Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The philosophy and logic of theory building, justification, and acceptance
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 5 (224756)
07-19-2005 9:02 PM


This thread is a result of some of the discussion which has occured in the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Fact or Fiction thread. It has become clear to me that it is impossible to productively discuss the credibility of theories like Catastrophic Plate Tectonics with misunderstandings of what is the nature of evidence and how theories are hypothesized, built, justified, and ultimately accepted.
I have repeatedly read the statement, "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics has no evidence", and numerous veriations of the claim implying a complete void of what has been termed "evidence".
One exchange with Percy went as follows:
quote:
Percy:...you have no evidence CPT conditions have ever occurred. Start with evidence, Chris. Find evidence that says, "This demands that the continents moved rapidly." Stop trying to shoehorn the evidence into the Biblical myth.
Me in response:...I have accurately stated several times that you are not looking for evidence for CPT, you are looking for evidence (data) that can be explained by CPT and NOT by modern geology. I have also argued that the modern uniformitarian view of geology has a remarkable ability to continue molding itself, modifying auxilliary hypotheses after another without the ultimate theory suffering variations in the degree of confirmation/credibility--how could you not with all that time? Modern geology is specified to the point where it rather fails the virtue of refutability in the philosophy of science. This virtue of theories is a matter of degree measured by the cost of retaining the hypothesis in the face of imaginable events. The degree is measured by how clearly we cherish the previous beliefs that would have to be sacrificed to save the hypothesis. The greater the sacrifice, the more refutable the hypothesis. Modern geology gives very little sacrifice--so much so that it would require something like finding a human skull in cambrian rock record to even begin to be questioned. In fact, I can't think of too many other imaginable events except like anomalies in the fossil record that would be considered candidates for disconfirming evidence. So much more of modern geology's survivability is in the virtue of conservism and generality than in refutability. Furthermore in the context of our discussion, those imaginable events should be formulated while also considering the predictions of CPT. The reason the human skull example is considerable is because this 'anomaly' is an imaginable event that would not also disconfirm CPT. However other imaginable events, such as a lithosphere that does not thicken with age, the current forces of tectonics, etc. are not reasonable imaginable events because CPT expects what PT predicts at least approximately what CPT would predict as well so its potential disconfirmation is rendered null in light of the competing theory.
In summery, I would argue that there is much data which qualifies as evidence for CPT, but have not and will not argue that CPT has diagnostic evidence in relation to the prevailing theory of conventional plate tectonics and geodynamics.
Another misconception that has been shown several times is that the amount of intellectual time and energy I invest in theories like CPT essentially equates to my acceptance or belief of it. To this "logic" I note that it is NOT the business of scientists as scientists to accept as true the hypotheses and theories they research, no matter its status of acceptance in the scientific community. The degree to which I invest my intellectual energy (hardly understood, let alone determined by those who presume to know it, I also note) in such realms of research cannot be filtered through any such deterministic equation.
Furthermore, the following misunderstanding was illustrated:
quote:
If you were truly "merely considering it" then you would have rejected it at the outset for violations of known physical laws and for just being mind-poppingly unbelievable. Those interested in exploring ideas from the frontiers of science do not wed themselves to Biblical myths at the expense of basic scientific principles and thinking.
Which can essentially be interpreted as follows:
(a) Consideration of CPT leads to => rejection (disconfirmation) of CPT by (1) the nebulous assumption that CPT violates physical laws and (2) is "mind-poppingly" unbelievable.
And the second sentence:
(b) Those interested in scientific discovery who also consider theories like CPT have accepted the "Biblical Myth" at the expense of basic scientific principles and thinking.
I have argued against (a.1) in my response as follows and would particularly like this responded to as I have here demonstrated the current status and implications of the structure of CPT theory:
quote:
...You have just described the flawed outcome of the epistomologically flawed schema of (t) and (s), where schema (t) is stated as "H then TI; TI, therefore H is confirmed" and likewise schema (s) is "H then TI; not TI, therefore H is disconfirmed" where H= hypothesis and TI=test implication. The problem is that the first premise (that of H then TI) will always contain auxiliary hypotheses. The actual form of the first premeses is (n) if H and A1 and A2 and ...An then TI. A1, A2, etc. are auxiliary hypotheses--hypotheses assumed when it is claimed that H implies TI. Therefore, to be more realistic about the first premise of (t), the formal conclusion can only be: Therefore, H is false, or A1 is false, or A2 is false, or ...An is false. The problem is that you think determination of A1, A2, and An, etc. is so simple within confirmatory evidence of CPT relative to PT. In order to best determine those auxilliary hypotheses (required to be true for falsification of H, the hypothesis), models of the hypothesis must be developed sufficiently. This is the problem with producing the diagnostic evidences you desire--the details of CPT have not been sorted out well yet and so it is very difficult to say that certain auxilliary hypotheses are correct when determining confirmation and disconfirmation of CPT. How well do you understand those 'basic scientific principles and thinking" that you seem to think you are advocating??
I would like to see Percy or another substantiate the original claims who really understands the philosophy of scientific methods, inquiry, and justification.
Lastly, Percy asserted the following:
quote:
We are not exploring CPT with you because it is self-evidently in the "extremely unlikely" category. We don't think it's science, and we don't think there's any evidence supporting it.
I would like to know how is CPT a non-science, cannot be scientific, and is a non-science as I have argued it. The claim that 'there is no evidence supporting it' has been addressed above.
I would like the purpose of this thread to be to approach YEC theories like CPT within the scope of epistomology and the philosophy of science. Illustrative and exemplary discussion of relevant fields of science like geology are therefore inevitable, but should be given in moderation--with the focus and motivation for their inclusion being on the problems and successes YEC theories have in their structure, justification, confirmation, and acceptance.
Therefore this topic should probably enter the "Is it Science" forum.
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-19-2005 09:06 PM

