solarz
Brigadier
I finished watching the entire Bill Nye vs Ken Ham video, and just wanted to share my thoughts.
Ham's entire argument is based on his division of science into "observational science" and "historical science". He argues that observational science is what creates progress and technology, and it is reliable because it is based on what we can observe. He argues that historical science is mere speculation because we could not see it happen, and that we have to rely on the assumption that physical processes was the same in the past as it is in the present. He then goes on to argue that we cannot make that assumption, so we can't ever know what we did not directly observe. In particular, he affirms that we cannot ever know the age of the Earth. At one point, he even claims that we can't even trust tree rings to tell us the age of a tree!
I watched this video over several days, and Ham's argument kept bugging me. I knew there was something wrong with it, but I could not quite formulate exactly what was wrong. Until now, that is.
Science allows us to create technology because we assume the existence of cause and effect. If we throw something up, gravity will make it fall down. Every time. What Ham is arguing is that we can't know that gravity worked the way it does today as it did 4000 years ago. Because we weren't there to see it.
If that were true, then it also means that we can't know gravity will work tomorrow the same way it is working today. That means if we cannot assume the premise of Ham's "historical science", then we also cannot accept the premise of his "observational science"! If we can't ever know if the air was safe to breathe in the past, even though everything we've observed indicates that this is so, then how can we ever know that our next breath won't kill us? How do you build an airplane if you can't even assume that aerodynamics will work the same way in the next hour?
Once you realize that, you realize how ridiculous Ham's division of "observational" vs "historical" science is.
Ham's entire argument is based on his division of science into "observational science" and "historical science". He argues that observational science is what creates progress and technology, and it is reliable because it is based on what we can observe. He argues that historical science is mere speculation because we could not see it happen, and that we have to rely on the assumption that physical processes was the same in the past as it is in the present. He then goes on to argue that we cannot make that assumption, so we can't ever know what we did not directly observe. In particular, he affirms that we cannot ever know the age of the Earth. At one point, he even claims that we can't even trust tree rings to tell us the age of a tree!
I watched this video over several days, and Ham's argument kept bugging me. I knew there was something wrong with it, but I could not quite formulate exactly what was wrong. Until now, that is.
Science allows us to create technology because we assume the existence of cause and effect. If we throw something up, gravity will make it fall down. Every time. What Ham is arguing is that we can't know that gravity worked the way it does today as it did 4000 years ago. Because we weren't there to see it.
If that were true, then it also means that we can't know gravity will work tomorrow the same way it is working today. That means if we cannot assume the premise of Ham's "historical science", then we also cannot accept the premise of his "observational science"! If we can't ever know if the air was safe to breathe in the past, even though everything we've observed indicates that this is so, then how can we ever know that our next breath won't kill us? How do you build an airplane if you can't even assume that aerodynamics will work the same way in the next hour?
Once you realize that, you realize how ridiculous Ham's division of "observational" vs "historical" science is.
The world we're living in is surely pretty interesting and entertaining!
