And, (surprise, surprise!) it used scientific data to locate where different stuff was, and stuff about rock minerals, and etc. Basically to sum it up, the documentary used science.

Now my point is...well actually I really don't have a point. I'm just saying, although this is far from a solution between teaching creation vs. evolution, I thought this was a good start. Anyone agree? disagree? Would you support this if it were in your class?I'd have the management fired.

I'm currently taking a World History class at my high school. We just started the second semester so the first unit of this class is the origins of the human. I droned to think about what debates people in my class were going to start and all that junk. Worst of all I was afraid that the teacher would favour either the creation side or the evolution side and disregard the other as mindless dribble.

The idea of creation is not opposed to evolutionary theory. Now, most brands of Creationism - ie. literal Genesis, Young-Earth, etc. are.

The second documentary was about the search for the Garden of Eden. Instead of talking about what the Garden of Eden was, and how human beings came to be in the garden since everybody, or at least anybody interested, all ready knows about that, the documentary talked about finding out where the Garden is. And, (surprise, surprise!) it used scientific data to locate where different stuff was, and stuff about rock minerals, and etc. Basically to sum it up, the documentary used science.

Wrong. The use of scientiifc data does not equate to the use of science. Science is an entire process, a method to be more exact. In order to locate "Eden", they had to first assume that such a place existed, and existed as described in Genesis. That isn't science.

Now my point is...well actually I really don't have a point. I'm just saying, although this is far from a solution between teaching creation vs. evolution, I thought this was a good start. Anyone agree? disagree? Would you support this if it were in your class?

In a history class, I would certainly support teaching the various ways in which people try to study their history. However, I would not attempt to convolute it by suggesting that religious studies are ever scientific ones. Of course, if Judeo-Christian-style Creationism is going to be discussed, other religious Creation views should be discussed as well.

I'm currently taking a World History class at my high school. We just started the second semester so the first unit of this class is the origins of the human....

Now my point is...well actually I really don't have a point. I'm just saying, although this is far from a solution between teaching creation vs. evolution, I thought this was a good start. Anyone agree? disagree? Would you support this if it were in your class?
Come back next week and let us know what was actually discussed about the films.

There is no creationism vs evolution. The two are unrelated. Creationism is about the creation(suprise suprise) of humans, evolution is about how we and other life forms became the way we are now.

Come back next week and let us know what was actually discussed about the films.

I think you missed the whole middle part, that or you made a really bad joke.

No reference should be made to creationism in any science lesson or state educational science curriculum material. End of discussion.

You guys are spending the start of your second semester learning about the origins of humans?

We're learning about WW1....hmm...

No reference should be made to creationism in any science lesson or state educational science curriculum material. End of discussion.

Oh yeah, what he/she said.

I think you missed the whole middle part, that or you made a really bad joke.
No, I meant what was discussed, by the students. That would be more interesting.

The 'middle part' was just a description of the films. What was said about the films?

The second documentary was about the search for the Garden of Eden. Instead of talking about what the Garden of Eden was, and how human beings came to be in the garden since everybody, or at least anybody interested, all ready knows about that, the documentary talked about finding out where the Garden is. And, (surprise, surprise!) it used scientific data to locate where different stuff was, and stuff about rock minerals, and etc. Basically to sum it up, the documentary used science.

why?

besides, the bible says where the garden was - the metaphorical (which means imaginary) place that was the headwaters of all the major rivers of the fertile crescent. what other data is there?

why?

besides, the bible says where the garden was - the metaphorical (which means imaginary) place that was the headwaters of all the major rivers of the fertile crescent. what other data is there?

And weren't human beings kicked out of the garden, with its gates guarded by an angel with a fiery sword? I mean, I don't think we can find the place, if it is a literal place.

Wrong. The use of scientiifc data does not equate to the use of science. Science is an entire process, a method to be more exact. In order to locate "Eden", they had to first assume that such a place existed, and existed as described in Genesis. That isn't science.

it could be, if they were willing to reject that assumption should the data not wind up supporting it. in order to do science, you need to have some sort of motivating belief to start from - otherwise you'd never get anywhere. the orgin of these hypotheses may well be fundamentally irrational, but that doesn't matter. personally, i always liked kekulé's "snake eating its own tail dream" explanation of how he first came up with the structure of benzene.

I'd have the management fired.
I'd have the students suspended.

The idea of creation is not opposed to evolutionary theory. Now, most brands of Creationism - ie. literal Genesis, Young-Earth, etc. are.

Uhm seems like a good time to post this ...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468510

*shameless self-promotion*

personally, i always liked kekulé's "snake eating its own tail dream" explanation of how he first came up with the structure of benzene.

Oroborous. Cool. Scully's tattoo (mmmmm), The Millenium Group.

http://www.luckyfishart.com/shamor.html

it could be, if they were willing to reject that assumption should the data not wind up supporting it. in order to do science, you need to have some sort of motivating belief to start from - otherwise you'd never get anywhere. the orgin of these hypotheses may well be fundamentally irrational, but that doesn't matter. personally, i always liked kekulé's "snake eating its own tail dream" explanation of how he first came up with the structure of benzene.

The problem here is that religious views cannot really be falsified, as they deal intimately with the supernatural. If you find no evidence of Eden, you don't have to conclude, "It doesn't exist." You just remember, "Oh! God kicked people out of Eden and locked the gate! Obviously that means I just can't find it! It's still there!" or you say, "God obviously is just keeping me from finding the evidence, because he doesn't want us to find Eden," and so on.....

Meanwhile, you can never assume that your hypothesis is true at the beginning. You certainly expect to get results that back it up, or you wouldn't be proposing it in the first place, but you cannot assume that it is true.

I'd have the management fired. I'd have the students suspended.

i'd have the parents publicly shamed

i'd have the parents publicly shamed
Maybe humiliated as well.
Then the records to be expunged, and no one would ever speak of it again.
Just crack conspiracy theories, and they'd be tied up with other bizarre ideas like Atlantis and yeti and Republican fiscal responsibility, and laughed off into seclusion whenever the subject came up.

Has anyone ever considered that maybe somewhere at some point, everything was created, but then things were just let go from there?

Like if you take a loaf of bread and just leave it alone for a year.

Has anyone ever considered that maybe somewhere at some point, everything was created, but then things were just let go from there?

That probably describes the general viewpoint of most people, although many think that there was a little bit of interference, as if you were leaving the bread alone for a year, but occasionally smooshed part of it or rubbed a little of the mold off.

In order to locate "Eden", they had to first assume that such a place existed, and existed as described in Genesis. That isn't science.

Well in order to find the bones of our ape ancestors we need first assume we evolved from apes as written in Darwin's theories. That's science, but under your definition, I would beg to differ.

The theory of evolution and the theory of the Garden of Eden both have an author (Darwin & Moses) and in these documentaries scientists tried to prove the theories of Darwin & Moses.

Wrong. The use of scientiifc data does not equate to the use of science. Science is an entire process, a method to be more exact. In order to locate "Eden", they had to first assume that such a place existed, and existed as described in Genesis. That isn't science.


Wrong. To come to a conclusion using the scientific method, you start of with a hypothesis. The assumption of the existence of the garden of Eden is a hypothesis.

i.e.
If the garden of eden exists as described in the bible (which is barely), then it must exist somewhere here [insert location]. Your assumption is on the if statement. The conclusion, (that which follows the "then") uses scientific data to prove it.

Go forth and learn.

That probably describes the general viewpoint of most people, although many think that there was a little bit of interference, as if you were leaving the bread alone for a year, but occasionally smooshed part of it or rubbed a little of the mold off.

Yea...so I just go with the completely athiest view to piss people off.

Like if you take a loaf of bread and just leave it alone for a year.
...and then you end up with the Salem witch trials.
Interesting point.

The problem here is that religious views cannot really be falsified, as they deal intimately with the supernatural. If you find no evidence of Eden, you don't have to conclude, "It doesn't exist." You just remember, "Oh! God kicked people out of Eden and locked the gate! Obviously that means I just can't find it! It's still there!" or you say, "God obviously is just keeping me from finding the evidence, because he doesn't want us to find Eden," and so on.....

you could do the same for any belief - religious or not. it is that move that makes it unscientific, not the original idea. if eden really did exist and really was a physical place that could be located, it would be eminently scientific to find it and say so.

Meanwhile, you can never assume that your hypothesis is true at the beginning. You certainly expect to get results that back it up, or you wouldn't be proposing it in the first place, but you cannot assume that it is true.

yeah you do. at the very least you have to assume it for the sake of argument. but the history of science is completely full of scientists convinced of the truth of their hypotheses and on a quest to demonstrate it.

Well in order to find the bones of our ape ancestors we need first assume we evolved from apes as written in Darwin's theories. That's science, but under your definition, I would beg to differ.

No, we didn't. We had to hypothesize that we descended from a common ancestor with apes (evolutionary theory does not claim that we descended from apes) and then we had to test that hypothesis by predicting that we would find fossils that would support it. If we had simply assumed it to be true, we could have found any old bone and declared ourselves right.

The theory of evolution and the theory of the Garden of Eden both have an author (Darwin & Moses) and in these documentaries scientists tried to prove the theories of Darwin & Moses.

And one theory was arrived at using the scientific method and is therefore a scientific theory, while the other was, reportedly, divine revelation.

Meanwhile, Biblical scholars are pretty much in agreement that Moses didn't write all, or perhaps any, of Genesis. It seems to have been compiled by two authors - a Priestly author who was most likely of a Priestly order (or several priests) and the "Yahwist" who seems to have collected various stories that were passed down for generations by word-of-mouth.


[quote]Wrong. To come to a conclusion using the scientific method, you start of with a hypothesis. The assumption of the existence of the garden of Eden is a hypothesis.

See how the two bolded words are different words that mean different things. One cannot assume one's hypothesis to be true and still test it.

If the garden of eden exists as described in the bible (which is barely), then it must exist somewhere here [insert location].

This is a hypothesis. An asumption would be, "The garden of Eden absolutely positively exists as described in the Bible. I believe it to be so. Therefore, we can find evidence of it.

...and then you end up with the Salem witch trials.
Interesting point.

What do you mean... Salem Witch Trials? Thats not how they were started really.

No, I meant what was discussed, by the students. That would be more interesting.

The 'middle part' was just a description of the films. What was said about the films?

We had a short debate on the subject before class ended. Some students believed in evolution, but with an creator behind it. So, basicially, intelligent design. But most of the students didn't take it too seriously and joked that they believed in Scientology. Or at least I hoped they were joking

As for the films. I can't find a web site for the documentary about the locating the Garden of Eden, but I did find this web site that talks about some of the theories in the movie. However, this website is a fundamentalist Christian web site and I advise you to enter at your own risk: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0125eden_found.asp

As for the other film I think it was called 'Our Ancestors' or something like that. It mainly discussed the fossils of Lucy and Neanderthals. They said, and I agree, that the Neanderthals didn't evolve into modern-day humans, but rather died out, possibly because of the homo-sapien.

you could do the same for any belief - religious or not. it is that move that makes it unscientific, not the original idea.

A scientific hypothesis must be drawn from empirical observation. "This book says so," isn't exactly empirical.

if eden really did exist and really was a physical place that could be located, it would be eminently scientific to find it and say so.

Yes, but assuming it exists guarrantees that you will find something to back it up.

http://www.kommy.net/~downtym/images/danielle/flatearthism.bmp

yeah you do. at the very least you have to assume it for the sake of argument. but the history of science is completely full of scientists convinced of the truth of their hypotheses and on a quest to demonstrate it.

Yes, and luckily the process of science keeps them in check on this.

What do you mean... Salem Witch Trials? Thats not how they were started really.
Actually there was a bit of evidence to say some LSD-25 had come to fruition in the bread or cheese holds due a damp fall or winter.
Point being is it took a slight physiological alteration to allow their f*cked up repressed psyches to turn into such a wonderful historical abomination.

Actually there was a bit of evidence to say some LSD-25 had come to fruition in the bread or cheese holds due a damp fall or winter.
Point being is it took a slight physiological alteration to allow their f*cked up repressed psyches to turn into such a wonderful historical abomination.

HOLY SHIT :eek: I have never heard of that...

But otherwise, my concept was interesting?

For your further pleasure, I will be glad to let you know the actualy passages in the bible that refer to the Garden of Eden in Genesis.

In Genesis Chapter 2, it tells of God having finished his work on the seventh day, he blessed it an sanctified it. (Chapter 2.2)

2.5 - says "And every plant of the field was not yet on the earth, and every herb of the field had not yet grown..."

2.7 - God formed man

2.8 - "And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden eastward and He put there the man whom He had formed"

2.9 - "And the Lord God caused to grow out of the ground every tree that is pleasant to the slight and good for food; and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

2.10 - "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it was parted, and became four principal streams"

2.11 "The name of the first is Pishon, the same which compasses the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold."

2.12 "And the gold of that land is good; there is the bdellium and the onyx stone"

2.13 "And the name of the second river is Gihon, the same which compasses the whole land of Cush."

2.14 "And the name of the third river is Hiddekel, the same which flows towards the east of Assyria; and the fourth river is the Euphrates."

That ends the description of the Garden, then the bible says God put man in it, created woman, then the serpent story etc... until they get kicked out...

2.23 "Therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken."

2.24 "He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flaming sword which turns to guard the way to the tree of life."

So - in conclusion, this describes a garden with at least two trees somewhere in the East of somewhere else, with these four rivers.

At the east of the garden is the Cherubim and a flaming sword. (Whatever that means)

See how the two bolded words are different words that mean different things. One cannot assume one's hypothesis to be true and still test it.



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis

No I don't see.

Wrong. The use of scientiifc data does not equate to the use of science. Science is an entire process, a method to be more exact. In order to locate "Eden", they had to first assume that such a place existed, and existed as described in Genesis. That isn't science.

That's actually not true. If I have multiple sources that talk about a certain place, let's say a place containing an Egyptian pyramid in South Africa. It's perfectly scientific to seek out that place and see if it exists. However, it is also scientific to suspect it doesn't without some form of corroboration.

In the case of the Garden of Eden, many religious beliefs are similar and that makes multiple sources for the same belief. It's not unscientific to attempt to find evidence either supporting or disproving the belief, but it is unscientific to hold the belief to be true in the absence of enough evidence to scientifically justify that belief.

To the OP - on the topic of history, I think your teacher violated the seperation of Church and State by...

1) Painting Creation and Evolution as two opposing theories when Evolution is a scientific theory and Creation is a religious belief.

2) Discussing Creation as if it's the only alternative for Evolution.

3) The discovery of the Garden of Eden would not validate Creation in any way shape or form. It would show that tales of the Garden were passed down through generations, but in the absense of evidence dispelling the the long, slow evolution of creatures on this planet it would have nothing to say about evolution.

4) Last I checked, man was expelled from the Garden of Eden. To re-enter the Garden of Eden would suggest that many people's religious beliefs are invalid. That's perfectly fair, if we've done exactly that, but in the absense of evidence that this is possible what right does this teacher have to attack those beliefs. NONE.

EDIT: Dem, I am referring to simply looking for a place on Earth called the Garden of Eden as described by many religions. Most cultures simply refer to a place that was the origin of life. It's quite possible that one day we would discover a place that actually is the Garden of Eden but it turns out to be a perfectly natural place. I agree with your other posts that it depends on the design of the 'fishing' expedition. If your goal is to prove the Bible is true then I think it's unscientific, but mainly because finding the Garden of Eden would do no such thing unless I could pick it up and it said Made in Heaven - copyright 4000 BC.

As for the films. I can't find a web site for the documentary about the locating the Garden of Eden, but I did find this web site that talks about some of the theories in the movie.
I saw something similar on the Discovery Channel.

Well in order to find the bones of our ape ancestors we need first assume we evolved from apes as written in Darwin's theories. That's science, but under your definition, I would beg to differ.

The theory of evolution and the theory of the Garden of Eden both have an author (Darwin & Moses) and in these documentaries scientists tried to prove the theories of Darwin & Moses.

Maybe your teachers should actually take a little time and teach the actual theory of evolution instead of the Creationist propaganda version you've spouted several times in this thread. I would like you to introduce me to ANY SCIENTIST that holds we evolved from apes. So far, I've only heard such a thing espoused by Creationists who are spreading lies about what the theory ACTUALLY is.

A scientific hypothesis must be drawn from empirical observation. "This book says so," isn't exactly empirical.

nor is getting inspiration from a dream or by looking into a fire. the origin of hypotheses is not and has never been bound by empirical observation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis

No I don't see.
The key difference is "...that can be tested".

A hypothesis is a statement that suggests a way to test itself. If the statement doesn't do that, then all you have is an assumption.

Some students believed in evolution, but with an creator behind it.

That's not what ID is, either. ID requires active direction from the divine. That would be a violation of evolutionary theory.

What you are describing is what I hold to be true - that God created the universe and its laws, knowing we would develope through the natural processes He created.

Your teacher should be fired.

HOLY SHIT :eek: I have never heard of that...

But otherwise, my concept was interesting?
What i took from it, was that it was interesting. Hopefully i wasn't too far off the mark ...

*ahem*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD


Then, in the 1500s and 1600s, the symptoms of ergot were blamed on witches -- all over Europe, and finally in Massachusetts. Witch hunts hardly occurred where people didn't eat rye.

This came from the website:
by John H. Lienhard


John H. Lienhard, author and voice of The Engines of Our Ingenuity, is M.D. Anderson Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering and History at the University of Houston. He is known for his research in the thermal sciences as well as in cultural history. He is an Honorary Member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and a member of the National Academy of Engineering.
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1037.htm


Ergot, caused by the fungus Claviceps purpurea, is a disease of cereal crops and grasses. The disease causes reduced yield and quality of grains and hay and also causes a livestock disease called ergotism, if infected grains or hay are fed. The disease cycle of the ergot fungus was first described in the 1800s, but the connection with ergot and epidemics among people and animals was known several hundred years earlier. Ergot's medicinal applications and animal poisoning properties first called attention to this plant disease. Human poisoning was common in Europe in the Middle Ages when ergoty rye bread was often consumed.

Ergot occurs to some extent every year on cereals and grasses in North Dakota. The disease generally is more prevalent in rye and triticale than in other cereals, but significant losses have also been reported in spring wheat, durum, barley, and other small grains. Although the crop loss caused by this disease is important, the effects of the ergot's alkaloid toxins on man and animals is of much greater significance.


Marcia McMullen, Extension Plant Pathologist
Charles Stoltenow, Extension Veterinarian
http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/plantsci/crops/pp551w.htm

----
EDIT:And here's the Straughnism ... ergot was used in the tattoo Scully got ... the one of the oroborous. :eek:
WooT! FULL CIRCLE! *all pun intended*

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis

No I don't see.

The definition you are looking for when talking about science is #1:

A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

A "tentative explanation" is not the same as an assumption.


In the case of the Garden of Eden, many religious beliefs are similar and that makes multiple sources for the same belief.

I'm not aware of any religious belief other than the Judeo-Christian one that refers to the Garden of Eden. There are other paradise gardens and areas, but they are not described in the same way as the Garden of Eden.

nor is getting inspiration from a dream or by looking into a fire. the origin of hypotheses is not and has never been bound by empirical observation.

If a scientist asked for funding to research a hypothesis based on a dream or looking into a fire, he'd be laughed out of whatever office he was standing in.

Yes, but assuming it exists guarrantees that you will find something to back it up.

no, it doesn't. the entire point of testing hypotheses is to start from the idea "suppose that x is true. what logically follows from that assumption?"

no, it doesn't. the entire point of testing hypotheses is to start from the idea "suppose that x is true. what logically follows from that assumption?"
No, it's "suppose that x is true. How can I test to see if I can disprove that?"

no, it doesn't. the entire point of testing hypotheses is to start from the idea "suppose that x is true. what logically follows from that assumption?"

...which is not the same as assuming it to be true. To devise a test, I say, "If X is true, I would expect Y." Then I test it, without assuming it to be true. If Y doesn't happen, well then it wasn't true. If Y does happen, it might be true. And I move on from there...

An assumption of an idea's truthfulness would lead me to simply say. "X is true. Now what?"

The second documentary was about the search for the Garden of Eden. Instead of talking about what the Garden of Eden was, and how human beings came to be in the garden since everybody, or at least anybody interested, all ready knows about that, the documentary talked about finding out where the Garden is. And, (surprise, surprise!) it used scientific data to locate where different stuff was, and stuff about rock minerals, and etc. Basically to sum it up, the documentary used science.


So did they find it?

If a scientist asked for funding to research a hypothesis based on a dream or looking into a fire, he'd be laughed out of whatever office he was standing in.

so? doesn't change the fact that the context of discovery is a matter of psychology and is quite seperate from the context of testing/justification.

...which is not the same as assuming it to be true. To devise a test, I say, "If X is true, I would expect Y." Then I test it, without assuming it to be true. If Y doesn't happen, well then it wasn't true. If Y does happen, it might be true. And I move on from there...

An assumption of an idea's truthfulness would lead me to simply say. "X is true. Now what?"

Ok, so suppose "if the Garden of Eden exists as described in religious (and historical) documents then I would expect to find it in North Africa with 100 miles of point x,y". That would be perfectly scientific. Not finding the Garden would invalidate one of two things, either the Garden doesn't exist or I was wrong that its existence implies "the result".

At the east of the garden is the Cherubim and a flaming sword. (Whatever that means)

Cherubim is a rank of angel.

So did they find it?Nope, but they found geological evidence that various edible greens were around 4-6000 years ago, so though the exact location is still shrouded in mystery, we can safely assume it's there.

So did they find it?
I'm looking forward to seeing the Cherubim bones. Of course, if he didn't fossilize... and the flaming sword was taken by grave-robbers long ago... we might never know if it's really Eden.

...which is not the same as assuming it to be true.

yes, it is

Uhm seems like a good time to post this ...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468510

*shameless self-promotion*

Seriously, dude, you are shameless.

The definition you are looking for when talking about science is #1:

A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.


The definition can fall under 1 or 2.

2 states : Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

You do not feel as though the search for the garden of eden is an investigation?

One cannot assume one's hypothesis to be true and still test it.

actually, one could not test a hypothesis without first assuming it to be true.

If you really want to see "another side" to this discussion check out this site: www.answersingenesis.org/

or this one: www.icr.org/

Christian Scientists!

Ok, so suppose "if the Garden of Eden exists as described in religious (and historical) documents then I would expect to find it in North Africa with 100 miles of point x,y".

And your empirical evidence to back this up is??

That would be perfectly scientific.

Not without something more to back it up than, "I said so."

Not finding the Garden would invalidate one of two things, either the Garden doesn't exist or I was wrong that its existence implies "the result".

