Posted by Al; on March 16, 1999 at 20:26:10 {MWbp7CDcBo4Qg}:
In Reply to: *****Frequently Avoided Quandaries posted by a7p on March 16, 1999 at 15:21:46:
Good grief A7- I've answered this already. It's still on the board.
How many speedometers do you have in your car. One? Get that dictionary of yours and look up "calibration", for starters. Sometimes they do use more than one of the techniques. Do you know what they are doing? They are testing the techniques. Testing. Another word for your list. When you test something, what happens? You find out how well it works. They do this in medicine, in Aerospace, in engineering, all the time. They even test software to see if it is compatible. Do they run all the tests each time? No. They develope a quality control system. In the case of the absolute dating systems, this is incredibly redundant.
Think of a telesope, a microscope, or any number of instruments. Let's take for example flight instruments. I used to fly a bit. We test the workability of these instruments, and we have routine maintenance. But we don't run all the tests every minute that we are flying. We actually use our instruments. Thats what they are for. Do you ever fly? Do you pester the pilot about testing his instruments, or do you just confidently enjoy the flight?.
I am not "blown away" by science. I just understand it. My exposure is adequate.
I taught Physics in 1968 to college freshmen. The year before I won a debate for atheism in Philosophy 101. I worked as a lab technician for years.
But you really shouldn't depend on me for this data about archaeology. I think in your case it's especially true that you need to "see it to believe it." And I mean more than a couple of apparently rapidly scanned Archaeology magazines.
Science does not occupy the same space as God. Science is the method, not necessarily the conlusion. We recognise the limitations of intuitive thinking in science. That is why we run so many "double blind" tests. That is why we use statistical analysis. You might say that we don't "lean on our own understanding." Rather than isolate ourselves, we have a "multitude of counselors" to check our work, giving us counsel when needed. Check my threads "Do You Believe", "Dating the Bible", "Digging it Back Up", and "More Archaeology" before you ask me the same question again. I've probably answered it.
I don't know what you mean by "I can't accept that", but I don't alter my view of facts simply because someone else chooses to ignore them. I accept that they "believe" something else. Hopefully they will keep their method of thinking confined to religion and not try to use it when they are driving or something.
Al