Hobbes Choice wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Uniformitarianism is not an assumption. Tis a conclusion.

We might have had the arrogance to conclude it, but is remains an assumption.

I look forward to your explanation of how this is arrogant.

Fenrir wrote:Uniformitarianism is not an assumption. Tis a conclusion.

It's actually a hypothesis that has stood the test of time in most areas.

Hobbes Choice wrote:Rigorous, but based on a big assumption: uniformitarianism.

Big? If we assume it and don't encounter any problems, what's the problem? If physical uniformitarianism has problems, it's going to show up in areas having nothing to do with history. No, not big.

Rumraket wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Uniformitarianism is not an assumption. Tis a conclusion.

It's actually a hypothesis that has stood the test of time in most areas.

Eh, not in the way he likely imagines it. Uniformitarianism to creationists is usually the stuff of James Lyell, which isn't what geologists usually hold anymore. Rather they accept "Actualism", which accepts both catastrophic occurences and slow processes, both of which have impacted the Earth's geologic record.

Either way, radiometric dating does not rely on uniformitarianism, but he's likely objecting to the set half-lives of the isotopes. Probably thinks they were faster in the past, or something.

Hobbes Choice wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Uniformitarianism is not an assumption. Tis a conclusion.

We might have had the arrogance to conclude it, but is remains an assumption.

And when Charles Lyell asserted it as a doctrine is was not obvious in any sense. On a godly world, and in a superlunary universe, in which God can assert any change or cause by divine will, the adoption of uniformitarianism was somewhat controversial, denying god is power and enclosing his will in the natural and deterministic world of the necessity of cause and effect.

There is absolutely no evidence we are on a godly world, in a superlunary universe, or that there is any god which can assert any change or cause anything to happen or not.

You accuse others of making unfounded assumptions - but that is the biggest of them all.

Hobbes Choice wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Uniformitarianism is not an assumption. Tis a conclusion.

We might have had the arrogance to conclude it, but is remains an assumption.

And when Charles Lyell asserted it as a doctrine is was not obvious in any sense. On a godly world, and in a superlunary universe, in which God can assert any change or cause by divine will, the adoption of uniformitarianism was somewhat controversial, denying god is power and enclosing his will in the natural and deterministic world of the necessity of cause and effect.

All it would take to falsify the hypothesis of uniformitarianism is for god to actually intervene in the world.

For example, god could make the Mt Everest suddenly stand somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean with every square-centimeter of it's surface covered in biblical passages and the clouds form images of Jesus on the cross while a loud booming voice was simultaneously heard everywhere in the world informing us that it was the christian god speaking and that he'd moved the Mt. Everest into the Atlantic.

Or he could make a nuclear reactor run backwards ... that would do it too.

Oh, yes, I knew Clyde well. I come not to Praseodymium, but to Barium.

I wouldn't go so far as to call your humor crude, but I will say it's elementary.

Weaver wrote:

Hobbes Choice wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Uniformitarianism is not an assumption. Tis a conclusion.

We might have had the arrogance to conclude it, but is remains an assumption.

And when Charles Lyell asserted it as a doctrine is was not obvious in any sense. On a godly world, and in a superlunary universe, in which God can assert any change or cause by divine will, the adoption of uniformitarianism was somewhat controversial, denying god is power and enclosing his will in the natural and deterministic world of the necessity of cause and effect.

There is absolutely no evidence we are on a godly world, in a superlunary universe, or that there is any god which can assert any change or cause anything to happen or not.

You accuse others of making unfounded assumptions - but that is the biggest of them all.

Are you kidding?
I was making an observation about the world into which Charles Lyell made his claim about the assumption of uniformitarianism.
I'm just giving you the historical facts.

Evidence is what you make is. There is no evidence that does not assume a theory in its collection. That's why Christians find themselves with buckets of evidence for their theory of divine creation.

The difference being, of course, that with Christians, they start with the "theory" (unscientific usage) of divine creation, then search for data to support it, whereas with the theory (scientific usage) of uniformitarianism, the data was collected and analyzed, then the theory was developed to explain the data.

Rumraket wrote:

Hobbes Choice wrote:

Fenrir wrote:Uniformitarianism is not an assumption. Tis a conclusion.