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 07-22-2005 3:14 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 07-22-2005 5:32 PM TrueCreation has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 5 (225532)
07-22-2005 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
07-19-2005 9:02 PM


Rejected
Sorry Chris but this looks like just another dodge around the issue of science. What you have outlined is but the creation of science fiction, the willing suspension of evidence in favor of speculation.
As it stands I don't see how this can be promoted. If you'd like to revise the OP we can look at it again.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 07-19-2005 9:02 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 07-24-2005 4:11 AM AdminJar has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 5 (225579)
07-22-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
07-19-2005 9:02 PM


TrueCreation writes:
Therefore this topic should probably enter the "Is it Science" forum.
There's already a thread about the nature of science in the [forum=-11] forum: What is good science?. This thread proposal from you is transparent evasion. Please address the issues I've raised in that thread, most recently in Message 18. I'll post another brief message there in a few minutes.
This message has been edited by Admin, 07-22-2005 05:46 PM

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 07-19-2005 9:02 PM TrueCreation has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 5 (225901)
07-24-2005 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminJar
07-22-2005 3:14 PM


Re: Rejected
quote:
Sorry Chris but this looks like just another dodge around the issue of science. What you have outlined is but the creation of science fiction, the willing suspension of evidence in favor of speculation.
As it stands I don't see how this can be promoted. If you'd like to revise the OP we can look at it again.
I've carried my arguments into Percy's thread which I hadn't noticed until after I proposed this one. Since you think that my arguments "dodge around the issue of science" and are 'science fiction' you might be interested in participating in that thread.
Percy says:
quote:
This thread proposal from you is transparent evasion.
You know that I had said that I didn't see your thread before posting this one... This reads to me like you are puffing yourself up so that you can suspend me again I hope this isn't the case.
-Chris Grose

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 07-22-2005 3:14 PM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 07-24-2005 7:49 AM TrueCreation has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 5 (225921)
07-24-2005 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by TrueCreation
07-24-2005 4:11 AM


Re: Rejected
No worries, Chris. When I saw Jar's response on Friday I assumed it was a new proposal, not one from a few days before. I didn't notice the date on your post.
Chris, I don't want to suspend you, I just want rational dialogue from you. Rational and intelligent people can disagree about the shortest route to the mall or about whether string theory will ever replace the standard model, but not about whether you need eggs to make an omelot or whether people can fly by flapping their arms. There's an assumption that we all live in the real world and have a fair handle on the difference between fantasy and reality. EvC Forum will not play host to discussions that are not well grounded in reality.
There are plenty of loons and whackos out there. I prefer colloquial expressions for describing such people, but to put a more formal glazing on it, they are people who can't draw rational conclusions from evidence, or who know very little but don't let that stand as an impediment to drawing conclusions.
Here's a nice example of nonsense from a recent issue of New Scientist. This comes from the section in the back called Feedback, which is a collection of notices about boneheaded articles in the recent press and literature:
"Like zero-point energy, tachyon moves faster than the speed of light and is omnipresent...At the point of the speed of light, tachyon interacts with the subtle organizing energy fields (SOEFs). Becoming energized, the SOEFs convert tachyon energy into whatever frequencies are needed to bring balance to the being...SOEFs are the 'cosmic glue' that holds all forms together. They are the matrix upon which physical and subtle bodies are formed. Tachyon, pure life-force energy, is converted by the SOEFs into the exact frequencies needed to maintain and restore perfect balance to a life form."
This is obviously absurd nonsense, and here's another example:
Furthermore as I pointed out in the CPT thread, the problem is compounded by the nature of conventional PT theory. It is difficult to envision disconfirming evidence of PT (relative to CPT) with all that time. Comparing CPT geology to Modern geology, the latter rather fails the virtue of refutability in the philosophy of science. This virtue of theories is a matter of degree measured by the cost of retaining the hypothesis in the face of imaginable events. The degree is measured by how clearly we cherish the previous beliefs that would have to be sacrificed to save the hypothesis. The greater the sacrifice, the more refutable the hypothesis. Modern geology gives very little sacrifice--so much so that it would require something like finding a human skull in cambrian rock record to even begin to be questioned. In fact, I can't think of too many other imaginable events except like anomalies in the fossil record that would be considered candidates for disconfirming evidence. So much more of modern geology's survivability is in the virtue of conservism and generality than in refutability.
If it looks familiar, it should. It's you in Message 4 arguing for the legitimacy of CPT in the absence of evidence, and why mainstream theories in geology are suspect because of the strength of their evidence. (Of course, you could easily argue you meant something else as this paragraph is a wonderful example of impenetrable prose.)
There are no words to convince a perpetual motion machine believer that no such thing is possible. Argument, equations, logic, he's impervious to them all. This principle generalizes. There are no words or arguments or logic to turn aside a believer in anything. It doesn't matter what is believed or why, the belief is impervious to any challange. Overturning it simply can't be done. There are no interventions to help someone caught in the throes of irrational belief.
So to argue with such people is to tilt with windmills. Only they can turn the lightbulb on for themselves, no one can do it for them. In the meantime, here at EvC Forum believers who are particularly persistent in pushing irrationality and illogic receive temporary suspensions.
You need evidence, Chris. There's no way around it. With all the words and arguments and formal logic and evasiveness you're only fooling yourself. Just as a mathematician who at the end of day finds he's proved that 1 equals 0 knows he made a mistake somewhere in the derivation, you know in your heart that if at the end of your arguments you conclude that theory can be valid without evidence that somewhere along the line you've made a serious mistake.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 07-24-2005 4:11 AM TrueCreation has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024