Sources vs Science

nPeace · Oct 26, 2020

In doing some research, I came across this article. and to be honest, it instantly set me thinking about how men look at science. Do they really take into account its limitations?

Not focusing on the fact that absence of evidence, does not mean scientific evidence...
For example, saying that there is no evidence for a big boat with eight people being carried through the waters of a worldwide flood, is not scientific evidence. Nor is saying that, there is no evidence Jack Jack lived 3000 years ago, scientific evidence. Discovering that a Jack Jack lived 3000 years ago as was, claimed by a document, would be scientific evidence.

What I want to focus on is the limits of science to confirm, verify, or refute a source.
So back to the article The earthquake in the days of Uzziah
Is it necessarily the case that Josephus' story is wrong, or could it be right (not saying it is)?
In otter words, could there have been an earthquake, at the time Josephus said, and one after, at the time scientists calculated, so that two quakes occurred within a two year period? How would scientists know whether a quake occurred shortly before the one they calculated?
Or, should we assume the source would mention two, if they actually were, within a two year period? Could the source have referred to just one - the one personally witnessed, and not referred to the other?

Subduction Zone · Oct 26, 2020

nPeace said:
In doing some research, I came across this article. and to be honest, it instantly set me thinking about how men look at science. Do they really take into account its limitations?

Not focusing on the fact that absence of evidence, does not mean scientific evidence...
For example, saying that there is no evidence for a big boat with eight people being carried through the waters of a worldwide flood, is not scientific evidence. Nor is saying that, there is no evidence Jack Jack lived 3000 years ago, scientific evidence. Discovering that a Jack Jack lived 3000 years ago as was, claimed by a document, would be scientific evidence.

What I want to focus on is the limits of science to confirm, verify, or refute a source.
So back to the article The earthquake in the days of Uzziah
Is it necessarily the case that Josephus' story is wrong, or could it be right (not saying it is)?
In otter words, could there have been an earthquake, at the time Josephus said, and one after, at the time scientists calculated, so that two quakes occurred within a two year period? How would scientists know whether a quake occurred shortly before the one they calculated?
Or, should we assume the source would mention two, if they actually were, within a two year period? Could the source have referred to just one - the one personally witnessed, and not referred to the other?

Which Josephus story are you talking about?

Now if you want to know how they dated the earthquake in the Wiki article you should track down the scientific journals that they based the claims on.

As to the supposed prophecy in the Bible, vague prophecies about earthquakes in a geologically active area are not of much value. It is not much of a prediction that it will rain within a month where I live, nor is it much of a prediction that there will be an earthquake at some time in the Middle East. Both are pretty much a given.

Valjean · Oct 26, 2020

A document claiming something is poor evidence. Lots of documents claim lots of things.

Something to take into consideration: Does the author have skin in the game? Does the claim benefit him or support a personal opinion, or is it just a casual observation from a disinterested party?
Is there corroborating evidence?

sun rise · Oct 26, 2020

nPeace said:
how men look at science. Do they really take into account its limitations?

Yes. The ultimate question of meaning is not a scientific question.

But when it comes to proof on a physical level, there is no limit to science although for archeology there are questions where the evidence has apparently vanished.

nPeace · Oct 26, 2020

Valjean said:
A document claiming something is poor evidence. Lots of documents claim lots of things.

Something to take into consideration: Does the author have skin in the game? Does the claim benefit him or support a personal opinion, or is it just a casual observation from a disinterested party?
Is there corroborating evidence?

Yes, I agree there is a need to question. I understand that.
However, that doesn't solve the problem, since we can point to examples, to show that the source has been right, and confirmed.

The questions may continue to be asked, even if there is reason to trust the source.
Those questions aside though, how would science investigate the claim, if they have no way of doing so. (Refer to the example in the OP)?

nPeace · Oct 26, 2020

sun rise said:
Yes. The ultimate question of meaning is not a scientific question.

But when it comes to proof on a physical level, there is no limit to science although for archeology there are questions where the evidence has apparently vanished.

I would not agree that's entirely true... unless you have something else in mind when you say physical.
For example, DNA is physical, but not all conclusions reached or interpretations made can be considered proof, nor without limits.
Some things are quite complex, and surpasses man's limited understanding... and that's just one physical thing.

Subduction Zone · Oct 26, 2020

nPeace said:
I would not agree that's entirely true... unless you have something else in mind when you say physical.
For example, DNA is physical, but not all conclusions reached or interpretations made can be considered proof, nor without limits.
Some things are quite complex, and surpasses man's limited understanding... and that's just one physical thing.

One needs to remember that there is no "proof" in science. There is only evidence. And right now there is only scientific evidence for evolution. Creationists for some odd reason appear to be afraid of the concept of evidence.