Or, since we are dealing with the supernatural, you could say, "It was there, but I couldn't find it because humans have been kicked out." Or you could just say, "Found it." I could pick any point on the planet that I think is "paradise-like" and say, "Here's Eden. Isn't this place paradise?"


The definition can fall under 1 or 2.

2 states : Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

You do not feel as though the search for the garden of eden is an investigation?

We were talking about whether or not it is science. In the scientific process, the definition of hypothesis is #1.


actually, one could not test a hypothesis without first assuming it to be true.

How do you test something that is true? If I start a mathematical proof with, "Assume that x=y," I cannot use that proof to prove that x=y. The same thing goes with the scientific process. If I assume my hypothesis to be true, then any result I get won't change the assumed fact that it is true. I cannot test it without being open to the idea that it is not true, which means I cannot assume it to be true.

So did they find it?

No. However one theory pointed to some city that's been built over it. Also, the bibical theory is that we can't find it because of Noah's Flood.

Maybe your teachers should actually take a little time and teach the actual theory of evolution instead of the Creationist propaganda version you've spouted several times in this thread. I would like you to introduce me to ANY SCIENTIST that holds we evolved from apes. So far, I've only heard such a thing espoused by Creationists who are spreading lies about what the theory ACTUALLY is.

Apes, monkies, some hominid species, etc. You know what I mean. And what do you mean Creationist propaganda? I have yet to see an evolution documentary made by Creationist. Maybe you have...if you have, can I borrow it? Looks interesting...

No. However one theory pointed to some city that's been built over it. Also, the bibical theory is that we can't find it because of Noah's Flood.

What happened to the angel with the burning sword keeping us out? Did they just decide to ignore that part?


Of course, I'm beginning to wonder if the documentary simply wasn't properly explained to you guys. It could be that it was based on looking for evidence of a place that might have grown into an Eden myth, rather than assuming Eden-exactly-as-described-in-Genesis (which couldn't be found, since the angel is supposed to be blocking it and not letting human beings in). I've seen more than one historian suggest that the idea of Eden might have come from certain areas, especially based off the description of the rivers, etc.

Apes, monkies, some hominid species, etc. You know what I mean. And what do you mean Creationist propaganda? I have yet to see an evolution documentary made by Creationist. Maybe you have...if you have, can I borrow it? Looks interesting...

Creationists spend most of their time trying to "debunk" faulty understandings of evolution. The problem is that they don't point out that they are faulty understandings in the first place.

How do you test something that is true? If I start a mathematical proof with, "Assume that x=y," I cannot use that proof to prove that x=y. The same thing goes with the scientific process. If I assume my hypothesis to be true, then any result I get won't change the assumed fact that it is true. I cannot test it without being open to the idea that it is not true, which means I cannot assume it to be true.

funny you should mention the math idea. consider a mathematical proof that starts with the assumption x=y. if in the course of the proof you get a contradiction, then you reject your assumption. if you don't, then you get to keep using it.

exactly like what happens with hypotheses

you are just using the word 'assume' incorrectly. 'assume' does not mean "hold to be true no matter what happens".

Creationists spend most of their time trying to "debunk" faulty understandings of evolution. The problem is that they don't point out that they are faulty understandings in the first place.

Likewise with evolutionist.

I have a question. Why are you studing the orgion of humanity in the second semester of a World History class?

Creationists spend most of their time trying to "debunk" faulty understandings of evolution. The problem is that they don't point out that they are faulty understandings in the first place.the remainder of their time is spend thinking of ways to misrepresent the ToE :p

funny you should mention the math idea. consider a mathematical proof that starts with the assumption x=y. if in the course of the proof you get a contradiction, then you reject your assumption. if you don't, then you get to keep using it.

exactly like what happens with hypotheses

you are just using the word 'assume' incorrectly. 'assume' does not mean "hold to be true no matter what happens".

However, the point of the mathematical proof is not to test the assumption. It is to figure out what would happen if the assumption were true. It isn't a direct analogy.

Assumptions in science are those things you take to be true for the purpose of your experiment. They are not the question you are testing (your hypothesis). For instance, you might assume a dilute solution of X, and thus expect the results to go along with that. However, if you were testing to see if you have a dilute solution of X, you could not begin by assuming that you do. You would start with a different set of assumptions, with the hypothesis that your solution is dilute, and then test it.

Edit: And along the mathematics route - one of the major differences between a mathematical proof and scientific one is the following: If you assume, for the purposes of a proof, that x=y, even if you find no contradiction, you have not in any way provided evidence for x truly being equal to y. It was an assumption completely restricted to use in the proof you are carrying out. Scientific hypotheses, on the other hand, are tested in order to either debunk or support them. You must be able to support them by not finding a contradiction. On top of that, scientific hypotheses are not meant to be restricted simply to your experiment, but are meant to be descriptions empirically measurable phenomena.

Likewise with evolutionist.

What is an evolutionist?

And, on top of that, what do they fail to understand about Creationism? So long as the type of Creationism is specified (Young-Earth, Flood, etc.), it's all spelled out for them.

No. However one theory pointed to some city that's been built over it. Also, the bibical theory is that we can't find it because of Noah's Flood.
did the water extinguish the flaming sword?

it seems to me that its a rather clumsy attempt to please everyone. how is the search for the garden of eden appropriate to the discussion of early man? if it was going to be "real" they would have to discuss the way that all humanity spread out from the middle east to inhabit the entire world. not that thats possible.

However, the point of the mathematical proof is not to test the assumption.

really? cause i seem to remember doing a bunch of proofs with that as the explicit purpose. typically with the expectation that the assumption would turn out false in the end, but that's because of the nature of math homework.


Edit: And along the mathematics route - one of the major differences between a mathematical proof and scientific one is the following: If you assume, for the purposes of a proof, that x=y, even if you find no contradiction, you have not in any way provided evidence for x truly being equal to y. It was an assumption completely restricted to use in the proof you are carrying out. Scientific hypotheses, on the other hand, are tested in order to either debunk or support them. You must be able to support them by not finding a contradiction. On top of that, scientific hypotheses are not meant to be restricted simply to your experiment, but are meant to be descriptions empirically measurable phenomena.

actually, this is a way where the two are logically identical. no matter how many tests you perform on your hypothesis, it cannot gain any logical support. it might be said to gain psychological or maybe even epistemological support, but logically it is as unsupported as the day it came to you while you were taking a bath.

Apes, monkies, some hominid species, etc. You know what I mean. And what do you mean Creationist propaganda? I have yet to see an evolution documentary made by Creationist. Maybe you have...if you have, can I borrow it? Looks interesting...

Creationist propoganda like saying we decended from apes and monkeys is an aspect of evolution. There is no such thing. You do know where a hominid species. The ideas are vastly different.

Well, with math you can actually prove something, like "an even number times an odd number is always even".

Likewise with evolutionist.

Bahaha! Your colors are revealed. Can you name for me ANY theory of evolution that mentions Creation? Can mention any evolutionary paper that mentions Creation? Can you point out any scientifc group anywhere that acts as if Creation is the alternative for Evolution?

Well, with math you can actually prove something, like "an even number times an odd number is always even".

yeah, that's the fundamental disconnect in the analogy. with math, positive proof is possible.

And your empirical evidence to back this up is??

I don't have it. That's not the point. There is information that can be found in the Bible or supporting documents that would suggest it has a location. Much like we know what was likely referred to as Mount Olympus. Finding the garden of Eden is completely scientific if it's an archeological task and not a religious one.

Not without something more to back it up than, "I said so."

Yes, but you assume that's as much evidence as they can have. Since you're not an archeologist, we can fairly sure this assumption is ignorant.

Or, since we are dealing with the supernatural, you could say, "It was there, but I couldn't find it because humans have been kicked out." Or you could just say, "Found it." I could pick any point on the planet that I think is "paradise-like" and say, "Here's Eden. Isn't this place paradise?"

Supernatural? Pardon? Is it supernatural to find the Tigris and the Euphrates? Would it be supernatural to find there was a large flood five thousand years ago that would have appeared to a bunch of nomads to cover the whole earth? Would that be supernatural? Your idea of supernatural is absurd. Because a religion holds something to be supernatural doesn't make it so. You seem to be confused about the difference.

Well in order to find the bones of our ape ancestors we need first assume we evolved from apes as written in Darwin's theories. That's science, but under your definition, I would beg to differ.

The theory of evolution and the theory of the Garden of Eden both have an author (Darwin & Moses) and in these documentaries scientists tried to prove the theories of Darwin & Moses.

I weep for our school system.

Obviously, you learned nothing from these films but popular prejudices.

Evolution is a proven fact and does not contradict faith. Only a very small minority of Christians and almost no real scientists believe in so-called creation science.

Genesis isn't to be taken literally. Much of the Bible is specifically written in parables and allegories.

Likewise with evolutionist.

You really have no clue what you are talking about.

I'm just glad I don't live in kansas.

You really have no clue what you are talking about.

And how! :D

I think everyone on this thread should also read Vine Deloria Jr's "Evolution, Creationism, and other Modern Myths"

Cherubim is a rank of angel.
...and they weren't particularly cute, chubby little babies with wings, either...
one of the bloodthirstier, IIRC.

Seriously, dude, you are shameless.
Moist shoitenlee!!!

No reference should be made to creationism in any science lesson or state educational science curriculum material. End of discussion.


I'm currently taking a World History class at my high school....


You should have tried actually entering the discussion before declaring it over...

really? cause i seem to remember doing a bunch of proofs with that as the explicit purpose. typically with the expectation that the assumption would turn out false in the end, but that's because of the nature of math homework.

In all of the proofs I did, my "hypothesis" was never one of my assumptions. The hypothesis might be something like, "All prime numbers are odd." Assumptions would be things like "Let even number x=2n and let odd number y=2n+1." And then you would begin (obviously finding that there is at least one even prime).

actually, this is a way where the two are logically identical. no matter how many tests you perform on your hypothesis, it cannot gain any logical support. it might be said to gain psychological or maybe even epistemological support, but logically it is as unsupported as the day it came to you while you were taking a bath.

And this is incorrect. The entire point of the scientific method is to gain support for a given explanation by failing to prove it wrong. The more often your predictions are correct, the more logically likely your explanation is.


There is information that can be found in the Bible or supporting documents that would suggest it has a location. Much like we know what was likely referred to as Mount Olympus. Finding the garden of Eden is completely scientific if it's an archeological task and not a religious one.

In other words, you are not talking about "finding the Garden of Eden" so much as "finding the place that might have started the stories of the Garden of Eden."

Yes, but you assume that's as much evidence as they can have. Since you're not an archeologist, we can fairly sure this assumption is ignorant.

When it comes to trying to use science to prove a religious belief, that is all they have.

Supernatural? Pardon? Is it supernatural to find the Tigris and the Euphrates?

Nope.

Would it be supernatural to find there was a large flood five thousand years ago that would have appeared to a bunch of nomads to cover the whole earth?

Nope.

Would that be supernatural? Your idea of supernatural is absurd. Because a religion holds something to be supernatural doesn't make it so. You seem to be confused about the difference.

No, the idea you are ascribing to me (which is not my own) is absurd - a common tactic for you. Those who hold that Eden was a specially created paradise (which humans are now barred from), as described in the Bible, hold it to be a supernatural place. Thus, they can look for it, but if they don't find it, they can attribute all sorts of supernatural reasons for not finding it, and still say it exists, based on nothing more than faith. This is entirely different from a scientist saying, "These nomadic cultures had a story about a place they called Eden, to which they attributed certain characteristics. We hypothesize that, outside of the supernatural characteristics attributed, there might be a physical place that such stories grew out of..."

In all of the proofs I did, my "hypothesis" was never one of my assumptions. The hypothesis might be something like, "All prime numbers are odd." Assumptions would be things like "Let even number x=2n and let odd number y=2n+1." And then you would begin (obviously finding that there is at least one even prime).



And this is incorrect. The entire point of the scientific method is to gain support for a given explanation by failing to prove it wrong. The more often your predictions are correct, the more logically likely your explanation is.



In other words, you are not talking about "finding the Garden of Eden" so much as "finding the place that might have started the stories of the Garden of Eden."



When it comes to trying to use science to prove a religious belief, that is all they have.



Nope.



Nope.



No, the idea you are ascribing to me (which is not my own) is absurd - a common tactic for you. Those who hold that Eden was a specially created paradise (which humans are now barred from), as described in the Bible, hold it to be a supernatural place. Thus, they can look for it, but if they don't find it, they can attribute all sorts of supernatural reasons for not finding it, and still say it exists, based on nothing more than faith. This is entirely different from a scientist saying, "These nomadic cultures had a story about a place they called Eden, to which they attributed certain characteristics. We hypothesize that, outside of the supernatural characteristics attributed, there might be a physical place that such stories grew out of..."

But you are the one making assumptions here. We were pointing out that the search for Eden can be a scientific process, something you've now admitted. Yes, searching for something with supernatural characteristics is not scientific, but I haven't seen anyone claim or show that they've done so. That's the point. One has to make certain assumptions for us to argue that it's unscientific. Those assumption either need to be made by researchers or by us, but they have to be made. Minus those assumptions, the search for Eden can be a totally scientific process.

And this is incorrect. The entire point of the scientific method is to gain support for a given explanation by failing to prove it wrong. The more often your predictions are correct, the more logically likely your explanation is.

no, that doesn't follow. come on, this is just the problem of induction - which is the reason why we constantly have to say "science can't prove anything".

no matter how many white swans you see, you can't be logically justified in claiming that all swans are white. it just doesn't logically follow.

no, that doesn't follow. come on, this is just the problem of induction - which is the reason why we constantly have to say "science can't prove anything".

no matter how many white swans you see, you can't be logically justified in claiming that all swans are white. it just doesn't logically follow.

No, you actually would offer exactly that conclusion, but all scientific conclusions start with "All available evidence suggests". When some evidence comes up that says otherwise the statement becomes untrue.

I think everyone on this thread should also read Vine Deloria Jr's "Evolution, Creationism, and other Modern Myths"

/salutes the mentioning of the late Vine Deloria, Jr.

I haven't read that one yet. But the loss of Vine Deloria, Jr., last was a heavy one.

Likewise with evolutionist.

Please can you link me to a scientific paper that tries to falisfy creationism, misunderstands it, and fails. You wouldnt have posted that without already having such a link would you?

/salutes the mentioning of the late Vine Deloria, Jr.

I haven't read that one yet. But the loss of Vine Deloria, Jr., last was a heavy one.Excuse my ignorance, but isn't that book just an attempt at arguing for Native American spiritual beliefs or something like that?

No, you actually would offer exactly that conclusion, but all scientific conclusions start with "All available evidence suggests". When some evidence comes up that says otherwise the statement becomes untrue.

nah. while adding "all available evidence suggests" to the front of a universal conclusion might save it from the problem of induction in the short term (and i'm not sure that it does), it would also utterly destroy the predictive aspect of the hypothesis.

scientific hypotheses are required to make claims beyond the available evidence - at least partially because you can make an infinite number of hypotheses that perfectly fit any current set of data. they need to predict what the next data point will be so we can distinguish between those hypotheses by further testing. but in order to make claims about as yet unobserved things, the actual hypothesis must be a universal statement.

"all swans are white" makes the logical prediction that the next swan you observe will be white.

"all available evidence suggests that all swans are white" either doesn't make a prediction about the next swan at all (because the stament restricts its domain to the currently available evidence), or it is just trying to sneakily ignore the problem of induction by not stating it's real hypothesis, "all available evidence suggest that the next swan will be white".

if the former, it isn't making testable predictions and therefore isn't science. if the latter, then that runs smack into the problem of induction and therefore the next swan being white lends absolutely no logical justification towards the universal conclusion, "all swans are white".

nah. while adding "all available evidence suggests" to the front of a universal conclusion might save it from the problem of induction in the short term (and i'm not sure that it does), it would also utterly destroy the predictive aspect of the hypothesis.

scientific hypotheses are required to make claims beyond the available evidence - at least partially because you can make an infinite number of hypotheses that perfectly fit any current set of data. they need to predict what the next data point will be so we can distinguish between those hypotheses by further testing. but in order to make claims about as yet unobserved things, the actual hypothesis must be a universal statement.

"all swans are white" makes the logical prediction that the next swan you observe will be white.

"all available evidence suggests that all swans are white" either doesn't make a prediction about the next swan at all (because the stament restricts its domain to the currently available evidence), or it is just trying to sneakily ignore the problem of induction by not stating it's real hypothesis, "all available evidence suggest that the next swan will be white".

if the former, it isn't making testable predictions and therefore isn't science. if the latter, then that runs smack into the problem of induction and therefore the next swan being white lends absolutely no logical justification towards the universal conclusion, "all swans are white".

That's totally wrong. All available evidence suggests that ALL swans are white. It means we expect ALL swans to be white, but it can be falsified by a single purple, yellow or black swan. It doesn't take away it's predictive nature. It simple makes it accurate. You're failure to allow for this doesn't a universal constant make. All science restricts its domain to the currently available evidence. The purpose of testing a hypothesis is to gather more evidence that either further supports the claim or falsifies it. If we assume that all further evidence will support the claim then there would be no reason to force hypotheses to be falsifiable, which we do, and there would be no reason to attempt to falsify a claim, which we do. A scientific theory is simply the "best fit" hypothesis based on the available evidence. It always was, is and always will be.

That's totally wrong. All available evidence suggests that ALL swans are white. It means we expect ALL swans to be white, but it can be falsified by a single purple, yellow or black swan. It doesn't take away it's predictive nature. It simple makes it accurate. You're failure to allow for this doesn't a universal constant make. All science restricts its domain to the currently available evidence. The purpose of testing a hypothesis is to gather more evidence that either further supports the claim or falsifies it. If we assume that all further evidence will support the claim then there would be no reason to force hypotheses to be falsifiable, which we do, and there would be no reason to attempt to falsify a claim, which we do. A scientific theory is simply the "best fit" hypothesis based on the available evidence. It always was, is and always will be.

and therefore adding "all available evidence suggests" adds nothing to the statement from a logical standpoint, because the actual statement at issue is "all swans are white" (or "all masses attract each other in proportion to the product of the masses divided by the square of the distance between them", or whatever).

but no matter how many white swans you see, it will never logically follow that all swans are white. "in my experience all swans are white, therefore all swans are white" is an invalid argument. each additional white swan provides precisely 0% support to the conclusion, while a single black swan moves in for the 100% falsification.

the fact that we feel as though each passed test lends support to the statement is not a logical conclusion. (hume said it was essentially habit or instinct, i personally hold that there may be good epistemological justification for that feeling)

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't that book just an attempt at arguing for Native American spiritual beliefs or something like that?

I'm not saying that I endorse what he wrote and had to say, only saying that his loss was/is a heavy one for all of us and the Native American one in particular.

Snippet, from before he died.
http://www.indigenouspeople.net/vine.htm

But you are the one making assumptions here. We were pointing out that the search for Eden can be a scientific process, something you've now admitted.

I've admitted no such thing. I've pointed out, as I first stated, that the search for Eden would be unscientific, as it would include supernatural characteristics (such as an angel standing at the gate with a burning sword telling you you couldn't enter). The search for a place that might have, over time and repetition, become the basis for a story of Eden is a separate process - something I mentioned in an earlier post.

One cannot look for Mt. Olympus as described in Greek myths and call it science. One can look for a big mountain that the Greeks might have thought might be the home of the gods, as an explanation for the myths.

Yes, searching for something with supernatural characteristics is not scientific, but I haven't seen anyone claim or show that they've done so.

The OP stated that the "Eden" in question was the Genesis one - and that things like who made it and why it was there weren't described because people already know that. As I pointed out in a later post (which you apparently ignored), it is very possible that the documentary in question was doing no such thing, and was instead looking for a physical place that might have been a basis for the stories of Eden.

Of course, if that is the case, then the whole idea of these two movies providing some sort of compare and contrast between evolution and Creationism would be out the window, since the second movie would not be trying to "prove" or even investigate the Bible, and would instead be looking for the historical basis of a legend...

no, that doesn't follow. come on, this is just the problem of induction - which is the reason why we constantly have to say "science can't prove anything".

no matter how many white swans you see, you can't be logically justified in claiming that all swans are white. it just doesn't logically follow.

No, but the longer I search and never see a non-white swan, the more support I have for the hypothesis that all swans are white. Providing logical suppport is not the same as proving. We can never be 100% certain of anything at all. But we can get closer and closer to certainty. Every test that does not falsify the idea moves us slightly closer to that 100% certain mark.

Otherwise, there is no point in science at all, as we can discover nothing useful. We will always know 0% of what there is to know.

nah. while adding "all available evidence suggests" to the front of a universal conclusion might save it from the problem of induction in the short term (and i'm not sure that it does), it would also utterly destroy the predictive aspect of the hypothesis.

scientific hypotheses are required to make claims beyond the available evidence - at least partially because you can make an infinite number of hypotheses that perfectly fit any current set of data. they need to predict what the next data point will be so we can distinguish between those hypotheses by further testing. but in order to make claims about as yet unobserved things, the actual hypothesis must be a universal statement.

"all swans are white" makes the logical prediction that the next swan you observe will be white.

"all available evidence suggests that all swans are white" either doesn't make a prediction about the next swan at all (because the stament restricts its domain to the currently available evidence), or it is just trying to sneakily ignore the problem of induction by not stating it's real hypothesis, "all available evidence suggest that the next swan will be white".

if the former, it isn't making testable predictions and therefore isn't science. if the latter, then that runs smack into the problem of induction and therefore the next swan being white lends absolutely no logical justification towards the universal conclusion, "all swans are white".

You are confusing hypothesis, conclusion, and theory. A hypothesis would be, "All swans are white." You would test this, over and over, and might come to the conclusion, "All available evidence suggests that all swans are white." If it stood up long enough, it could become theory. At this point, you would assume it's truthfulness in further studies and hypotheses, ie. "All swans are white because of genetic trait X," or, "Swans gain X advantage by being white," You would then test that into oblivion, and so on.

However, at no point do you assume that a hypothesis is correct. You may assume that a previous conclusion is correct, but never the specific hypothesis you are in the process of testing.

You are confusing hypothesis, conclusion, and theory. A hypothesis would be, "All swans are white." You would test this, over and over, and might come to the conclusion, "All available evidence suggests that all swans are white."

the conclusion of a scientific argument (when it is aimed at generalizing, rather than saying something specific about particular thing x) is either the restatement of the hypothesis or the rejection of it. theories don't enter into it because they are just really big and important hypotheses that haven't been rejected despite a lot of testing and which we take to be supported (for reasons that aren't able to be logically demonstrated, but we'll call good enough). there isn't any confusion on this end.

all that adding "all available evidence suggests" in front does is allow you to stop, because it makes no further predictions. it isn't a hypothesis, but a statement about a hypothesis.

