The definition of science

[TheKcsmithy]

This is a great video

[xtremetom180]

very interesting thanks

[prchecker]

great video thanks

[msjessypp]

love the video really good

[docpot27]

I wonder what is "supernatural" in the original ideas of alchemistry, considering the fact that nuclear transformations were indeed observed later? And, a more general question: how can one a priori say that any idea, whatever strange it looks today, will not be supported by observations tomorrow? Examples of this a many in the history of science.

[docpot27]

"More adequate" is amusing

[docpot27]

"More adequate" is amusing

[LoricaLady]

2:43 Here we go again with the evoevangelists constant use of the logical fallacy of equivocation. The word "science" can have various meanings. When Miller lumps in neurobiology, chemistry and astronomy he is, again, incorrectly equating one kind of science, i.e. operational science, with a totally different kind of "science" (actually a pseudo science all the way), namely the theory of evolution. Then they argue, "Well! If you are against evolution then you are against science!" B.S.!

[LoricaLady]

1:58 Let's look at it again, folks, an evoevangelist who is saying creationists are trying to make science be unscientific, "Supernatural explanations may be correct...but that explanation even if correct is not science." Friends, if science leaves out what is correct, it ain't science! Here we see why many people feel that evolution is a kind of religion where you are to accept certain things, and no other things, on faith because your belief system does not permit you to look elsewhere.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. How is it testable to say that ambulocetus led to the great whales, just because of some very minor similarity in its inner ears? Can we even tell if it ever had any descendants whatsoever significantly different from itself? No. Can we tell that the so called links between it and great whales had any significantly different offspring? No. There is 0 "testable" about any of it! Yet little children aren't told "We think these MIGHT be orewhales" but that they ARE orewhales.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Back to "the concept of methodological naturalism..." The real truth. Creationists are happy to use natural science in their methodology as long as it is giving answers. When it stops giving answers they are open minded enough to look elsewhere. Miller is trying to portray them as close minded. What is more close minded than what he says at 2:17? How "testable" is it when telling little children ambulocetus, who had hooves, was a "prewhale"? Can we do dna paternity testing? Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont, They don't want such close mindedness to be taught to their children. And btw physics & chemistry belong to the realm of what is testable, repeatable and observable. Evoution does not. It is not an operational science, as they are. The truth is creationists embrace chemistry and physics. What they don't want is a phony comparison to the true, operational sciences, with evolution. They don't want pseudo science theories like the primal pond being taught to their children as fact.

[Tsresponds]

@LoricaLady Physics and chemistry support evolutionary theory you moron. So where do you get that evolution isn't backed by what's testable, repeatable and observable. Biology and geology are also observable and testable and they also support evolution.

Keep your retarded ignorant-ass mouth shut unless you're going to actually learn the science your trying to close-mindedly dismiss and then accuse of being close-minded.

Being open-minded doesn't mean ASSERTING so called "possible" explanations

[LoricaLady]

1:25 Cont. Something creationists NEVER said: "We want to get rid of the concept of methodoligical naturalism that is used in physics and chemistry." I challenge anyone to show me where they ever said any such thing. Creationists want to use methodological approaches to science within the natural realm, but since the natural realm has no way come close to explaining where life and other mysteries came from, they do not want to shut the door, as Miller does, on where to look for truth.

[LoricaLady]

1:19 Cont. Actiually while Miller is trying to attack creationists for giving a bad definition of science, if one is astute one can see that he is the one with the bad definition. Does he know where life came from? No. Since he said "even if it is true" that he cannot entertain the notion of the supernatural, he himself is the one who is trying to create an unscientific defintion - since science is the search for truth! Also, as evoevangelists commonly do he is presenting something false.

[LoricaLady]

1:08 This whole clip is a beautiful example of sophistry. Miller wants only the naturalistic, i.e. material, explanations to be considered in science. Now, wait, as is typical of evoevangelists he says later in this clip that supernatural things are not to be considered "even if they are right"!!! So, he is telling everyone that we can use observation, hypothesis, testing, experiments, etc. only when HE says so? Only with HIS limitations? Science does goes wherever the ev-i-dence leads.

[Tsresponds]

@LoricaLady "So he is telling everyone that we can use observation, hypothesis, testing, experiments, etc. only when HE says so?"

No that's not what he's saying at all. The thing is supernatural explanations are just made up concepts to fill gaps in knowledge. They're not science because you can't test them, there isn't any evidence for them. Only hypothesis.

We're all eagerly awaiting your revolutionary evidence of the supernatural though. I think James Randi has 1 million dollars for you.

