|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Scientific Method For Beginners | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Tentativity isn't mere philosophy. It's foundational to science. Oh, now you're just jerking me around. When I believe that I have two legs, is that belief tentative?
tentative Adjective 1. provisional or unconfirmed: a tentative agreement 2. hesitant, uncertain, or cautious: their rather tentative approach Is that really the attitude I should take to the proposition that I have two legs? Except in the wildest daydreams of philosophers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
In science certainty can never reach 100%. This may feel like a philosophical nicety to you when counting legs, and if you want to claim that your observation of having two legs has 100% scientific certainty then I doubt anyone cares, but you're going to get consistent objections to claims of scientific certainty concerning creation/evolution issues from many on both sides of the debate. Even our facts are tentative.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Arphy, we are treading close to the topic/off-topic line, but perhaps this can be discussed as an example of scientific method as used by creationists.
hmm... as you can guess i disagree with this statement. An example is the prediction made by Russell Humphreys a creationist using a creation model, He predicted the strength of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. These were then proven correct by Voyager II, unlike any of the secular predictions. Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic
Field
quote: I'll let others pursue this rabbithole with a new thread, but for now I note that this is far from explaining the evidence at this point. Rather it looks like the calculations were fudged to arrive at values consistent for the Earth and Saturn, and then those fudged values were used to predict values for Uranus and Neptune, giving results accurate enough to be in the ball park. I don't call that success, I call it good fudging from known empirical information. Engineers fit curves to known data all the time in order to "predict" other values for design, but such curve-fitting is not an explanation of why the curve exists in the data.
Yip, true (although depends on how you define evolve, but you know my position on that already). Curiously, the only way to define "evolve" is the way it is used in biological evolution or you are talking about something else and pretending to debate in good faith. It's called the fallacy of equivocation. If you want to see how it is defined within the science you can look at: An introduction to evolution - Understanding EvolutionEvolution and Natural Selection and The Process of Speciation These universities teach evolutionary biology, so you can be sure the definitions are ones used in the science. Both are good reading for basic information on evolution as it is studied today.
Absolutly True. Same goes for any other person on earth whether creationist, evolutionist, or ...ist. ... No evidence doesn't lie. Yes to testing the validity of an argument by how completly it explains all the evidence. Agreed, so then, rather than rely on any opinions on the matter, we should look for conclusions and hypothesis that are logically deducted directly from the known evidence, and use those to predict new findings that will validate or invalidate the hypothesis. Curiously, this is how the scientific method works: it doesn't matter what concept you start with, what matters is that you can test concepts against evidence and discard concepts that are invalidated by evidence - no matter what the concept is.
quote:Thanks, I'll go have a look. See you there. Note that the issue is not dates per se but the correlations between them from all the different sources. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : and Saturn by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
This is the third time I have asked:
Can you point to any well-known philosophers of science who use your terminology? Or any subfields of science where your terminology is standard?
If you can't, that's OK; simply admit it. And this is the second time I've asked:
What field of science are you active in or trained in, BTW?
By this question, I'm trying to understand your background to provide a context for your wording. (BTW, I am trained and working as a physicist.)
quote:Your are confusing categories. That you have two legs is an observational fact not a scientific theory. Most physicists would simply call this an observation or a fact, it would be unusual for them to use the word proven in this context. Getting back to scientific theories such as gravity, electromagnetism, standard model, Big Bang--I know of no physicist who would call these theories "proven," not even in colloquial speech. They would use words like "verified" or "validated."
quote:You are being intentionally and unnecessarily offensive. Am I to infer that you have run out of data or logic to support your claims, and are left to ad hominem? quote:I did not intend to offend or insult you personally, and I apologize that it came across that way. But perhaps you need to re-read my post. I labeled your proposal not you, as disingenuous. And I explained why: the proposal is tantamount to regarding something as true which is really false. Perhaps "disingenuous" was not the best choice of words. Maybe "deceptive" or "delusive" or "wrong" would be better, or some other adjective which captures the sense of "a proposal to regard something as true which is really false."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In science certainty can never reach 100%. This may feel like a philosophical nicety to you when counting legs, and if you want to claim that your observation of having two legs has 100% scientific certainty then ... ... then I would be made entirely out of straw. Now let us consider the position of a real person who actually exists, namely you. Would you really describe my belief that I have two legs as tentative?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If you can't, that's OK; simply admit it. I've read Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Nagel. I will wager that that's four more writers on the philosophy of science than you've ever read. Oh, would you count Wittgenstein and Hume? How about Kant? None of them contradicts what I actually wrote, which is that we are obliged to regard certain propositions as proven. Now, I too have asked you a question, namely whether there's anyone in the world who, philosophical quibbling aside, would deny that I can prove that I have two legs. If you can't introduce me to such a person, that's OK. Simply admit it.
