Evidence for a young Earth

[phank]

Not every test is absolutely dispositive, however. Consider the stone in the shape of a human. Is just having that sort of shape a good test? What does "good" mean here? If that's the test, it leaves plenty of room for false positives - thinking it's designed when it's not. But tests can be made more rigorous. Does it have any indication of being worked? Are there any other similar stones nearby? Is anything known about the history of the location where it was found? Does it closely resemble any known human handiwork from a known culture?

These questions, if answered positively, can pretty well establish that someone shaped that stone. If all these tests are negative, the probability of natural variation in stone shapes increases. Archaelogists are highly skilled at telling purposely shaped stones from purposelessly shaped stones. But to apply these tests competently requires a great deal of background related information. Even the simple "kind of shaped like a human, yes/no" test smuggles in knowedge (1) of what humans are shaped like, and (2) that humans have historically made human shapes out of things.

So the design doesn't lie in the object, the design lies in the background information, in our knowledge of that background.

"Mere observation" of ghosts doesn't come close to establishing whether ghosts exists. It is evidence of the alleged observation of ghosts. It doesn't tell us whether the person making the claim is kidding, or misinterpreting what he saw, or on some kind of drugs, etc. Now, such allegations might get someone pointed in interesting research directions. But a claim of seeing a ghost cannot be falsified,

[KBertsche]

First of all let me assure you that I am aware that some people, a lot of people make claims about Falsifiability. But there is not universal agreement. There are people, lots of people, who do not accept the notion. So it is a philosophically contentious issue.

True enough. There is probably no truly universal agreement on any topic. But that doesn't mean that there is no right and wrong answer as to whether or not falsifiability is a necessary element of modern science.

Testability has nothing to do with Falsifiability. They are separate.

"Testability", as Wikipedia says, "involves two components: (1) the logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means that counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible, and (2) the practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such counterexamples if they do exist." And "Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment" (i.e. a "test"). The concepts of testability and falsifiability cannot be divorced from one another in modern science.

Falsification is about conducting a mind-game to see whether something is conceptually possible (finding ‘False’) It does not involve testing. It is not a component of testing.

And what sort of "mind-game" do you think is conducted when considering falsifiability? One considers whether or not a test could be done which would prove the theory false if it truly were so. Testability and falsifiability are intimately related in modern science.

You kindly claim that I am in opposition to the scientific methods that are the universal standard. That’s impossible since the standard is to NOT use Falsifiability. People who flog Falsification as mandatory are out of whack with current worldwide standards.

I see. So the US National Academy of Sciences is out of whack with current worldwide scientific standards? As is Scientific American? As is the National Center for Science Education? As are Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute? As is Conservapedia?

[pancreasman]

True enough. There is probably no truly universal agreement on any topic. But that doesn't mean that there is no right and wrong answer as to whether or not falsifiability is a necessary element of modern science.


"Testability", as Wikipedia says, "involves two components: (1) the logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means that counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible, and (2) the practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such counterexamples if they do exist." And "Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment" (i.e. a "test"). The concepts of testability and falsifiability cannot be divorced from one another in modern science.


And what sort of "mind-game" do you think is conducted when considering falsifiability? One considers whether or not a test could be done which would prove the theory false if it truly were so. Testability and falsifiability are intimately related in modern science.


I see. So the US National Academy of Sciences is out of whack with current worldwide scientific standards? As is Scientific American? As is the National Center for Science Education? As are Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute? As is Conservapedia?

You and your reasonable facts! All I can say is good luck.

[magellan004]

True enough. There is probably no truly universal agreement on any topic. But that doesn't mean that there is no right and wrong answer as to whether or not falsifiability is a necessary element of modern science.

If Falsifiability were necessary then it would be used, and that would be easily determined by a quick Google of studies. You won't find it used in all cases. If you do - please let me know.
There is another possibility - that all modern science is flawed because a vital ingredient is invariably omitted.

* *
"Testability", as Wikipedia says, "involves two components: (1) the logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means that counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible, and (2) the practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such counterexamples if they do exist." And "Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment" (i.e. a "test"). The concepts of testability and falsifiability cannot be divorced from one another in modern science.

No. Testability and Falsifiabilty are worlds apart. One deals in confirmation and disconfirmation (through counter examples). One deals with True/False.
If you divorce Falsification from the concept of 'The possibility showing false through a report of a casual observation' and merely mean 'confirmed/not confirmed' then Falsification is redundant because testing should do that.

Think of an example:

Hypothesis 'A caused X to happen'.
There is no observational process that can rule out the truth of the hypothesis. Neither 'I saw A cause Y' nor 'I saw B cause X ' establish that the hypothesis is false.

The swans example:

Hypothesis 'All swans are white'.
There is no observational process that can rule out the truth of the hypothesis. 'I saw a Black swan ' cannot establish establish that the hypothesis is false.
(If ' I saw a black swan' could establish truth then there would be no need of tests. We could just use observations. Someone reporting a ghost could be taken as establishing that ghosts exist. The observation without a test establishes True/False.)
That is why we have tests - to put some meat into observations.