[jblovloss]

There is nothing useful about extending the idea of science to untestable realms because they have no practical application, save perhaps a social one for certain people. Fact is, If you cannot test, you cannot improve. You cannot advance the technology. We might know relatively little, but we have a process based on testing which keeps the ball rolling. It's all fair game for philosophy.

[OgeronimonominoregO]

Miller unwittingly shows that this erroneous modern conception of "science"

is actually nothing but naturalistic philosophy. Thus, when applied

to questions of origins, it does an end-run around free inquiry as the

answers are already pre-determined by the philosophy. The conclusion

exists in the premise.

Methodological naturalism is all well and good when properly

applied to questions which can be answered according to

scientific method. Outside this sphere, it is not in any way "science".

[ManicEightBall]

@OgeronimonominoregO Miller unwittingly shows that this erroneous modern conception of "science"

The only part of that I disagree with is "unwittingly". Miller understands full well that science can only address ideas that can be studied and tested and possibly falsified. Science cannot answer question about things that cannot be tested. This is the definition of methodological naturalism. It is not a problem for science; it IS science.

[OgeronimonominoregO]

@ManicEightBall

"Science cannot answer question about things that cannot be tested"

That was my point. In attempting to answer philosophical

and historical and religious questions, its answers are

solely materialistic in that everything is pre-determined to

always arise from natural causes. There is no free inquiry

where "science" claims to be the be-all and end-all of knowledge.

There's no way Miller can test non-repeatable events

or falsify a "theory" that literally "explains" everything.

[Xenophile665]

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:" Keep biology in the science classes and keep religion in the philosophy classes.

Freedom thru Truth, Xeno

[LJCampbell25]

@ Elborrado. Science is knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. Based upon this definition it is NOT just limited to only 'natural' explanations. Don't limit science with YOUR bs. Bless!

[LJCampbell25]

No offense but the 2005 Science Standard IS the one that is distorting the true definition of science. Any person researching the definition of science will plainly see this. Using the term 'seeking NATURAL explanations' DOES limit the scope of knowledge that can be attained because it puts acquiring knowledge in a narrow-minded box of 'naturalism'. I fear for our future. =-(

[elborrador]

@LJCampbell25 You can get YOUR knowledge from supernatural explanations. Just don"t lump that bs with science.

[Xenophile665]

@LJCampbell25 No, it means that if you want to expand the scope of knowledge in that manner, you may do so. But you cannot call it science, since it does not provide testable hypotheses. You may do it in philosophy class or Sunday school or at home.

I also fear for our future, but apparently not in the way you do.

Freedom thru Truth, Xeno

[LJCampbell25]

@Xenophile665 Here's the thing NOT every thing science is deeming a 'scientific fact' is indeed testable. Evolution, as described in the origin of life, is NOT testable and therefore falls likewise into the philosophy class.

[Xenophile665]

@LJCampbell25 You're mistaken. Read (or google) Kenneth R. Miller's words on the subject. Evolution makes predictions. These predictions can be, have been, and are being tested. Again, you'll learn more about it from Miller than you will from me.

Freedom thru Truth, Xeno

[LJCampbell25]

@Xenophile665 Friend ur asking me to read SECOND hand info instead of dealing with FIRST hand observation. NO ONE has personally observed birds evolving from dinosaurs. No one. And it's NOT testable putting it in the realm of assumption and guessing. Let's try and deal with FIRST hand experience/observation bcus that makes it more verifiable.

[Xenophile665]

@LJCampbell25 Regardless of how many hands are involved, amigo, it makes predictions and those predictions are testable. As for 1st hand info -- have you ever seen water turned to wine, the Red Sea parted or a 3-day-dead man returned to life? Have you ever heard serpents speak or seen fire & hail fall from the sky? No. Nevertheless, not being an eye-witness to these events would not be sufficient cause for your disbelief, correct?

Truth thru Knowledge, Xeno

[LJCampbell25]

@Xenophile665 Correct, however until it becomes first hand, it all falls into the realm of faith. When I asked for first hand observation of evolution you gave me second hand info (K. Miller). If I were to take his words as 'fact' it would only be on the basis of faith. Different game...same name. I don't believe in what the Bible says bcus I've witnessed those events, I believe the Bible is the word of God bcus of the FIRST hand testable observation of its power in my own life.

[Xenophile665]

@LJCampbell25 You believe the Bible is God's word because of your personal experiences. So do others, but they don't believe it in the same way. If salvation is so crucial, the Bible should be less subject to so many interpretations and more definite in its assertions. If it was written by men, then the writings would lead different readers to different conclusions. Since the bible does lead to so many different interpretations, it is most likely of men, not of God.

