Krugman: Views Differ on Age of Planet

[blubber]

A scientific theory is just a model we have. The model that explains the most phenomena will be the one favored by the majority of scientist. It also helps if the theory isn't excessively complex (like the gear-theory for explaining planet motions). And of course it must make predictions that can be tested. I.e. it must explain more than an alredy established theory. And last but not least it must be falsifiable.

Young-earth does not satisfy all these criteria. It certainly doesn't make new predictions. It is excessively complicated in order to explain all phenomena. It has to be constantly adapted to comply with new stuff we uncover. It implies that there is a creator / god. Since the existence of god can not be disproven, this part renders it inherently non-falsifiable - ergo not a scientific theory. There is just no purely rational reason to favor young-earth over big-bang, or creationism over evolution.

That said. I do agree with one thing: Science does have it's problems. Science today is very complex. And it will get more complex still. Today there are no more true universalist, people that have a comprehensive understanding of all branches of science. In todays scientific world you have to specialize to survive, to contribute on a meaningful level.
On the other hand popular science is getting more and more common. Scientist are under pressure to simplify their findings so laymen or even fellow scientist from a different branch can understand them on even a rudimentary level. Obviously these simplified versions are not complete and are not in and of themselves scientific.
All that means, that we have to rely more and more on the integrity of the scientific community (and on mechanisms like peer-reviewed publications). This of course introduces a certain level of trust or "believe" in this scientific system (even more so for complete laymen). This is unfortunate, but there really is no alternative. Of course this opens up science to all levels of skeptisism and even mistrust. But that is not a bad thing per se.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by blubber

A scientific theory is just a model we have. The model that explains the most phenomena will be the one favored by the majority of scientist. It also helps if the theory isn't excessively complex (like the gear-theory for explaining planet motions). And of course it must make predictions that can be tested. I.e. it must explain more than an alredy established theory. And last but not least it must be falsifiable.

Young-earth does not satisfy all these criteria. It certainly doesn't make new predictions. It is excessively complicated in order to explain all phenomena. It has to be constantly adapted to comply with new stuff we uncover. It implies that there is a creator / god. Since the existence of god can not be disproven, this part renders it inherently non-falsifiable - ergo not a scientific theory. There is just no purely rational reason to favor young-earth over big-bang, or creationism over evolution.

That said. I do agree with one thing: Science does have it's problems. Science today is very complex. And it will get more complex still. Today there are no more true universalist, people that have a comprehensive understanding of all branches of science. In todays scientific world you have to specialize to survive, to contribute on a meaningful level.
On the other hand popular science is getting more and more common. Scientist are under pressure to simplify their findings so laymen or even fellow scientist from a different branch can understand them on even a rudimentary level. Obviously these simplified versions are not complete and are not in and of themselves scientific.
All that means, that we have to rely more and more on the integrity of the scientific community (and on mechanisms like peer-reviewed publications). This of course introduces a certain level of trust or "believe" in this scientific system (even more so for complete laymen). This is unfortunate, but there really is no alternative. Of course this opens up science to all levels of skeptisism and even mistrust. But that is not a bad thing per se.

I don't know who you are, guy, but you get it...

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by blubber

A scientific theory is just a model we have. The model that explains the most phenomena will be the one favored by the majority of scientist. It also helps if the theory isn't excessively complex (like the gear-theory for explaining planet motions). And of course it must make predictions that can be tested. I.e. it must explain more than an alredy established theory. And last but not least it must be falsifiable.

Young-earth does not satisfy all these criteria. It certainly doesn't make new predictions. It is excessively complicated in order to explain all phenomena. It has to be constantly adapted to comply with new stuff we uncover. It implies that there is a creator / god. Since the existence of god can not be disproven, this part renders it inherently non-falsifiable - ergo not a scientific theory. There is just no purely rational reason to favor young-earth over big-bang, or creationism over evolution.

That said. I do agree with one thing: Science does have it's problems. Science today is very complex. And it will get more complex still. Today there are no more true universalist, people that have a comprehensive understanding of all branches of science. In todays scientific world you have to specialize to survive, to contribute on a meaningful level.
On the other hand popular science is getting more and more common. Scientist are under pressure to simplify their findings so laymen or even fellow scientist from a different branch can understand them on even a rudimentary level. Obviously these simplified versions are not complete and are not in and of themselves scientific.
All that means, that we have to rely more and more on the integrity of the scientific community (and on mechanisms like peer-reviewed publications). This of course introduces a certain level of trust or "believe" in this scientific system (even more so for complete laymen). This is unfortunate, but there really is no alternative. Of course this opens up science to all levels of skeptisism and even mistrust. But that is not a bad thing per se.

