Let’s lay this one to rest, shall we?
All science is observational – observations are what we call “data”.
All science is predictive, whether it concerns events that happened in the past, and are unlikely to occur again, or events that are reproducible.
The scientific method is simple: you construct a model that fits a current set of observations, and then use that model to predict new observations.
There IS a difference between correlational and experimental inference, and some of what the likes of Ken Ham call “historical science” is correlational rather than experimental inference. The difference is that in experimental methodology the experimenter manipulates a randomly allocated variable. That way, if the observations correlate with the manipulation, you know the observed phenomena were the result of the manipulation – you know that the observation did not cause the manipulation. Although that may be moot in QM, I don’t know.
But it has no bearing on Ham’s faux distinction. We can make models about the past that we can test by making predictions about what we will find e.g. Tiktaalik, as Bill Nye pointed out. The fact that Tiktaaliks are long dead is as irrelevant to the methodology as the fact that a murder victim is dead is irrelevant to forensic methodology. In fact there is a sense in which all observations are in the past by the time we’ve observed them.
And it is possible to make predictions about what observations we will make if the world is 13 billion years old, and if it is 6000 years old. And the predictions arising from the former model are confirmed by multiple independent observations, and those from the latter by zilch.
“All science is observational – observations are what we call “data”.
All science is predictive, whether it concerns events that happened in the past, and are unlikely to occur again, or events that are reproducible.”
That both statements are contradictory. If science is observational cannot predict anything about “events that happened in the past, and are unlikely to occur again” as that events are “observable”.
That concept of science is the same concept of science humans has in the antiquity and in medieval era. Galileo stated the modern era science adding experimentation as a requirement. Since then everybody (darwinists, YEC, OEC, IDers, and darwins doubters) agrees in what experiments shows. We only disagree in the extrapolations in space and time of that data.
That is the difference between the old and the new science.
No, they are not contradictory, Blas. That is my point, the point made by Nye, and the point massively missed by Ham.
What we predict in science are new observations. The Big Bang is an event we infer to have happened in the past and we will not observe it happening again. But our Big Bang model makes predictions as to what we will observe – for instance the microwave background radiation that Nye mentioned.
And when we observe what we predict would should observe if our model is good, that confirms the model.
Whether those observations are early tetrapods, microwave background radiation, millions of layers of summer-winter snow cycles, nested hierarchies, global iridium layers, whatever.
We start with the data we have, make a model that fits those data and predicts new data. Including observations of traces from past events.
That is the science model of the ancient greeks. What science predicts is that in the same initial conditions that we set in the lab we are going to obtain the same results. Everything more than that is adivination.
It’s quite easy to make predictive models of past events. For example we could say, if some rocklayer formed by progressive sedimentation over X years, we should expect to find Y amount of mineral/isotope etc. etc, because of process A.
We can then go and observationally test the prediction of the process A, by looking for the mineral/isotope Y and see if it corresponds to the predicted amount.
Ham’s bullshit “historical” vs “observational” science is just that, bullshit. All science is observational.
You are assuming process A was constant during all the process there was not adding or substracting mineral/isotope during the period.
So your “prediction” should start with an IF.
Er, no. Where on Earth did you get that silly idea?
No, we have mountains of evidence for the constancy of physical processes including radioactive decay. That’s no assumption. Many methods can detect if there was any addition or subtraction of relevant material, and some can produce a valid date even it there was addition or subtraction.
You neglected the third PRATT: that there’s no way to tell the original amount of daughter isotope. But that’s also false.
Did you by stocks of a company that builds a complete new line of airplanes from scratch with the data of a computer model? Or do you prefer the stocks of a company that makes first a test model based on his computer model and when they see that the model works as predicted starts the production?
Do you know any country that allows health treatments based on “scieentifics predictions” of theoretical models?
We know the radioactive process since 150 years. How many times we can safely extrapolate the constancy of that process?
But there is no point to discuss you are “science believer”.
Have a good day.
In arguments over methods for reconstructing evolutionary trees (phylogenies) some biologists have tried to make a fundamental methodological distinction between historical inferences and experimental inferences. In particular, Arnold Kluge, in two papers, has argued that statistical inference is inapplicable to historical processes that are unique and unrepeatable, unlike tossing coins.
Here is my response, from pages 144-145 of my 2004 book Inferring Phylogenies:
It’s the kind of reply any teacher of a course on statistics or probability would give.
(This of course deals with whether probabilistic modeling is appropriate for historical data. The broader issue of whether you can make predictions for new observations has been ably dealt with in this thread already.)
We also understand the physics of radioactive decay, Blas. From that understanding, and from direct experimentation, we know that decay rates are not easily affected by external conditions such as temperature. You can hit atoms pretty hard, subject them to high pressure, etc., but the nuclear processes take place at such high energies that these perturbations do not matter one whit. The decay rates are unaffected.
From this we infer that decay rates stayed fixed throughout Earth’s history.
What about String theory, Multiverse, Holographic universe, rainbow universe, Universe is a Simulation ? None of them is observational, so you agree they are not science?
