Bodester wrote:
> Just one question regarding what is considered true science. I saw this
> statement in a recent posting:
> "Bottom line - it ain't science without the numbers"
Numbers by themselves are not science. What matters is how they are used and
the conclusions drawn from them. Mathematics is more important in some sciences
than others.
> What exactly is science defined as? As I understand the scientific method,
> in order to establish something indisputably, it must be replicable. Where
> does this leave much of the investigation into the distant past with issues
> such as evolution/creation?
Science is a very difficult thing to define. It is hard to get a definition
that pleases everybody because of the diversity of things we call science.
Trying to avoid amusing but unhelpful definitions like "science is what I do", I
have erected the following taxonomy.
There are several major complementary ways of knowing: aesthetic, theological,
philosophical, and scientific, for example. Within science I see five major
families: theoretical (mathematics), experimental (physics, chemistry),
observational (ecology, astronomy), historical (geology, archaeology), and human
(sociology, anthropology). These families are not exclusive, there are
overlaps, such as theoretical physics (theoretical and experimental), radar
astronomy (observational and experimental), and history (human and historical).
Much of the "scientific method" of each family is specific to it, but there are
some common themes. These include the fundamental assumptions that the universe
is both real and intelligible, recognition that speculation must be constrained
by observation (or mathematical proof) a commitment to reasoned investigation,
communication of results, methods, and interpretation to the scientific
community, and the verifiability of results.
Within my field of historical science, these principles work out as follows.
To do geology we must assume that the past is real and can be understood through
its material relics. Rocks are not ink blots into which we can read what we
will, but have particular characteristics which constrain our interpretation.
Our work must be rational and communicated to the geological community, and must
be in principle by verifiable by others. If we have done our work well other
geologists must be able to make the same observations and draw the same
conclusions.
> Don't get me wrong, I am not against examining the evidence we have now, but
> I sometimes wonder 'just how much can we actually establish?' I hear people
> assume evolution has been proven, and others saying it's been disproven: is
> either statement valid? CAN either be?
I believe there is a hierarchy of "proof" in the historical science. For
example, there are many Tertiary limestones in southern Australia. A great deal
of work was done on them in the 50's and 60's. Their stratigraphy and lithology
was described and their fossil content and chemistry documented. They were
generally interpreted as being deposited at shelf depths in a large embayment
with little terrigenous sediment supply. Overall the environment was thought
to have been warm and tropical the Bahamas or Persian Gulf. These were the
main modern limestone environments generally known at that time. More recently
(in the last 15 years) geologists have recongised that limestones are also
deposited in cool water, such as the modern southern Australian continental
margin. The Tertiary limestones of the region reflect the characteristics of
these cool-water carbonates much more closely than they do those of tropical
regions. Thus the proof that water temperatures of southern Australia were
tropical has been disproved, based as it was on an inadequate model. Other
aspects of the model - shelf depths, deposition in an embayment, low sediment
supply etc., were not effected by this interpretation.
The situation is much the same with organic evolution. The fundamental basic
observation of evolution - common descent with modification, is well established
by a range of independent data. There are several plausible mechanisms,
including Darwinian evolution. The degree to which each of the mechanisms is
responsible for the pattern is a matter for exploration and discussion. Some
aspects, such as Proterozoic evolution are inherently difficult to determine,
because of limited data. Satisfactory models for biochemical complexity are
another problem. Such questions provide the agenda for future research. For
example, more than 3000 papers have been published on biochemical evolution
since 1965, compared with only 1000 before.
>
>
> I'm just looking for your reactions.
>
Hope this helps
> Jason
God Bless
Jonathan