Well, actually there are mutliple methods of dating from the shorter time periods of Earthly geology to cosmological periods. These methods are used to cross check. No dating relies on one method alone. Improving accuracy in dating methods and technology is an active field,. Radioisotope decay is only one method, yet it involves numerous elements that have different decay rates and other environmental properties. The idea that this is all "assmption" couldn't be farther from the truth. Why would you think that scientists don't care about dating???
It can't. That would not falsify the theory. It can be supported by evidence. ANY theory can be supported by evidence. Evidence is simply any statement which supports an argument. Evidence is essentially a predicate. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. The only null hypothesis test about a past unobserved event is to go back in time to see what actually happened. You, by claiming that the theory of evolution is falsifiable, are attempting to prove a negative by using an open set (as opposed to a closed set). This is also known (in logic) as an Argument of Ignorance Fallacy. If we were discussing a closed set, such as a bag of marbles, we can examine each and every marble in the bag and prove that there are no white marbles inside the bag. In that case, a negative CAN be proven. If a set is open, however, such as is the case with the theory of evolution, we are simply unable to examine each and every item in the set. Thus, in this case, is not possible to prove the negative. This is why it is not possible to prove any theory about a past unobserved event True or False. If it cannot be proven False, then it cannot be falsified. Thus, the theory is necessarily not falsifiable. It therefore also cannot be a theory of science, since science by definition is a set of falsifiable theories. Now, does evolution happen? Sure it does! We see it all the time. We can evolve species of various critters and plants into other species. Some of it even happens naturally. But, did evolution create "more intelligent" life from "more primitive" life?? We don't know, and we have no way of knowing unless we can invent a time machine... I don't cite my claims because I don't pull my claims from any website/link/book/person/etc... I form my own arguments. The source for my claim that the BBT is not falsifiable is logic itself, as I have described in more detail above.
Science absolutely does NOT accept "any statement" as evidence. There are no meaningful closed sets in the natural world. That's why the natural sciences have no positive form of proof. For example, Newton created and tested strong hypotheses concerning gravity and motion. He had no way of knowing about relativity. And, that kind of situation is still very likely to exist in modern physics, as there are two distinct models that do not mesh. I think this is a serious problem. You want to redefine scientific method. How are you going about selling that to the world of scientists?
All theories have to have a possibility of being falsified. By new discoveries and new facts. And no scientist would deny this. They may believe it to be unlikely but only the religious would deny possibility in regards to their religious beliefs.
To believe in the BB is to believe in a miracle . So grant us that miracle and we can explain the rest. I am ok with that. Science has limitation.
Frankly, I think that might reduce conflict substantially - God or nature beyond our current understanding provided an event of stupndous proportions and what followed from that is what we see. Perhaps a perfect and all powerful god could ensure that initial event made mankind inevitable. Science and religion will keep looking. Maybe we'll learn more.
And this is why you have no business discussing any topic relating to science. Your arguments always consist of “Nuh uh” without ever providing evidence or support for your position. You simply assert the entire scientific community is wrong, that all of modern physics is wrong, as well as biology. Nobody takes you seriously, nor should they.
Science does not do miracles....it deals with unknowns and strives to figure it out. Religion claims to have already figured it out with the God/Miracle stance. Science= I dont know, but maybe it was..... Religion= It was God doin' miracles.
Science doesn't use supporting evidence at all. Religion does. Science only uses conflicting evidence. That type of evidence is what falsifies theories. My point exactly. Adhering to logic is not a serious problem. Denying logic is the serious problem. Science is not a method.
No they don't. Some are simply unfalsifiable. The theory that God exists is unfalsifiable. The theory that monsters live underneath my bed is not falsifiable either. We are unable to see all of existence, let alone search everywhere at an instant. Not all cases of monsters underneath the bed can be checked. Like I said, negatives cannot be proven in open sets. It leads to an Argument of Ignorance Fallacy. This is basic logic. This is why theories about past unobserved events are not falsifiable, and why any such theories are NOT theories of science. Evidence is not a proof. Facts are not universal truths nor are they proofs. Facts are simply assumed predicate. Evidence is any statement that supports an argument. Proofs are extensions of foundational axioms. We are ALL religious, dude... Mankind is inherently religious.