We might have had the arrogance to conclude it, but is remains an assumption.

And when Charles Lyell asserted it as a doctrine is was not obvious in any sense. On a godly world, and in a superlunary universe, in which God can assert any change or cause by divine will, the adoption of uniformitarianism was somewhat controversial, denying god is power and enclosing his will in the natural and deterministic world of the necessity of cause and effect.

All it would take to falsify the hypothesis of uniformitarianism is for god to actually intervene in the world.

For example, god could make the Mt Everest suddenly stand somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean with every square-centimeter of it's surface covered in biblical passages and the clouds form images of Jesus on the cross while a loud booming voice was simultaneously heard everywhere in the world informing us that it was the christian god speaking and that he'd moved the Mt. Everest into the Atlantic.

You can falsify uniformitarianism without ANY reference to God.
All you need is ONE inexplicable phenomenon, to cause you to doubt it.
In fact, since UFMTRNISM is a statement about an eternal and timeless assertion, it can only EVER be held as an assumption, since the future is not available to our evidence.

Weaver wrote:The difference being, of course, that with Christians, they start with the "theory" (unscientific usage) of divine creation, then search for data to support it, whereas with the theory (scientific usage) of uniformitarianism, the data was collected and analyzed, then the theory was developed to explain the data.

What you say of Christians are true, but what you claim for science is by and large a naive view.

Hobbes Choice wrote:

Weaver wrote:The difference being, of course, that with Christians, they start with the "theory" (unscientific usage) of divine creation, then search for data to support it, whereas with the theory (scientific usage) of uniformitarianism, the data was collected and analyzed, then the theory was developed to explain the data.

What you say of Christians are true, but what you claim for science is by and large a naive view.

You keep asserting that assumptions about uniformitarianism preceded the theory, but you have yet to actually demonstrate it.

Instead of being argumentative with people who do not simply blindly accept your assertions, why not try backing them up with reasoned argument and relevant citations?

Weaver wrote:

Hobbes Choice wrote:

Weaver wrote:The difference being, of course, that with Christians, they start with the "theory" (unscientific usage) of divine creation, then search for data to support it, whereas with the theory (scientific usage) of uniformitarianism, the data was collected and analyzed, then the theory was developed to explain the data.

What you say of Christians are true, but what you claim for science is by and large a naive view.

You keep asserting that assumptions about uniformitarianism preceded the theory, but you have yet to actually demonstrate it.

Instead of being argumentative with people who do not simply blindly accept your assertions, why not try backing them up with reasoned argument and relevant citations?

It's taken humans thousands of years to work this one out.
It was not until Lyell formally asserted it, that it became a massive trope and established itself as paradigm. Why not start with the Wiki entry - its not too bad for a wiki entry. But I'm not going to rehearse my entire knowledge of Intellectual History.
The idea that uniformitarianism was not always accepted is a no brainer; as is the idea that science just blindly collects pure data and then and only then develops a theory is a school boy simplification. All experiments assume a theory; it more like a hermeneutic circle, of testing re-testing, and refining.
You might also like Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. His main concern it demonstrating the resistance to change in science, and moments of big shifts in its history; but for the most part "Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none." Thomas Kuhn.
He also talked about "Theory Ladenness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-ladenness

Hobbes Choice wrote:But I'm not going to rehearse my entire knowledge of Intellectual History.

It looks as if you just did. Intellectual History. The uppercase says it all, so you don't have to.

Hobbes Choice wrote:The idea that uniformitarianism was not always accepted is a no brainer; as is the idea that science just blindly collects pure data and then and only then develops a theory is a school boy simplification. All experiments assume a theory; it more like a hermeneutic circle, of testing re-testing, and refining.

We know that Kuhn said it and that you believe it. Now what?

Hobbes Choice wrote:You might also like Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. His main concern it demonstrating the resistance to change in science, and moments of big shifts in its history; but for the most part "Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none." Thomas Kuhn.
He also talked about "Theory Ladenness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-ladenness

Ah, OK. That's what. If we didn't assume that nature worked this way, there wouldn't be much point in scientific work, would there? The success of scientific work somewhat bears out the assumption, don't you think? Looks as if you're one of those folks waving the banner of theory-ladenness with a fact so trivial, no one can dispute it. You win this one, hands down. This kind of intellectual knuckle-walking is why your rehearsal of intellectual history is so brief.