What current set of observation does ET or any of those theories mentioned above fit?
Do you believe that the universe inflated at a speed higher than light the first seconds of the universe?
I am not sure I understand the connection between inflation at the Big Bang and the decay rates on Earth, Blas. Are we done discussing decay rates and you wish to discuss inflation? If so, do you find my argument about the decay rates persuasive? Do you agree with me or do you have counter arguments?
It does:
“if some rocklayer formed by progressive sedimentation over X years, we should expect to find Y amount of mineral/isotope etc. etc, because of process A.
We can then go and observationally test the prediction of the process A, by looking for the mineral/isotope Y and see if it corresponds to the predicted amount.”
You can then also go and correlate this prediction with predictions from other methods. If they agree, you would have to rationalize that method 2 was ALSO different in the past. And if you then correlate then with predictions from method 3, you would have to rationalize that method 3 was ALSO different in the past too. And you’d have to further rationalize that they were all different in the past in the exact same way so they all happen to end up giving the same approximate results in the present.
Sooner or later it should start to dawn on you that you’re engaing in unwarrented ad-hoc rationalizations to deny what simple observation tells you. When multiple independent dating methods agree.
This is how you get calibration curves like these, where seven independent C14 calibration methods all agree on the same general trend: http://i.imgur.com/uRW3TTB.gif
Why do the curves agree? How do you reasonably rationalize that seven indpendent methods from different areas on the globe, would all happen to diverge in the past by an amount that would just so happen to make them all agree on the same rates? If you can make yourself believe that, you shouldn’t be talking to other people about the rationality of their “beliefs”.
No, I´m not discussing neither decay rates nor Big Bang theory. I´m discussing epistemology and what science is an can do.
Various multiverse models predict certain patterns in the cosmic microwave background ratiation, among other things. Various string theories also predict behaviors of subatomic particles, but at much higher energies than current particle accelerators can achieve.
In the grand scheme of things, that is what we are doing. However, in the process we are discussing specific examples in order to see how the epistemology works.
One specific example you mentioned was nuclear decay rates. You stated that scientists make an unwarranted (in your view) assumption that the decay rates remained the same in Earth’s past. I explained why this is a reasonable assumption, given our state of knowledge about nuclear processes and the conditions on Earth.
Do you find my argument convincing? Do you have counter arguments? That’s what I’d like to know before I follow another rabbit trail of yours.
Irrelevant. Where did you get the silly idea that “What science predicts is that in the same initial conditions that we set in the lab we are going to obtain the same results.”
You are confusing observations with models. Big Bang is a model. We do not observe it.
But our observations support the Big Bang model, and do not support the Continuous Creation model. That’s why most people (including Creationists!) accept Big Bang.
String theory and multiverses etc are models. If they predict observations, and we make those observations then those models are supported. For instance we can be fairly sure that the observable universe is only a small part of the entire universe, even though we cannot observe the unobservable parts. Nonetheless, we can infer that it must be there, and even make a stab at how large it is.
Sorry, didn´t understood what you were not agreeing with me.
Do you think that science do not predict that in the same initial conditions that we set in the lab we are going to obtain the same results?
No, science cannot always predict that, because a) it is practically impossible to ensure the same initial conditions, and in nonlinear systems, very different outcomes can result from slight differences in initial conditions (chaos theory) and b) it turns out that the universe does not seem to be deterministic but probabilistic at a fundamental level, or at any rate, at the level at which we make our observations.
Sorry Lizie in the comment in the other post you said:
“I hold that all we ever have are models – including our observations – but that what we are literally “given” (“data”) at one level analysis, are models at a lower level, ”
So why you have a problem with “You are confusing observations with models”
No, your model needs that it have to be there, no matter it is or it is not. If new models make yours model incoherent you will change your model to make it coherent with the new ones. Reality doesn´t matter only a coherent set of models.
Based on experimental measurements of things much older than 150 years and the very successful theory of QM we know that decay rates have been constant for around 13 billion years. Decay rates are governed by some of the most basic aspects of the universe. Changes in decay rates would have far-reaching repercussions that we’ve looked for and have failed to find. Of course you don’t care, but there’s good overviews at The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2.
It doesn’t take belief to realize that science works.
No I don’t. You have to keep track of your levels of analysis.
At any one level there are models and there are data. You need to make sure you don’t get muddled about which are which.
If we get to the stage where string theory makes predictions, we may also get to the stage where “strings” are observations, just as “photons” or “electrons” are now.
We don’t directly observe photons or electrons. But because they are reliable models of what we do observe, we can regard measurements of them as data.
One day we may do the same for strings.
Why then scientist look for repetibility of their results?
Poor people that depends on your brains scans. In my lab I always test the conditions in which I make the test for my patients for repetibility.
Clearly you go to the oldest, least verifiable book you can find when designing aircraft. Duh! http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/leonardo.html
In some quantum cases science does not predict that in the same initial conditions that we set in the lab we are going to obtain the same results.