You don't have to trust or believe anything scientists tells you. In any well documented scientific study they lay out their methodology and analysis, and if you wanted to you could repeat their study. And often times that is what happens, scientists repeat experiments from other scientists before they become widely accepted.

And skepticism is not a bad thing, but irrational mistrust and even fear of the scientific community is a bad thing. And this last statement describes conservatives.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

And skepticism is not a bad thing, but irrational mistrust and even fear of the scientific community is a bad thing.

For my own part, I never claimed to mistrust the scientific community - I'm just pointing out that science is being treated the same way as religion... Most laypeople don't know enough about science to interpret the data for themselves, which is where faith comes into play... And putting your faith into a group of people who claim to have all the answers sounds a lot like a religion to me... It falls more on the heads of the ignorant masses than the scientists, but it certainly does open the door for the same type of corruption that you find in religion.

Which is why we have good, old-fashioned greed is motivating some -- not most -- but some people in the scientific community to stray from scientific rigor in favor of a quick buck (peak oil, tobacco, global warming, even intelligent design)... Which has an affect in the court of popular opinion, not to mention politics (coming full-circle.)

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

For my own part, I never claimed to mistrust the scientific community - I'm just pointing out that science is being treated the same way as religion... Most laypeople don't know enough about science to interpret the data for themselves, which is where faith comes into play... And putting your faith into a group of people who claim to have all the answers sounds a lot like a religion to me... It falls more on the heads of the ignorant masses than the scientists, but it certainly does open the door for the same type of corruption that you find in religion.

Which is why we have good, old-fashioned greed is motivating some -- not most -- but some people in the scientific community to stray from scientific rigor in favor of a quick buck (peak oil, tobacco, global warming, even intelligent design)... Which has an affect in the court of popular opinion, not to mention politics (coming full-circle.)

But I'm not putting my faith in them. I require them to present evidence for their claims. Whereas, religious folk ask for no such evidence for the claims in the bible. The only reason why they believe in it is because their mommy and daddy told them it is "the truth" since they were kids.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

But I'm not putting my faith in them. I require them to present evidence for their claims.

What do you do for a living - are you a scientist? Do you spend every waking moment poring over data from every scientific study on the planet? You must be an amazing individual to have such a vast and comprehensive understanding of science that you can scrutinize every single detail of scientific research for proof instead of having to take a scientist's word at face value like the rest of us...

Whereas, religious folk ask for no such evidence for the claims in the bible.

You seem to think that the only religion on the planet is Christianity and that all Christians are fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is to be taken literally... Here's a crazy little fact that you could have discovered through scientific rigor: the Jews, authors of the Old Testament, never intended their work to be taken literally... That's why I mentioned the Talmud, which is the ancient and ongoing debate among the Hebrews about how to translate the meaning of the Torah - it's not exactly the scientific method, but it certainly is a call for evidence.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

What do you do for a living - are you a scientist? Do you spend every waking moment poring over data from every scientific study on the planet? You must be an amazing individual to have such a vast and comprehensive understanding of science that you can scrutinize every single detail of scientific research for proof instead of having to take a scientist's word at face value like the rest of us...

I'm in the middle of getting my clinical doctorate. I won't be doing research when I get my degree, but in the process of getting my degree I have been involved in a fair amount of research.

Anyhow, the point I am making is that since these scientists have published their methodology and analytical techniques I can, if I desire to, test their findings. And when a scientist does publish his/her findings many people do end up retesting their hypothesis using the said methodology.

There is no such recourse with the bible. It makes a fair amount of extraordinary claims and provides not testable evidence to support any of it. So if I desired to test the claims in the bible I couldn't.

As the saying goes: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Originally Posted by Underdog

You seem to think that the only religion on the planet is Christianity and that all Christians are fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is to be taken literally... Here's a crazy little fact that yo could have discovered through scientific rigor: the Jews, authors of the Old Testament, don't believe that any of it literally happened.

Actually the Ultra-Orthodox Jews do believe in the literal translation of the old testament. Like any religion Jews have their fundamentalists. All religions have their extremes. The reason why I mentioned the bible is because Christianity is the most common religion here in America. Christianity, however, is no different than Judaism, Hinduism, or Islam.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Actually the Ultra-Orthodox Jews do believe in the literal translation of the old testament. Like any religion Jews have their fundamentalists. All religions have their extremes. The reason why I mentioned the bible is because Christianity is the most common religion here in America. Christianity is no different than Judaism, Hinduism, or Islam.

Most Jews think Ultra-Orthodox Jews are idiots - you're attributing the beliefs of a fundamentalist minority to the majority... Oversimplified generalizations don't have any place in science.

And you missed the edit in my last post about the Talmud... It's an ancient and ongoing debate among the Hebrews about how to translate the meaning of the Torah - it's not exactly scientific method, but it certainly is a call for evidence. Not every religion is created equally.