(Now, your last two messages were quite trollish, but one could argue those were provoked.)

I’m currently observing my calculation of $100,000 being added to my bank balance. I’ll let you know how it turns out. Or maybe I won’t.

There’s a big difference between doing a single calculation, and seeing that a number of calculations independently arrive at the same result. However, I admit that I chose my words poorly, in that I implied that such an “observation” may be sufficient to establish a theory. It’s not. The fact that numerous calculations independently arrive at the same result is certainly of potential significance, and may give scientists more reason to regard a theory as likely, but the theory is not fully accepted until it makes predictions that can be experimentally and observationally verified. The calculations of string theory, for example, match up with known facts a number of ways, but is not (yet?) accepted as a fully established scientific theory because it has not yet produced any testable predictions by which it could be verified or disproved. Yet again, there is no accepted scientific theory that has not been backed up by observation. Period. And no, calculations do not count as “observation”, and it was my mistake in wording things in such a way as to imply that they do.

Yes, theories about past trends and events are subject to experimental verification. The theory of the Big Bang predicted, among other things, a certain level of cosmic background microwave radiation, which was later observed. The theory of evolution predicted, among many other things, certain levels of genetic similarity between organisms, which were also later observed. The theories aren’t accepted just due to “reason”, or due to calculations that work out, or because scientists think they sound nifty. They’re accepted because they make predictions that are verified by later experiments and observations. And if experiments and observations instead contradict the predictions, then the theory is modified or discarded.

Your main point seems to be that science should do without the Principle of Uniformity. The thing is, it can’t. That’s fundamental to the whole basis of the scientific method. The Principle of Uniformity is, essentially, the postulate that, unless there is reason to believe otherwise, the default assumption is that things work the same in every place and at every time. It is an unprovable assumption, but without that assumption, you can’t draw conclusions about anything. You can’t arrive at Newton’s law of gravity without the Principle of Uniformity–sure, you can see something fall, but the Principle of Uniformity is necessary to extrapolate it to a general rule that holds at all times and places. You can’t arrive at Maxwell’s laws of electrodynamics. You can’t arrive at the theory of relativity. You can’t arrive at any scientific laws whatsoever. Without the Principle of Uniformity, all you can say is that “I’ve seen X happen”. The Principle of Uniformity is necessary to extrapolate that to the conclusion that, for instance, if every time you do Y, X happens, then X is a consequence of Y. Or that if X works a given way every time you observe it, then it’s a reasonable conclusion that X always works that way. All scientific laws and theories require extrapolation. There’s no such thing as science without the Principle of Uniformity.

Now, you’re focusing on extrapolation into the past, specifically. But that’s in principle really no different from extrapolation into the future, or into different locations in the present. We routinely assume that the processes we see in one place work similarly in others, that the same molecular reactions and the same forces are at work in distant galaxies as we can measure from Earth. We routinely assume that the processes we observe today are likely to continue into the future, that gravity isn’t going to stop tomorrow, and electricity won’t suddenly cease working. Why is it any less permissible to assume that these processes were going on in the past?

But again, the fundamental point, the best reason to believe in the Principle of Uniformity and in the applications that have been made of it, is that it works. Scientists have made all sorts of predictions based on their theories, and (in the case of the theories that have become accepted) those predictions have been experimentally and observationally verified. So regardless of any philosophical objections one might formulate to the Principle of Uniformity, it’s got a darn good track record.

Again, I apologize for calling you a troll; that may have been unwarranted. However, I really don’t see a point in continuing this discussion further. It seems to me that your background in science isn’t deep enough for you to be able to make any meaningful points about it, and in any case I’m not the best person to discuss the matter with anyway. I’m not a working scientist; I’m only a grad student. An experienced scientist would probably be able to express matters much better than I can. So…while I do apologize for calling you a troll, let’s let matters rest here.

I take Graham as meaning exactly that if you open yourself to it, God _will_ imbue you with incontrovertible proof and reason to believe.

I have a (positive) number of friends who have had such experiences, and I respect that they _have_ been in personal conversation with God. That I can simultaneously respect their very real experiences of God, and believe in fairies and magic and modern paganism, and also be a devout science- and rationalist atheist is not so much agnosticism nor relativism as a form of pan-secretism; a seeming paradox does not tell us that something is wrong with our model, but that there are multiple levels of analysis, all accurate.