* *
And what sort of "mind-game" do you think is conducted when considering falsifiability? One considers whether or not a test could be done which would prove the theory false if it truly were so. Testability and falsifiability are intimately related in modern science.

Falsifiability is a mind-game because it involves 'I am going to conjure up some possible observation that I will accept without testing. 'If Joe Blow reports seeing Yeti Man then I will accept that at face value as being stringent enough to establish the True/False nature of an hypothesis.' Why would anyone bother testing? Just read the daily newspaper for The Truth.

* *
I see. So the US National Academy of Sciences is out of whack with current worldwide scientific standards? As is Scientific American? As is the National Center for Science Education? As are Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute? As is Conservapedia?

This is easily resolved.
Let's say we think Falsifiability is a necessary part of coming up with an hypothesis (but divorced from the testing phase). This would mean that all studies should include a discussion of falsifiability when the hypothesis is discussed. Sven Ove Hansson did research on exactly this question. He found that falsification was mentioned in a minority of studies.

But that aside, if falsification (showing an hypothesis is False) was possible then by now it would have been done. There have been millions of research studies, billions of observations. Probably millions of studies checking earlier studies. No one can find a single instance where (in a research article) an observation is claimed to have had the power to render an hypothesis, current or past, false .


Magellan

[KBertsche]

If Falsifiability were necessary then it would be used, and that would be easily determined by a quick Google of studies. You won't find it used in all cases. If you do - please let me know.
There is another possibility - that all modern science is flawed because a vital ingredient is invariably omitted.

Why do you require that falsifiability be addressed explicitly? In my experience, it is rarely addressed explicitly. But it is always implicit, suggested in mentions of experiments or testability.

Let's say we think Falsifiability is a necessary part of coming up with an hypothesis (but divorced from the testing phase). This would mean that all studies should include a discussion of falsifiability when the hypothesis is discussed. Sven Ove Hansson did research on exactly this question. He found that falsification was mentioned in a minority of studies.

I certainly hope that his research was more sophisticated than this! This would be quite superficial. As I said, the concept of "falsifiability" is generally implicit rather than explicit.

Further, Hansson is a philosopher, not a scientist. He is an outsider looking in, not an insider. Yes, this may give him some unique insights which can be helpful. But it also means that he does not think like a scientist, and may miss some crucial aspects.

As explained in the links I previously gave to Scientific American and Conservapedia, modern science is much more along the lines of Popper than of Hansson.

But that aside, if falsification (showing an hypothesis is False) was possible then by now it would have been done. There have been millions of research studies, billions of observations. Probably millions of studies checking earlier studies. No one can find a single instance where (in a research article) an observation is claimed to have had the power to render an hypothesis, current or past, false .

I don't know what you are trying to say here. There are many, many cases where new experiments or observations have rendered a hypothesis false. This is essential for science, in fact. Without it, we could have no scientific progress.

[Tiggy]

No one can find a single instance where (in a research article) an observation is claimed to have had the power to render an hypothesis, current or past, false .


Klownshooz

New estimates of tooth mark and percussion mark frequencies at the FLK Zinj site: the carnivore-hominid-carnivore hypothesis falsified
Domínguez-Rodrigoa, Barbaa,
Journal of Human Evolution: Volume 50, Issue 2, February 2006, Pages 170–194

Abstract: Traditional interpretations of hominid carcass acquisition strategies revolve around the debate over whether early hominids hunted or scavenged. A popular version of the scavenging scenario is the carnivore-hominid-carnivore hypothesis, which argues that hominids acquired animal resources primarily through passive opportunistic scavenging from felid-defleshed carcasses. Its main empirical support comes from the analysis of tooth mark frequency and distribution at the FLK Zinj site reported by Blumenschine (Blumenschine, 1995, J. Hum. Evol. 29, 21–51), in which it was shown that long bone mid-shafts exhibited a high frequency of tooth marks, only explainable if felids had preceded hominids in carcass defleshing. The present work shows that previous estimates of tooth marks on the FLK Zinj assemblage were artificially high, since natural biochemical marks were mistaken for tooth marks. Revised estimates are similar to those obtained in experiments in which hyenas intervene after humans in bone modification. Furthermore, analyses of percussion marks, notches, and breakage patterns provide data which are best interpreted as the results of hominid activity (hammerstone percussion and marrow extraction), based on experimentally-derived referential frameworks. These multiple lines of evidence support previous analyses of cut marks and their anatomical distribution; all indicate that hominids had early access to fleshed carcasses that were transported, processed, and accumulated at the FLK Zinj site.

Klownshoes, you're such a trolling idiot.

- T

[magellan004]

Klownshoes, you're such a trolling idiot.

Please stop screaming. I am delighted as you are to learn that a science experiment can establish truth.
I am as ecstatic as you are that the Fleischmann–Pons experiment was a true demonstration of cold fusion. That Piltdown Man is a true fossil.
Together we can call Popperanians out when they espouse ' The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth. ' Sir Karl Popper

You and I know that Popper was a trolling idiot.

We can work as a team on this.

Magellan

[Tiggy]

I was a trolling idiot.

We can work as a team on this.

Klownshooz

Sure thing Klownshooz. You keep being the trolling idiot, I'll keep pointing it out.

