Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere. Yes or No ?

Yes
30
17%
No
129
72%
Yes But...Add your reason
11
6%
No But...Add your reason
10
6%
 
Total votes : 180

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#11881  Postby Cito di Pense » Oct 09, 2019 8:16 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I would personally argue that the goal of science isn't to measure and describe, but ultimately to use those measurements and descriptions towards an explanatory end, but I know plenty of qualified scientists who disagree most robustly with that.


They disagree because explanation is lodged somewhere up one's filosofeezical arse. We demonstrate that something has been explained by engineering with it in such a way that it stands up on its own.

This thread is, to significant degree, a mocking of the hubris of explanation absent the use of tools. The tools that EE proponents are unable to take up are legion.



Essentially, that is my position too, except that I don't want to minimize the labourious hours of data collection that go into the formulation of explanations. In the absence of that accumulated evidence, those explanations are just ideas tossed out at random in ways more consistent with religious, supernatural, and alternative 'methodologies' rather than with science. The arbiter is still ultimately 'does the explanation work, bitch?' - does it correspond to further observations... but arriving at that explanation, or sorting through the moray of ungrounded explanations absent of any basis in data would massively slow the acquisition of knowledge.


EE proponents selectively screen out data, most obviously about subduction, when they try to hack the mass, volume, or surface area balances via an unspecified process. PT has the advantage of being based on a model whose arguments can be tested in subsequent observations whose results are predicted. Research proposals usually hint at the questions they hope to answer.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28460
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#11882  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 09, 2019 9:06 am

Hermit wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Observation comes first. Understanding cannot come first. Understanding comes as a result of meticulous, methodological observation.

Indeed. Where do you think this sentence places observation?
Hermit wrote:What makes science science is the process of making broad generalisations from specific observations.

Edited to fix quote tags.



The thing is that it is rarely those who make hypotheses that have collected all that data; it's usually their PhD students! ;)
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#11883  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 09, 2019 9:07 am

Thommo wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Believers in Noah's Flood have a mechanism: God.

Where did the water come from? God made it.
Where did it disappear to? God made it disappear.


Open question: Is this sufficient to constitute a mechanism?



Well no, but to them it is. God is an agent. Agents interact with other things causally.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#11884  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 09, 2019 9:10 am

ginckgo wrote:
It is a mindbogglingly long thread.

Ironically, I've actually learned a lot about new advances in Plate Tectonics from articles that EE proponents have posted - each article supports Plate Tectonics of course, but they interpret it as the opposite.

Feels a lot like arguing with Creationists when they post a scientific paper arguing it undermines evolution



There is no functional difference just because one's wearing a Jesus t-shirt. What matter is how special they are to have such strong belief in the alternative.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#11885  Postby Hermit » Oct 09, 2019 10:04 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Observation comes first. Understanding cannot come first. Understanding comes as a result of meticulous, methodological observation.

Indeed. Where do you think this sentence places observation?
Hermit wrote:What makes science science is the process of making broad generalisations from specific observations.

The thing is that it is rarely those who make hypotheses that have collected all that data; it's usually their PhD students! ;)

How does that tie in with my assertion that "what makes science science is the process of making broad generalisations from specific observations."?
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 2474
Age: 66
Male

Country: Here
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#11886  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 09, 2019 10:53 am

Hermit wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Observation comes first. Understanding cannot come first. Understanding comes as a result of meticulous, methodological observation.

Indeed. Where do you think this sentence places observation?
Hermit wrote:What makes science science is the process of making broad generalisations from specific observations.

The thing is that it is rarely those who make hypotheses that have collected all that data; it's usually their PhD students! ;)

How does that tie in with my assertion that "what makes science science is the process of making broad generalisations from specific observations."?



It ties in with how this thread of conversation started:

Hermit wrote:
Ginckgo wrote:First I need to see some actual evidence in the rocks that shows expansion is even a remotely likely hypothesis that even needs a mechanism.


So, not particularly interested in the fundamentals of science.