Graham may or may not be correct in his belief that God regularly reveals (him?)self to those who try to be open to such revelation. Although I know some people to whom God has provided such proof, I know many more who have not received any revelation even though they wanted it. So it would seem that Graham is factually wrong, based on common anecdotal evidence. But his claim is not unreasonable: his experience is almost certainly that those who avail themselves do receive (physical?) proof of the divinity of Jesus, etc. Given that evidence, there is no inconsistency in his advice and logic.

Oh yea, brilliant guy, the fact that a mathematical calculation can be observed has big possiblities.

I’m currently observing my calculation of $100,000 being added to my bank balance. I’ll let you know how it turns out. Or maybe I won’t.

Crashing the party is only so much fun.

I am the troll, and you are the brilliant guy.

So. Post whatever further nonsense you want; I’m done with you, and I won’t be posting in this thread again. If you would like to pretend that my silence in this thread hereafter consistutes your victory, you’re free to believe that. I have a lot of things to do, and better uses for my time than to reply to pointless posts of fuzzy-headed pseudo-philosophy.

Um, no, dead wrong. Hello? You’ll notice I referred repeatedly to “testing” predictions of theories? What exactly do you think that means? That’s observation, and yes, of course it’s a hard requirement. As I said in my very first reply to you: “Scientific theories are accepted only to the extent that they make testable predictions that are borne out by experiment and/or observation.” There is no accepted scientific theory that has not been backed up by observation. Period.

Reason is enough. What have I been saying?

Since you refuse to give specific examples, I have no idea. What the heck are you saying?

My simple claim is that extrapolation into the long past based on science is not science. Forty processes that extrapolate to the same point in the past still can’t be observed.

The fact that they all extrapolate to the same point in the past certainly can be observed. By your arguments, science can’t say anything at all about the past. But by the same arguments, scientists can’t say anything about the present that’s not right in front of them either. After all, they’re not observing it directly either, are they? Unless you real mean that the only thing that is “science” is what’s right in front of your face right at this moment, some extrapolation is necessary.

I like to call it uniformitarianism.

You can call it what you like, but the fact that in your previous post you were referring to this idea as if was something completely unfamiliar with scientists still shows your ignorance of the scientific method.

If it’s a postulate, then why are arguing with me.

Because you were saying scientists didn’t consciously realize it was a postulate. Of course they do. This is nothing new.

not knowing the past with absolute certainty hasn’t prevented scientists from making advances in the present and making accurate predictions into the future.

Then if they’ve had so much success with those methods in the past, why shouldn’t they continue them? What else would you suggest?

Seriously, I don’t even see what you’re arguing for here. Scientists realize they don’t know the past with an absolute certainty; they realize that the Principle of Uniformity can’t be proven, but it’s always worked out very well, and they’ve made lots of advances with it. If you think it’s “science for the past”, what exactly are you suggesting is science for the future?

This is what happens when the priests preach the purity of the message, but don’t actually practice it. The priests preach the cardinal laws of observability and repeatability…

…and follow those laws completely.

Again, there is no accepted scientific theory that has not been backed up by observation. Period.

Of course, this may include indirect observation of results, rather than direct observation of processes, but again if you’re limiting science to what can be directly observed right now you’re limiting science to what’s right in front of your face right now. That’s not a very useful definition.

Forget observation as a hard requirement, right? Reason is enough. What have I been saying?

Scientists are fully aware that they don’t constitute absolute proof, and that no such absolute proof is possible.

Yea, but try and put the hard requirement of observation on them, and you’ll get dissed up one side and down the other. What’s reasonable and based on science is close enough to be called science, right?

You’re arguing with a straw man.

No. You’ve done nothing but dismiss my complaint by pushing the idea that the only reasonable conclusion to come to is that we should call as science the extrapolation of some known, verifiable constant into the long past.

My simple claim is that extrapolation into the long past based on science is not science. Forty processes that extrapolate to the same point in the past still can’t be observed.

(Though the fact you’ve apparently never heard of the Principle of Uniformity,…

I like to call it uniformitarianism.