Works for me.

- T

[magellan004]

Sure thing Klownshooz. You keep being the trolling idiot, I'll keep pointing it out.

Works for me.

I'll meet you out in the back lane. Just the way you like it - no rules , no sanity, bareknucle insults flung in hysteria.

Magellan

[Tiggy]

I'll meet you out in the back lane.

Klownshooz

Sorry Klownshooz but I'm not into guys. More power to you if it's your thing.

- T

[rogue06]

I hereby formerly apologize for bringing up the whole falsifiable mess with m004

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX--rogue06

[Cerebrum123]

I hereby formally apologize for bringing up the whole falsifiable mess with m004

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX--rogue06

fify

[Jorge]

Please stop screaming. I am delighted as you are to learn that a science experiment can establish truth.
I am as ecstatic as you are that the Fleischmann–Pons experiment was a true demonstration of cold fusion. That Piltdown Man is a true fossil.
Together we can call Popperanians out when they espouse ' The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth. ' Sir Karl Popper

You and I know that Popper was a trolling idiot.

We can work as a team on this.

Magellan

*****************************************************************************

Mags, here's what you wrote :

You and I know that Popper was a trolling idiot.

We can work as a team on this.

Magellan

Note the highlighted words from above.

And here's what Tiggy posted :

I was a trolling idiot.

We can work as a team on this.

Klownshooz

- T

*************************************************************************

And yet NOT ONCE has Tiggy been banned from TWeb (at least not that I'm aware of).
One reason is that, as a crooked lawyer, he keeps himself just inside the bounds of "legal".

Anyway, Tiggy is famous for doing that - selectively taking words out of quotes. He has done
the same to me numerous times in the past. Maybe this time the MODS will take some action
but I doubt it. BTW, I'm on "probation" right now .... everything I write gets 'screened' by the
MODS ... but, of course, Tiggy et al. get away with murder. Par for the course.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I'll meet you out in the back lane. Just the way you like it -
no rules , no sanity, bareknucle insults flung in hysteria.

Magellan

****************************************************************

Mags,

I 'kick this dog' every chance that I find it .............

The above post was what you wrote ... the following was what Tiggy replied :

'll meet you out in the back lane.
Klownshooz

Sorry Klownshooz but I'm not into guys. More power to you if it's your thing. -T

And STILL Tiggy does not get banned from this place.

Tiggy does that a LOT -- I've already re-posted 2-3 times where he did it to you - he has done
it to me at least that many times but I'm pretty sure it's been more than that.

In this case, it's as if you wrote "Yes, I like that" [referring to lemon ice cream] and Tiggy uses
the "Yes, I like that" (OUT OF CONTEXT!!) to insinuate you like men (isn't that what he did here?).
Your "I'll meet you in the back lane" was purely innocent and Tiggy turned it into a sick insinuation.
Maybe Tiggy is letting the world know of his inner tendencies (?). He he

Anyway, why do the MODS here let him get away with this stuff (note that no warning was issued,
no removal of the post, no anything) yet I've been banned for 'spitting on the sidewalk' (in a
manner of speaking). Yup, sounds "very fair and impartial" to me. NOT !!!

Jorge

[Bob Enyart]

Thanks for linking to our catalog of peer-reviewed confirmation of dinosaur soft tissue Jorge! I'd like to challenge Tiggy on what he claims is the "simple and correct explanation" of all this:

The simple and correct explanation is that we've discovered a previously unknown natural mechanism that under certain extremely rare conditions can preserve traces of the original organic matter for tens of millions of years.

Tiggy, I learned a lot reading many of those peer-reviewed papers. For example, I was able to rebut atheist AronRa (in our current debate), and your claim here, by quoting the 2011 PLoS One paper confirming original biological tissue from a small bone from a Cretaceous "era" mosasaur. This team showed that "the preservation of primary soft tissues and biomolecules is not limited to large-sized bones buried in fluvial sandstone environments, but also occurs in relatively small-sized skeletal elements deposited in marine sediments."

Tiggy, everybody who wants in on the dino-soft-tissue rush merely goes out, gets a dino bone, and looks for the tissue. That's how Harvard has now sequenced protein from a Hadrosaur. And that's how they found soft tissue in the famous "Sue" T. rex at Chicago's Field Museum. Last week I traveled to LA to get a tour from the director of a California State University electron microscope lab. He and a molecular biologist went to Montana three weeks earlier to get in the game. They dug up a Triceratops horn, sliced it to 9 microns, and photographed better osteocytes (bone cells) than even Schweitzer has photographed, and what's more, their cells are not floating in solution but still appear in situ. The evidence suggests the opposite of your claim. So, just like Scientific American reporting that, "The term 'junk DNA' repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding genetic material for many years" (see also my debate at http://KGOV.com/Eugenie-Scott), a century's worth of dinosaur biological material has been lost to history through additional decay because the millions-of-years bias repelled mainstream researchers from looking for biological material.

So Tiggy, will you retract your "correct explanation" that "under certain extremely rare conditions" dino soft tissue has survived?

Thanks,

Bob Enyart
Real Science Friday (.com)