Observation precedes hypothesis, and is therefore more fundamental to scientific method, meaning the original notion you put forth is in contradiction to your later point. Being interested in the data doesn't logically represent a disinterest in the fundamentals of science.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#11887  Postby Hermit » Oct 09, 2019 11:59 am

Spearthrower wrote:Observation precedes hypothesis...

Yes. We agree on that. Have I ever denied it? If not, why bring it up yet again?

Spearthrower wrote:...and is therefore more fundamental to scientific method...

No science without observation. This is as far as our agreement goes. Where we disagree is that while observations are essential for science, they are not sufficient on their own to constitute science. The epicycles Fenrir mentioned enabled predictions - as did the Antikythera mechanism - but neither did anything to reveal an underlying principle explaining the phenomena. For that we had to wait until Newton came up with a theory based on the data. That is science. Yes, the theory of gravity turned out to be provisional, and only approximate at that, but scientific theories can only ever be provisional.

Spearthrower wrote:...the original notion you put forth is in contradiction to your later point. Being interested in the data doesn't logically represent a disinterest in the fundamentals of science.

You got that arse backwards, possibly thinking of my comment in reply to Ginckgo, whom I mistook as a proponent of the expanding earth rubbish (and for which I have apologised). The exchange began with me noting that "Nobody who supports the expanding earth hypothesis has managed to explain where the extra material for such expansion comes from." Ginckgo replied; "I honestly don't care about the mechanism." Are you really surprised that I mistook the comment to mean he is not interested in observations on which theories are based and therefore cannot be interested in actual science as it is practised?
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 2474
Age: 66
Male

Country: Here
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Expanding earth. Do the continents wind back to a sphere

#11888  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 09, 2019 12:31 pm

Hermit wrote:
No science without observation. This is as far as our agreement goes. Where we disagree is that while observations are essential for science, they are not sufficient on their own to constitute science.


That's a nearly empty phrase.

How do you formulate hypotheses in the absence of observation?

If you can't formulate hypotheses in the absence of observation then observation is just as much a part of scientific method as is hypothesis formation. The loss of either makes science infertile, however as you necessarily start with collecting data, then your argument seems to suggest that the entire period of data collection isn't science up until the moment it is employed as evidence towards a hypothesis: I think that's nonsensical and isn't really how anything works.

Further, as I've already pointed out in this thread: a vast number - probably the majority of professional scientists aren't involved in any hypothesis formation at all: they are field researchers or laboratory assistants collecting data.

However, they are scientists, they are conducting science according to its methodology, and so your claim is wholly inconsistent with this.


Hermit wrote:The epicycles Fenrir mentioned enabled predictions - as did the Antikythera mechanism - but neither did anything to reveal an underlying principle explaining the phenomena.


Doesn't matter. Underlying principles may well be goals, but they aren't required to be conducting science.

Hermit wrote:For that we had to wait until Newton came up with a theory based on the data. That is science.


You're mistaken.


Hermit wrote: Yes, the theory of gravity turned out to be provisional, and only approximate at that, but scientific theories can only ever be provisional.


All this is basically a red herring.


Hermit wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:...the original notion you put forth is in contradiction to your later point. Being interested in the data doesn't logically represent a disinterest in the fundamentals of science.


You got that arse backwards, possibly thinking of my comment in reply to Ginckgo, whom I mistook as a proponent of the expanding earth rubbish (and for which I have apologised). The exchange began with me noting that "Nobody who supports the expanding earth hypothesis has managed to explain where the extra material for such expansion comes from." Ginckgo replied; "I honestly don't care about the mechanism." Are you really surprised that I mistook the comment to mean he is not interested in observations on which theories are based and therefore cannot be interested in actual science as it is practised?



Wow.

I think I'll leave it there and defer back to Ginckgo:

ginckgo wrote:If that's your view of how science must work, then you're quite naive about both the philosophy and the practicality of the scientific method.


I concur wholeheartedly.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests