Freethought & Rationalism Archive

davidH · 10-27-2002, 07:26 AM

Sorry to burst a bubble here, but there is something that you should consider first, maybe in your excitement this was overlooked.

Quote:

William R. Ward (Southwest Research Institute) and Douglas P. Hamilton (University of Maryland)think they’ve finally cracked the secret of Saturn’s tilt.

They think i.e. They have no proof that this happened but suggest it as a possible theory.

Quote:

They believe Saturn’s precession probably started out quite fast, then gradually slowed;

Wait a second - where does believing come into science? Doesn't that belong in the releams of faith and imagination etc?

On the whole this is only another theory, with words such as "think" and "believe" - so is this a scientific article, is it fact?
If words such as "think" and "believe" are included then it cannot at the present time be taken as fact.

Oxymoron · 10-27-2002, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by davidH:
Sorry to burst a bubble here, but there is something that you should consider first, maybe in your excitement this was overlooked.

Wait a second - where does believing come into science? Doesn't that belong in the releams of faith and imagination etc?

On the whole this is only another theory, with words such as "think" and "believe" - so is this a scientific article, is it fact?
If words such as "think" and "believe" are included then it cannot at the present time be taken as fact.

These quotes are taken from a popular science journal, I would suspect that the published paper in a scientific journal is somewhat better phrased.

In as much as science can give answers to questions such as why an object a billion miles away behaves the way it does, there is only a currently "best" answer. No faith is required: It is a plausible mechanism, it fits the known facts (ie the position, orientations and other orbital elements of two planets)and seems eminently testable in both observational studies and computer simulations. Seems pretty good to me.

And that, folks, is how science works.

Shadowy Man · 10-27-2002, 08:37 AM

Oh no! Science hasn't solved everything yet... therefore it can't possibly be correct on anything!

Daggah · 10-27-2002, 08:51 AM

davidH, why are you ignoring the responses in your 'Darwin was a Christian' thread?

LaFlavor · 10-27-2002, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by davidH:
Wait a second - where does believing come into science? Doesn't that belong in the releams of faith and imagination etc?

On the whole this is only another theory, with words such as "think" and "believe" - so is this a scientific article, is it fact?
If words such as "think" and "believe" are included then it cannot at the present time be taken as fact.

wait...this wasn't a parody meant to be taken as a joke?

Duvenoy · 10-27-2002, 06:35 PM

I have but a couple of questions for David' et al: What is the state of the church's, any sect, research on the question of Saturn's tilt? Or on much of anything of a scientific nature for that matter? What explanations have the rocket scientists at AiG put forth?

If the article might read a tad tentative in spots, it must be remembered that the study is not yet completed (I don't think that any ever are completed, really) and will continue. Thus far, it sounds pretty good to me. As new methods of observation are discovered, and they WILL be discovered, these statments will be collaborated or shown to be a 'nice try.'

Thats the way science works. If an hypothsis is put forward, it will be peer reviewed into death or a theory. If it becomes a theory, then it REALLY gets taken apart; added to, detracted from, and corrected. The ToE is a prime example.

We shall see.

doov

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: Duvenoy ]

Liquidrage · 10-27-2002, 07:18 PM

William R. Ward (Southwest Research Institute) and Douglas P. Hamilton (University of Maryland)think they�ve finally cracked the secret of Saturn�s tilt.

David replies:
They think i.e. They have no proof that this happened but suggest it as a possible theory.

David, could you elaborate on this problem you have with people thinking?

Albion · 10-27-2002, 07:45 PM

In science papers, authors often use "believe," "think," and "feel" interchangeably. There's mo point reading anything into the use of the word "believe."

Late_Cretaceous · 10-29-2002, 05:10 PM

Typical creationist response:

"the mathematics are flawed, and I can proove it. I just don't have the time to do so. SO there!"

Seriously, I have seen that approach used in the past.

RBH · 10-29-2002, 06:26 PM

L_C wrote

Quote:

Typical creationist response:

"the mathematics are flawed, and I can proove it. I just don't have the time to do so. SO there!"

Seriously, I have seen that approach used in the past.

I would write the full proof out, but there's not enough room on the margin of this web page.

RBH

10-27-2002, 06:35 PM	#16
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	I have but a couple of questions for David' et al: What is the state of the church's, any sect, research on the question of Saturn's tilt? Or on much of anything of a scientific nature for that matter? What explanations have the rocket scientists at AiG put forth? If the article might read a tad tentative in spots, it must be remembered that the study is not yet completed (I don't think that any ever are completed, really) and will continue. Thus far, it sounds pretty good to me. As new methods of observation are discovered, and they WILL be discovered, these statments will be collaborated or shown to be a 'nice try.' Thats the way science works. If an hypothsis is put forward, it will be peer reviewed into death or a theory. If it becomes a theory, then it REALLY gets taken apart; added to, detracted from, and corrected. The ToE is a prime example. We shall see. doov [ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: Duvenoy ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-27-2002, 08:37 AM	#13
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Oh no! Science hasn't solved everything yet... therefore it can't possibly be correct on anything!

10-27-2002, 08:51 AM	#14
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	davidH, why are you ignoring the responses in your 'Darwin was a Christian' thread?

10-27-2002, 07:18 PM	#17
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	William R. Ward (Southwest Research Institute) and Douglas P. Hamilton (University of Maryland)think they�ve finally cracked the secret of Saturn�s tilt. David replies: They think i.e. They have no proof that this happened but suggest it as a possible theory. David, could you elaborate on this problem you have with people thinking?

10-27-2002, 07:45 PM	#18
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	In science papers, authors often use "believe," "think," and "feel" interchangeably. There's mo point reading anything into the use of the word "believe."

10-29-2002, 05:10 PM	#19
Late_Cretaceous Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Alberta Posts: 1,049	Typical creationist response: "the mathematics are flawed, and I can proove it. I just don't have the time to do so. SO there!" Seriously, I have seen that approach used in the past.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.