However, at no point do you assume that a hypothesis is correct. You may assume that a previous conclusion is correct, but never the specific hypothesis you are in the process of testing.

it is impossible to test a hypothesis without first assuming it to be true. without making that assumption, you couldn't know what to look for in a test.

seriously, you aren't using the word 'assume' quite right.

...and they weren't particularly cute, chubby little babies with wings, either...
one of the bloodthirstier, IIRC.
Well, once we find those fossilized bones, then we'll know for sure.

it is impossible to test a hypothesis without first assuming it to be true. without making that assumption, you couldn't know what to look for in a test.

seriously, you aren't using the word 'assume' quite right.
You're both right. And I think you are both using 'assume' in the same context.

"Swans are white" is both a testable assumption (hypothesis) and a conclusion that will be supported if no non-white swans are found in the testing. The hypothesis suggest its conclusion, as well as a means for testing it.

In other words, the hypothesis is a statement of the supported conclusion that dares you to test it wrong. It stands up and says, "I'm true; or I will be if you can support me."

No, but the longer I search and never see a non-white swan, the more support I have for the hypothesis that all swans are white. Providing logical suppport is not the same as proving. We can never be 100% certain of anything at all. But we can get closer and closer to certainty. Every test that does not falsify the idea moves us slightly closer to that 100% certain mark.

Otherwise, there is no point in science at all, as we can discover nothing useful. We will always know 0% of what there is to know.

how does it provide logical support? how does it move us closer to (logical, not psychological) certainty?

the argument "swan 1 is white, therefore all swans are white" is logically invalid.

the argument "swans 1 and 2 are white, therefore all swans are white" is logically invalid.

the argument "swans 1 through 10,000 are white, therefore all swans are white" is logically invalid.

it is just an invalid argument. no matter how many swans you check (short of all the swans that ever were, are, and ever will be), the conclusion simply won't logically follow from the premises.

Well, once we find those fossilized bones, then we'll know for sure.
Actually i'd read that they had their bones gnashed in the teeth of the denizens of "Satan". Or their hounds, diablicanis. As far as i'm concerned, there should be a little more evidence. *nods*

I've admitted no such thing. I've pointed out, as I first stated, that the search for Eden would be unscientific, as it would include supernatural characteristics (such as an angel standing at the gate with a burning sword telling you you couldn't enter). The search for a place that might have, over time and repetition, become the basis for a story of Eden is a separate process - something I mentioned in an earlier post.

One cannot look for Mt. Olympus as described in Greek myths and call it science. One can look for a big mountain that the Greeks might have thought might be the home of the gods, as an explanation for the myths.



The OP stated that the "Eden" in question was the Genesis one - and that things like who made it and why it was there weren't described because people already know that. As I pointed out in a later post (which you apparently ignored), it is very possible that the documentary in question was doing no such thing, and was instead looking for a physical place that might have been a basis for the stories of Eden.

Of course, if that is the case, then the whole idea of these two movies providing some sort of compare and contrast between evolution and Creationism would be out the window, since the second movie would not be trying to "prove" or even investigate the Bible, and would instead be looking for the historical basis of a legend...



No, but the longer I search and never see a non-white swan, the more support I have for the hypothesis that all swans are white. Providing logical suppport is not the same as proving. We can never be 100% certain of anything at all. But we can get closer and closer to certainty. Every test that does not falsify the idea moves us slightly closer to that 100% certain mark.

Otherwise, there is no point in science at all, as we can discover nothing useful. We will always know 0% of what there is to know.



You are confusing hypothesis, conclusion, and theory. A hypothesis would be, "All swans are white." You would test this, over and over, and might come to the conclusion, "All available evidence suggests that all swans are white." If it stood up long enough, it could become theory. At this point, you would assume it's truthfulness in further studies and hypotheses, ie. "All swans are white because of genetic trait X," or, "Swans gain X advantage by being white," You would then test that into oblivion, and so on.

However, at no point do you assume that a hypothesis is correct. You may assume that a previous conclusion is correct, but never the specific hypothesis you are in the process of testing.

Ok. Well, then I'll wait for you to quote where it said they were expecting that place to have supernatural characteristics. I don't ever remember reading it. I'll wait.

Meanwhile, they did find Mt. Olympus and it proved that it was a tale of a real mountain and nothing else.

Many people searching for support of the Bible are looking for natural places and events that explain that the Bible isn't a book of lies, not looking for proof that the supernatural exists.

Your argument with FS is evidence that you were originally arguing against making assumptions period.

How do you test something that is true? If I start a mathematical proof with, "Assume that x=y," I cannot use that proof to prove that x=y. The same thing goes with the scientific process. If I assume my hypothesis to be true, then any result I get won't change the assumed fact that it is true. I cannot test it without being open to the idea that it is not true, which means I cannot assume it to be true.

This argument is patently false. You should probably stay out of the math arena if you don't know this. A standard mathematical proof is to assume something true and then test the implications of that truth. Of course, math is simpler than science, but it is an example of pure logic.

how does it provide logical support? how does it move us closer to (logical, not psychological) certainty?

the argument "swan 1 is white, therefore all swans are white" is logically invalid.

the argument "swans 1 and 2 are white, therefore all swans are white" is logically invalid.

the argument "swans 1 through 10,000 are white, therefore all swans are white" is logically invalid.

it is just an invalid argument. no matter how many swans you check (short of all the swans that ever were, are, and ever will be), the conclusion simply won't logically follow from the premises.

Now you are being cruel. Next you'll be arguing Hume against any inductive logic.

:D

Ok. Well, then I'll wait for you to quote where it said they were expecting that place to have supernatural characteristics. I don't ever remember reading it. I'll wait.

Meanwhile, they did find Mt. Olympus and it proved that it was a tale of a real mountain and nothing else.

Many people searching for support of the Bible are looking for natural places and events that explain that the Bible isn't a book of lies, not looking for proof that the supernatural exists.

None of which suggests that showing a film about evolution and showing a film about trying to find Eden is a "balanced"* approach to teaching evolution and creationism.

*or intelligent, wise, etc.

That's actually not true. If I have multiple sources that talk about a certain place, let's say a place containing an Egyptian pyramid in South Africa. It's perfectly scientific to seek out that place and see if it exists. However, it is also scientific to suspect it doesn't without some form of corroboration.

In the case of the Garden of Eden, many religious beliefs are similar and that makes multiple sources for the same belief. It's not unscientific to attempt to find evidence either supporting or disproving the belief, but it is unscientific to hold the belief to be true in the absence of enough evidence to scientifically justify that belief.

Here is my original post on the point. I make it very clear that I am merely talking about the place that inspired the stories, in some cases multiple religious stories. If I could find that place it would be a great archeological and historical find, if not religious. Searching out such a place is perfectly scientific provided the methods used are scientific. You suggested that it couldn't possibly be scientific, which is patently untrue.

how does it provide logical support? how does it move us closer to (logical, not psychological) certainty?

the argument "swan 1 is white, therefore all swans are white" is logically invalid.

the argument "swans 1 and 2 are white, therefore all swans are white" is logically invalid.

the argument "swans 1 through 10,000 are white, therefore all swans are white" is logically invalid.

it is just an invalid argument. no matter how many swans you check (short of all the swans that ever were, are, and ever will be), the conclusion simply won't logically follow from the premises.
You're not a betting man, are you?

Now you are being cruel. Next you'll be arguing Hume against any inductive logic.

:D

heh, i can't help it. and i happen to like inductive logic even. i just spent way too long on the problem (one of these days i'm gonna get a paper published on the subject actually).

You're not a betting man, are you?
teehee!

None of which suggests that showing a film about evolution and showing a film about trying to find Eden is a "balanced"* approach to teaching evolution and creationism.

*or intelligent, wise, etc.

Oh, absolutely. I said earlier in the thread that the teacher should be fired in my opinion. I would seek a termination if my children attended that school.

My disagreement with Dem is that she often claims that you can't start a scientific quest assuming something to be true. However, many scientific quests in terms of archeology start with fables or hand-me-down tales and extract that they are actually describing real places. There were rumors of Pompeii before it was discovered, and it would have perfectly scientific to seek it out. The only way it could be considered unscientific is if it had characteristics that we know to be counter to current scientific knowledge, like the fountain of youth.

You can see that despite her claims that she was only arguing about the supernatural she had a simultaneous argument that said you cannot make assumptions, which is patently false. Scientists make assumptions all the time. The only requirement is that those assumptions be falsifiable and that they not be counter to what we already know without an observation that indicates that we know might be false.

and therefore adding "all available evidence suggests" adds nothing to the statement from a logical standpoint, because the actual statement at issue is "all swans are white" (or "all masses attract each other in proportion to the product of the masses divided by the square of the distance between them", or whatever).

but no matter how many white swans you see, it will never logically follow that all swans are white. "in my experience all swans are white, therefore all swans are white" is an invalid argument. each additional white swan provides precisely 0% support to the conclusion, while a single black swan moves in for the 100% falsification.

the fact that we feel as though each passed test lends support to the statement is not a logical conclusion. (hume said it was essentially habit or instinct, i personally hold that there may be good epistemological justification for that feeling)

We don't add that the statement, but it is assumed. Everything about science suggests that we DO NOT speak in absolutes. Science is about reason. Reason tells us that if every day I wake up and weigh 200 pounds that it would be ridiculous to expect to wake up tomorrow and weigh 400 pounds. However, reason also tells that it's possible and it would be unreasonable to suggest it could NEVER happen. Science subscribes to this level of reason. If enough evidence exists to make it reasonable to treat something as if it's true, then science does so. This is logical. However, it is held that tomorrow evidence COULD arise that proves it false. Newtonian physics is a perfect example.

You are trying to apply a philosophy to science that does not apply.

Would you argue equally that we shouldn't reasonable treat a naturally purple swan as if it doesn't exist? If you would, then you are not a scientist.

You're not a betting man, are you?

Exactly the point. With his logic, we couldn't hold anything to be true. Reason is basically bet on the favorite.

the conclusion of a scientific argument (when it is aimed at generalizing, rather than saying something specific about particular thing x) is either the restatement of the hypothesis or the rejection of it.

...always with the knowledge that the hypothesis has not been proven, even if it is not rejected, and has merely been supported.

theories don't enter into it because they are just really big and important hypotheses that haven't been rejected despite a lot of testing and which we take to be supported (for reasons that aren't able to be logically demonstrated, but we'll call good enough).

If I hypothesize that mixing two substances together will create a third substance with certain properties, then I carry those things out and measure the properties of the third, finding the properties I expected, have I not lended support to my hypothesis?

all that adding "all available evidence suggests" in front does is allow you to stop, because it makes no further predictions. it isn't a hypothesis, but a statement about a hypothesis.

Once again, you show your confusion. This is practically a restatement of what I said. "All available evidence suggests..." is the beginning of a conclusion, not a hypothesis.

it is impossible to test a hypothesis without first assuming it to be true. without making that assumption, you couldn't know what to look for in a test.

You are talking about two different things here. In one, you say, "If X is true, what will happen," in order to devise a test. In the actual testing, you do not assume X is true, or there would be no reason to test.

seriously, you aren't using the word 'assume' quite right.

Main Entry: as·sume
Pronunciation: &-'süm
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): as·sumed; as·sum·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin assumere, from ad- + sumere to take -- more at CONSUME
1 a : to take up or in : RECEIVE b : to take into partnership, employment, or use
2 a : to take to or upon oneself : UNDERTAKE b : PUT ON, DON
3 : to take control of
4 : to pretend to have or be : FEIGN <assumed an air of confidence in spite of her dismay>
5 : to take as granted or true : SUPPOSE
6 : to take over (the debts of another) as one's own

The bolded is the only one that really works in this sense. Of course, if you are taking something as granted or true, there is no reason to test it. You have already accepted its truth.

how does it provide logical support? how does it move us closer to (logical, not psychological) certainty?

the argument "swan 1 is white, therefore all swans are white" is logically invalid.

the argument "swans 1 and 2 are white, therefore all swans are white" is logically invalid.

the argument "swans 1 through 10,000 are white, therefore all swans are white" is logically invalid.

it is just an invalid argument. no matter how many swans you check (short of all the swans that ever were, are, and ever will be), the conclusion simply won't logically follow from the premises.

However, the argment, "Swans 1 through 10,000 are white, with no black swans found, therefore the probabilty of finding a black swan is tiny," is perfectly logical.

Now, make that, "Swans 1 through 10,000,000 are white, with no black swans found, therefore the probability of finding a black swan is even smaller," and so forth......

Ok. Well, then I'll wait for you to quote where it said they were expecting that place to have supernatural characteristics. I don't ever remember reading it. I'll wait.

Read the OP, where he makes references to the religious aspects of Eden and how they weren't discussed because everyone already knows that. Then read through the rest of my posts and read that I clearly stated that I think the OP is wrong in this, and that the documentary was most likely about finding a place that might have begun the stories of Eden, not the Eden as described in Genesis.

Meanwhile, they did find Mt. Olympus and it proved that it was a tale of a real mountain and nothing else.

Then they did not find the Mt. Olympus described in the Greek myths. They found a mountain that might have been the inspiration, as it were, for the stories.

Many people searching for support of the Bible are looking for natural places and events that explain that the Bible isn't a book of lies, not looking for proof that the supernatural exists.

And if that is true of this film, once again, the idea that this film in any way, shape, or form supports Creationism is incorrect.

Your argument with FS is evidence that you were originally arguing against making assumptions period. [/quote[

No, you are wrong yet again. I never said one could not make any assumption. I said two things: 1) One cannot assume one's hypothesis to be true and still test it. You end up with the following:

http://www.kommy.net/~downtym/images/danielle/flatearthism.bmp

and 2) One cannot assume anything about the supernatural, as one's assumptions in science must be falsifiable.

[quote]
Here is my original post on the point. I make it very clear that I am merely talking about the place that inspired the stories,

No, you don't:

In the case of the Garden of Eden, many religious beliefs are similar and that makes multiple sources for the same belief. It's not unscientific to attempt to find evidence either supporting or disproving the belief, but it is unscientific to hold the belief to be true in the absence of enough evidence to scientifically justify that belief.

This, would seem to be saying that one could disprove or support the religious belief, not the idea that some place that might have inspired the stories exists. You just quoted yourself to demonstrate exactly the opposite of what your original post suggests.

My disagreement with Dem is that she often claims that you can't start a scientific quest assuming something to be true.

No, once again my claim is that you cannot start a scientific investigation assuming your hypothesis to be true. Try again.

You can see that despite her claims that she was only arguing about the supernatural she had a simultaneous argument that said you cannot make assumptions, which is patently false.

I have made no such argument. In fact, I have incredibly clearly stated that an experiment may require certain assumptions (ie. you are working in a dilute solution). I said that you cannot assume your hypothesis to be true. My entire argument with FS has been that you cannot assume your hypothesis, not that you can make no assumptions at all.

I think this debate will go on forever, since we all wonder about where we came from, which is perfectly reasonable, but in my opinion I believe the universe has always existed and that human beings cannot fully grasp the concept of forever. Just my two cents

First of all, since Jocabia has chosen (as usual) to make up an argument that I never suggested, and attribute it to me, let's look at some of my post regarding assumptions and hypotheses, shall we?

You are confusing hypothesis, conclusion, and theory. A hypothesis would be, "All swans are white." You would test this, over and over, and might come to the conclusion, "All available evidence suggests that all swans are white." If it stood up long enough, it could become theory. At this point, you would assume it's truthfulness in further studies and hypotheses, ie. "All swans are white because of genetic trait X," or, "Swans gain X advantage by being white," You would then test that into oblivion, and so on.
However, at no point do you assume that a hypothesis is correct. You may assume that a previous conclusion is correct, but never the specific hypothesis you are in the process of testing.

If I assume my hypothesis to be true, then any result I get won't change the assumed fact that it is true. I cannot test it without being open to the idea that it is not true, which means I cannot assume it to be true.

If I assume my hypothesis to be true, then any result I get won't change the assumed fact that it is true. I cannot test it without being open to the idea that it is not true, which means I cannot assume it to be true.

Looks like I've been pretty damn specific, throughout my argument with FS, that it is the hypothesis you are examining that you cannot assume to be true, not that no assumptions whatsoever can be made.



On Jocabia and whether or not he was referring to finding a place that inspired stories, rather than an actual place:


Ok, so suppose "if the Garden of Eden exists as described in religious (and historical) documents then I would expect to find it in North Africa with 100 miles of point x,y". That would be perfectly scientific. Not finding the Garden would invalidate one of two things, either the Garden doesn't exist or I was wrong that its existence implies "the result".

[/quote] In the case of the Garden of Eden, many religious beliefs are similar and that makes multiple sources for the same belief. It's not unscientific to attempt to find evidence either supporting or disproving the belief, but it is unscientific to hold the belief to be true in the absence of enough evidence to scientifically justify that belief.[/quote]

Yeah, looks really clear that we aren't talking about Eden as described by religion.


Here's a demonstration that I have been talking only about it being unscientific to try and find Eden as described in Genesis, and not about a place that might have inspired the story of Eden:

My original post:

Wrong. The use of scientific data does not equate to the use of science. Science is an entire process, a method to be more exact. In order to locate "Eden", they had to first assume that such a place existed, and existed as described in Genesis. That isn't science.

and

Of course, I'm beginning to wonder if the documentary simply wasn't properly explained to you guys. It could be that it was based on looking for evidence of a place that might have grown into an Eden myth, rather than assuming Eden-exactly-as-described-in-Genesis (which couldn't be found, since the angel is supposed to be blocking it and not letting human beings in). I've seen more than one historian suggest that the idea of Eden might have come from certain areas, especially based off the description of the rivers, etc.


And, did the thread start off on the note of assuming they were talking about Eden as in Genesis?

The second documentary was about the search for the Garden of Eden. Instead of talking about what the Garden of Eden was, and how human beings came to be in the garden since everybody, or at least anybody interested, all ready knows about that, the documentary talked about finding out where the Garden is.

And then, although this demonstrates that my benefit-of-the-doubt post above is probably wrong, the OP linked to a site that quotes the "scientist" in the documetary, who, by the way, is the "director of expeditions for the Mysteries of the Bible Research Foundation" as saying the following:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0125eden_found.asp

This, he says, ‘proves that the Bible’s description of the Garden of Eden is completely and literally accurate.’

Wow, finding some rivers means that everything else is "completely and literally accurate"? Yeah, sounds like real science to me......cough, cough. Unless they misquoted him, it seems that this documentary was exactly what it sounded like to begin with. *sigh*

This, would seem to be saying that one could disprove or support the religious belief, not the idea that some place that might have inspired the stories exists. You just quoted yourself to demonstrate exactly the opposite of what your original post suggests.

Seriously? So if I found evidence of a global flood, would that support a belief? Yep. A religious belief? Yep. Would it prove God did it? Nope, but that doesn't mean it doesn't support the belief. I could prove that the earth stood still for a day and it would prove God did it. That's not the point. It would definitely support quite a few religious beliefs. Your failure to acknowledge this borders on fundamentalism. These aren't opinions. It is absolutely possible to bolster a religious belief with science. You can't prove it, but you can certainly support it. It doesn't make the belief scientific, but then that's not what I'm saying, now is it?

No, once again my claim is that you cannot start a scientific investigation assuming your hypothesis to be true. Try again.

False. It is common practice and should be. If it you assume it's false, what's the point of bothering. You can say this over and over, but nearly all scientists assume their hypothesis to be true when they make it. No scientists starts saying to themselves "won't it be cool if it turns out that I completely wasted my time and this hypothesis was in no way true."

I have made no such argument. In fact, I have incredibly clearly stated that an experiment may require certain assumptions (ie. you are working in a dilute solution). I said that you cannot assume your hypothesis to be true. My entire argument with FS has been that you cannot assume your hypothesis, not that you can make no assumptions at all.
And repetition does not make you right. Whether or not I assume it to be true doesn't mean it will be. I can assume it to be true or false or purple and it will still be science provided I follow the scientific method. You seem to have some problem with science being performed with certain expectations. The very premise is ridiculous.

The only way to be unscientific in such cases is to ignore evidence (either already available or as a result of the experiment) that falsifies my hypothesis. However, I can assume whatever I want about my hypothesis and to claim otherwise really has no founding.

Example:

Hypothesis: Adding another cross peice of rebar per 10 foot stretch of roadway will increase the life of a road in central IL by 10%.

Test: I build a test track according to the specifications and I subject it to weather testing, traffic testing, etc. and I find the roadway to be 10% more resillient than previous roadway specs.

Okay perform the exact same test of the same hypothesis three times. The first time assuming it's true and the second time assuming it false and the third time assuming it's possible.

Question: Which of them was more scientific?
Answer: What a stupid question! How scientific an experiment is has nothing to do with with what I'm thinking when I conduct the experiment so long as I adhere to the scientific method, however, given that I went to all this trouble, I am, of course, assuming that it's true.

NOTE: sorry, for the roadway bit, but I'm actually looking over an abstract for roadway testing. For the record, the engineer who is planning to test his theory absolutely assumes that this is true because otherwise he wouldn't waste our money.

I think this debate will go on forever, since we all wonder about where we came from, which is perfectly reasonable, but in my opinion I believe the universe has always existed and that human beings cannot fully grasp the concept of forever. Just my two cents

Debates between Dem1 and Jocabia always go on forever. :eek: :D

First of all, since Jocabia has chosen (as usual) to make up an argument that I never suggested, and attribute it to me, let's look at some of my post regarding assumptions and hypotheses, shall we?

Looks like I've been pretty damn specific, throughout my argument with FS, that it is the hypothesis you are examining that you cannot assume to be true, not that no assumptions whatsoever can be made.

Hilarious. Interesting that we are talking specifically about the hypothesis. Assume x=y can absolutely be an hypothesis. And your mathematical statement was completely ignorant of mathematics as it is a common method of executing a proof.

On Jocabia and whether or not he was referring to finding a place that inspired stories, rather than an actual place:

The actual place is the place that inspired the stories. Because the place exists does make the story true. You are having difficulty seperating the setting from the storyline. What about the garden of Eden as a setting is supernatural.

Yeah, looks really clear that we aren't talking about Eden as described by religion.

We are. So what? It's still the place that inspired the story. The Garden of Eden is a setting. Finding it does not prove the storyline to be true. You do know what a setting is, yes?

I will ignore the rest of this tripe as it is just a further demonstration of the FACT that you cannot seperate the storyline from the setting.

Wow, finding some rivers means that everything else is "completely and literally accurate"? Yeah, sounds like real science to me......cough, cough. Unless they misquoted him, it seems that this documentary was exactly what it sounded like to begin with. *sigh*
I didn't say they were being scientific. I said that searching for the Garden of Eden is not unscientific, something you plainly argued over and again and quoted yourself saying in the post I'm currently replying to. You have the inability to seperate motivation from science. It doesn't matter if religion, money, monkeys with guns motivate someone to practice science. The only thing that matters is if the process is scientific or not. You seem to have the inability to seperate the two which is why you are arguing that I can't assume my hypothesis is true, which is just quite simply ridiculous.

