We have to be careful there, too. Science doesn’t work through consensus. But I think I understand your point.

Faust: we know that a CPU is just transistors configured into logic gates switching on and off giving you your ones and zeros, but how would your average man on the street argue differently,

Ours is a peculiar society. We depend on a certain level of technological prowess, but most people are terribly ignorant of the tools they use on a daily basis. “I just turn the key and it goes” has become a cliche for expressing this kind of ignorant(*) dependence on a car; in the same way, many who use computers have no idea how they actually function, especially now that we live in an era where using Windows is as deep as most people ever need to go.

It’s a good thing that science isn’t determined by debate. General ignorance about science is so profound, however, that most people I talk to think that logical arguments are all there is to it, and expect that the winner of a debate has “proven” his case “scientifically”.

We need much better science education in this country, but I don’t have the first clue as to how to go about getting it.

(*) I don’t mean this as a personal insult to them. There are some people who are otherwise very intelligent who just don’t have any knowledge connected to the functionality of the machines and tools they use. Even those with a certain amount of knowledge may find out that their knowledge is terribly specialized.

Faust: now take this back 20 years, i could i could say just about anything (can thing of a fake way that sounds logical) but as long as it sounds logical, it will be believed, even by some that are intelligent,

Twenty years? Doubtful. I’ve been programming for longer than that. Computers back then worked according to the same general theories we use now (they’re still von Neumann machines). We even had integrated circuits, disk drives, optical drives, and monitors.

The point is, though, that whether or not a given explanation sounds logical or is believed by intelligent people has zero impact on whether or not that explanation is scientific. For that matter, so does the correctness of an explanation. Newtonian mechanics are scientific, even though they are certainly not correct.

ID is not scientific for reasons that have already been outlined (it’s not observable, repeatable, or falsifiable), but it also lacks something else that’s important in scientific theory: predictive power. A scientific explanation ought to give us the ability not only to understand what we see, but to predict what no one has yet seen. ID’s answer to complex biological structures is to stop at admitting ignorance — something with zero predictive power. Evolutionary biology’s answer is to try to determine how it happened, and to show what this understanding predicts. If the predictions are false, then a new theory is needed. If the predictions are true, then more predictions and experiments are needed.

Faust: i need to just carry on trying to find the truth is all,

A little secret: being comfortable with science requires being comfortable with uncertainty.

Mmmm, a higher degree than mine, still i was not boasting my intelligence, just stating that i am well versed on the subject.

MattFunke:”If I had no way to measure things or even test the logical implications of your explanation, then there’d be no point in accepting or denying your explanation. The smart thing to do would be to be skeptical.”

Yes being skeptical can be healthy, but here is my point in all this (other that the fact that it is a fairly well known subject and no doubt as to how a cpu works, considering everyone agrees on it, there are no grey areas) but we know that a CPU is just transistors configured into logic gates switching on and off giving you your ones and zeros, but how would your average man on the street argue differently, a scary fact is i interview technicains who have had “years of experiance” and even diploma’s who have no clue (and not just the electronic’s of a computer), now take this back 20 years, i could i could say just about anything (can thing of a fake way that sounds logical) but as long as it sounds logical, it will be believed, even by some that are intelligent, why, because they would lack the resources to find out for them selves, just like i lack the resources to physically go into radiometric dating.

MattFunke:”Agreed. I trust you’ll also see that it’s far easier to prove something false than true.”

i agree 100%

anyway this has been a great discussion that i have enjoyed, and i need to just carry on trying to find the truth is all, you have been a great help though.

Good for you. My degree is in electrical engineering, digital electronics (BSEE). Bring it on.

Faust: now lets assume that this was a slightly obscure subject, then trust me i could tell you any thing, and unless you have studied the subject or have the equipment, there is no way you would know the truth,

If I had some way to measure the device in a pertinent fashion, I could deduce what the implications of your predictions are and, if I am clever in the way I deduce the implications and measure the device, determine if what you say is false.

If I had no way to measure things or even test the logical implications of your explanation, then there’d be no point in accepting or denying your explanation. The smart thing to do would be to be skeptical. This scenario is roughly equivalent to attempts to explain how the Sun shone before we had discovered thermonuclear chemistry. All the best science could do is explain what it wasn’t — it sure wasn’t a conventional chemical fire, for example. It had to be skeptical about explanations that were given until experimental data could be acquired that would absolutely eliminate certain explanations.

The degree to which I can determine whether what you tell me is true depends on the number and kinds of tests I can perform. I may never be absolutely certain, but I could gain increasing confidence in the explanation you give me.

Science works like this. We’re pretty sure that gravity exists, for example, since we’ve run all sorts of tests along many independent lines of inquiry and gravity still seems to be the best explanation of the phenomena we see. There’s plenty of debate about the details, but the idea of gravity itself has been so thoroughly tested that it will not be moved easily.

It’s the same way with evolution. It’s been tested so many times along so many independent lines of inquiry that the existence of evolution is not really doubted. There’s debate about the details, sure, but the basic concepts — e.g., natural selection, common descent — are well established and are not going to move easily.

Likewise the considerable age of the Earth. We’ve concentrated quite a bit on radiometric dating, but there are many other indications of the Earth’s age and history that all agree (not only with the date of formation, but with things that happened along the way). The idea that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old is thoroughly tested and well established, and it isn’t going to change quickly.

Faust: the thing is not did only i believe it, but everyone did, the parents, the teachers, everyone,

All you’ve shown is that they didn’t do their homework. We have the ability to determine how capacitors work, using more than one kind of instrument.