[LJCampbell25]

@Xenophile665 I believe the Bible is the word of God bcus of the truth and power it has on the souls of men. Different interpretations is not an issue on the speakers behalf but the hearer. God's word says "Do not murder". The different ways we interpret that is bcus of us not the statement. The command is pretty straight fwd. The Bible is also clear. There is ONLY one way to God...His name is Jesus Christ (Jn 14:6). Friend u can only come to God on HIS terms. Not urs.

[Xenophile665]

@LJCampbell25 True, the Bible has power over men. So does the Quran. So does the Book of Mormon. Again, your sincerity is the same as theirs. But the requirements are not. They say that their interpretations of God's word are inspired by God, and that is no different from what you claim.

Jesus has never offered that to me. Ministers or believing acquaintances have offered it. You have offered it. But JC remains mute, as far as I can tell.

Freedom thru Knowledge, Xeno

[LJCampbell25]

@Xenophile665 Friend this is not about sincerity or influence on the masses. This is about TRUTH. We all can sit here and claim "I have the truth", but that doesn't mean we all have it. There is a such thing as sincerely WRONG. As far as believing if the words in the gospel are indeed from Jesus is a matter of faith. But so is believing every other person's words that were written down in history. 1 thing I DO know is whoever said those word was not a mere man.

[Xenophile665]

@LJCampbell25 Agreed, "There is such a thing as sincerely WRONG." I conclude from the evidence that the mormons are wrong, that the muslims are wrong, that the JW's are wrong and (no offense) that you are wrong.

As for whether these are the words of a mere man or not .. I thought the poetry of E. A. Poe was perfect verse. I treasure the writings of Shakespeare and Milton. You are impressed by the words to the point that you believe that JC was a god. I don't. A great man - but not a god.

[LJCampbell25]

@Xenophile665 None taken, you have the choice to conclude as you wish. Me being impressed by someone's speech doesn't lead to the conclusion of divinity. I've been 'impressed' by a man's words before. ;-) Now someone's words having the power to bring a person from death to life...THAT is the power of God. BIG difference. John 6:63

[Xenophile665]

@LJCampbell25 I agree, that power would make a big difference. Are we speaking of someone like Benny Hinn, who allegedly brought someone back to life with "the fire of the spirit" which he claims to be filled with? Or are you speaking about Lazarus? Or Jesus himself?

[LJCampbell25]

@Xenophile665 No I speak from only first hand experience. Friend don't always think so naturalistic. There is more than one way of being 'dead'.

[Xenophile665]

@LJCampbell25 Amigo, we live in a natural world. So how else can I think? Supernaturally? If someone told me they talked to invisible unicorns, what should I assume about them? Your belief without evidence is no different to me. Invisible god, invisible unicorns? What's the difference?

[LJCampbell25]

@Xenophile665 What would you consider evidence of a Creator since the creation is not good enough for you?

[Xenophile665]

@LJCampbell25 (You choose to call it the creation. I call it a formation.) Evidence for a creator would have to start with an hypothesis that states who created it. This is something ID proponents refuse to do now, because then it becomes a religious claim. Finally, since the aleged creator is still purportedly alive, omnipresent and all-powerful, he could make himself known to us. But he doesn't, in the same way that invisible unicorns don't become visible to us.

[LJCampbell25]

@Xenophile665 Well I would think it safe and purely logical to assume that by His very position of being a Creator it would mean that He is the source. That's what being in the position of a creator means. Being no. 1. If something created Him that would make Him a creation and whoever created Him the Creator. Either way the Creator would have 2 b uncreated. Now when u say he doesn't make Himself known, is that subjective? Because He clearly makes Himself known to me.

[Xenophile665]

@LJCampbell25 ID proponents point to paintings ("must've had a creator") or buildings ("must've had a creator"); both of these creators (artist & architect) were, according to ID advocates, created. So why suddenly stop and say, "But god wasn't created."? Why is it "logical" that "He is the source?" Perhaps He was also created, as well as a creator.

Also, one should start with his/her/its identity. But IDists refuse to do so. Why is that?

[LJCampbell25]

@Xenophile665 Even if God was "created" the creator would have to thus be uncreated/eternal because there has to be a 'number 1'. Creator by its very nature means...number 1. Source. There HAS to be something before something else can come into existence. Something doesn't create/formate from nothing. Impossible and illogical. What more can encompass God's identity then what He said about Himself..."I am that I am".