Did I make up where you said what one assumes makes things scientific or not? That's the point. I can assume that God made donuts out of tires and so long as I practice good science, what I'm thinking has nothing to do with it. My motivation doesn't matter. Only practices matter.

Seriously? So if I found evidence of a global flood, would that support a belief?

If we are talking about scientific support, which I will assume we are since we are talking about whether or not such an investigation was science, and the belief was, "God created a global flood to punish humanity for being sinful," then, no. It wouldn't support it in the least.

It is absolutely possible to bolster a religious belief with science. You can't prove it, but you can certainly support it.

Not within science. If your "scientific" conclusion is, "Now my religion is correct," then you have strayed from science.

It doesn't make the belief scientific, but then that's not what I'm saying, now is it?

Actually, it seemed as if you were saying that science could directly support religious belief. If that wasn't what you were saying, then I have no beef with you on this topic.

False. It is common practice and should be. If it you assume it's false, what's the point of bothering.

YOU CAN'T ASSUME THAT IT IS TRUE OR FALSE!!!! You think it might be true, and you do tests to either support or falsify it. You don't assume it to be true. Any scientist who does so has already failed - as assuming it to be true leads to twisting the evidence to support it, rather than looking at the evidence from the point of view that it may or may not be true.

You can say this over and over, but nearly all scientists assume their hypothesis to be true when they make it. No scientists starts saying to themselves "won't it be cool if it turns out that I completely wasted my time and this hypothesis was in no way true."

First of all, this is a strawman and you know it.

Second of all, the best science occurs when you get unexpected results. It's the most exciting part of the process.

And repetition does not make you right. Whether or not I assume it to be true doesn't mean it will be. I can assume it to be true or false or purple and it will still be science provided I follow the scientific method.

You cannot "follow the scientific" method if you have already assumed the truth of your hypothesis. There is no point in testing it, and you are not open to the idea that it might be wrong. It is already taken for granted as true.

You seem to have some problem with science being performed with certain expectations. The very premise is ridiculous.

Not at all. Of course you have expectations. But you do not assume that your expectations are correct. You certainly think they are, but that isn't the same thing.

Okay perform the exact same test of the same hypothesis three times. The first time assuming it's true and the second time assuming it false and the third time assuming it's possible.

If you assume it is true, there is no reason to test it.

However, the argment, "Swans 1 through 10,000 are white, with no black swans found, therefore the probabilty of finding a black swan is tiny," is perfectly logical.

Now, make that, "Swans 1 through 10,000,000 are white, with no black swans found, therefore the probability of finding a black swan is even smaller," and so forth...

no, those arguments are also logically invalid. in fact, they explicitly invoke the gambler's fallacy - which is arguably worse.

you should really look up the problem of induction.

Hilarious. Interesting that we are talking specifically about the hypothesis.[/qutoe]

And yet you claimed we weren't......

[quote]Assume x=y can absolutely be an hypothesis.

No, it can be an assumption. "X=Y" could be a hypothesis, but it would be a rather useless one unless you put actual numbers or equations in the place of X and Y.

And your mathematical statement was completely ignorant of mathematics as it is a common method of executing a proof.

None of the proofs I have ever been asked to carry out. But that is rather beside the point, as it was an analogy - and the logic of math is different from the scientific method. You can prove absolutes in mathematical logic.

The actual place is the place that inspired the stories. Because the place exists does make the story true.

Really? So if a place that meets the geographical description of Eden were found, that would mean that Adam and Eve really were the first human beings, that there is a tree there that is the Tree of Life and that we could eat of it and live forever and a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? That God walks (or walked) there and that serpents can talk and that all the animals were created there and Adam named them?

You are having difficulty seperating the setting from the storyline. What about the garden of Eden as a setting is supernatural. [/qutoe]

The trees. The fact that it had plants before there was water, because that is the order in which God chose to create it. The gate with the angel standing there with a flaming sword guarding it. To find the Biblical Eden, these things would have to be true...

[quote]We are. So what? It's still the place that inspired the story. The Garden of Eden is a setting. Finding it does not prove the storyline to be true. You do know what a setting is, yes?

But, But, you just said:

Because the place exists does make the story true.

These two statements are a direct contradiction!

I didn't say they were being scientific. I said that searching for the Garden of Eden is not unscientific, something you plainly argued over and again and quoted yourself saying in the post I'm currently replying to. You have the inability to seperate motivation from science. It doesn't matter if religion, money, monkeys with guns motivate someone to practice science. The only thing that matters is if the process is scientific or not.

...and motivation alters the process.

You seem to have the inability to seperate the two which is why you are arguing that I can't assume my hypothesis is true, which is just quite simply ridiculous.

If it is true, then you have no reason to test it. It is true.

Did I make up where you said what one assumes makes things scientific or not?

You have argued that exact same point in other threads, when you argue that science cannot be based in the assumption that God exists. Are you saying that is untrue?

That's the point. I can assume that God made donuts out of tires and so long as I practice good science, what I'm thinking has nothing to do with it. My motivation doesn't matter. Only practices matter.

How exactly are you going to "practice good science" if you start your science by assuming (a) That there is a God and (b) that God did something - both supernatural assumptions that cannot be falsified?

I think this debate will go on forever, since we all wonder about where we came from, which is perfectly reasonable, but in my opinion I believe the universe has always existed and that human beings cannot fully grasp the concept of forever. Just my two cents
Aye; it will always be something to look forward to. :)

Main Entry: as·sume
Pronunciation: &-'süm
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): as·sumed; as·sum·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin assumere, from ad- + sumere to take -- more at CONSUME
1 a : to take up or in : RECEIVE b : to take into partnership, employment, or use
2 a : to take to or upon oneself : UNDERTAKE b : PUT ON, DON
3 : to take control of
4 : to pretend to have or be : FEIGN <assumed an air of confidence in spite of her dismay>
5 : to take as granted or true : SUPPOSE
6 : to take over (the debts of another) as one's own

The bolded is the only one that really works in this sense. Of course, if you are taking something as granted or true, there is no reason to test it. You have already accepted its truth.

close enough - especially since it said 'suppose', which is even more unambiguously in my corner. note how this in no way mentions holding it to be true no matter what or despite contradictory evidence. the only way you would run afoul of science is to maintain an assumption against the evidence.

there is every reason in the world to test your assumptions once you have joined up with the ideology of science. testing assumptions is the entire point. if merely assuming some proposition is good enough for someone, then they were never sold on the concept of science in the first place.

If we are talking about scientific support, which I will assume we are since we are talking about whether or not such an investigation was science, and the belief was, "God created a global flood to punish humanity for being sinful," then, no. It wouldn't support it in the least.

See, again, you are not seperating out the practice. It's no different than arguing that science is a naturalist science because it's doesn't consider God. It doesn't consider God. PERIOD. So if I show that a global flood happened it scientifically supports a belief, but it doesn't make the belief scientific.

If my practice is completely scientific, then my motivation for my science does not matter. It has no bearing on whether the action is science or not.

Not within science. If your "scientific" conclusion is, "Now my religion is correct," then you have strayed from science.

That's not a scientific conclusion, but I can offer scientific support for my religious conclusion. Scientific support is support that was gathered through purely scientific means.

Actually, it seemed as if you were saying that science could directly support religious belief. If that wasn't what you were saying, then I have no beef with you on this topic.

Dem, let's not pretend like this is the first time we've conversed. You know that you are arguing nuances here. I very much believe that if science could prove God then faith would be negated and I find faith to be the point of the belief. However, there is a difference between a belief that relies on faith but does not combat science and faith that does. My faith does not combat science and thus I would certainly hope that poeple actually look for scientific support before holding stories like a global flood to be true and more importantly not reject scientific proofs to the contrary.

YOU CAN'T ASSUME THAT IT IS TRUE OR FALSE!!!! You think it might be true, and you do tests to either support or falsify it. You don't assume it to be true. Any scientist who does so has already failed - as assuming it to be true leads to twisting the evidence to support it, rather than looking at the evidence from the point of view that it may or may not be true.

I certainly can assume it's true. Try to stop me.

First of all, this is a strawman and you know it.

A strawman? You plainly said over and over that I can't assume my hypothesis to be true which is EXACTLY what I'm addressing. You can't seem to understand that my beliefs and/or motivations have no bearing on my science. Only my practices matter. I can and would assume my hypothesis was right or I would not bother to begin the rather expensive process of testing it.

Second of all, the best science occurs when you get unexpected results. It's the most exciting part of the process.

Prove it. Certainly, it's a pleasant surprise when you discover something completely new, but the results are no worse if I expected them nor are they less scientific.

You cannot "follow the scientific" method if you have already assumed the truth of your hypothesis. There is no point in testing it, and you are not open to the idea that it might be wrong. It is already taken for granted as true.

False. People do it all the time. You can claim otherwise all you like, but I can parade scientists past you all day that assumed they were correct before they started experimentation. My company would never allow someone to test a theory without assuming it was correct first. Testing is simply the process we go through to scientifically show other people that what we already assume to be true is true (and in our field, thus, safe.)

You see in my field, people can be SEVERELY injured if an engineer is wrong so you bet your ass that our engineers assume that they are correct before we begin testing. We still use safety procedures, but if we actually thought those safety procedures would be necessary we wouldn't conduct the experiment at all.

If someone here offered up a test pavement that ended up in the death of a driver, I promise you that saying, "Well, I wasn't really sure if this pavement would hold up," would end your career. You better be damn sure your pavement will hold up, sure enough to bet someone's life on it.

Not at all. Of course you have expectations. But you do not assume that your expectations are correct. You certainly think they are, but that isn't the same thing.

You're playing word games and the point is that you're claiming that one's beliefs are somehow part of the experiment, which is ridiculous.

If you assume it is true, there is no reason to test it.
You keep repeating that and maybe someday it will be true. Today. It isn't.

Debates between Dem1 and Jocabia always go on forever. :eek: :D

Yeah, we suck like that. But you're reading it so what does that make you?

EDIT: by the way, I'm still looking for more about that bill. I'm actually quite interested and given my knowledge of legaleze, it very much helps to discuss it.

I certainly can assume it's true. Try to stop me.

A strawman? You plainly said over and over that I can't assume my hypothesis to be true which is EXACTLY what I'm addressing. You can't seem to understand that my beliefs and/or motivations have no bearing on my science. Only my practices matter. I can and would assume my hypothesis was right or I would not bother to begin the rather expensive process of testing it.
If I may butt in (not that you can stop me). "Truth" is an absolute, in that things are either "true" or they are "false". However, that the assumption of the validity of the conclusion suggested by the hypothetical statement cannot be held to be true does not mean that it is held to be false. She said this, but you ignore it. Dem is suggesting that the issue of validity of the conclusion suggested by the hypothesis be withheld until it is either supported or demonstrated to be false.

If I may butt in (not that you can stop me). "Truth" is an absolute, in that things are either "true" or they are "false". However, that the assumption of the validity of the conclusion suggested by the hypothetical statement cannot be held to be true does not mean that it is held to be false. She said this, but you ignore it. Dem is suggesting that the issue of validity of the conclusion suggested by the hypothesis be withheld until it is either supported or demonstrated to be false.

Yes, and I'm not disagreeing with that. The point is that I can assume that something is true all I want, so long as my methods are scientific, then there is nothing unscientific about the process. She is suggesting that my motivation or my beliefs must necessarily affect my methods which is not only not true, I know that she doesn't believe it either. I can assume it to be true, but I cannot expect other people to agree with my assumption without scientific evidence to back it up.

The point is that I can assume that something is true all I want, so long as my methods are scientific, then there is nothing unscientific about the process. She is suggesting that my motivation or my beliefs must necessarily affect my methods which is not only not true, I know that she doesn't believe it either.

for one thing, we quickly run into the issue of claiming that, for example, isaac newton wasn't doing science.

for one thing, we quickly run into the issue of claiming that, for example, isaac newton wasn't doing science.

More importantly, how the hell would we know? Basically, you couldn't be a Christian or an Atheist if your beliefs had an effect on your ability to adhere to the scientific method.

Edit: Ok, so I accidently edited this into a later reply, which seriously sucks for me, because now I'm going to try and put it back the way it was, as best I can. Obviously, I can't really replace the snips, but I'll leave them in so that there's some idea of what was there. I think Jocabia might have quoted this before, so I'll go looking for it.

Edit again: Aha! Found at leat part of the *snip*. Hooray!



See, again, you are not seperating out the practice.

We (or at least I am) are talking about practice. You can't "separate out the practice" if the practice is exactly what you are talking about.

It's no different than arguing that science is a naturalist science because it's doesn't consider God. It doesn't consider God. PERIOD.

Exactly my point.

If my practice is completely scientific, then my motivation for my science does not matter. It has no bearing on whether the action is science or not.

A person's motivation will affect their practice. If I start out a drug study with the motivation of proving that X drug is better, I cannot analyze my own data. In fact, when it comes down to it, the entire purpose of blinding a study is to account for the fact that a person with such motivation will, often unknowingly, tend to skew the data to meet the conclusions they wished to reach. For that reason, we blind a study so that they cannot do so.

Dem, let's not pretend like this is the first time we've conversed. You know that you are arguing nuances here. I very much believe that if science could prove God then faith would be negated and I find faith to be the point of the belief.

We weren't talking about proving God though, were we? We were talking about "proving" something about God, as the "scientist" in this video pretty clearly was, given his comments.

I certainly can assume it's true. Try to stop me.

And when you stand up in front of a bunch of scientists at a conference and say, "We hypothesized X. First, we assumed X..." they'll stop you with laughter right there and ask you to come back when you can be a scientist.

A strawman? You plainly said over and over that I can't assume my hypothesis to be true which is EXACTLY what I'm addressing. You can't seem to understand that my beliefs and/or motivations have no bearing on my science. Only my practices matter. I can and would assume my hypothesis was right or I would not bother to begin the rather expensive process of testing it.

Ah, I see the problem. You are using assumption to mean something completely different from what it means within the practice of science. In science, your assumptions are part of your practice. The are those things which you will not test, but which you take as true for the experiment.

As an example: Suppose I wanted to test the coagulative properties of two different materials on blood. I might begin with the hypothesis that substance A would cause more platelet accumulation than substance B. I would probably take samples of blood, run them over the material in some sort of flow loop, and then (at least as a first experiment) examine the material to see how much platelets and debris had accumulated on it, as well as the morphology of the platelets that were there. In order to do this experiment, I would make several beginning assumptions about the blood samples and the materials being used. For one, I would probably assume that the chemical makeup of each sample of a given material was the same, and that handling had not changed it. I would probably assume that the concentrations of various factors in the blood, as well as the number of platelets in it to begin with, was constant across all of my samples, and might even assume it to be a value from the literature. I would almost certainly assume that there was no significant activation of platelets before the experiment.

I could test all of these things for every single experiment, of course. But that would be overly cumbersome, would take too much time, and would increase the chances of me (a) not having enough sample left or (b) contaminating my sample. So I would assume these things instead, and go from there - taking it for granted that these things are true.

The kicker here: If those assumptions are wrong, my experiment is thrown out. Why? Because, if those assumptions are wrong, then my experiment cannot be logically interpreted to say anything about my hypothesis. Any differences I see could be due to false assumptions, rather than a true (or false) hypothesis.

Edit: Now, of course, in all of this, I could personally believe that the invisible pink unicorn was standing behind you with his horn up your ass, and as long as I didn't make that an assumption of my experiment, and my experiment didn't involve your ass, I'd be just fine.

*snip discussion of when science is more or less exciting*
Basically my statement that science is most exciting when you get results different from your expecations because it leads you in an entirely new direction - presumably one that no one has explored before.

but the results are no worse if I expected them nor are they less scientific.

The results are the results, no matter what you expected. But expecting is not the same as assuming. I expect, in the description above, that one of the materials will cause more coagulation than the other. However, I do not assume this. If I did, I would just pick one and say it was the better material to use in a bypass machine.

If someone here offered up a test pavement that ended up in the death of a driver, I promise you that saying, "Well, I wasn't really sure if this pavement would hold up," would end your career. You better be damn sure your pavement will hold up, sure enough to bet someone's life on it.

There are two problems here. First of all, engineering is not exactly science. Some of the process is followed, but the entire process is not. As engineers, we design things according to the theories that come out of science, and then we test them (for the most part) to account for the differences between theory and actual - since theory generally has a lot of factors that aren't taken into account.

Second of all, you are using different terms again. "I wasn't really sure..." is not the same as "I began by assuming..."

*I would like to point out here, that this should read, "I was really sure..." instead of wasn't. Otherwise, it doesn't really fit in.

You're playing word games and the point is that you're claiming that one's beliefs are somehow part of the experiment, which is ridiculous.

No, it was you who decided that "assumption" is one's belief. In science, an assumption is a listed part of the experiment you are doing, and all assumptions you made must be listed, or you have improperly reported your results. Why? Because your conclusions are only valid in light of the assumptions you made to begin with.

for one thing, we quickly run into the issue of claiming that, for example, isaac newton wasn't doing science.

I'm sorry. Did Newton assume F=ma before doing measurements to create that equation? Did he start the whole process by saying, "Assume F=ma. Ok, now we're going to investigate whether or not force and acceleration are related..."


More importantly, how the hell would we know? Basically, you couldn't be a Christian or an Atheist if your beliefs had an effect on your ability to adhere to the scientific method.

If your religious beliefs were directly tied to whatever you were studying, it would certainly present a problem. Luckily, the vast majority of religious people these days don't hold very strongly to religious beliefs about the natural world, instead reserving religion for those thing which reside in the supernatural. A personal belief that the supernatural exists does not equate to a scientific assumption of such, and I have never suggested that it does.

Take, for instance, someone who had a religious belief in the geocentric model of the universe - who assumed, before measurements, that all things in the universe revolve around the Earth. That person would (and could - they actually did) interpret all evidence in the already-held assumption that this was true. And they managed to do it - mathematically. Of course, the models were so complex as to be ridiculous, but, since they started out with a conclusion already in hand, it all worked out for them.

Others, on the other hand, were open to the idea that the geocentric model might not be true. As such, they found that the measurements fit much more simply into the Copernican model.

There are those, even today, who find mathematical models to "prove" that the Earth is flat, because of their religious beliefs that say it is true.

And the guy who made the "documentary" in question, interpreted his data as meaning, "We have found a place that meets much of the physical description of the Garden of Eden means that the entirety of the Eden account is completely and absolutely true." Why? Because he assumed it was true in the first place - his entire investigation was based on that assumption - and would have continued to do so, even if he had found no physical place.

I'm sorry. Did Newton assume F=ma before doing measurements to create that equation? Did he start the whole process by saying, "Assume F=ma. Ok, now we're going to investigate whether or not force and acceleration are related..."

at the very least he had to assume there was some relation between them before attempting to look for one. or did he just find one by dumb luck? was he looking for something else and just stumbled across it?

but that's the least of his scientific worries when it comes to your stance - newton's religious beliefs were not only directly tied to the things he studied, but he felt that they were one and the same.

A person's motivation will affect their practice. If I start out a drug study with the motivation of proving that X drug is better, I cannot analyze my own data. In fact, when it comes down to it, the entire purpose of blinding a study is to account for the fact that a person with such motivation will, often unknowingly, tend to skew the data to meet the conclusions they wished to reach. For that reason, we blind a study so that they cannot do so.

Oh, hey, look. You just offered up the reasoning why the scientific method accounts for those time when our beliefs have the ability to affect the outcome. The result of a blind study is that it completely accounts for our motivation and makes it so assumptions don't dirty the study. You just proved your premise is wrong. Thanks for playing.

I don't even need to reply to the rest of this. It's garbage. You just proved it. How can my motivation affect the outcome of a blind study unless I'm just plain lying about the results? It can't.

A good scientist will make provisions to prevent their beliefs from affecting the outcome of a scientific test. You know why? Because they have often already made assumptions about the outcome.

In the future, I'm just going to let you talk. You seem to be quite good at proving yourself wrong.

If your religious beliefs were directly tied to whatever you were studying, it would certainly present a problem. Luckily, the vast majority of religious people these days don't hold very strongly to religious beliefs about the natural world, instead reserving religion for those thing which reside in the supernatural. A personal belief that the supernatural exists does not equate to a scientific assumption of such, and I have never suggested that it does.

Take, for instance, someone who had a religious belief in the geocentric model of the universe - who assumed, before measurements, that all things in the universe revolve around the Earth. That person would (and could - they actually did) interpret all evidence in the already-held assumption that this was true. And they managed to do it - mathematically. Of course, the models were so complex as to be ridiculous, but, since they started out with a conclusion already in hand, it all worked out for them.

Others, on the other hand, were open to the idea that the geocentric model might not be true. As such, they found that the measurements fit much more simply into the Copernican model.

There are those, even today, who find mathematical models to "prove" that the Earth is flat, because of their religious beliefs that say it is true.

And the guy who made the "documentary" in question, interpreted his data as meaning, "We have found a place that meets much of the physical description of the Garden of Eden means that the entirety of the Eden account is completely and absolutely true." Why? Because he assumed it was true in the first place - his entire investigation was based on that assumption - and would have continued to do so, even if he had found no physical place.

That was their damage. Scientific practices are much more refined for that very reason. It's common practice to set out to support a hypothesis. The problem wasn't that someone set forth the geocentric model of the universe and that prior to creating it they already assumed it was true. The problem was that everyone else assumed it was true and refused to test it for validity. If someone ignores evidence they are being unscientific regardless of their assumptions. If someone takes into account all evidence they are being scientific regardless of their assumptions. YOU, my friend, are being unscientific, but evidence defies your claims that science CANNOT be done if someone assumes there hypothesis is true at the start.

Your method is also flawed. You can give me examples all day of scientists who didn't follow the method because they held their beliefs too closely, but all I have to do is give you one example of a scientist who did follow the method despite the fact that they assumed their model was true before they began testing and your theory is shot to hell.

at the very least he had to assume there was some relation between them before attempting to look for one.

No, he didn't. He had to think that there might be a relationship there. When I do my experiments, I don't make the assumption that a certain condition will improve the quality of my cells. I do think that certain conditions will do so - that is why I am testing them - to find out whether or not I am correct.

but that's the least of his scientific worries when it comes to your stance - newton's religious beliefs were not only directly tied to the things he studied, but he felt that they were one and the same.

He thought F=ma was a religious belief? Do point me to where he said this...

Oh, hey, look. You just offered up the reasoning why the scientific method accounts for those time when our beliefs have the ability to affect the outcome. The result of a blind study is that it completely accounts for our motivation and makes it so assumptions don't dirty the study.

