From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Response to Bill Jefferys, part 3
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:37:45 GMT


We now get into a discussion of what science is, a topic on which I've
apparently been widely misunderstood.

#># me
#>  Bill
#   me


#For instance, the statement is often made (as by Bill below)
#that isochron methods determine the initial isotope ratios in the rock.
#For this to be a scientific rebuttal of what I say would require data
#showing what the known initial isotope ratios of rock samples were and
#what the isochon method found them to be.  I have not seen any such data for
#rocks said to be billions of years old.

>You are dead wrong. This statement proves that you do not understand
>science (a fact that you have made abundantly clear to us over the years).

No.  This proves that Bill does not understand my arguments.  He states below
what science is.  Since I agree with what he says, how can it be said that I
don't  understand science? (More below.)

Basically, my statement is: If a claim (such as that isochron methods give
the initial isotope ratios in the rock) is to be judged scientifically
valid, the statement must be compared with data independent of itself.  What
is "dead wrong" about this?

>Obviously, science cannot PROVE that any rock is billions of years old,
>since no one was there to see it formed. But that isn't what science is all
>about, anyway.

Of course not. Since I haven't talked about proving anything, it seems we
agree.  So why the claims that I don't understand science.

>Science is about DATA and FALSIFIABLE THEORIES.

Exactly.

Even though Bill says that we can't prove the rocks' dates absolutely, he has
a high degree of confidence that they are accurate.  When I say, "We don't
know that the dates are accurate," I am not using "know" to refer to some
absolute standard I've set up, but I'm using the word to mean "know to the
degree of confidence that Bill (and others) claim to have."

>If you have DATA, you are required to come up with specific THEORIES and see
>if the data agree with the theories.

This is precisely what I said above:

     #For this [the specific theory that isochrons give initial isotope
     #ratios]  to be a scientific rebuttal of what I say would require data
     #showing what the known initial isotope ratios of rock samples were
     #[the data]  and what the isochon method found them to be [the theory].

How is it that one statement, when I make it, proves that I don't understand
science but, when Bill makes it, is a basic scientific principle???

Bill and others seem to think that I am challenging radioactive (including
isochron) dating because I reject how theories are treated in science.  *Not
at all!*  I base my challenge on how theories are (supposed to be) treated in
science.  I say that the earth's being 3.9 billion years old should be treated
as only speculation since the theory agrees only POORLY with the data.

>If you think a theory is wrong, you have to come up ith a BETTER THEORY.  If
>you don't do this, then you aren't doing science.

Again, I agree fully with this. I say that the young-earth theory should be
considered along with the old-earth theory because the former *does at least
as good a job as the latter* at explaining the evidence.

When erosion rates make it unlikely that rocks would last even 100 million
years, the theory that rocks we see are (far!) less than this value does a
better job of explaing the evidence than does the theory that some are 3.9
billion years old.  Likewise, the young-earth theory does a simpler job of
explaining why the radioactive carbon in the atmosphere is increasing and
a simpler job of explaining why we see short-period comments.

>Just saying that you don't believe the theory isn't science.

Agreed. But if this statement is meant to imply that I say this, it is a straw
man.  I have never said (regarding the age of the earth or anything else
scientific) that a theory schould be regarded as uncertain simply because I
disagreed with it. The only reasons I have ever given for treating a theory
with uncertainty are:

    1. There is expierimental observational evidence to show that some
       of the assumptions underlying the theory are wrong.

    2. There are discrepancies between the theory and the data.

    3. There are alternate theories, also based on experimental evidence,
       which explain the data said to support the theory in question.       

These are valid *scientific* reasons.

The other side of what Bill says is true also: Just saying that you believe
the theory isn't science.

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
Newsgroups: talk.origins