…which is considered one of the most fundamental scientific postulates, is making it kind of hard to take you seriously anyway.)

If it’s a postulate, then why are arguing with me. Just tell me to accept it for the long past. But then, that would be admitting it has to be accepted without being observed. I can accept it for the present, the future will make itself known, and it’s possible I would admit it’s reasonable for all time, but I prefer the purity of science.

Like the abilities to make conclusions about natural processes that are verified by prediction, to create technological development, and to come to a better understanding of how everything works? Yeah, I think those are things not worth giving up.

And you’re back to melding the past, the present, and the future, making them all equivalent. The past is about philosophy, and not knowing the past with absolute certainty hasn’t prevented scientists from making advances in the present and making accurate predictions into the future.

I’m not making any philosophical claims that require uniformitariansm, so I can reject it as science for the past, unlike many.

This is what happens when the priests preach the purity of the message, but don’t actually practice it. The priests preach the cardinal laws of observability and repeatability, and some people take it serious, and then the priests have to teach the simple folk that it’s more complicated.

“But, how, how?”

“It just is, son, it just is.”

You can test and observe processes which are still going on in the present.

Obviously any extrapolation of these processes to the past cannot be 100% proven. No scientist will claim that they can. However, unless a better explanation comes along, there’s no good reason not to regard such extrapolations as reasonable. Scientists are fully aware that they don’t constitute absolute proof, and that no such absolute proof is possible. You’re arguing with a straw man.

It helps, incidentally, that those extrapolations are consistent. If many different lines of evidence independently lead to the same conclusions about the past, that’s pretty good proof that they’re correct. Not 100%, absolutely undeniable proof, of course, but again, no scientist would claim that it is. We can’t prove that the entire universe didn’t, for instance, suddenly spring into existence three hundred years ago filled with fake signs of a nonexistent past, but there’s nothing useful to be gained by assuming it did. On the other hand, extrapolations of existing trends into the past have produced a number of useful and verifiable predictions. Does that mean we absolutely know for sure it’s not all just a fantastic coincidence, or a conspirancy by some omnipotent prankster? No, but so what? We can only work with what we’ve got, and it’s served us pretty darned well so far.

Unspoken: It’s a given that such and such has remained constant. So much so, that I need not even defend the point.

That’s far from “unspoken”. It’s called the “Principle of Uniformity”, and it’s spoken quite a bit. And defended. See above.

Why get specific?

That’s…such a bizarre question it’s hard to even know how to answer it. How can we possibly have a meaningful discussion without getting specific? Do you really expect to get anywhere by spouting vague generalities? If you don’t give examples of what you’re talking about, it’s impossible to take you seriously. (Though the fact you’ve apparently never heard of the Principle of Uniformity, which is considered one of the most fundamental scientific postulates, is making it kind of hard to take you seriously anyway.)

But people aren’t going to give up that kind of thinking. Too much is at stake.

Like the abilities to make conclusions about natural processes that are verified by prediction, to create technological development, and to come to a better understanding of how everything works? Yeah, I think those are things not worth giving up.

Back to your definition.

Scientific theories are accepted only to the extent that they make testable predictions that are borne out by experiment and/or observation.

Sounds good to me, and therein lies my complaint. How do you test and observe the past? All we know is the present.

If you think that’s not the case, you’ll have to be specific about what “appeal to reason” you think scientists are passing off as proof.

Scientist: “Such and such has always remained constant.” Unspoken: It’s a given that such and such has remained constant. So much so, that I need not even defend the point. “Because of said constant, we know this or that about the past.”

So it looks like you’re right. There’s never an appeal to reason, only an unspoken assumption of reason.

Any claim about the state of matter at some point in time in the past based on interpolation.

Such as?

That such and such constant has remained constant so we know this or that is a certain age.

Why get specific? Someone who’s an expert at the details can give more and better examples than I can. The details are just used to obscure the assumptions.

But people aren’t going to give up that kind of thinking. Too much is at stake.

Yes, that’s the scientific method. If you think that’s not the case, you’ll have to be specific about what “appeal to reason” you think scientists are passing off as proof.

Any claim about the state of matter at some point in time in the past based on interpolation.

Such as?