Once again, you are missing the point. And this time, I know exactly why - you didn't read half of what I said. It makes it so that the bias of the individual doesn't dirty the study. The assumptions that are a part of the study are still, well, a part of the study. If they are wrong, they invalidate the study.

I am not, and have never been, talking about a personal belief or bias. I have been talking about assumptions that are a part of, or are necessary to, a scientific investigation. The fact that you missed that, despite it being clearly stated in my last post, is pretty sad.

Meanwhile, not all scientific studies are blinded - and part of peer review is assessing what bias the researcher might have had. That is, of course, completley irrelevant to the discussion of assumptions, since "assumption" throughout all of my posts, has referred to an assumption made as part of an experiment, not a personal belief or bias.

I don't even need to reply to the rest of this.

In other words, I'm just not going to read it, even though it demonstrates the fact that I am using an entirely different meaning than Dem, and have been the entire time, because....ok, I don't know the because. Laziness? An inability to realize that, as happens quite often, we have been talking in circles around each other because we both started with different ideas of the usage of the same word and never clearly defined them?

It's common practice to set out to support a hypothesis.

Not within the method. That might be what the scientist wants, but the method is not designed to "support a hypothesis" - which is all that I have been saying.

The problem wasn't that someone set forth the geocentric model of the universe and that prior to creating it they already assumed it was true. The problem was that everyone else assumed it was true and refused to test it for validity. If someone ignores evidence they are being unscientific regardless of their assumptions.

This actually isn't true. Those supporting the geocentric model didn't ignore evidence. They didn't refuse to test the model. In fact, they kept changing the model every time new evidence was gathered. The problem was that they were so very sure that the geocentric idea was correct, that they continued, over and over again, to make their model more complex, rather than even considering another option. The problem was, in total, that they assumed the geocentric model correct from the beginning, and then interpreted all evidence in light of that assumption.

If someone takes into account all evidence they are being scientific regardless of their assumptions.

Then, according to you, the geocentric model of the universe was perfectly scientific right up until, well, at least the '60's when people actually started going into space. Maybe not even then, it might be perfectly possible to incorporate even that evidence and mathematically model a geocentric view. Your model would be complex, but it might be possible.

YOU, my friend, are being unscientific, but evidence defies your claims that science CANNOT be done if someone assumes there hypothesis is true at the start.

Once again, you prove that you haven't actually read the bulk of my post.

One of the main problems here is that Jocabia (and FS, to a point) are trying to combine two arguments into one and are ignoring any clarifications of how I use a given word.

Jocabia continues to whine that I am arguing that one cannot hold a religious belief and still do science, because he refuses to read an entire post dedicated to the fact that I am not equating personal belief with assumption. even though I have clearly stated what I mean by assumption, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with personal belief.

He then takes my statement that motivation can be a problem in science to mean "Motivation=assumption of hypothesis=wish to demonstrate hypothesis=religious belief" and assumes that the two arguments are the same. I have never equtaed motivation with assumption. In one case, I am arguing that something can be a problem, in the other I am demonstrating that it is a problem. In the motivation category, what I can say is that, if you have a religious or even an economic (ie. you work for the company that makes product B) reason to believe that product A will cause more coagulation than product B, your study will be examined much more critically for bias than someone who had no such connections. And, if you try to say, as the guy in the video did, "This data proves my religious beliefs to be absolutely true," well, you'll get laughed out of the room.

Let me repost this, since Jocabia decided to ignore it on the basis of thinking that what he perceived as a contradiction actually was one, just so he could say, "I WIN"

Ah, I see the problem. You are using assumption to mean something completely different from what it means within the practice of science. In science, your assumptions are part of your practice. The are those things which you will not test, but which you take as true for the experiment.

As an example: Suppose I wanted to test the coagulative properties of two different materials on blood. I might begin with the hypothesis that substance A would cause more platelet accumulation than substance B. I would probably take samples of blood, run them over the material in some sort of flow loop, and then (at least as a first experiment) examine the material to see how much platelets and debris had accumulated on it, as well as the morphology of the platelets that were there. In order to do this experiment, I would make several beginning assumptions about the blood samples and the materials being used. For one, I would probably assume that the chemical makeup of each sample of a given material was the same, and that handling had not changed it. I would probably assume that the concentrations of various factors in the blood, as well as the number of platelets in it to begin with, was constant across all of my samples, and might even assume it to be a value from the literature. I would almost certainly assume that there was no significant activation of platelets before the experiment.

I could test all of these things for every single experiment, of course. But that would be overly cumbersome, would take too much time, and would increase the chances of me (a) not having enough sample left or (b) contaminating my sample. So I would assume these things instead, and go from there - taking it for granted that these things are true.

The kicker here: If those assumptions are wrong, my experiment is thrown out. Why? Because, if those assumptions are wrong, then my experiment cannot be logically interpreted to say anything about my hypothesis. Any differences I see could be due to false assumptions, rather than a true (or false) hypothesis.

Edit: Now, of course, in all of this, I could personally believe that the invisible pink unicorn was standing behind you with his horn up your ass, and as long as I didn't make that an assumption of my experiment, and my experiment didn't involve your ass, I'd be just fine.

No, he didn't. He had to think that there might be a relationship there. When I do my experiments, I don't make the assumption that a certain condition will improve the quality of my cells. I do think that certain conditions will do so - that is why I am testing them - to find out whether or not I am correct.

However, assuming you are correct will affect nothing so long as you still follow the method.

Once again, you are missing the point. And this time, I know exactly why - you didn't read half of what I said. It makes it so that the bias of the individual doesn't dirty the study. The assumptions that are a part of the study are still, well, a part of the study. If they are wrong, they invalidate the study.

Um, now you're talking about different types of assumptions. Proving your hypothesis wrong does not invalidate a study, it invalidates the hypothesis. If you make invalid assumptions this invalidates the study.

An example of an invalid assumption is that I assume that the people at the grocery store accurately represent the age distribution of the US. So if I did a study using people I found at the grocery store and the study required that I echo the age distribution of the US then the study is invalidated.

However, if I go into the store with the hypothesis that people who shop at Wal-Mart are more likely to be obese than the general public. I can absolutely assume that I'm correct, but so long as I check every person that comes out of my (randomly-selected) subject Wal-Marts for obesity and track the overall number of people that shop at my subject Wal-Marts and compare that accurately to the percentage of obesity nation-wide, then regardless of outcome my study was scientific. The point being that this is a perfect example where my beliefs prior to the study CANNOT affect the study unless my researchers simply refuse to account for every person or some mistreat the data. However, mistreating the data or violating some other scientific principle is unscientific regardless of my beliefs.

I am not, and have never been, talking about a personal belief or bias. I have been talking about assumptions that are a part of, or are necessary to, a scientific investigation. The fact that you missed that, despite it being clearly stated in my last post, is pretty sad.

We are talking about the hypothesis, itself. Quit twisting. You're wrong. You know it. We know it. Just accept defeat.

You clearly stated it, but you are changing your stance. I can ABSOLUTELY believe my hypothesis correct, but so long as every other part of my method is done scientifically, you have nothing to say about my assumption.

Meanwhile, not all scientific studies are blinded - and part of peer review is assessing what bias the researcher might have had. That is, of course, completley irrelevant to the discussion of assumptions, since "assumption" throughout all of my posts, has referred to an assumption made as part of an experiment, not a personal belief or bias.

You were talking about assuming the hypothesis is true.

And like a true scientist, I will examine the evidence to see if your hypothesis of "I was talking aboout the assumptions related to experiments" -

You cannot "follow the scientific" method if you have already assumed the truth of your hypothesis.

Oops. The evidence suggests that your hypothesis that you were not talking about assuming a hypothesis is correct is bullocks. We are talking about the HYPOTHESIS. And I can ASSUME all day long that my hypothesis is true and you can't do anything about it.

You were talking about twisting the evidence to support your hypothesis because you assumed it's true. So blind studies are very much proof that in many cases this is impossible unless I simply am willing to lie which would be unscientific absent of my beliefs. Care to twist in the wind a little more. I can do this all day.

In other words, I'm just not going to read it, even though it demonstrates the fact that I am using an entirely different meaning than Dem, and have been the entire time, because....ok, I don't know the because.

The entire time, huh. Seriously, I hate doing this, but you're quite simply being dishonest. I quoted you. You were talking about assuming your hypothesis to be true and now you're trying to pretend like you're talking about the assumptions surrounding an experiment. Yes, we all know that no experiment has written as one of its assumptions "My hypothesis is true no matter what." To suggest that's what you're referring to is pure bullocks.

When I do my experiments, I don't make the assumption that a certain condition will improve the quality of my cells. I do think that certain conditions will do so

= 'assumption'

not being content with mere assumption of truth, you set out to test that assumption. 'tis the point.

Let me repost this, since Jocabia decided to ignore it on the basis of thinking that what he perceived as a contradiction actually was one, just so he could say, "I WIN"

Yes, I was going to avoid saying it, but you're just lying now. You were never talking about the assumptions, you were talking about the hypothesis.

YOU CAN'T ASSUME THAT IT IS TRUE OR FALSE!!!! You think it might be true, and you do tests to either support or falsify it. You don't assume it to be true. Any scientist who does so has already failed - as assuming it to be true leads to twisting the evidence to support it, rather than looking at the evidence from the point of view that it may or may not be true.

Yep, talking about the hypothesis and whether you assume it be true.

Let's check again.

You cannot "follow the scientific" method if you have already assumed the truth of your hypothesis. There is no point in testing it, and you are not open to the idea that it might be wrong. It is already taken for granted as true.

Let's face it, Dem. I caught you lying and now you're forcing me to call you on it. You should learn to quit while you're behind.

You were talking about assuming the hypothesis is true.
...and that's not the same as believing the hypothesis is true.

However, assuming you are correct will affect nothing so long as you still follow the method.

That all depends on whether you are using "assumption" to mean "personal belief". As far as I am concerned, the two are different things.

Um, now you're talking about different types of assumptions.

No, as I already pointed out, I am talking about one "type" of assumption. You are talking about another. That's the whole problem.

Proving your hypothesis wrong does not invalidate a study, it invalidates the hypothesis. If you make invalid assumptions this invalidates the study.

Exactly my point.

We are talking about the hypothesis, itself.

And so am I.

You clearly stated it, but you are changing your stance. I can ABSOLUTELY believe my hypothesis correct, but so long as every other part of my method is done scientifically, you have nothing to say about my assumption.

I haven't changed anything. The fact that you have such a hard-on to argue with me that you cannot accept this is pretty sad. I have stated the same thing and over and over again. All I have done now is point out exactly how I was using the term.

You were talking about assuming the hypothesis is true.

Yes, within the context of the scientific method, which includes assumptions.

Oops. The evidence suggests that your hypothesis that you were not talking about assuming a hypothesis is correct is bullocks.

I never said, "I wasn't talking about assuming a hypothesis correct." I said I was using "assumption" to refer to those assumptions made as part of the scientific process. As part of the scientific process, you cannot assume the hypothesis to be correct.

Get it now, or do you still have a big hard-on for arguing?

You were talking about twisting the evidence to support your hypothesis because you assumed it's true.

If you make, as part of your experiment, the assumption that the hypothesis is true, then all data must logically be "twisted" to support it. For the purposes of your experiment, it is true, just as any other assumption you make is true.

So blind studies are very much proof that in many cases this is impossible unless I simply am willing to lie which would be unscientific absent of my beliefs.

And blind studies are not predicated on the assumption that the hypothesis is true, now are they?

The entire time, huh. Seriously, I hate doing this, but you're quite simply being dishonest.

No, I am not. You wish me to be dishonest so badly that you won't read what I am saying.

You were talking about assuming your hypothesis to be true and now you're trying to pretend like you're talking about the assumptions surrounding an experiment.

I am, and have been, at all times, using "assumption" in the same sense as "assumptions surrounding an experiment." In this sense, assuming your hypothesis to be true would be the same type of thing as assuming a dilute solution of fibrinogen in the plasma. The difference is that it would logically mean that you couldn't test your hypothesis as, for the purpose of your experiement, it would already be deemed true.

Yes, we all know that no experiment has written as one of its assumptions "My hypothesis is true no matter what." To suggest that's what you're referring to is pure bullocks.

It is what I am and have been referring to, although I doubt anyone would write it down, they might certainly run an experiment that way. Now maybe you can understand why I was so confused by your opposition.

...and that's not the same as believing the hypothesis is true.

Actually, the problem is that was exactly what she was talking about. See.

You don't assume it to be true. Any scientist who does so has already failed - as assuming it to be true leads to twisting the evidence to support it, rather than looking at the evidence from the point of view that it may or may not be true.

She says she's not talking about bias, but here she clearly is. She is talking about not having an open mind. That is very much about belief.

This is also the reason that she was giving the example of blind studies, but she realizes that beliefs can sometimes taint your results, but also that there are ways to account for such beliefs.

That all depends on whether you are using "assumption" to mean "personal belief". As far as I am concerned, the two are different things.



No, as I already pointed out, I am talking about one "type" of assumption. You are talking about another. That's the whole problem.



Exactly my point.



And so am I.



I haven't changed anything. The fact that you have such a hard-on to argue with me that you cannot accept this is pretty sad. I have stated the same thing and over and over again. All I have done now is point out exactly how I was using the term.



Yes, within the context of the scientific method, which includes assumptions.



I never said, "I wasn't talking about assuming a hypothesis correct." I said I was using "assumption" to refer to those assumptions made as part of the scientific process. As part of the scientific process, you cannot assume the hypothesis to be correct.

Get it now, or do you still have a big hard-on for arguing?



If you make, as part of your experiment, the assumption that the hypothesis is true, then all data must logically be "twisted" to support it. For the purposes of your experiment, it is true, just as any other assumption you make is true.



And blind studies are not predicated on the assumption that the hypothesis is true, now are they?



No, I am not. You wish me to be dishonest so badly that you won't read what I am saying.



I am, and have been, at all times, using "assumption" in the same sense as "assumptions surrounding an experiment." In this sense, assuming your hypothesis to be true would be the same type of thing as assuming a dilute solution of fibrinogen in the plasma. The difference is that it would logically mean that you couldn't test your hypothesis as, for the purpose of your experiement, it would already be deemed true.



It is what I am and have been referring to, although I doubt anyone would write it down, they might certainly run an experiment that way. Now maybe you can understand why I was so confused by your opposition.

Sorry, but I read like the first four words of this, saw that you are continuing to lie about what you were arguing and decided I don't care.

Yes, I was going to avoid saying it, but you're just lying now.

No, I am not. You simply find it impossible to think for a second that your interpretation of what I said isn't exactly what I meant.

You were never talking about the assumptions, you were talking about the hypothesis.

I was talking about making the hypothesis one of the assumptions.

Yep, talking about the hypothesis and whether you assume it be true.

...which would be making it one of the assumptions on which your experiment is based, at least using the word assumption as I have been doing so.

Let's face it, Dem. I caught you lying and now you're forcing me to call you on it. You should learn to quit while you're behind.

The fact that you can't ever admit that your personal interpretation of another person's words might not be exactly what they meant must represent something about your personality, but I'm not sure what.

I have admitted that you were not saying what I thought you were saying. I even apologized for it in the other thread. And yet, you continue to do what you always do, "I, Jocabia, am a mind reader who knows everything about what everyone thinks, therefore any clarification on their part must just be a big lie."

...and that's not the same as believing the hypothesis is true.

Exactly.


She says she's not talking about bias, but here she clearly is. She is talking about not having an open mind. That is very much about belief.

This is also the reason that she was giving the example of blind studies, but she realizes that beliefs can sometimes taint your results, but also that there are ways to account for such beliefs.

Yes, yes, Jocabia the mind reader.

Actually, the problem is that was exactly what she was talking about. See.

You don't assume it to be true. Any scientist who does so has already failed - as assuming it to be true leads to twisting the evidence to support it, rather than looking at the evidence from the point of view that it may or may not be true.
She says she's not talking about bias, but here she clearly is. She is talking about not having an open mind. That is very much about belief.

This is also the reason that she was giving the example of blind studies, but she realizes that beliefs can sometimes taint your results, but also that there are ways to account for such beliefs.
And I misunderstood for a bit, too, but I see what she is talking about now. The geocentric model was a good example, as the thread the other day demonstrated --the group who was going to give away money if someone could prove the earth revolved around the sun. Thing is, they are absolutely correct --their model works 100%, as you could see in the computer simulation --only from a different point of view, one that assumes the earth as the centre. It has nothing to do with beliefs. You can still believe the sun revolves around the earth, and recognize that the model works.

And I misunderstood for a bit, too, but I see what she is talking about now. The geocentric model was a good example, as the thread the other day demonstrated --the group who was going to give away money if someone could prove the earth revolved around the sun. Thing is, they are absolutely correct --their model works 100%, as you could see in the computer simulation --only from a different point of view, one that assumes the earth as the centre. It has nothing to do with beliefs. You can still believe the sun revolves around the earth, and recognize that the model works.

Yes, except their argument really has nothing to do with the model itself. They aren't changing the model, they are simply adjusting the perspective from which they believe it should be looked at. And that has nothing to do with science. Again, bad science or good science is dependent on the method. If you reject evidence it doesn't matter if you were unbiased or biased, you are unscientific. She is assuming that having a bias MUST affect your ability to conduct science, and she plainly said so. The fact is that her argument is PATENTLY untrue. Now she is pretending that she was never talking about bias in the first place, but she was just as you are now.

I was under the impression that scientists did make a statement (hypothesis) and then proove or disproove it. Is that how u spell proove? Like, 'all blondes are in fact dumb' then they would set out to prove whether they were or not, like by giving them tests to do or something. (I am blonde by the way)

That's how scientists work and that's how usually you can't actually be sure whether wot they have proved is correct or not, because a lot of the time they do fudge the results to get the answer they want.

Take global warming for example. Have any of you actually ever gone out and measured the ice caps? There is actually studies that the ice-caps are not in fact shrinking, but growing. But people only use wot they want in order to prove something.

oh I'm dizzy

No, I am not. You simply find it impossible to think for a second that your interpretation of what I said isn't exactly what I meant.



I was talking about making the hypothesis one of the assumptions.



...which would be making it one of the assumptions on which your experiment is based, at least using the word assumption as I have been doing so.



The fact that you can't ever admit that your personal interpretation of another person's words might not be exactly what they meant must represent something about your personality, but I'm not sure what.

I have admitted that you were not saying what I thought you were saying. I even apologized for it in the other thread. And yet, you continue to do what you always do, "I, Jocabia, am a mind reader who knows everything about what everyone thinks, therefore any clarification on their part must just be a big lie."



Exactly.



Yes, yes, Jocabia the mind reader.

So what is your argument now? You're a bad communicator? Because when I say you were talking about bias, I mean you were clearly talking about bias.

as assuming it to be true leads to twisting the evidence to support it

Seriously, this is just sad. Admit you were talking about bias. If you weren't talking about bias and then how would you translate this bit?

You openly suggested that if you assumed your hypothesis was true that you wouldn't test it or you would bias the results and I argued against that. Now you pretend like you were saying something different. You are being dishonest.

You were not talking about the assumption of the test, which is the format of the test, as given in your example. You were talking about the hypothesis. You weren't talking about the test itself at all.

You cannot "follow the scientific" method if you have already assumed the truth of your hypothesis. There is no point in testing it, and you are not open to the idea that it might be wrong. It is already taken for granted as true.

If you assume it is true, there is no reason to test it.

Simply admit you were wrongly asserting that assuming your hypothesis is true creates a bias that makes performing to scientific standards impossible.

Stop twisting and just admit when you're nailed.

Yes, except their argument really has nothing to do with the model itself. They aren't changing the model, they are simply adjusting the perspective from which they believe it should be looked at. And that has nothing to do with science. Again, bad science or good science is dependent on the method. If you reject evidence it doesn't matter if you were unbiased or biased, you are unscientific. She is assuming that having a bias MUST affect your ability to conduct science, and she plainly said so. The fact is that her argument is PATENTLY untrue. Now she is pretending that she was never talking about bias in the first place, but she was just as you are now.
They assumed it to be true that the earth was the centre --a scientific assumption within their process, which includes the model, and is supported by the model --and it scewers their 'scientific' conclusion. The model itself is correct, but the conclusion is entirely effected by the assumption.

It is 'bad science' to include the assumption, in this case.

They assumed it to be true that the earth was the centre --a scientific assumption within their process, which includes the model --and it scewers their 'scientific' conclusion. The model itself is correct, but the conclusion is entirely effected by the assumption.

It is 'bad science' to include the assumption.

Again, one example of bad science isn't proof. They did a couple of things.

One, the earth being the center is an unnecessary complication to the theory and defeats Occam's razor.

Two, that caveat is unfalsifiable as they've spelled it out. It's perspective and as long as you REQUIRE that perspective to remain then it cannot be falsified.

Their hypothesis was bad science whether they believe it to be true or not. That's the point. Their views on the subject have no effect on why they reached a flawed conclusion. Their violation of the method exists regardless of motivation.

However, to disprove her theory I only have to find one exception.

I ASSUME with every fiber of my being that setting blue jeans on fire will always make only blue flames.

My hypothesis - setting blue jeans on fire will make only blue flames.

I set a pair on fire.

The flames are orange.

I accept defeat, because my theory is falsified.

I can assume it to be true and still properly adhere to the scientific method.

Sorry, but I read like the first four words of this, saw that you are continuing to lie about what you were arguing and decided I don't care.

Once again, you assume that your interpretation of what I said was correct.

You remind me of a few poor literature teachers I've had in the past who ask, "What did the author mean by this passage," without ever having talked to the author, but still with a set idea in their minds of what it must have meant. No amount of support could ever convince them that there was any other interpretation that might work, possibly even if the author himself had popped into the classroom and said so...

Luckily, most of my literature (and theology, for that matter) teachers didn't do that.

Fine.

More evidence.

Looks like I've been pretty damn specific, throughout my argument with FS, that it is the hypothesis you are examining that you cannot assume to be true, not that no assumptions whatsoever can be made.

Hmmmm... but isn't that pretty much the opposite of what you're claiming now?

I am not, and have never been, talking about a personal belief or bias. I have been talking about assumptions that are a part of, or are necessary to, a scientific investigation. The fact that you missed that, despite it being clearly stated in my last post, is pretty sad.

You've completely flipped your point. This is just silly.

Now let's look at this bias thing. Did you admit that you were discussing bias?

If my practice is completely scientific, then my motivation for my science does not matter. It has no bearing on whether the action is science or not.
A person's motivation will affect their practice. If I start out a drug study with the motivation of proving that X drug is better, I cannot analyze my own data. In fact, when it comes down to it, the entire purpose of blinding a study is to account for the fact that a person with such motivation will, often unknowingly, tend to skew the data to meet the conclusions they wished to reach. For that reason, we blind a study so that they cannot do so.