Hobbes Choice wrote:When we both identify red we are agreeing on a subjectively identified, but objectively decided set of values.

What did I tell ya? Meanwhile, in another tent in this circus, THWOTH is handling a creationist this way:

THWOTH wrote:The whole 'atheist ideoligy' shtick is basically a disingenuous exercise in false equivalence. Creationists go in for this in a big way - casting evolution or whatever science they take issue with as just some kind of random idea so they can say, "If you're allowed to have your ideas I'm allowed to have mine."

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hobbes Choice wrote:But I'm not going to rehearse my entire knowledge of Intellectual History.

It looks as if you just did. Intellectual History. The uppercase says it all, so you don't have to.

It's in upper case because that is the title of my Masters degree.
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/study/pg/2016/taught/1661/33304

As far as your other comments, I'll respond when you present some sort of counter argument.

Why you mention creationism I have no idea.

Hobbes Choice wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hobbes Choice wrote:But I'm not going to rehearse my entire knowledge of Intellectual History.

It looks as if you just did. Intellectual History. The uppercase says it all, so you don't have to.

It's in upper case because that is the title of my Masters degree.
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/study/pg/2016/taught/1661/33304

As far as your other comments, I'll respond when you present some sort of counter argument.

Why you mention creationism I have no idea.

Maybe it was the way you quoted Kuhn as some received wisdom handed down by authorities of "Intellectual History" (upper case, in scare quotes, with feeling). I'll bet you have it on good authority that Intellectual History was created, rather than simply evolving by natural processes. Spiked with humanism. Anyway, I've got no reason to believe you have a degree in anything. Why are you telling anecdotes on the internet? Nothing you've posted so far gives the faintest clue that you have a university education, besides your occasional bouts of literacy. It's either that, or the "Intellectual History" faculty at Sussex sucks eggs, and you should ask for your money back, if all you're going to use it for is spouting vapid shit such as the following:

Hobbes Choice wrote:When we both identify red we are agreeing on a subjectively identified, but objectively decided set of values.

Oh, and the creationism, again: You brought it up:

Hobbes Choice wrote:Evidence is what you make is. There is no evidence that does not assume a theory in its collection. That's why Christians find themselves with buckets of evidence for their theory of divine creation.

Even if you could demonstrate such a claim, it still would not mean that evidence doesn't vary in quality. You know, all that five-nines stuff they talk about in physics, in case you ever ran across it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hobbes Choice wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Hobbes Choice wrote:But I'm not going to rehearse my entire knowledge of Intellectual History.

It looks as if you just did. Intellectual History. The uppercase says it all, so you don't have to.

It's in upper case because that is the title of my Masters degree.
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/study/pg/2016/taught/1661/33304

As far as your other comments, I'll respond when you present some sort of counter argument.

Why you mention creationism I have no idea.

Maybe it was the way you quoted Kuhn as some received wisdom handed down by authorities of "Intellectual History" (upper case, in scare quotes, with feeling). I'll bet you have it on good authority that Intellectual History was created, rather than simply evolving by natural processes. Spiked with humanism. Anyway, I've got no reason to believe you have a degree in anything. Why are you telling anecdotes on the internet? Nothing you've posted so far gives the faintest clue that you have a university education, besides your occasional bouts of literacy. It's either that, or the "Intellectual History" faculty at Sussex sucks eggs, and you should ask for your money back, if all you're going to use it for is spouting vapid shit such as the following:

Hobbes Choice wrote:When we both identify red we are agreeing on a subjectively identified, but objectively decided set of values.

Oh, and the creationism, again: You brought it up:

Hobbes Choice wrote:Evidence is what you make is. There is no evidence that does not assume a theory in its collection. That's why Christians find themselves with buckets of evidence for their theory of divine creation.

Even if you could demonstrate such a claim, it still would not mean that evidence doesn't vary in quality. You know, all that five-nines stuff they talk about in physics, in case you ever ran across it.

I think you might want to run along, now and deal with some of those inferiority issues you are wrestling with.

I find that amateur psychoanalysis is the blind behind which many people like to withdraw when they're too lazy to do the necessary legwork to support their position.