Can you make assumptions in science?

Post Reply New Topic

David you are a one trick pony. You came onto this site claiming loudly that you were going to metaphorically "chop off our legs" You then proceeded to sound like a second rate Ken Ham spouting nonsense about entropy. Once that argument was torn to shreds you slunk away and shut up for a while but here you are again talking about "self evident truths" and uncaused first causes, whilst lampooning the world of science and its luminaries. And you have the temerity to call me Silly and Arrogant On occasion I may be silly and most certainly I can be arrogant but unlike you I try my hardest not to be willfully foolish and also unlike you I will accept when I am wrong.

The simple fact is, and yes, it is a fact, we do not know how the universe or more likely universes came into being. This does not mean that a priori there must be an intelligent creator. For some reason you are unable to understand this concept, that is your own failing and one that non of us here can help you with, maybe with time you will come to understand but I doubt it.

It is recommended not to chain assumptions. e.g. assumptions based on assumptions. You need to establish some facts first. An assumption could be a hypothesis but it need falsifiability.

Speculation for speculations sake, is a bad basis for hypothesis. People can speculate then start the believing their own hype.

You have believe you could be wrong. This is difficult to do at the best of times.

Albert again:


"I think that only daring speculation can lead us further and not accumulation of facts."
Albert Einstein

Why doesn't David talk about his cattle business? That would be interesting.

The entropy argument is not torn to shreds. I just thought that the "no entropy argument" was such a fantastic bunch of wild speculation and impossible assumptions that it defeated itself and didn't deserve serious consideration.

I used to think ole 'Bert was quite clever even if he was wrong about a few things.

What "ideology" does he have?

Oldavid which "no entropy" argument would that be? No one presented such a case, all we did was show how wrong your assumptions were and by the sound of it, still are. But then of course any evidence which disagrees with your nonsensensical musings is not science, it is biased ideology

LOL.. so you get to be my judge.



I wasn't going to rise to your ad-hom baiting. But I decided you're probably not very self-aware. So maybe a little history of Oldavid is in order. Mind you, I haven't gone back very far... nor do I plan to.

Here is just a recent sample of only some of your subjective assumptions.
---------------------------------

And you presume to know us, individually, collectively, and by the ad-hom groups you assign us to.


This is a) a presumption about what I hate, and b) a presumption of my views on causality


An inference, not a fact, but nonetheless a strawman you use to dismiss me with. You're sounding Alinsky-like to me, but then, you're the one who informed my ignorance on the man.


Again, you assume. My comment had nothing to do with challenging ideology but the ad-hom rhetoric you use to belittle your target.


Evidence please? Again an assumption on your part. And again an inference meant to discredit/dismiss.


I do not dodge. I try not to assume too quickly. I don't always succeed, but unlike you, I try.


Which explains the following observation of yours.


Hence your "experience" has taught you to make subjective assumptions about people, right off the bat.


Binary logic. There are a lot of train stops between "never" and "always." Hence there are not just two possibilities. But your assumption of only two demonstrated a bias.


That ad-hom is more appropriately directed your way. Either we agree with your "science" or we deserve all the ad-homs you throw our way. I could throw so many "pot-kettles" your way.


More ad-homs. Very scientific of you. No assumptions there.


Like all the assumptions you throw around about everyone?


In other words, you summarily dismiss the "ambitious bods" with your assumptions.


Oh that's not an assumption, is it.


Your subjective assumption. You dismiss anything that doesn't fit with your view, hence your own ideological prejudice.


Reasonable investigation? You ad-hom and castigate anyone who disagrees with you and you call it "reasonable investigation?"

Supposedly AS sites? Again, you assume you know the character of everyone here. Once again you like to infer ad-homs rather than stick to the what's known. And again, your deeds are at odds with your ideology.



Oh.. so all of your ad-homs and assumptions are merely your ideological sales-pitch. Well why didn't you say so?


I see you pulled your head in regarding your assumptions, when a mod set you straight. And no one here has been held back from starting a thread.


Misleading logic with poor assumptions. But you're convinced.. just as I was, when I believed the same thing.


Wow! Such grand assumptions about me! At least in my journey I learned not to be so quick to assume I know people.