Of course, you'll still argue because you're simply incapable of just admit that you were wrong.

I can do this all day.

Once again, you assume that your interpretation of what I said was correct.

You remind me of a few poor literature teachers I've had in the past who ask, "What did the author mean by this passage," without ever having talked to the author, but still with a set idea in their minds of what it must have meant. No amount of support could ever convince them that there was any other interpretation that might work, possibly even if the author himself had popped into the classroom and said so...

Luckily, most of my literature (and theology, for that matter) teachers didn't do that.

You know what is also amusing about this post. You are comparing your writing to the often figurative writing of an author. If you write an argument in a debate thread like Mark Twain tells the story of a boy floating down a river, then your problems are much deeper than whether the river represents freedom or not.

I was under the impression that scientists did make a statement (hypothesis) and then proove or disproove it.

Actually, they can only support or disprove it. The logic can't be used to prove anything. But you were close.

Is that how u spell proove?

Nope. Prove. I always want to put two o's in it too.

Like, 'all blondes are in fact dumb' then they would set out to prove whether they were or not, like by giving them tests to do or something. (I am blonde by the way)

The way the method works is that they would actually "set out", as it were, to disprove it. The logic of science works by doing so. Thus, if, in their experiment, they found really intelligent blondes, they would have disproven the hypothesis that blondes are unintelligent. If all they found were unintelligent blondes, they would say that they had supported their hypothesis.

That's how scientists work and that's how usually you can't actually be sure whether wot they have proved is correct or not, because a lot of the time they do fudge the results to get the answer they want.

Fudging results leads to sanctions and losing your funding, not to mention a good ass-ripping at the peer review stage.


So what is your argument now? You're a bad communicator? Because when I say you were talking about bias, I mean you were clearly talking about bias.

When it comes right down to it, we both are - or at least we both were in this thread. I misinterpreted what you were saying and you misinterpreted what I was saying. Thus, we both either poorly described our point or poorly comprehended the other's point.

Seriously, this is just sad. Admit you were talking about bias. If you weren't talking about bias and then how would you translate this bit?

I would "translate" this bit as exactly what it says. If my hypothesis is one of my beginning assumptions, then all the evidence must be interpreted in light of that assumption. Thus, even if the assumption (ie. my hypothesis) was incorrect, my data will be twisted as if it is correct. It is much more disingenious than assuming anything else that is invalid, especially since the person doing it would probably not list it, even though all assumptions around which the experiment is based should be listed, which is why I was incredibly confused when I thought you were arguing in favor of it.

The same thing goes for any assumption made in an experiment. If I assume an equal concentration of platelets across samples, and that assumption is incorrect, it won't lead me to say that my hypothesis was incorrect. Once the assumption for the experiment is made, I will interpret the results in light of that hypothesis, and a difference in platelets on the materials at the end of the experiment will be seen as a difference between the two materials, not as a difference in the starting conditions, as it might have been.

There was a discussion of bias - but it was another discussion altogether as far as I was concerned, and it began when you started mentioning motivation.

You openly suggested that if you assumed your hypothesis was true that you wouldn't test it or you would bias the results and I argued against that. Now you pretend like you were saying something different. You are being dishonest.


Yes, I did say that. I have not contradicted that. I have simply pointed out what I meant by assumptions. If I assume that there is an equal concentration of platelets in my samples, I am not going to test that (if I tested it, it wouldn't be an assumption, but a measurement). If it is incorrect, my data will still be biased in that it will be interpreted in the light of it being true.

I'm not "saying something different" or "being dishonest." You simply won't give up your interpretation of the words and realize that, under the definition of "assumption" I was using, which is the definition as used in a scientific study, the phrases you keep quoting mean something rather different than what you want so badly for them to say.

You were not talking about the assumption of the test, which is the format of the test, as given in your example. You were talking about the hypothesis. You weren't talking about the test itself at all.

I was talking about making the hypothesis an assumption of the test. Thus, it would be an assumption of the test, as well as being the hypothesis. Once again, this is exactly why I was so confused by your opposition.

And of course I was talking about the test. The test is the portion of the scientific method around which everything else revolves. You cannot discuss the scientific method without talking about the experiment portion of it. This whole thing started when FS said, "You cannot test something without assuming it to be correct."


Simply admit you were wrongly asserting that assuming your hypothesis is true creates a bias that makes performing to scientific standards impossible.

Assuming your hypothesis true, in the way I am using it, *does* make scientific standards impossible. I'm not "wrong" and neither are you. We are using the words in very different ways. I'm still not sure why, if you were talking about "personal belief", you kept saying, "assumption", which has other meanings altogether in th escientific process, instead of saying, "personal belief." I have made it very clear in numerous threads that I do not think a personal belief must necessarily skew science.

I ASSUME with every fiber of my being that setting blue jeans on fire will always make only blue flames.

And once again, you use, "assume" to mean "hold a personal belief," which is not a way I have ever used the word (well, at least not in this discussion).

More evidence.

More evidence that only supports you because you assume your hypothesis to be true, allowing no interpretation otherwise.

Hmmmm... but isn't that pretty much the opposite of what you're claiming now?

No, it isn't. Notice that you can make assumptions during the scientific process, but that the truthfulness of your hypothesis cannot be one of them. That is *exactly* what I am saying now. You cannot make, as the basis of a scientific investigation, the assumption that your hypothesis is true.

You've completely flipped your point. This is just silly.

I haven't flipped anything. You have just finally begun to realize what I was talking about in the first place, and can't possibly fathom that you might have misinterpreted what I was saying in the first place.

Now let's look at this bias thing. Did you admit that you were discussing bias?

Once you brought it up and as part of another argument entirely? Yes. You seemed to be, or at least I thought at first that you were, arguing that motivation could have no effect whatsoever on the scientific process. The fact that I thought that was what you were saying was most likely due to the fact that I still thought you were arguing that one could make a scientific assumption that the hypothesis was true and still perform science properly. And I didn't catch until later that you were equating "motivation" and "assumption."

Of course, you'll still argue because you're simply incapable of just admit that you were wrong.

No, I'm not. I admitted earlier that I was wrong in my interpretation of your posts.

It would seem that you are the one incapable of admitting you were wrong.

They assumed it to be true that the earth was the centre --a scientific assumption within their process, which includes the model, and is supported by the model --and it scewers their 'scientific' conclusion. The model itself is correct, but the conclusion is entirely effected by the assumption.

It is 'bad science' to include the assumption, in this case.

actually, it looks a lot like a place to jump into the issues of the theory-ladenness of observation, underdetermination, and the idea of scientific paradigms.

given the issues we've been having with the problem of induction and the meaning of the word 'assume', i think it best not to touch that one.

You know what is also amusing about this post. You are comparing your writing to the often figurative writing of an author. If you write an argument in a debate thread like Mark Twain tells the story of a boy floating down a river, then your problems are much deeper than whether the river represents freedom or not.

All writing isn't figurative. I could write a philosophical essay and have people mistake what I am saying because they interpret my words differently from the way I do. And many debates are philosophical. I've read C.S. Lewis' essays on theology and differed in interpretation from my proffessors. None of us could really sit down and discuss it with Lewis, so we had to agree to disagree, as it were.

You have the opportunity to talk to me about exactly what I meant, but you want so badly for it to mean what you think it did, that you will tell me I am lying before simply saying, "OK, we aren't really arguing then," or, "OK, if that's what you meant, then this is my argument against it..."

actually, it looks a lot like a place to jump into the issues of the theory-ladenness of observation, underdetermination, and the idea of scientific paradigms.
Could also be a place to jump into divination. ;)

given the issues we've been having with the problem of induction and the meaning of the word 'assume', i think it best not to touch that one.
So what's the "problem of induction" thing, in a nutshell? You mentioned it once before. I looked it up but couldn't make head nor tails of it from a cursory glance.

More evidence that only supports you because you assume your hypothesis to be true, allowing no interpretation otherwise.



No, it isn't. Notice that you can make assumptions during the scientific process, but that the truthfulness of your hypothesis cannot be one of them. That is *exactly* what I am saying now. You cannot make, as the basis of a scientific investigation, the assumption that your hypothesis is true.



I haven't flipped anything. You have just finally begun to realize what I was talking about in the first place, and can't possibly fathom that you might have misinterpreted what I was saying in the first place.



Once you brought it up and as part of another argument entirely? Yes. You seemed to be, or at least I thought at first that you were, arguing that motivation could have no effect whatsoever on the scientific process. The fact that I thought that was what you were saying was most likely due to the fact that I still thought you were arguing that one could make a scientific assumption that the hypothesis was true and still perform science properly. And I didn't catch until later that you were equating "motivation" and "assumption."



No, I'm not. I admitted earlier that I was wrong in my interpretation of your posts.

It would seem that you are the one incapable of admitting you were wrong.

Look, maybe you're fooling some of the people, but not me. When you discussed motivation, it was clear that you and I were talking about bias and you didn't claim otherwise until after I used that point to show you were being ridiculous. You also pointed out that this bias would skew your results so you were several posts in to proving that bias would cause you too look at your results incorrectly, not that it would only be a problem if you added it as an assumption. You also made the argument that the best science is when the results are unexpected which again evidences that you were talking about beliefs. Spin all you like, but it's all smoke and mirrors and that never works once you know how the trick is done.

Look, maybe you're fooling some of the people, but not me.

It makes me very sad that the only way you can post in discussions on NS is to insult people. For a while there, I had more respect for you.

When you discussed motivation, it was clear that you and I were talking about bias and you didn't claim otherwise until after I used that point to show you were being ridiculous.

Why do you insist on misrepresenting everything I say? I specifically pointed out that the motivation question was a separate one to me - a separate issue. It was about bias - obviously, but had very little connection, as far as I was concerned, to the original discussion. I was a bit confused when you first brought it in, because I had not yet realized that you were equating assumption to personal belief to motivation. And, as I said before, my knee-jerk reaction to the mention of motivation was that you were suggesting that motivation could not affect the process of science. Looking back, as I've already said, I realize that this wasn't what you were saying. But of course, I can't admit when I'm wrong, right? Therefore, you will just ignore it when I do.

You also made the argument that the best science is when the results are unexpected which again evidences that you were talking about beliefs.

I said some of the best science happens then - and it does. You are suddenly thrown into

Spin all you like, but it's all smoke and mirrors and that never works once you know how the trick is done.

So is this a, "Jocabia does this, so Dempublicents must," kind of thing? I am no liar. I can't even remember the last time I lied to someone. And in truth, I take your inference that I do as a personal insult.

Let me explain the whole discussion as I saw it. I'm sure you'll just say, "OMFG YOU ARE A FUCKING LIAR!" over and over, but this is the way I saw it (Obviously, this is a rough analogy, as clothes are clothes one way or another, but an assumption is not necessarily a personal belief and a personal belief is not necessarily an assumption, but it demonstrates the basics):

Suppose we were in a discussion about the policies of retail clothing stores. I might make a statement like:

"You cannot throw the clothes on the floor, as they will get wrinkled and dirty and people won't want to buy them any more."

Enter Jocabia:

"Of course I can throw clothes on the floor! That has nothing to do with my ability to be a retail worker."

*After much discussion and back and forth in which the same terms are used to describe different things, such as using the word "rack" both to mean a rack in a clothing store (on my part) and to mean a closet (on Jocabia's)*

Jocabia: "They are my damn clothes, and I can throw them on the floor whenever I want! It won't change anything about my job! Even if I buy clothes with the intention of throwing them on the floor, it won't have anything to do with my work.

Me: "They aren't your clothes, they belong to the store. And *pause because I'm not sure what buying clothes has to do with it* if you buy clothes with the intention of throwing them on the floor, that could certainly cause you to want to do it at work."

Jocabia: "Damnit, they are my clothes. I bought them. I brought them home. They are in my closet. And I can throw them on the floor and it won't have anything to do with my work at a retail store!"

Me: "Wait, that's what you meant? I was talking about the clothes at the store!"

Jocabia: "No you weren't! You were clearly talking about my clothes at home."

Me: "Why would I talk about your clothes at home? They aren't part of working at a retail clothing store."

Jocabia: "You're a dirty liar! You were clearly talking about all clothes, including the ones at my house. If you were only talking about the clothes in the store, why would you mention me buying them?"

*more back and forth*

Me: "WTF? You seriously misinterpreted me, dude. Sorry that I thought you were talking about the clothes at the store, but that's the point of view I was coming from."

You: "Dirty, dirty liar! You just can't admit you're wrong! You're just lying!"

Me: "Seriously dude, wtf?"

So what's the "problem of induction" thing, in a nutshell? You mentioned it once before. I looked it up but couldn't make head nor tails of it from a cursory glance.

Apparently, it is the entire basis of the scientific method. I'm not sure how, without being more certain of your hypothesis, you could logically then use it for prediction with any expectation of getting anything. After all, according to FS, as far as I can tell, you are both 0% certain of it being correct, and being forced to assume it is correct.

So what's the "problem of induction" thing, in a nutshell? You mentioned it once before. I looked it up but couldn't make head nor tails of it from a cursory glance.

alright, you know what inductive reasoning is, yeah? in it's essentials it is reasoning from the specific to the general or from the past to the future. slightly more technically, its a kind of argument where the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion - unlike deductive reasoning. arguments of the form "the sun has come up every morning for my entire life, therefore the sun will come up tomorrow too" or "every time we have checked objects in free fall have fallen to earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second, therefore objects in freefall always fall to earth at that rate" are inductive arguments.

the problem of induction is basically the fact that inductive reasoning is not logically justified. it's typically easiest to describe this by ridiculous example:

imagine that i have picked up a pen and am holding it up over my desk. i let it go, and it falls onto the desk. i again pick it up and let it go, it again falls to the desk. i do this a number of times. i then construct an argument that based on my experience, the next time i pick up a pen and drop it, it will also fall down. and, more generally, that objects that aren't somehow impeded will fall down.

it seems like a nice argument to me. it certainly feels compelling. obvious, even. but then some bastard comes along - let's call him david h...no, that's too obvious, how about d. hume - and says to me, "hey, what justifies making that inference?"

and i say "what? i dropped the pen a whole bunch of times, and every time it fell down. therefore it will obviously always fall down under the same circumstances."

"and how do you know know that? how do you know that in the future, or in cases in the past that you didn't see, the pen won't float up or turn into a puff of blue smoke or something?"

"because that's how the world works - things that have always worked a certain way before are going to work that way in the future. nature is uniform," i say.

"i don't know if i believe that. care to demonstrate it for me in an argument?" says d.

"sure thing. every time in the past when i had to make a prediction about a future event, it turned out that it happened according to the way similar events had happened in the past. therefore its always the case that events in the future operate similarly to events in the past."

"hold up, that doesn't work. i asked you to justify induction. you decided that induction required us to know that nature is uniform. but the argument you offered to demonstrate the uniformity of nature fundamentally relied on an inductive argument. that's just circular - you need to demonstrate the uniformity of nature to be justified using induction, but you can't show the uniformity of nature except by an inductive argument. sorry, but that leaves inductive inferences unjustified."


essentially the problem comes down to the fact that arguments from specific to general or from the observed to the unobserved are deductively invalid, and as far as anyone can tell logically unjustified. and unless we want to hold that we can know things on the basis of invalid arguments or unjustified beliefs (which we don't), the problem of induction appears to rule out knowing huge swaths of things we think we know. including essentially all of science.

Apparently, it is the entire basis of the scientific method.

not the problem, the induction. science is almost entirely based on inductive reasoning. has been from the beginning. that's what makes it special.

It makes me very sad that the only way you can post in discussions on NS is to insult people. For a while there, I had more respect for you.



Why do you insist on misrepresenting everything I say? I specifically pointed out that the motivation question was a separate one to me - a separate issue. It was about bias - obviously, but had very little connection, as far as I was concerned, to the original discussion. I was a bit confused when you first brought it in, because I had not yet realized that you were equating assumption to personal belief to motivation. And, as I said before, my knee-jerk reaction to the mention of motivation was that you were suggesting that motivation could not affect the process of science. Looking back, as I've already said, I realize that this wasn't what you were saying. But of course, I can't admit when I'm wrong, right? Therefore, you will just ignore it when I do.



I said some of the best science happens then - and it does. You are suddenly thrown into



So is this a, "Jocabia does this, so Dempublicents must," kind of thing? I am no liar. I can't even remember the last time I lied to someone. And in truth, I take your inference that I do as a personal insult.

Let me explain the whole discussion as I saw it. I'm sure you'll just say, "OMFG YOU ARE A FUCKING LIAR!" over and over, but this is the way I saw it (Obviously, this is a rough analogy, as clothes are clothes one way or another, but an assumption is not necessarily a personal belief and a personal belief is not necessarily an assumption, but it demonstrates the basics):

Suppose we were in a discussion about the policies of retail clothing stores. I might make a statement like:

"You cannot throw the clothes on the floor, as they will get wrinkled and dirty and people won't want to buy them any more."

Enter Jocabia:

"Of course I can throw clothes on the floor! That has nothing to do with my ability to be a retail worker."

*After much discussion and back and forth in which the same terms are used to describe different things, such as using the word "rack" both to mean a rack in a clothing store (on my part) and to mean a closet (on Jocabia's)*

Jocabia: "They are my damn clothes, and I can throw them on the floor whenever I want! It won't change anything about my job! Even if I buy clothes with the intention of throwing them on the floor, it won't have anything to do with my work.

Me: "They aren't your clothes, they belong to the store. And *pause because I'm not sure what buying clothes has to do with it* if you buy clothes with the intention of throwing them on the floor, that could certainly cause you to want to do it at work."

Jocabia: "Damnit, they are my clothes. I bought them. I brought them home. They are in my closet. And I can throw them on the floor and it won't have anything to do with my work at a retail store!"

Me: "Wait, that's what you meant? I was talking about the clothes at the store!"

Jocabia: "No you weren't! You were clearly talking about my clothes at home."

Me: "Why would I talk about your clothes at home? They aren't part of working at a retail clothing store."

Jocabia: "You're a dirty liar! You were clearly talking about all clothes, including the ones at my house. If you were only talking about the clothes in the store, why would you mention me buying them?"

*more back and forth*

Me: "WTF? You seriously misinterpreted me, dude. Sorry that I thought you were talking about the clothes at the store, but that's the point of view I was coming from."

You: "Dirty, dirty liar! You just can't admit you're wrong! You're just lying!"

Me: "Seriously dude, wtf?"



Apparently, it is the entire basis of the scientific method. I'm not sure how, without being more certain of your hypothesis, you could logically then use it for prediction with any expectation of getting anything. After all, according to FS, as far as I can tell, you are both 0% certain of it being correct, and being forced to assume it is correct.

You made a clear and cogent argument for something that was false. You followed a clear line of reason that led to penning you in on the fact that your argument was false. You then try to change your argument to something different that is not false.

Examination of your arguments up until that point requires one to
A) believe that you did not have a clear and cogent argument and
B) that you were not following a clear line of reason
C) instead that you posted on a number of topics mildly related to the point D) and that your argument was actually relatively unfocused.
On must believe all of those points in order to reach the conclusion that you weren't arguing about belief and bias. You never claimed not to be until you'd been painted into a corner. I simply don't believe any of those four things. I believe your arguments were in context and related and there is not all-encompassing hypothesis that is supported by the arguments you made except the one you now claim you weren't trying to support (despite the fact that you clearly said it). I'm sorry, but I take evidence all together and not seperately.

I've seen you do this before. It's the reason you always further break down posts, into smaller parts. Because you like to pretend like arguments aren't a part of a flow but can each be addressed individually. Now, you want me to believe that each of your arguments should be taken out of context to mean something else instead of in context to follow of flow of reasoning that lead to a dead end.

If this is the approach you wish to take, that's perfectly fine. I don't believe you're that incapable of following a line of discussion. Experience teaches me otherwise.

Keep crying, but the milk is spilt. I was unnecessarily harsh yesterday and, for that, I apologize. I should have apologized yesterday and I intended to, but I ended up going to the hospital. However, I do think you should just admit you were wrong here and move on.

alright, you know what inductive reasoning is, yeah? in it's essentials it is reasoning from the specific to the general or from the past to the future. slightly more technically, its a kind of argument where the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion - unlike deductive reasoning. arguments of the form "the sun has come up every morning for my entire life, therefore the sun will come up tomorrow too" or "every time we have checked objects in free fall have fallen to earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second, therefore objects in freefall always fall to earth at that rate" are inductive arguments.
I'd call them "predictions," but okay, I can see that they are arguments in a certain type of reasoning.

the problem of induction is basically the fact that inductive reasoning is not logically justified. it's typically easiest to describe this by ridiculous example:

imagine that i have picked up a pen and am holding it up over my desk. i let it go, and it falls onto the desk. i again pick it up and let it go, it again falls to the desk. i do this a number of times. i then construct an argument that based on my experience, the next time i pick up a pen and drop it, it will also fall down. and, more generally, that objects that aren't somehow impeded will fall down.

it seems like a nice argument to me. it certainly feels compelling. obvious, even.
Right; and some people would call it "logical to assume", and I'd agree, though obviously the future is unknowable.

but then some bastard comes along - let's call him david h...no, that's too obvious, how about d. hume - and says to me, "hey, what justifies making that inference?"

and i say "what? i dropped the pen a whole bunch of times, and every time it fell down. therefore it will obviously always fall down under the same circumstances."
Okay, I can see the logic in making that a claim of a truth, provided circumstances could actually remain the same (a logical, hypothetical puzzle, as in real life they cannot).

"and how do you know know that? how do you know that in the future, or in cases in the past that you didn't see, the pen won't float up or turn into a puff of blue smoke or something?"
Because it's a hypothetical puzzle, Dave. ;)

"because that's how the world works - things that have always worked a certain way before are going to work that way in the future. nature is uniform," i say.

"i don't know if i believe that. care to demonstrate it for me in an argument?" says d.

"sure thing. every time in the past when i had to make a prediction about a future event, it turned out that it happened according to the way similar events had happened in the past. therefore its always the case that events in the future operate similarly to events in the past."

"hold up, that doesn't work. i asked you to justify induction. you decided that induction required us to know that nature is uniform. but the argument you offered to demonstrate the uniformity of nature fundamentally relied on an inductive argument. that's just circular - you need to demonstrate the uniformity of nature to be justified using induction, but you can't show the uniformity of nature except by an inductive argument. sorry, but that leaves inductive inferences unjustified."
I have to agree with Dave, here. It doesn't work as a rule in the real world, where each instance of an event is a unique occurance with unknowable (random) variables that could potentially influence the outcome. I think it could still be termed "logical to assume", though, because it is making an assumption (the prediction). But you have to include that "to assume" on the end.

essentially the problem comes down to the fact that arguments from specific to general or from the observed to the unobserved are deductively invalid, and as far as anyone can tell logically unjustified. and unless we want to hold that we can know things on the basis of invalid arguments or unjustified beliefs (which we don't), the problem of induction appears to rule out knowing huge swaths of things we think we know. including essentially all of science.
I don't see the "problem", not for the scientist anyway. The predictions/assumptions that is the hypothetical statement may be logically invalid, but they are predictively valid, especially for the scientist who is going to conduct experiments to support or disprove them.