ChristineM · Oct 27, 2020

nPeace said:
For example, saying that there is no evidence for a big boat with eight people being carried through the waters of a worldwide flood

But there is evidence that no world flood occurred. No big boat is a deduction based on the evidence.

nPeace said:
there is no evidence Jack Jack lived 3000 years ago,

Who? There is plenty of evidence that lots of people lived 3000 years ago.

nPeace said:
How would scientists know whether a quake occurred shortly before the one they calculated?

By checking fracture lines and destruction.

nPeace said:
should we assume the source would mention two,

No, we should first ascertain the location of a quake and check how far away from the author they were. Do you feel every quake that occurs on earth? Why do you expect people in history to do what you can't?

Brian2 · Oct 27, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
One needs to remember that there is no "proof" in science. There is only evidence. And right now there is only scientific evidence for evolution. Creationists for some odd reason appear to be afraid of the concept of evidence.

You seem to be confusing evolution with creation, unless of course you mean young earth creationists,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,who of course have their own set of data and evidence for what they believe, which they say makes an old earth impossible.

Subduction Zone · Oct 27, 2020

Brian2 said:
You seem to be confusing evolution with creation, unless of course you mean young earth creationists,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,who of course have their own set of data and evidence for what they believe, which they say makes an old earth impossible.

Nope, not confused at all. There is no scientific evidence for creation, either young Earth or old. Creationists do not seem to be able to understand the concept of evidence. It is too scary for them.

Valjean · Oct 27, 2020

nPeace said:
Yes, I agree there is a need to question. I understand that.
However, that doesn't solve the problem, since we can point to examples, to show that the source has been right, and confirmed.

What examples are we talking about?
Correct historical and geographical citations are to be expected. These are common knowledge and common to most ancient writings. "Correct" Prophesies are common, as well. People are wired to pattern-seek, and see patterns connections even when there are none. Christianity has no monopoly on this.

The questions may continue to be asked, even if there is reason to trust the source.

Don't all religious find reason to trust their particular holy books?

Those questions aside though, how would science investigate the claim, if they have no way of doing so. (Refer to the example in the OP)?

Archaeology, geology, dating, corroboration and consilience from unrelated sources and research methods.

Valjean · Oct 27, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
One needs to remember that there is no "proof" in science. There is only evidence. And right now there is only scientific evidence for evolution. Creationists for some odd reason appear to be afraid of the concept of evidence.

Oddly, though, they'll accept the bizarre and wildly anti-intuitive claims of other sciences, like physics, over the observable, demonstrable claims of biology.

Valjean · Oct 27, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
Nope, not confused at all. There is no scientific evidence for creation, either young Earth or old. Creationists do not seem to be able to understand the concept of evidence. It is too scary for them.

They're wedded to their doctrine of magic poofing, which they somehow find 'reasonable'. Unlike science, they reject new or contrary evidence.
Come to think of it, they reject pretty much all empirical evidence.

Brian2 · Oct 27, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
Nope, not confused at all. There is no scientific evidence for creation, either young Earth or old. Creationists do not seem to be able to understand the concept of evidence. It is too scary for them.

Is there scientific evidence for a naturalistic answer to how the universe got here?
How does evolution fit into this evidence?

Subduction Zone · Oct 27, 2020

Brian2 said:
Is there scientific evidence for a naturalistic answer to how the universe got here?

Yes.

Brian2 · Oct 27, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
Yes.

Does it include evolution?

Subduction Zone · Oct 27, 2020

Brian2 said:
Does it include evolution?

What? Your question indicates that you are rather confused. The beginning of the universe is a very different topic.

Perhaps we should go over the basics of science first. The basics are not.that.hard to understand.

By the way, evolution is both a fact and a theory. Just like gravity. Denying either is not very wise.

Valjean · Oct 27, 2020

Brian2 said:
Is there scientific evidence for a naturalistic answer to how the universe got here?

This is the cutting edge of Cosmology, evidence is accumulated and hypotheses are being presented, but no definitive answere have yet been nailed down.

How does evolution fit into this evidence?

Evolution is a whole different thing, like metallurgy or auto mechanics.
How do you imagine cosmogeny would be related to evolution?

Brian2 · Oct 27, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
What? Your question indicates that you are rather confused. The beginning of the universe is a very different topic.

Perhaps we should go over the basics of science first. The basics are not.that.hard to understand.

By the way, evolution is both a fact and a theory. Just like gravity. Denying either is not very wise.

Why the conflation of creationists with those who do not believe in evolution? I don't know the numbers but probably most creationists do believe in evolution.

Subduction Zone · Oct 27, 2020

Brian2 said:
Why the conflation of creationists with those who do not believe in evolution? I don't know the numbers but probably most creationists do believe in evolution.

Because that is the definition of "creationist".

This is an equivocation error on your part. Creationism arose as an opposition to the theory of evolution.

Sources vs Science

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

The world is on fire

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member