[Xenophile665]

@LJCampbell25 Creator does not mean "number 1." If I am the creator of a drawing, that does not make me "number 1." That is an assertion which you have made, but you posit no evidence to support your assertion. God's identity couldn't be much more confusing than by god allegedly saying, "I am that I am."

[EnemyofCredulity]

@LJCampbell25 There does not have to be a number one where matter is concerned. Matter cannot be created/destroyed. there is no valid reason to think it could not have always existed, otherwise you argument about a god always existing is invalid.

That argument about there having to be a number one has been destroyed for quite some time now.

[Xenophile665]

@LJCampbell25 When I say that god does not make himself known, I mean subjectively and objectively. He neither makes himself known to me as an individual, nor to mankind as a whole. Not in a way that would end all the confusion about his alleged existence. But the reason he doesn't, is because it is highly improbable that he even exists.

[LJCampbell25]

@Xenophile665 Friend, ultimately who am I to convince you of what you feel you are most certain of. We all act what will help us sleep better at night. ;-) When you're willing though...God is ready. Be blessed!

[Xenophile665]

@LJCampbell25 "Convince me of what I feel I am most certain of" - Yes, I've heard that one before. And thanks for the blessing, for whatever it's worth. Adios, amigo.

[EasingDifficulties]

PROBLEMS [Shouldn't it be: "Tony Orlando & Dusk"? Tony Orlando, Gabe Caplan & Geraldo Rivera are the same guy...]

[Xenophile665]

@prffsrx Funny, according to the transcripts, Miller refuted Behe thoroughly in Kitzmiller v. Dover. I think the British might phrase it, "He gave him a sound thrashing." Guess you're entitled to your opinion.

Freedom thru Truth, Xeno

[warren52nz]

Science is the way forward! It is responsible for everything modern in our lives. Religion adds nothing except maybe a salve for our fear of death, But it's a fake salve. If you're happy with the Placebo Effect then good for you. The rest of us want to know the TRUTH!!!!

The TRUTH that gives us modern medicine, that gives us air travel, heating, electricity, well you name it... EVERYTHING!

If you don't like that fact then TOUGH! You're using the benefits so don't bite the hand that feeds you!!

[masked0crusader]

well said sir!

[studboy711]

Science is great helping us understand nature and improving are daily lives, but the idea of God has given us a purpose somthing science will never do.

[Xenophile665]

@studboy711 True. However, science is not there to "give us a purpose." It was never intended for such. Morality must be established by society and it's members. And an individual's "purpose" is something that the individual must determine. The "idea of God" is not needed for establishing morality or purpose.

[EasingDifficulties]

Fairy stories intrigue evolutionists/"atheists" because they have evolved from common effeminate homosexual ancestors.

[glassbrain]

...........Right.

[davidls11]

I'm sticking with phrenology...but then I have a very bumpy head.

[KrunchyGoodness]

Yes, but what everyone here is forgetting is that, "If you stretch the definition of science to include intelligent design, you know what else fits in that strike zone?" Naturalistic origins

[DerekFilley]

I was just thinking the same thing... he says 'the Supernatural is not science because its not testable', and yet abiogenesis is taught as science?

[bnightm]

A scientific theory of abiogenesis will have to be falsifiable and therefore testable, otherwise it wouldn't be scientific. As is, the scientific community has no consensus on how life first arose on earth, but there are several candidate theories.

But for something to be testable does NOT mean it has to be re-playable! This is a very important point, so I hope you realize it.

The theory has to make predictions! And those should have the potential to prove the theory wrong. That is a test.

[bnightm]

And everything else. Making the whole definition pointless.

[dilemmix]

What a great scientist this man is!

[LoricaLady]

@dilemmix Please see my comments and notice that MIller is actually giving a terrible "definition" of science.

[GoodScienceForYou]

All these religions all going in different directions. Don't you realize there is only one truth? The truth is obvious. The truth is what is right in front of you. All you have to do is open your eyes. There is no religion higher than the truth. Any religion that teaches people to dislike each other is obviously not the truth. Any science that is based solely on conjecture (dogma) is not truth.

[DeadFishFactory]

So what's the "truth", dipshit, if it's so obvious?

If you say "the truth is that god loves you and wants you to have faith in it" or some shit like that, then I'm going to smack you.

[TheProf1988]

anybody claiming to know the truth is not being honest.

all science can do is present evidence. it is up to the individual whether they want to accept it, or bury thier head in the sand

[GoodScienceForYou]

This guy Ken is the "Jim Jones" of your religion.

[DeadFishFactory]

The guy Ken is just another scientist that is there to educate people on the evolutionary theory. Dipshit.