We don't hold that we know the truth of the prediction. This is what Dem said.

The predictions/assumptions that is the hypothetical statement may be logically invalid, but they are predictively valid, especially for the scientist who is going to conduct experiments to support or disprove them.

how so? what does 'predictively valid' mean? and from whence comes experimental 'support'?

We don't hold that we know the truth of the prediction. This is what Dem said.

btw, if that is the case, then science literally is not a way to know things. i do not think dem holds that to be the case.

how so? what does 'predictively valid' mean? and from whence comes experimental 'support'?
A prediction is something expected to come true. Our expectations are not always fulfilled, however, the expectation is still there with each new prediction. "Predictively valid" means that expectation will occur.

"Support" comes from having the expectation fulfilled.

Originally Posted by Willamena
We don't hold that we know the truth of the prediction. This is what Dem said.
btw, if that is the case, then science literally is not a way to know things. i do not think dem holds that to be the case.
Yes; science literally has no way to "know" reality. Reality is only ever "reality enough, for us." Knowledge is only ever "knowledge enough, for us". This is the limitation of being a human with an individual perspective on the world.

This is, I believe, a logical conclusion of science (though now I am hestitant to use the word "logical" anymore ;)).

This is also why we have faith ("knowing with the heart").

"Predictively valid" means that expectation will occur.

"Support" comes from having the expectation fulfilled.

then these two ideas also run smack into the problem. why will it occur, and how can that support apply to as yet unlooked at occurances?

Yes; science literally has no way to "know" reality. Reality is only ever "reality enough, for us." Knowledge is only ever "knowledge enough, for us". This is the limitation of being a human with an individual perspective on the world.

knowledge = justified true belief. there is no such thing as 'knowledge enough'

then these two ideas also run smack into the problem. why will it occur...
The "why" of the event's occurance is defined by science as "how"; in other words, following the chain of cause and effect.

The "why" of the expectation's occurance is because it has happened in the past. That is what creates the expectation.

The "why" of the prediction's occurance is so that science can be done.

...and how can that support apply to as yet unlooked at occurances?
Only events that have happened are supported. Events that might happen are supportable. The prediction, for instance, that is contained in the hypothesis is supportable.

knowledge = justified true belief. there is no such thing as 'knowledge enough'
Do you know that? or do you just justifiably believe it?

Only events that have happened are supported. Events that might happen are supportable. The prediction, for instance, that is contained in the hypothesis is supportable.

ignore the future. what about things that already happened? there is no prediction involved in claiming that gravity works the same everywhere in the universe - a standard scientific claim. but this claim is also an inductive one and is unjustified, and the arguments in favor of it are invalid.

Only events that have happened are supported. Events that might happen are supportable. The prediction, for instance, that is contained in the hypothesis is supportable.

so you agree that experiments cannot lend support to a universal claim (unless somebody comes up with a way past ye olde p of i, of course)?

Do you know that? or do you just justifiably believe it?

technically that's a definition. but i also have good reason to believe that beliefs that are false or beliefs that lack justification are not knowledge. you'd agree with those reasons too - it actually was one of the few things in philosophy people have generally agreed on since at least the time that plato wrote the idea down (gettier mucked things up a bit more recently, but that's a whole other discussion).

ignore the future. what about things that already happened? there is no prediction involved in claiming that gravity works the same everywhere in the universe - a standard scientific claim. but this claim is also an inductive one and is unjustified, and the arguments in favor of it are invalid.



so you agree that experiments cannot lend support to a universal claim (unless somebody comes up with a way past ye olde p of i, of course)?



technically that's a definition. but i also have good reason to believe that beliefs that are false or beliefs that lack justification are not knowledge. you'd agree with those reasons too - it actually was one of the few things in philosophy people have generally agreed on since at least the time that plato wrote the idea down (gettier mucked things up a bit more recently, but that's a whole other discussion).

To be fair, everyone admits that science is a 'best fit' explanation. It's the explanation that holds until there is evidence to the contrary. The idea that gravity works the same everywhere in the universe is based on the fact that it works the same everywhere we've tested so there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. That's not illogical. Yes, logic tells us that tomorrow we can walk outside and bump into the moon, but logic tells us also that the only reasonable action is to act as if we don't expect that to happen.

To be fair, everyone admits that science is a 'best fit' explanation.

which itself is a claim that only really started showing up when people started explaining the problem of induction to scientists. but they get sloppy about it and revert into claiming things about increases in probability of truth for each observation, which is just missing the point.

That's not illogical

actually, since it is based on an invalid argument it is illogical. or at the very least non-rational.

which itself is a claim that only really started showing up when people started explaining the problem of induction to scientists. but they get sloppy about it and revert into claiming things about increases in probability of truth for each observation, which is just missing the point.



actually, since it is based on an invalid argument it is illogical. or at the very least non-rational.

So you would say that expecting to walk out of your house and bump your head on the moon is rational. Good to know.

Remember the hypothesis is not that it's impossible for gravity to work different elsewhere but just that all evidence points to it working the same, which is a true statement. You keep acting as if it's treated as a truism rather than just an expectation based on observation and testing.

ignore the future. what about things that already happened? there is no prediction involved in claiming that gravity works the same everywhere in the universe - a standard scientific claim. but this claim is also an inductive one and is unjustified, and the arguments in favor of it are invalid.
Predictions are only made of future events.

The claim that "gravity works" (present tense) "the same everywhere in the universe" presents to the scientist a supposition that will be tested in the future; so, in a sense, to him it has a predictive value. The implied event that is predictive is the test suggested by the hypothesis he will form ("If I drop a pencil...").

Only events that have happened are supported. Events that might happen are supportable. The prediction, for instance, that is contained in the hypothesis is supportable.
so you agree that experiments cannot lend support to a universal claim (unless somebody comes up with a way past ye olde p of i, of course)?
That depends on the context of the universal claim. The claim "gravity is the same everywhere" is supported in the sense that there have been (past tense) tests specifically about it that supported some related hypothesis. If, however, the claim is worded as a hypothesis ("If I drop a pencil it will fall the same everywhere due to gravity...") as the beginning of a scientific process, then it is not yet supported, but supportable.

The claim "all swans are white" is supportable if it is a hypothesis that is being talked about.

What is "ye olde p of i"?

technically that's a definition. but i also have good reason to believe that beliefs that are false or beliefs that lack justification are not knowledge. you'd agree with those reasons too - it actually was one of the few things in philosophy people have generally agreed on since at least the time that plato wrote the idea down (gettier mucked things up a bit more recently, but that's a whole other discussion).
Yeah, I was just funning with you.

I'd agree with that definition of knowledge for rational knowing, especially as "belief" is in something held to be true. And in that regard, since the future is unknowable, and all the variables cannot be accounted for, and each event is unique, and assumptions are made for each test... the "true" status of the outcome of the prediction cannot be stated before the testing is done.

But it's also true that we can never declare the outcome of the prediction to be "true", because we only move towards certainty, we never attain it. After the test, only a "supported" status can truthfully be declared.

This I learned from Dem. And from astrology.

You made a clear and cogent argument for something that was false. You followed a clear line of reason that led to penning you in on the fact that your argument was false. You then try to change your argument to something different that is not false.

Examination of your arguments up until that point requires one to
A) believe that you did not have a clear and cogent argument and
B) that you were not following a clear line of reason
C) instead that you posted on a number of topics mildly related to the point D) and that your argument was actually relatively unfocused.
On must believe all of those points in order to reach the conclusion that you weren't arguing about belief and bias.

Why? Willamena didn't have to do so. There is a reason that I split arguments up into smaller portions - it is because I am addressing them as individual points. My mistake here was in not saying, when you brought in the motivation question, "What the hell does motivation have to do with it?" Instead, my knee-jerk reaction to it was to see it as a logical extension to what I thought you were arguing (that one could make a scientiic assumption that one's hypothesis was correct) to state that not only would this not affect, it but neither would any motivation. Looking back, I realize that isn't what you were saying at all, and it should have been clear to me at that point that we were talking at cross-purposes. But I was a bit worked up at the time and I just took it at a first reading.

If (and only if) you look at the argument from my point of view - something you obviously refuse to do because that would mean you couldn't call me a dirty liar over and over again - it is perfectly logical.

Your argument is perfectly logical as well, now that I know what it actually is. But when I thought it was something else, it was damn illogical.

If you don't believe me, I can give you the name and email address of my fiance, and you can ask him exactly how I characterized the argument two nights ago when I was discussing it with him. As far as I could tell, you were arguing that one could make assuming one's hypothesis part of the scientific process, and I told him so. Needless to say, he laughed and asked what type of people I talk to on NS. I shrugged and told him I was rather confused, considering that you generally seem to argue the opposite.

And vice versa, the argument that you are trying to attribute to me is pretty much the exact logical opposite to arguments I have made on NS time and time again, and am currently making (over and over again) to Bruarong in the other thread. You wish to believe that I was arguing that one cannot hold personal beliefs without biasing their science, even though I have said the exact opposite numerous times - in fact, in pretty much every creation v. evolution and theism v. atheism thread that has popped up since I have started using NS. Earlier, you asked me not to act as though this was the first time we had talked about this sort of topic. Perhaps you should extend me the same courtesy.

You never claimed not to be until you'd been painted into a corner.

I never felt the need to "claim not to be" saying something I wasn't saying and didn't yet realize you were saying. We were talking about the scientific process, so I used the word "assumption" in the scientific sense. Because that seemed like the only logical way to use it, I figured everyone else was using it in the same way. It never would have occurred to me to equate "assumption" to "personal belief", because personal beliefs have nothing to do with the scientific process. In truth, the use of the word in that way still doesn't completely make sense to me - and it's not a way I would ever use it. I use completely different terminology when talking about personal beliefs, and tend to relegate the word "assumption" to math and science. But, now that I know that's how you were using it, I realize that we were both arguing against idiotic viewpoints - simply not idiotic viewpoints actually held by the other person.

I simply don't believe any of those four things. I believe your arguments were in context and related and there is not all-encompassing hypothesis that is supported by the arguments you made except the one you now claim you weren't trying to support (despite the fact that you clearly said it). I'm sorry, but I take evidence all together and not seperately.

There shouldn't be an "all-encompassing hypothesis", as I thought there were at least two separate arguments going on.

I've seen you do this before.

No, you've accused me of doing it before. And you weren't right then either. You obviously think that I am a horrible and dishonest person, although I've given you no reason to believe this. But you have a tendency to start with a knee-jerk interpretation of someone's post and stick to it, no matter how much clarification they give - always claiming that the clarification is "lying" or "changing your argument". And it isn't only me you do it to, although I could only give examples of myself. And then, when, God forbid, I do actually change my argument, and state that I am doing so, you yell, "INCONSISTENT!" and I'm like, "Duh, I'm changing what I'm saying. Obviously that's inconsistent with what I used to say."

It's the reason you always further break down posts, into smaller parts. Because you like to pretend like arguments aren't a part of a flow but can each be addressed individually.

It isn't pretending. That is how my thought process works. It is in both my nature and my profession to break things down into their component parts and then look at the whole. At times, in debates anyways, it means that I separate things that shouldn't be separated, because they look like separate points to me. Of course, if I didn't do things this way, I would probably still think that you were arguing something entirely different. It wasn't until I started getting into the "smaller parts" of your posts that I realized that you were equating "personal belief" and assumption.

Now, you want me to believe that each of your arguments should be taken out of context to mean something else instead of in context to follow of flow of reasoning that lead to a dead end.

They should be taken in the context in which I presented them, certainly. That isn't "taking them out of context." It is taking them out of your context and placing them into mine, from which they came.

Keep crying, but the milk is spilt. I was unnecessarily harsh yesterday and, for that, I apologize.

You are no less harsh now. You are still essentially calling me a dirty liar because you can't possibly believe that you misunderstood me.

However, I do think you should just admit you were wrong here and move on.

You want to misrepresent me, and then have me say, "Yup, Jocabia is absolutely right. He knows my own thought process better than I do." I will not say that, because it would be stupid - and actually would be lying - to say it. If you want me to say that your characterization of my posts presents a wrong argument, I wll say that. But what you are doing right now is no different than if I were saying, "Jocabia is a liar. He really was saying that one could prove religion with science. Never mind that he explicitly stated that he wasn't. He was anyways. He's just lying now."

"because that's how the world works - things that have always worked a certain way before are going to work that way in the future. nature is uniform," i say.

This is an assumption on which the scientific method is based. Obviously, we cannot prove it. Things that have happened the same way, even with all the same variables, 10000000000000000000000000000 times might do something different next time and shock the hell out of us. But it is part of the very philosophy of science to assume this - ie. to take it for granted - without testing it.

Now, since we are taking this statement as true (ie. assuming it) for the purposes of science, then we are completely logically justified in stating that, each time something occurs in the same manner, we have supported the statement that it will always occur that way. For example, every single process we measure and find that it increases the overall entropy in the universe supports the (second?) law of thermodynamics, because we have already made the assumption that nature is ordered and has specific rules to which it always adheres.


btw, if that is the case, then science literally is not a way to know things. i do not think dem holds that to be the case.

I don't "hold that to be the case" as I think the beginning assumption is correct. But I know that it may not be. I do "believe" as it were, that science is a way to literally know things, because I think the philosophical assumptions in which it is based are correct. I do not think one can logically say for sure that science is a way to literally know things - and I have said so in more than one thread.


knowledge = justified true belief. there is no such thing as 'knowledge enough'

Then there is no such thing as knowledge, at least not for human beings.


so you agree that experiments cannot lend support to a universal claim (unless somebody comes up with a way past ye olde p of i, of course)?

It can lend support to such a claim, within the scientific method, which assumes that nature is ordered and is bound by hard and fast rules. You "get past" the p of i by starting with a philosophy that assumes it away.

which itself is a claim that only really started showing up when people started explaining the problem of induction to scientists. but they get sloppy about it and revert into claiming things about increases in probability of truth for each observation, which is just missing the point.

actually, since it is based on an invalid argument it is illogical. or at the very least non-rational.

Any logical discussion begins with certain axioms. If you change the axiom, you most likely change the logical endpoint of your discussion.

It may be considered illogical or non-rational to take an axiom to be true, since we cannot test it. However, to have the discussion at all, you must do so, and all who participate in the discussion must be operating off of the same axioms (difficult to find such a discussion, let me tell you). In the philosophy that spawned science, one of the axioms is the idea that the natural world is ordered and has set rules on which it operates. Once this axiom is taken as true, it is perfectly logical to say, "I've always walked outside of my house and not hit my head on the moon, so the chances of it happening to day are so infintesimal that I won't even consider them."

If you don't take that axiom as true, then the scientific method itself has no meaning to you - it is useless, as it cannot provide support for any ideas, and my new hypothesis that monkeys live underground and listen to everything we say and write it down is just as logical as the hypothesis that, when I send this posts, electrons will move through wires carrying information through several points and, finally, to your computer.

So you would say that expecting to walk out of your house and bump your head on the moon is rational. Good to know.

nope. that's not any more rational than the alternative.

x has always happened in the cases i have seen, therefore x won't happen next time

is just as invalid as

x has always happened in the cases i have seen, therefore x will happen next time

Remember the hypothesis is not that it's impossible for gravity to work different elsewhere but just that all evidence points to it working the same, which is a true statement. You keep acting as if it's treated as a truism rather than just an expectation based on observation and testing.

the statement "gravity works the same everywhere" is a truth claim. it claims that it is true that gravity works the same everywhere - not of logical necessity, but as a matter of fact.

the statement "all evidence thus far points to the truth of the statement 'gravity works the same everywhere'" is merely a statement about that truth claim, namely the inductive grounds for it. the truth claim is still there, and it is the important part of the statement. it still holds "gravity works the same everywhere" to be true.

nope. that's not any more rational than the alternative.

x has always happened in the cases i have seen, therefore x won't happen next time

is just as invalid as

x has always happened in the cases i have seen, therefore x will happen next time

It's not will. That's where your argument is flawed. It's "I know that it's possible that things will happen differently but given that it never has I will not bother with that possiblity until it becomes necessary to address, which, of course, may be never." Apparently, you're as illogical as I am, of course, because you clearly expect to hit the keys and get the letter on the screen that corresponds with the key. You expect to post the reply and for it to appear to me in the same way it appears to you. You expect for this post to have been written by me rather than by space aliens. All of these could possibly occur differently, but your experience tells you otherwise. To suggest that accounting for experience is illogical is to suggest that any discussion is pointless because these words don't necessarily have the same meaning they did when I wrote them, reading the word "it" might cause your eyeballs to explode (and I clearly don't want that) and the words "to suggest" equal a death threat on the president of the US and I'm going to jail. If experience tells us nothing logical, rationally or reasonably then unplug your computer and stick a fork in the light socket. It would be illogical for you to think you'd be electrocuted, wouldn't it?

the statement "gravity works the same everywhere" is a truth claim. it claims that it is true that gravity works the same everywhere - not of logical necessity, but as a matter of fact.

False. It does no such thing. Repetition does not make your statement a truism no matter how many times you try to make it so.

the statement "all evidence thus far points to the truth of the statement 'gravity works the same everywhere'" is merely a statement about that truth claim, namely the inductive grounds for it. the truth claim is still there, and it is the important part of the statement. it still holds "gravity works the same everywhere" to be true.
No, it treats it as if it's true because we have no evidence otherwise. The fact that we continue to conduct testing. The fact that we are constantly exploring proves that we don't hold it to be factually true, but only treat it as true until we have reason to do otherwise. Newtonian physics is a perfect example because no one cried out that their faith was shaken to the core when we discovered that it doesn't apply at micro levels. We weren't upset about it because we knew that it was a possiblity that this could occur. We saw the exception and we tested it to make sure and then we rejoiced in the discovery.

You do the same thing despite your protestations. According to your arguments only insane people are capable of logic and only some insane people at that.

The problem is your argument WAS totally consistant until I had you painted into a corner and you changed it.

Not really. In fact, looking back at it, it doesn't make any sense at all under the characterization you are giving it.

How many times did I say, "You can believe your hypothesis is true, but you cannot assume it,"? How many times did I say, "Of course you expect your hypothesis is true, you just can't assume it"?

If I were equating personal belief and assumption, those sentences would read, "Of course you can believe your hypothesis is true, you just can't believe it."

Is that really consistent?

I had several people read your posts without telling them anything. Most think I was harsh (read: all of them called me some variation of donkey), but all of them said you changed your argument when you got nailed.

Then they are all as wrong as you are. Like I said, if you would like to speak to my fiance, I'm sure I can arrange it.

I'm not calling you a horrible person. I am calling you dishonest.

In my book, those two are equivalent. Thus, yes, you are calling me a horrible person. And the dishonest characterization is patently wrong, and is no better than calling me any other insult.

Many people are willing to be dishonest and you appear to be one of them.

You assume that, but it is untrue. Dishonest is one of those things that I am absolutely not willing to be.

I don't believe any of the four things I would have to buy into in order to believe you didn't change your argument rather than admit you were wrong.

You don't have too, except for a modified version of C. I was referring to two different arguments, until I realized that you saw them as part of a whole, so that's kind of like C.

But if you look at things from my point of view, that a discussion of the scientific process involves only those things which are part of the scientific process, and examine the fact that I have argued the exact opposite of what you are attributing to me time and time again, you don't have to "buy into" any of your four postulates.

Apparantly I was yelling and calling you a horrible person and a dirty person while swearing about how you lied, right?

"Horrible person" and "liar" are equivalent, as far as I am concerned.

Despite your false analogous stories of what happened here,

From my point of view, they aren't false. That is what you fail to realize. Your point of view is not the word of God here, Jocabia. It is possible for someone to have a different perspective from you. I promise.

Motivation is about bias and beliefs.

Yes, it is. And this is why I was addressing it as a separate issue.

Assuming your hypotheses are true is about about bias and belief.

No, not from my point of view, it isn't. Assumptions within science are, well, assumptions within science. Just as I would only discuss the clothing in a clothing store if I was talking about working at a clothing store, I will only discuss assumptions within science when discussing the scientific process. Motivation and bias can certainly be an issue, but it is not the same issue as assumptions.

Blind studies are to protect from bias and belief.

Yes, they are. But they do not protect against starting the process by assuming your hypothesis. What you fail to see is that these are two different issues for me. Motivation can affect the scientific process. Injecting an assumption of your hypothesis into the process absolutely does affect the process.

The entire basis of your arguments until you started on this goofy tirade was to argue about bias and belief and now you claim you weren't.

How exactly does, "You can believe it, but you can't assume it," suggest that I was talking about belief?

Keep going. I'm happy to keep calling you out. It's not me who's yelling or swearing or losing it.

You aren't "calling me out." You are saying, "I am a mind reader and therefore I know what you were talking about better than you do." I have pointed out numerous times exactly what I was saying, just as when I "called you out" on suggesting that one could prove religion with science, you said that you weren't suggesting any such thing, and clarified your statements. I could just as easily say, "You only changed your argument when I painted you into a corner," but I won't, because I'm not going to be rude. I'm not going to assume that you are a liar, and I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

And maybe you aren't yelling or swearing or losing it, but all you are doing is insulting me, over and over and over again, while I give you the benefit of the doubt that you will be able to see past your knee-jerk characterization of me.

Meanwhile, let's look at the first point at which you "used my own argument to prove me wrong." This is the post in question:

See, again, you are not seperating out the practice.

We (or at least I am) are talking about practice. You can't "separate out the practice" if the practice is exactly what you are talking about.

Hmmm, it seems to me that I clearly state here that I am talking about the practice of science, not something outside of it.


It's no different than arguing that science is a naturalist science because it's doesn't consider God. It doesn't consider God. PERIOD.

Exactly my point.

Here I agree with the idea that God is not considered - suggesting that one can believe in God with no problem and still do science - an argument I have made time and time again.

If my practice is completely scientific, then my motivation for my science does not matter. It has no bearing on whether the action is science or not.

A person's motivation will affect their practice. If I start out a drug study with the motivation of proving that X drug is better, I cannot analyze my own data. In fact, when it comes down to it, the entire purpose of blinding a study is to account for the fact that a person with such motivation will, often unknowingly, tend to skew the data to meet the conclusions they wished to reach. For that reason, we blind a study so that they cannot do so.