Science is not swayed by argument. As I’ve pointed out, there are many ideas that science has shown us are true that are powerfully counterintuitive and very difficult even to imagine (though the mathematical modeling is straightforward enough). It is swayed by experimental evidence. The days of thinking up some way for the Universe to work and then trying to prove that your pretty ideas are true went away with Aristotle. The only thing you can do is try to prove your pretty ideas false; otherwise, you only have varying degrees of certainty about your concepts of the way things work.

Faust: so at the end of the day it is not just about intelligence and logical thinking, it is about having the access to the right tools, and having a wealth of information that is at your fingertips that is also reliable and correct.

Agreed. I trust you’ll also see that it’s far easier to prove something false than true.

Something we’ve never seen before could controvert the idea of an old Earth or of evolution tomorrow. Something we’ve never seen before could controvert any scientific principle. Until then, all we have is what’s left after we’ve established what’s false.

Faust: but that is what i am trying to say, it could be two scientists, just stating a different opinion, there is no way to logically come to an answer (remember some of these creationists have as many science degrees as the next) so at the end of the day both make sense.

Um, perhaps, if both explanations fit the facts. What I’ve been trying to point out is that the “explanations” for why radiometric dating might be unreliable (for example) don’t fit the facts. In fact, there is no explanation that has yet come up that explains it other than old age (unless you bring in supernatural stuff, and science doesn’t deal with that; if you want to invoke the supernatural, you can make up anything you want).

Could something come up tomorrow that fits the facts and explains what we see nicely? Sure, it’s possible. But as more and more evidence comes in along different lines of inquiry that all agree with each other, it gets increasingly silly to insist that this is the case.

If he were really clever, he could come up with an experiment that would show which of those different models of CPU operation was more likely. (”If explanation A is true, I should see X when I do Y. If explanation B is true, I should see Z when I do Y.” Of course, if neither X nor Z is visible when Y is done, he will need to seek out a different explanation altogether.)”

This is something that i do know a lot about it is what i have studied and unfortunatly my career choice (IT and electronics), now lets assume that this was a slightly obscure subject, then trust me i could tell you any thing, and unless you have studied the subject or have the equipment, there is no way you would know the truth, an example is when i was very young 13 (i am currently 33, just to put into perspective) i did a project at school with a strobe lite, it used a capacitor, now at that time i had no idea what a capacitor was or how it worked, the one used was like i round tube about 4 cm long and 2 cm in Diameter, i had no clue how this worked, so i came up with how i thought it worked and it sounded logical, i explained to everyone that inside this tube was a motor that would spin, and with each cycle would make contact with the terminals and the strobe would pulse, at that point in time no one had computers (a calculator was a big step, and electronics were not as widly used as the are today) the thing is not did only i believe it, but everyone did, the parents, the teachers, everyone, i now know that a capacitor stores a charge of electrical current (sort of like a battery) and the discharges, and i could go very in depth on how and why, but the point is if i have to travel back in time (before the internet and readily available amounts of info) and tell both sides of that same story i would have a large amount of people believing what i say without question just logical thought, now sure i could cut the capacitor up and verify, but move that onto a CPU that even if i cut it up i would not be able to see how it works. so at the end of the day it is not just about intelligence and logical thinking, it is about having the access to the right tools, and having a wealth of information that is at your fingertips that is also reliable and correct.

Darth:”My gut feeling here, even if I couldn’t distinguish the usefulness of either of their explanations, would be to go for the computer scientist, as 1: he is is not trying to fit his explanation towards a preconceived notion, and 2: he is trained to know what he’s talking about. ”

but that is what i am trying to say, it could be two scientists, just stating a different opinion, there is no way to logically come to an answer (remember some of these creationists have as many science degrees as the next) so at the end of the day both make sense.

PS i agree with the virtual beer, these guys have been very patient and are explaining things very well.

Cheers.

But Faust, (adding to Matt Funke’s points about the different CPU states) as for your example of the 2 different explanations of how a CPU works: You give me 2 explanations of how a CPU works, one explanation is from a computer scientist, the other is from a geologist (who is trying to tie his explanation with biblical scripture). My gut feeling here, even if I couldn’t distinguish the usefulness of either of their explanations, would be to go for the computer scientist, as 1: he is is not trying to fit his explanation towards a preconceived notion, and 2: he is trained to know what he’s talking about.

Now, as to the age of the earth, we are giving you geologists and astrophysicists for an old Earth, while you are giving us a computer scientist (who is trying to fit his explanations to concur with a literal interpretation of biblical scripture) arguing for a young Earth. Do you see what I’m getting at here?

Anyway, back to my vodka – cheers everybody!

Well, to be fair, he would if he had a solid grasp of logic. He’d be able to look at explanation A and explanation B and determine that they each predict different things about the state of the CPU.

If he were really clever, he could come up with an experiment that would show which of those different models of CPU operation was more likely. (”If explanation A is true, I should see X when I do Y. If explanation B is true, I should see Z when I do Y.” Of course, if neither X nor Z is visible when Y is done, he will need to seek out a different explanation altogether.)

Of course, if he sees X, he will not be able to see the difference between that and all other operational explanations that would show X when Y is performed. Hence the need for more experimentation as new explanations pop up.

In the case of our geology discussion, we can say, for example, “If decay rates were substantially faster in the past, I should be able to see the results in the rest of the chemistry in the rock.” The fact that we do not see these results in the rest of the chemistry of the rock indicates that different decay rates is not responsible for the current state of the rock.

Does that prove, then, that the rock must be old? Well, no. But of all the things we’ve been able to think up so far, “old age” is the only one that still fits the facts of what we observe.

As I’ve mentioned before, you can continue to insist that something will be found someday that will account for our observations and still permit the rocks to be young. But until you can come up with an experiment to determine which model is correct, perform it, and inform us of the results, this is mere speculation.

anyway it is 8:00 PM here currently and i have a weekend ahead of me, have a great weekend and i am sure we will chat again soon.