That has to be a possibility. But it is beyond the sphere of science to know . That means there is no way for me to know the details of that miracle. If some creative force did the miracle that began the evolution of this universe that by determinism led to conscious intelligent beings. Not being able to know drove me into agnosticism. Others claim certainty and fall into 2 camps both insisting on knowing what cannot be known. And yet these people cannot see this most obvious fact of existence. This makes both camps victims of delusion. Stuck in that delusion like cement . This has astounded me for many years. Hard to believe this delusion can endure Perhaps our consciousness can know the truth at some point via science? But we are not there yet but the avenue the scientist donald hoffman is traveling down may offer hope. It involves perception and consciousness and is worthy of hearing this man out.
Scientific method (science) doesn't accept that a statement is an hypothsys unless it is falsifiable. Anything with a reference to god in it just isnt a theory or hypotesis. No scientist believes your claims about humans having to have been there. Please cite an authoratative group that does science based on the limitations and extensions that you want to add to scientific method. I'm curious where these ideas are coming from. And, if it is all just you, you really have to read something about what science is.
You're speaking a completely different language than English. Yes it is. A theory can be about anything, and can be inspired by anything. All theories begin as circular arguments (aka "arguments of faith"). It is the test of falsifiability, and ONLY that test, that separates a nonscientific theory from a scientific one. Have you asked all scientists? Attempted Force of a False Authority Fallacy. No "group" is science. They are coming from me. I form my own arguments. I have. I was even taught in school various things which you espouse here. But they simply aren't correct for the reasons that I have described.
I completely agree. And, there must continue to be serious scientific investigation of early cosmology and "before". I do wonder whether the cause/source of the big bang is an argument that needs to be debated if those taking a religious view were to accept that their god's involvement in creation and evolution ended with the production of a big bang so perfect that a populated Earth resulted from the subsequent natural progression.
You're describing something very different from scientific method as used throughout the world today. I'm asking for a cite of some group that uses or even just proposes a method that conforms to your ideas.
A few more thoughtful religious person should have no problem with that idea but many will not accept it. Imo their image of a supreme intelligence is much too anthropomorhic .And of course the dogmatic atheists cannot entertain such an idea For me it is possible that miracle was intelligence driven. The clock was created and left to do as designed . The miracle was a recipe that yielded conscious living beings and the universe . I cannot just dismiss the possibility as impossible. Not enough data . So being an agnostic is the only rational and reasonable position. But open to whatever the truth turns out to be. I prefer purpose but my preference does not destroy rationality and honesty of intellect.
The BBT is a theory about a past unobserved event. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. It is impossible to prove a negative in an open set.
Popper strongly agreed that scientific method must hold falsifiability as a fundamental requirement for all theories. English isn't like that. In common usage, one may call nearly any idea a theory.
Also, I would suggest that you differentiate your methodology from scientific method being used the world over. Scientific method has a definition. Simply stating changes in scientific method doesn't really communiate this new version of science that you support. After all, you want to desertify geology, astronomy, foundational pirinciples of modern biology, anthropology, particle physics, etc. as areas where scientific method applies. That is an astounding statement given that the entire world of science absolutely does not agree with you.
A theory is simply an explanatory argument. That is true whether we're talking about science or not. What you call a "hypothesis" is what I'm calling a theory. What you're calling a "theory" is what I'm calling a "theory of science". What I'm calling a null hypothesis is an answer to the question "how can this theory be falsified"? For example, the null hypothesis of the BBT is to go back in time to see what actually happened.
One does not need to go back in time to falsify the bbt. In fact a number of theories of cosmology have been falsified without going back in time. And, the current theory could be falsified as well. All you did was add a requirement that a human be there. Again, that is an assault on massive amounts of science as there are lots of places and times that humans can't be. Where do you draw the line concerning where humans must be in order to to do science? Must we ignore the evidence of the cosmic microwave background radiation since we weren't there? Must we turn off our particle colliders on the grounds that results are statistical and far beyond first person detection - another case of us not being there. Must we ignore ice cores, because we weren't there when the snow fell those centuries ago? Seriously, I see no possible justification for youer "human must be there" requirement of your gfm method. Also, this is a science section. Obscuring the definitions of science by muddling them with the definitions of popular usage makes things less clear, because it's hard to track when you are talking about science and when you are not. We have terms of art in EVERY discipline for the purpose of clarity and precision. Those of science are well defined and should be used as such when discussing science.