But that has nothing to do with your original claim that “What science predicts is that in the same initial conditions that we set in the lab we are going to obtain the same results. Everything more than that is adivination.” Science is far more than setting initial conditions in a lab and running an experiment. Assuming you meant “divination” since adivination isn’t a word, that’s an exceptionally silly claim. I challenge you to find any reputable source that agrees with your peculiar fantasy.
Because many results are repeatable and repeatability is support. So is consilience with other independent methods.
Quantum experiments can be and typically are repeated millions of times and produce the same pattern of different results. But the results of each individual experiment will differ from one to another.
Because many phenomena are highly reproducible. But some are chaotic, i.e. the outcome is highly dependent on initial conditions.
And many kinds of predictions are probabilistic.
But, as I said then, science can predict that given the initial conditions I will get the same outcome. Science can say that chaotics systems are impredictable because we cannot reproduce the same initial conditions, and can predict that stochastic process will give probabilistic results. Which are the problem with what I said?
Then you are saying that science cannot make predictions or that science can make more prediction that what I said?
The problem is that this is not how it works in quantum mechanics. You can set up identical initial conditions, preparing an electron with its spin pointing vertically. When you measure a horizontal component of the spin of this electron, you get spin +1/2 in 50 percent of the measurements and −1/2 in the other 50 percent. (See Stern-Gerlach experiment.) Identical initial conditions, different outcomes.
Then, if given the same initial conditions we are not sure we can expect the same outcome how science can make any prediction at all?
This only indicates that science cannot predict everything. It can, however, predict some things.
For example, in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, quantum mechanics makes the following prediction. If an electron is prepared in a state with its spin pointing upwards and then its spin is measured along an axis that makes angle
with the vertical, two outcomes are possible: the spin points along the new axis or against the new axis with the probabilities 
and 
, respectively. This prediction is born out by experiments.
olegt,
Sorry, the probabilities should be
and 
.
Try answering that yourself?
Exploring for petroleum is heavily dependent upon “historical science,” and is experimental as well. You don’t keep on performing the “experiments” (drilling expensive holes) that don’t produce. I would note that the relative dating that they use extensively happens to be explained by evolution, not by a Designer who could recreate extinct species, while evolution cannot.
It seems, though, that Ham and his ilk in fact do admit that things can be inferred from the past, which they then pretend to do. So the entire exercise appears to be a way of disparaging real science in order to make it as iffy as creationism is all on its own. It’s as if to say, “don’t expect too much from creationism, it’s a historical science, but you’re not going to get much from ‘secular science’” either.” Only we get everything, from oil to diamonds, from “secular science,” while creationism just leads people to wrong conclusions.
Glen Davidson
Blas,
Here is a computer model of a process that is entirely unpredictable at one level – and yet, it is entirely predictable at another. It is not a million miles removed from evolution.
On another thread I posted a link to a new study of protein evolution. It’s conclusion is that protein folds are stable, but the underlying coding sequences are not.
There are lots of phenomena that are predictable at one level but not another.
You can predict that most people having jobs will show up for work, but you cannot predict which ones will be sick or have a car accident or otherwise be detained.
A note to Blas:
I pick up a road map. On that map, I plot a route from New York to Chicago. Maybe the route takes odd paths, and is off the main highway. Maybe nobody has ever taken that particular route.
I can predict that if you follow that route, it will take you from New York to Chicago. I can predict that, even if nobody has ever tried that before.
Scientific prediction is far more general than just predicting what will happen on a repetition of a lab experiment. Scientific knowledge is more like a roadmap than it is like a set of inductively derived propositions.
I’m saying exactly what I said.
Science is far more than setting initial conditions in a lab and running an experiment. Assuming you meant “divination” since adivination isn’t a word, that’s an exceptionally silly claim. I challenge you to find any reputable source that agrees with your peculiar fantasy.
Well I do not know how qualify that statement, but what sound strange to me is that Lizzie claims that her models are highly predictive. Maybe her models are not scientific.
Her models are scientific and do predict things. But not all things are predictable. Some are. Some are not. It’s not binary (“science can predict everything” versus “science can’t predict anything”), reality is in-between.
Why are so many creationists unable to see gray, but only stick with black or white?
I never said science can predict everything or should have predict anything. I said science can only predict that given the same conditions in the lab we will get the same results.
Are you able to say that ToE is partially wrong and reality is in between ID and darwinism?
Yes, I do. The FDA and the EMA, to name 29, allow medicines to be approved based on surrogate endpoints. If the surrogate is unvalidated (and it may be at the time of approval – e.g. for Fabry), then the approval IS based on the predictions of theoretical models.
What specific part and how do you know it’s wrong? What do you want to replace that wrong part with?
That is not based on predictions from theoretical models, are based on practical parameters that shows that the theoretical model is worth to risk to not fullfill all the tests required for a normal approval.
Blas,
Woah. That’s some fast a loose language. Looks like your trying to set up a theory / practice dichotomy via the use of ‘theoretical” and “practical”, but
Practical: “relating to what is real rather than to what is possible or imagined” – unvalidated end points aren’t real.