Here, I actually agree with you, but wasn't reading your post correctly. I was reading your post as saying, "It can have no bearing on whether the action is science or not," basically because of the way I was reading your other posts. This was clearly not the way to look at it, but it is the way I was looking at it.

Thus, I point out that motivation absolutely can affect the process of science, and we must account for that, often through blind studies. Notice that I say, "The entire purpose of blinding a study is...." This is a logical argument to a statement that motivation cannot affect the process. That isn't what you were saying, but, hey, if it had been, I would have had you right there.

Dem, let's not pretend like this is the first time we've conversed. You know that you are arguing nuances here. I very much believe that if science could prove God then faith would be negated and I find faith to be the point of the belief.

We weren't talking about proving God though, were we? We were talking about "proving" something about God, as the "scientist" in this video pretty clearly was, given his comments.

Here you ask me for consideration you clearly aren't willing to give to me, and I try to point out why I read it the way I did. I stopped trying to argue this point with you from that point, because it was clear that you weren't arguing what I originally thought you were, and so it didn't matter.

I certainly can assume it's true. Try to stop me.

And when you stand up in front of a bunch of scientists at a conference and say, "We hypothesized X. First, we assumed X..." they'll stop you with laughter right there and ask you to come back when you can be a scientist.

Here, it is insanely clear that I am talking about assuming your hypothesis as part of the process. If I wasn't talking about something that was part of the process, it wouldn't be something that you would report, now would it? I don't expect a scientist to stand up in conference and say, "So, while I was doing this, by the way, I was assuming/believing that God was listening to the angels sing." It is only those assumptions that are made as part of the process that must be reported.

A strawman? You plainly said over and over that I can't assume my hypothesis to be true which is EXACTLY what I'm addressing. You can't seem to understand that my beliefs and/or motivations have no bearing on my science. Only my practices matter. I can and would assume my hypothesis was right or I would not bother to begin the rather expensive process of testing it.

Ah, I see the problem. You are using assumption to mean something completely different from what it means within the practice of science. In science, your assumptions are part of your practice. The are those things which you will not test, but which you take as true for the experiment.

And here I finally get it. You are actually equating motivation and assumption. You are using them as one and the same. No wonder you brought in the question of motivation! The two were the same to you. Holy crap!

*snip example intended to show you what I mean when I say "assumption"*

*snip discussion of when science is more or less exciting*

but the results are no worse if I expected them nor are they less scientific.

The results are the results, no matter what you expected. But expecting is not the same as assuming. I expect, in the description above, that one of the materials will cause more coagulation than the other. However, I do not assume this. If I did, I would just pick one and say it was the better material to use in a bypass machine.

Here I make yet another distinction between "expecting" and "assuming".

If someone here offered up a test pavement that ended up in the death of a driver, I promise you that saying, "Well, I wasn't really sure if this pavement would hold up," would end your career. You better be damn sure your pavement will hold up, sure enough to bet someone's life on it.

There are two problems here. First of all, engineering is not exactly science. Some of the process is followed, but the entire process is not. As engineers, we design things according to the theories that come out of science, and then we test them (for the most part) to account for the differences between theory and actual - since theory generally has a lot of factors that aren't taken into account.

Second of all, you are using different terms again. "I wasn't really sure..." is not the same as "I began by assuming..."

Once again, I make a distinction between "believing" or even "being sure" and making an assumption (although I got it backwards, it should say, "I was really sure...." is not the same as "I began by assuming").

You're playing word games and the point is that you're claiming that one's beliefs are somehow part of the experiment, which is ridiculous.

No, it was you who decided that "assumption" is one's belief. In science, an assumption is a listed part of the experiment you are doing, and all assumptions you made must be listed, or you have improperly reported your results. Why? Because your conclusions are only valid in light of the assumptions you made to begin with.

Once again, the distinction between how you use assume and how I use it.



Now, you claim that it was only *after* you "used my own argument against me" that I "changed my argument" and pointed out the way I was using assume. But the post quoted above came before this one:


Oh, hey, look. You just offered up the reasoning why the scientific method accounts for those time when our beliefs have the ability to affect the outcome. The result of a blind study is that it completely accounts for our motivation and makes it so assumptions don't dirty the study. You just proved your premise is wrong. Thanks for playing.

I don't even need to reply to the rest of this. It's garbage. You just proved it. How can my motivation affect the outcome of a blind study unless I'm just plain lying about the results? It can't.

A good scientist will make provisions to prevent their beliefs from affecting the outcome of a scientific test. You know why? Because they have often already made assumptions about the outcome.

In the future, I'm just going to let you talk. You seem to be quite good at proving yourself wrong.

Now, if you had actually read the rest of the post, you would have seen the problem, just as I did. Instead. you skipped it (obviously) and then never went back to read it, assuming that my clarifications only came in later posts, even though they were staring you right there in the face.

I'm sorry. It's clear that we can arrive at the simplest and easiest explanation of what happened.

Clearly what happened was that I began with an argument about being allowed to assume whatever you like so long as you adhere to the scientific method and don't let that assumption affect your practice. You misunderstood that post and replied with a post that just happened to sound just like you replying to the argument I was making. Pure coincidence. Then I replied to how your argument sounded with all that talk off having an open mind and expectations and all. You continued to reply only happening to sound like you were talking about what I was. This continues until I lose it and start swearing and yelling as evidenced here -

YOU CAN'T ASSUME THAT IT IS TRUE OR FALSE!!!!

I was being ridiculous. How dare I yell and swear and call you a horrible person? Oh, wait, that was you.

"Of course I can throw clothes on the floor! That has nothing to do with my ability to be a retail worker."

Notice the exclamation point. I continue.

"They are my damn clothes, and I can throw them on the floor whenever I want! It won't change anything about my job! "

You attempt to remain calm while I continue to freak out.

"Damnit, they are my clothes. I bought them. I brought them home. They are in my closet. And I can throw them on the floor and it won't have anything to do with my work at a retail store!"

More swearing and exlamation points. Man, I'm crazy.

"You're a dirty liar!"
"Dirty, dirty liar! You just can't admit you're wrong! You're just lying!"

Man, I use a lot of yelling and swearing and exclamation points, as evidence but all of these quotes of me. Oh, wait, this was all you exaggerating my point and making out like I was freaking out and yelling and swearing.

Well, I'm certain my swearing and freaking out is in there somewhere I simply can't find it or I would quote it.

Meanwhile, it's clear this is the simplest solution. It was just a series of unlikely coincidences and a bunch of posts by you that just happened to look like a cogent and cohesive argument. I'm glad we cleared that up. Now we can stop hijacking the thread.

EDIT: To everyone else, I'm sorry we hijacked the thread. I concede that happened as above. Sorry for wasting your time.

This is just more twisting. You didn't say you can believe it is true, you said you can believe it MIGHT be true.

Wait, I didn't:

Meanwhile, you can never assume that your hypothesis is true at the beginning. You certainly expect to get results that back it up, or you wouldn't be proposing it in the first place, but you cannot assume that it is true.

Hmmm, if you expect to get results to back it up, you must believe it is true, no?

Not at all. Of course you have expectations. But you do not assume that your expectations are correct. You certainly think they are, but that isn't the same thing.

Look, this is in that same post! It is exactly what I said I was saying - you have expectations, but cannot make them an assumption. You "certainly think they are" (ie. believe they are) true, but assuming them is not the same thing.

And once again, to look at the question of whether or not I was using the word assume as part of the scientific process:

The definition you are looking for when talking about science is #1:

A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

A "tentative explanation" is not the same as an assumption.

Wow, this one even has a "when talking about science" stuck in there - clearly delineating that I am referring to science, not somebody's individual personal beliefs.

Way way back on Page 5: Assumptions in science are those things you take to be true for the purpose of your experiment. They are not the question you are testing (your hypothesis).

Hmmm, does this look like I was using assumptions made outside of the process, or those which are part of the process?

You are confusing hypothesis, conclusion, and theory. A hypothesis would be, "All swans are white." You would test this, over and over, and might come to the conclusion, "All available evidence suggests that all swans are white." If it stood up long enough, it could become theory. At this point, you would assume it's truthfulness in further studies and hypotheses, ie. "All swans are white because of genetic trait X," or, "Swans gain X advantage by being white," You would then test that into oblivion, and so on.

However, at no point do you assume that a hypothesis is correct. You may assume that a previous conclusion is correct, but never the specific hypothesis you are in the process of testing.

Here, once again, I am clearly using "assumption" to refer to those assumptions made during the scientific process.

No, you are wrong yet again. I never said one could not make any assumption. I said two things: 1) One cannot assume one's hypothesis to be true and still test it. You end up with the following:
*picture*

and 2) One cannot assume anything about the supernatural, as one's assumptions in science must be falsifiable.

Hmmm, "one's assumptions in science must be falsifiable." I wonder if I was talking about assumptions made as part of the process, considering that I belive in God - as a personal belief - that is not falsifiable, and I am a scientist.


No, once again my claim is that you cannot start a scientific investigation assuming your hypothesis to be true.

"Start a scientific process..." would suggest that I was talking about making your assumption, part of the process.

How exactly are you going to "practice good science" if you start your science by assuming (a) That there is a God and (b) that God did something - both supernatural assumptions that cannot be falsified?

"Start your science by...." Gee, looks like I was talking about the process of science, now doesn't it?


And when you stand up in front of a bunch of scientists at a conference and say, "We hypothesized X. First, we assumed X..." they'll stop you with laughter right there and ask you to come back when you can be a scientist.

Does that look like I'm talking about "personal beliefs"?


[quote]I added the bolding. The amusing part is that you act as if I was one the one losing it and yelling and swearing and typing all kinds of exclamation points. Seems like reality doesn't match your little made-up scenario.

When did I say you were "losing it and yelling and swearing and typing all kinds of exclamation points"?

You are not open to the idea is about beliefs.

Or, it could mean that your experimental process is not open to the idea. If I assume that I have a constant concentration of magnesium in my solution, my process is not open to the idea that the concentration might be changing. My entire process is based around the assumption that there is a constant concentration, and if that is not true then my experiment is bogus.

You also posted the lay-definition of assume to support your point. You didn't explain it as part of the method, but as how a person assumes something. Pretend otherwise if you like but the evidence does not support your assertion.

Main Entry: as·sume
Pronunciation: &-'süm
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): as·sumed; as·sum·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin assumere, from ad- + sumere to take -- more at CONSUME
1 a : to take up or in : RECEIVE b : to take into partnership, employment, or use
2 a : to take to or upon oneself : UNDERTAKE b : PUT ON, DON
3 : to take control of
4 : to pretend to have or be : FEIGN <assumed an air of confidence in spite of her dismay>
5 : to take as granted or true : SUPPOSE
6 : to take over (the debts of another) as one's own

If you were really making the argument you claim you wouldn't likely post this definition. It really hurts your argument.

Why not? I clearly pointed out that assumptions, in science (and I even said "in science") refer to #5 - to take as granted or true. If I assume the constant concentration, I am taking it as true that there is a constant concentration. If I assume that the universe revolves around the Earth, I am taking it as true that the universe revolves around the Earth. There is nothing wrong with this definition in the context of science - as it is exactly what we do when we make assumptions.

And if your definition of harsh is that I won't just pretend like you were talking about this all along, then I'm harsh.

I don't want you to pretend anything. I want you to step outside of your assumptions for a moment and at least make an attempt to see things from my point of view. It might do you some good. I've certainly done it for you.

Your method of arguing deserves to be challenged and I'm perfectly willing to do so.

Then do so. But calling me a liar and assuming from the start that I am lying is hardly challenging my method of arguing. If you don't like the fact that I separate out different points, for instance, challenge away.

But I have made it exceedingly clear that I was talking about assumptions made in science, not assumptions as personal belief. As I have said in more threads than I can count, personal belief has nothing to do with science.


And as far as I'm concerned your demeanor and your treatment of this subject evidences your inability to be rational and simply admit you're wrong.

Even though I've admitted I was wrong on numerous occasions in this thread. Yeah, that makes sense.

This is a matter of pride for you, so I suspect you'll never back down. Continue to be upset or angry or whatever you like, but I'm not going to accept that you meant anything other than what you said.

I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to see what I said from my point of view.

A lie can be evidenced and shown. Horrible person is a quality judgement and I offered up no assessment of the quality of your person. I am talking about the quality of your arguments and the quality of the style in which you argue, like it or not these things are part of the debate.

You are not talking about the "quality of my arguments". You are making a blanket statement that I am lying about them.

And yes, a lie can be evidenced and shown. As soon as you can read my mind, you can evidence that I was lying about what I was saying.

And, like I said, I equate liar and horrible person. If you think a liar is a good person, that's certainly up to you.

Some of this would be useful if you hadn't gone back and changed the post on which your argument is based.

Yeah, sorry about that. I thought I hit "quote", but actually hit "edit", and it didn't occur to me that "quote" doesn't include back-quotes anymore until I'd already changed it. I was planning on going back and doing what I could to change it back (although I obviously can't get rid of the *snips*), but I had to go answer the call of the centrifuge first.

The first example shows that you believe one's personal assumptions bias the study.

I'm not sure what you're calling the "first example, etc. Howver, since I clearly state numerous times in that post that I'm not equating "assumption" with anything "personal", I'm going to have to conclude that you're crazy.

Your fifth example is ridiculous because we both would agree that you would never offer up your personal beliefs as part of a study. What I believed or assumed in my head has not place in a right-up of a study unless I believe it's necessary to help someone examine a bias.

Exactly! Now you see the way I was looking at it! I thought you were talking about an actual assumption as part of the study, not a personal belief. It is ridiculous that a person would truly assume their hypothesis (ie. assume it as part of the process) and then announce it in front of anyone. That is exactly what I was going for because it was what I thought you were arguing.

The fifth example is your common way of exaggerating a point. Kind of like how you diagram me swearing and freaking out when it was actually you doing so.

I didn't "diagram" you anything. I clearly stated at the beginning of that analogy that I was showing you the conversation as I saw it.

Now, of course, by sheer bad luck I can't examine your example because you just happened to edit that old post. Of course, editing an old post doesn't really help the situation.

No, it doesn't. But now I'm sure that you are going to assume that I did it on purpose. Because, you know, I would type all that up twice just to lie to someone over the internet.

Man, I use a lot of yelling and swearing and exclamation points, as evidence but all of these quotes of me. Oh, wait, this was all you exaggerating my point and making out like I was freaking out and yelling and swearing.

It was, as I clearly stated, my viewpoint on the conversation. You may not have been using exclamation points, but your tone as I read it was much as in that post.

Of course, this is the whole problem. You refuse to admit, even for a second, that "as I see it," might be different than, "as Jocabia sees it."


Clearly what happened was that I began with an argument about being allowed to assume whatever you like so long as you adhere to the scientific method and don't let that assumption affect your practice. You misunderstood that post and replied with a post that just happened to sound just like you replying to the argument I was making. Pure coincidence. Then I replied to how your argument sounded with all that talk off having an open mind and expectations and all. You continued to reply only happening to sound like you were talking about what I was. This continues until I lose it and start swearing and yelling as evidenced here -

Clearly what happend was that I began an argument about what assumptions can and cannot be made within the process of science. You misunderstood that and replied with a post that just happened to sound just like you were replying to the argument I was making. Pure coincidence. Then I replied to how your argument sounded with all that talk of scientific processes and what an assumption is in the context of science. You continued to reply only happening to sound like you were talking about what I was. ....

Look, I can do it to. This is the entire point. You and I were making arguments under entirely different viewpoints, and thus we assumed that the other was using ours. Up until I basically said, "That's what you meant? Well, that doesn't really have anything to do with what I was talking about. This is what I meant."

It's not will. That's where your argument is flawed. It's "I know that it's possible that things will happen differently but given that it never has I will not bother with that possiblity until it becomes necessary to address, which, of course, may be never."

and by "not bother with that possibility" you mean "i'm going to continue using induction as if it were justified until such time as it is demonstrated to not be". which is fine, but doesn't actually address the issue.

Apparently, you're as illogical as I am, of course, because you clearly expect to hit the keys and get the letter on the screen that corresponds with the key. You expect to post the reply and for it to appear to me in the same way it appears to you. You expect for this post to have been written by me rather than by space aliens. All of these could possibly occur differently, but your experience tells you otherwise. To suggest that accounting for experience is illogical is to suggest that any discussion is pointless because these words don't necessarily have the same meaning they did when I wrote them, reading the word "it" might cause your eyeballs to explode (and I clearly don't want that) and the words "to suggest" equal a death threat on the president of the US and I'm going to jail. If experience tells us nothing logical, rationally or reasonably then unplug your computer and stick a fork in the light socket. It would be illogical for you to think you'd be electrocuted, wouldn't it?

it sounds like you are grasping the depth of the problem. everything we know and believe screams out that there must be something wrong here, that induction must work, it must be a way to obtain knowledge. we literally wouldn't know how to operate if it didn't.

so come on then, justify it. prove it.

False. It does no such thing. Repetition does not make your statement a truism no matter how many times you try to make it so.

come on now, this is silly. on what sort of reading does the phrase "gravity works the same everywhere" not make a truth claim? why would it be said if it wasn't asserting that it is the speaker's belief that it is true? what would it mean?

No, it treats it as if it's true because we have no evidence otherwise. The fact that we continue to conduct testing. The fact that we are constantly exploring proves that we don't hold it to be factually true, but only treat it as true until we have reason to do otherwise.

provisionally accepting some proposition x (like "gravity works the same everywhere") as true due to lack of evidence otherwise is the same as accepting the claim that x is true. it certainly isn't claiming that x is false. nor is it claiming that x is indeterminate, if we want to allow that as a possible truth value for a proposition.

the fact that you are willing to change your mind about the truth value of x if given an appropriate reason does not mean that you are not asserting that x is true. any modifers like "based on the available evidence" or "as a first guess" are expressing how strongly you believe in the truth value you have assigned x, and probably how easily you could be swayed to revise that assignment. but you still have assigned a truth value to the proposition.

if you don't want to claim that x is true, what you would say is "i do not believe that x is true" or "i don't know if x is true". which is totally different.

and by "not bother with that possibility" you mean "i'm going to continue using induction as if it were justified until such time as it is demonstrated to not be". which is fine, but doesn't actually address the issue.



it sounds like you are grasping the depth of the problem. everything we know and believe screams out that there must be something wrong here, that induction must work, it must be a way to obtain knowledge. we literally wouldn't know how to operate if it didn't.

so come on then, justify it. prove it.



come on now, this is silly. on what sort of reading does the phrase "gravity works the same everywhere" not make a truth claim? why would it be said if it wasn't asserting that it is the speaker's belief that it is true? what would it mean?



provisionally accepting some proposition x (like "gravity works the same everywhere") as true due to lack of evidence otherwise is the same as accepting the claim that x is true. it certainly isn't claiming that x is false. nor is it claiming that x is indeterminate, if we want to allow that as a possible truth value for a proposition.

the fact that you are willing to change your mind about the truth value of x if given an appropriate reason does not mean that you are not asserting that x is true. any modifers like "based on the available evidence" or "as a first guess" are expressing how strongly you believe in the truth value you have assigned x, and probably how easily you could be swayed to revise that assignment. but you still have assigned a truth value to the proposition.

if you don't want to claim that x is true, what you would say is "i do not believe that x is true" or "i don't know if x is true". which is totally different.

The point is as long as I accept the possiblity of falsehood I am not being irrational. In fact not operating with the expectation that something that we seen come out one way 1000 times and never come out any other way would continue to come out that way is irrational and you admit that. We admit that it is possible for an alternative to come out but until we know what that alternative or whether there actually is an alternative there is no way for us to address it. Scientific statements hold the inherent understanding of the possiblity of falsification. It's actually a part of the method. It's a part of EVERYTHING in science. The fact that you ignore that it's there does not make it disappear.

*snip*

I accept that. I have no problem accepting that it was a series of unlikely coincidences that absolve you of responsibility. No matter how wrong your posts SOUNDED or much they go against our current understanding, that was not what you meant. No matter how unlikely, I will accept this because otherwise I'll obviously freak out and start yelling and swearing, and we can't have that. I'm glad we managed to avoid that happening again, seeing as I fly off the handle so easily.

I accept that. I have no problem accepting that it was a series of unlikely coincidences that absolve you of responsibility.

I never said it "absolves me of responsibility," and I wouldn't consider it a "coincidence." We both were misunderstanding the other person's posts based on our own view of what the discussion was about. Thus, we are both equally culpable in the problems that ensued. I have apologized for misunderstanding you, more than once, however, so I feel like my responsibility is taken care of.

The only difference is that I didn't assume you were lying. I took you at your word and tried to see things from your view of the conversation and realized that you were looking at it from three miles in one direction, and I was looking at it from three miles in the other.

No matter how wrong your posts SOUNDED

Your posts "SOUNDED" just as wrong to me as mine "SOUNDED" to you - because I thought you were arguing from my context - the scientific process, and you thought I was arguing from your context - that of personal beliefs.

The funny thing about it is that you have argued before that you cannot do it as part of the process, and you were doing so with Bruarong simultaneously with this thread. I have argued that you can have whatever personal beliefs you want, so long as they are not injected into the process numerous times, and was doing so with Bruarong simultaneously with this thread. And yet both of us thought the other was making an argument they had argued against numerous times. In fact, that is a big part of what made me realize that you weren't using terms the same way I was - it simply didn't mesh that you would be arguing the opposite of what you were arguing before.

or much they go against our current understanding,

*Your* current understand, you mean, unless you are using the royal "we". I don't see anyone else backing you up here.

No matter how unlikely,

It is much more unlikely that I would make an argument that I have argued against more times than I can count, don't you think?

It is also, whether you believe it or not, much more unlikely that I would lie to you.

I will accept this because otherwise I'll obviously freak out and start yelling and swearing, and we can't have that. I'm glad we managed to avoid that happening again, seeing as I fly off the handle so easily.

I never said you did. You inferred that from my post, but it was not meant. You *are* being incredibly childish in not even considering listening to what I am saying, but I never said you were going to start yelling and swearing.

it sounds like you are grasping the depth of the problem. everything we know and believe screams out that there must be something wrong here, that induction must work, it must be a way to obtain knowledge. we literally wouldn't know how to operate if it didn't.

so come on then, justify it. prove it.

How does one "prove" anything, at least outside of incredibly defined systems, such as mathematics?

I think you guys are talking around each other here. Jocabia assumes exactly the assumption you brought up before - that nature is ordered with set rules that govern its workings. And, since we are talking about science, he is perfectly correct in making that assumption - since it is a core assumption of science itself. The entire process is built upon that assumption.

And since any logical process or discussion is bounded by the assumptions made at the beginning, making this assumption does not suddenly make your process irrational or illogical.

IMO creation does not have a place in a history classroom unless it was used in context with other religions as well. How about showing people some stuff like the Babylonian's myths right after your creation 'documentary'.