uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:31 pm
Averroes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pmuwot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:28 amWhich one are you claiming is the scientific method?
Both. They are different models of the scientific method and in both models experience and observation of the natural world is the deciding factor.
If "experience and observation of the natural world is the deciding factor", then
any experience and observation becomes 'science', and any 'method' is irrelevant.
Indeed, experimentation and observation of the natural world is a crucial factor in scientific investigation. You have to make a statement known as a hypothesis. That statement has to be backed and not contradicted by observation and experience of the natural world to then form part of the scientific knowledge. Suppose we have the hypothesis: the speed of light is 300 000 000m/s. We are going to take as observations the actual measurements of the speed of light. We are not going to admit as observation the measurement of the speed of a car on the highway. The latter would be irrelevant to our hypothesis. Proposition of science are often universal propositions. But singular statements too can be scientific. For example, when we are testing a hypothesis, often we make several individual observations and each observation is often called a scientific measurement/data.
uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:31 pm
Averroes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pmIn the inductive model the hypothesis is induced from experience and in the falsification model a hypothesis is first issued and then tested against experience for refutation or corroboration. And Darwinism fits in neither of these models because in the case of the inductive model there is no experience from which Darwinism can be induced...
You can look at rock strata yourself. In some layers you will find fossils of sponges. Above that are trilobites. Above that are dinosaurs. You can go and do that elsewhere on the planet and find the same pattern. You can infer that you would find the same pattern wherever you go; that is induction.
But the observation of fossilized remains in the earth strata does not prove that one species became another. These fossilized remains just proved that there once existed such types of species and not that one evolved into another. For you to be able to use induction to prove Darwinism you must at least observe some species becoming another, and then from these observations you might induce the claims of Darwinism, but it has never been observed that one species became another. So you cannot claim induction for Darwinism from fossilized remains. Let me give the famous example for how induction works. Suppose all swans that you have ever seen were white, and of no other color. From these observations you might induce the statement: All swans are white, In induction one generalizes over the observations made and not over observations not made.
uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:31 pm
Averroes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:46 pm...and in the falsification model Darwinism is not a testable/falsifiable hypothesis.
If you can find dinosaurs at the bottom and sponges at the top, job done.
It does not work like that. Popper’s falsification method is a bit more elaborate. In a nutshell, as far as I can remember, under Popper’s method, for a hypothesis to amount to be called scientific, it has to fulfill four conditions: being synthetic, consistent, testable and another one that I forgot. Popper said of Darwinism that it is tautological, i.e. it says: “the survivor survives.” (his own example). So Darwinism under Popper is not even a scientific theory. But in any case, even if it were synthetic and not tautological, you would still have to design experiments to show one species becoming another. And so far all experiments conducted with fruit flies and bacteria to prove Darwinism have failed, No species were ever observed to have become another. What happened in fact is that when conditions got too harsh, the species just died and did not evolved.
From these replies that you have given, I have a strong impression that you did not practice the scientific method much before because this is very basic knowledge in science. Anyway, I hope you understand these basic principles I have explained.
uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:31 pm
If you do not accept that creatures evolve into different species, you are committed to some alternative explanation for the diversity of flora and fauna; for instance that some supernatural being created them all from scratch, but from essentially the same components. It is conceivable, but there is no evidence to support such a claim.
What matters in science is the empirical observations that corroborates a scientific hypothesis. If someone were to produce empirical evidence of one species becoming another, then I will have no choice but to accept it. But of course someone has the right to believe that one species can become another but that belief is not scientific according to the widely accepted definition of the word scientific.
uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:31 pm
You also have to give some alternative explanation for the fossil record. Why are sponges at the bottom and dinosaurs at the top?
Respectfully, why must I give an explanation for the fossil record when you cannot give an explanation for how life originated? Why this double standards?
As I said already, as long as you cannot explain how life originated in your conceptual scientific framework, Darwinism will remain an incoherent theory, and hence not science according to your own definition of that term. I can go through that again if need be and explain it in more detail if you still have trouble understanding what was previously written on that.