[GoodScienceForYou]

As I go across the Youtube and see all this posting, it is clear that you are typical residence of earth all ready to kill each other over your religions. You are both looking at delusions of belief and screaming at each other as if it was the most important thing there is. That is funny. Two sides of the same delusion.

[DeadFishFactory]

So if I call people a "fucking dipshit moron" for believing in magical man... that somehow equates to me wanting to murder someone?

Two side of the same delusion? Fuck off. Evolution is purely secular and is not a fucking religion, dipshit. Creationism is: it invokes supernatural and divine intervention to explain away all of life's problems. It doesn't work that way in real life. Dipshit.

[GoodScienceForYou]

Evolution fits the complete criteria for not only a religion, but a cult. Most cult members have no idea they are in a cult. That is part of the problem. I wish you well.

[DeadFishFactory]

If science is a cult, then I belong to the chemistry sect.

[GoodScienceForYou]

Evolutionism and creationism argue about two sides of the same delusion. There is a middle ground, called finding your own truth. Check out my videos. Not scam, no money just some thoughts I put on video. Thanks.

[DeadFishFactory]

Evolution is not a religion. Evolution is a science while creationism is a religion. There is no middle ground to these two things because one side is right and one side is wrong. Why is no one calling for a middle ground between physics and magic or medicine and faith healing?

[GoodScienceForYou]

Interesting "opinions" but not truth.

[seethebright]

Nice gaps argument.

fuck off

[Erech01]

'their even getting the geologist, who pay no attention to anybody, upset'

'palaentologists will argue about anything'

ken miller really has it in for the earth science's :P

[megamarsvin]

"I think God may have had his fill of George Steinbrenner that year."

....

I know it was a joke but damn how many people think that "God" takes personal interest in what sports team wins, what country wins or whatever, and you can change his mind by praying!

Even if you buy into the idea of "God" that shows just how delusional most people are.

[dablet00]

i havent met anyone from KS, so i dont know. i did meet a girl from MS. she said there must be holes in a glass. otherwise, how else would there be water outside of the cup???  apparently, she didnt know theres such thing as condensation.

[k9lionheart]

wow, I can't believe behe is actually a doctor of science. "astrology has given many contributions to science," really how dumb are these people?

[tarhun]

I agree ID and related things are complete nonsense, but that's not actually that outrageous a statement. It depends how you define astrology and, indeed, scence. It would be more accurate to say that astrology led to some of the earliest forms of science, for example the Mayan calendars that used observation and then came up with mathematical models to predict lunar eclipses: they did so for religious/astrological reasons, but their methodology was broadly scientific.

[DeadFishFactory]

Yes, it is good to credit astrology as the early form of astronomy along with alchemy as the early form of chemistry. Then again, anyone continuing to practice in alchemy or astrology are giant lunatics.

[greatsea]

ID is not science but it is not complete nonsense.

[seethebright]

Glad to know what you think. Now explain what you mean.

[seethebright]

ID should be taught in the science classroom. So should evolution, but here's the ground rule. Each has to stand on its own. If that rule were really followed, it would be impossible to extend the "theory" of ID beyond three silly words: god did it. The rest of the semester could then be dedicated to, uhhhh, science.

[greatsea]

That would require changing the definition of science.

[rapidflex]

Thanks for this excellent video.

[drvitore]

This textbook has material on science. Science is built around theories, which are strongly supported by factual evidence. Everything in science should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered, and that theories explain factual evidence. Ken Miller's rebuttal to creationists attempt to modify the definition of the nature of science FROM seeking natural observable explanations TO "more adequate" supernatural explanations.

[msginca]

Kansas is known world wide as a backward place.

[kaysandesses]

"Kansas is known world wide as a backward place."

Well, in many ways that's the truth. I do remember seeing in the last election where Kansans booted enough of the fundies from the State BOE to make overturning the anti-science "standards" likely.

[hollowpoint84]

lol science does not support id nor is evolution an "anti god religion" if u really believe in the bible why do u feel the need to defeat evolution and this video proves u sadly wrong. this is science and if u wanna play ball in science's filed u gotta play by the rules but u can't

[warriorprince1010]

Evolutionism... An anti God religion. Creation... The logical acceptance that everything that appears designed was indeed designed. Science supports design and creation. There is no evidence for evolutionism.

[seethebright]

Nice new word, there. Evolutionism. Here's another: it's called stickitupyourassism.

[warriorprince1010]

Denial is your choice. But the scientific evidence supports creation.

[seethebright]

Very good. Please explain.