Here's a personal favourite:
---------------------------------------------------------

Pathological fear? No, that's not an assumption, is it.


You assume that I have refused to consider it. You don't even present it as a question. It betrays your assumption about us as having no thought process other than accepting what we're sold. Refused to consider? David, I not only considered it, I lived it for 30+ years, researched it, read all I could on it, believed in it with prejudice against the arrogance of science. I was YOU, David, thinking I was smarter than all those who were conned by what popular mob science sold to ignorant atheists and others. This particular assumption of yours is so far off target, yet you presented it without any question. Science "asks," David. It doesn't presume to know. Like I said, your deeds are at odds with your ideology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that helps. I've gone as far as I intend, hoping to get you to ask questions rather than preach and judge. The rest is up to you.

Well said Narrator, of course it will not get through his cognitive dissonance but at least others who do not know his character will get an idea from this.

While I don't understand a lot of this thread it is enjoyable, eggspecially the puns.

I think you have to observe something without assumption first, then base an assumption on the observation, then test it to see if you are right. But things are so unpredictable when you don't know anything about them, so you always have to keep questioning and testing and observing - it never ends.

I suspect an underlying theme in this thread is faith and the assumption of a creator. That by observing this "wonder of creation" we can assume that it was intelligently created. I would say that intelligence is the way of biological beings - the world has come to be this way because it's what works. What didn't work is gone. Nature has the intelligence, not God.

Yes, that is the core religious assumption- that intelligence is required to create order.

I kinda think we project our human intelligence as a way to bring order to something that is much grander. But the intelligence of nature is not created so much as simply existing. The intelligence is our interpretation and we tend to think in terms of creation.

Assumptions are the core of science. If there was no assumptions we would still live in caves unable to start a fire.

The "what if" question leads to "Sounds reasonable. Let's check if it works." conclusion. Current science is the effect of checking all the assumptions people made so far and figuring out the most accurate ones. And we still can't be sure we are 100% right. People were thinking Earth is the center of the world and all planets as well as the Sun are going around us. That was the science some time ago. Not to mention the "fact" that Earth was "flat" for a long, long time and it was the only right answer because "otherwise people on the other side would fall down". As we know it wasn't right at all - but scientists were sure it is and everyone who thought otherwise was considered crazy even if he had some calculations to prove it.

What if what we assume (scientifically) now is also not as accurate as we think it is? We still need people who make new assumptions and try them out. That's how science progresses. That's how human race learns. A new discovery is simply an assumption that got proved to be more accurate than the best assumption we had so far. And it still stays an assumption (just gets the name of knowledge) because we don't know if someone in the future won't prove it wrong and give even more accurate assumption.

I think that you are using the word 'assumption' to mean more like "hypothesis". A hypothesis is a suggested explanation-"the sun might be the real center of the planetary system". If after repeated experimentation its proven that this new fangled helioentric idea (as craZEE as it may sound) explains the facts better than the old geocentric idea-then its accepted.

Then you can build on that to further investigate the planetary system. And even use the orbit of the earth around the sun as two opposite vantage points to measure the distance to nearby stars. And so on. So you would use previous knowledge as "assummptions" to build on. Except they arent really "assumptions" because they have been proven through repeated observation- so they are not "things accepted as facts without evidence".

However there is one thing. The way science is done it does in fact make one assumption as a methodology- the assumption being: that there are naturalistic causes for things. You do 'assume' that the moon gets dark during a lunar eclipse because of some naturalistic thing happening (like maybe the earth casting a shadow). You dont assume some big monster is eating the moon. If ebola spreads you assume its because of some naturalistic cause- something naturalistic is causing germs to spread- not that God is smiting us for the sin of playing cards on Sunday.

Certain individuals apparently have a problem with that assumption, but thats how science has to be done. Otherwise there are no rules, and we would never learn anything.

You can be open to supernatural causes-but if you seek the supernatural you still assume naturalism when you actually use the scientific method. You find your supernatural cause by trying to DISprove the supernatural by finding any and all naturalistic causes for the phenom you observe. If that fails then-maybe you found something metaphysical. Maybe ebola is not caused by microbial pathogens after all- maybe God really is mad at us for drinking whiskey and card playing.