And this is the second time I've asked:
What field of science are you active in or trained in, BTW? I didn't notice you asking that before. I am a mathematician. That is, I am active in the very field to which strict Popperians would reserve the word "proof". Thanks for asking.
Your are confusing categories. No, I am not. Your assertion against mine, who will win?
You are being intentionally and unnecessarily offensive. Yes, I am. I'm glad you noticed, otherwise I'd have been wasting my time there.
Am I to infer that you have run out of data or logic to support your claims, and are left to ad hominem? No, you are to infer that when you call my arguments "disingenuous", that is different only in degree from if I say that your mother's a whore. It is an insult without warrant.
I did not intend to offend or insult you personally, and I apologize that it came across that way. Apology accepted. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You: So, Dr Adequate, you claim that you have two legs?
Me: Yes. You: You are absolutely certain that you have two legs? Me: Yes. You: Can you prove that before this court? Me: Yes. If the court will allow it, I will now remove my pants. Judge: In the interests of justice, I'm going to allow that. Me: See, this is me with my pants off. I have two legs. Count 'em. You: So you claim to have proved that you have two legs? Me: Well, actually, I'm kind of interested in epistemological philosophy. So it might be a more accurate statement of my position to say that we are obliged to regard it as proven. You: I invite the jury to observe the shifty demeanor of the witness. Also that he's ugly. But let me ask you again, Dr Adequate --- if that is your real name --- have you or have you not just proved that you have two legs? Me: Well, you know, when we start using the term "proof", it all depends what we ... You: If it please the court, I should like the court reporter to read back the questions put to the witness, and the answers given by the witness. Judge: I shall allow that. Court reporter: "So, Dr Adequate, you claim that you have two legs?" "Yes." "You are absolutely certain that you have two legs?" "Yes." "Can you prove that before this court?" "Yes. If the court will allow it, I will now remove my ..." You: That's enough. So, Dr Adequate --- if that is your real pseudonym --- you testified under oath that you could prove that you have two legs. Me: I guess. You: You guess? Shall I get the court reporter to read your testimony to you again? Me: OK, OK, I admit it! I really can prove that I have two legs. You: And you claim to have proven this remarkable claim before this court? Me: Yes, dammit. I'm standing here wearing no pants. You: And yet, Dr Adequate, I put it to you that hypothetically there might exist some supernatural being ... My lawyer: Objection, Your Honor! If it please the court, this line of questioning has no relevance. Judge: Over-ruled. Apart from anything else, I really want to see where this is going. You: Thank you, Your Honor. So, Dr Adequate, I put it to you that a magical invisible being possessing supernatural powers could fool us all into thinking that you have two legs, when in fact you have five tentacles, or seven pseudopodia. Me: Well ... in principle ... I guess so. You: And if you admit this possibility, then you cannot prove that you have two legs? Me: I guess not. You: Your Honor, if it please the court, this witness has perjured himself. He claimed that he could prove that he had two legs, and now he admits that this is impossible to prove. Judge: Why, you silly twit. You silly, silly twit. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Dr Adequate,
I don't think I can add anything to what I've already said, and Kbertshe has been pretty clear on the matter, too. You can't claim proof of things that are only tentatively true. Even visual observations, such as of canals on Mars or N-Rays, are tentative. Science doesn't consider things proven until disproven. It tentatively accepts things to varying degrees according to the evidence as measured by a consensus within the relevant scientific subcommunity. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Dr Adequate writes: Me: Well, actually, I'm kind of interested in epistemological philosophy. So it might be a more accurate statement of my position to say that we are obliged to regard it as proven. People accept that you have two legs because of the supporting evidence, and in an informal sense we might say that you have proven you have two legs. But in a scientific sense we can only say that we provisionally accept that you have two legs. Your choice of terminology is a problem. You're attempting to incorporate the principle of tentativity by saying that we're only "obliged to regard it as proven," but science regards nothing as proven. "Provisionally proven" is a scientific oxymoron. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't think I can add anything to what I've already said, and Kbertshe has been pretty clear on the matter, too. You can't claim proof of things that are only tentatively true. Even visual observations, such as of canals on Mars or N-Rays, are tentative. And my claim to have two legs? How "tentative" is that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
And my claim to have two legs? How "tentative" is that? Not very. But there is a small possibility that your legs are a hallucination, that you are really a disembodied brain hooked into the Matrix. Tentativity looks like an asymptote; you can never actually be completely 100% certain that even what you directly observe is true. New evidence could always trump even the most solid theory. Of course, at a certain point certitude is so close to 100% that you may as well consider it to be completely verified for all practicalconcerns. That's why we tend not to get caught up wondering whether we're figments of someone else's imagination, or simulations of the Matrix, or whatever. That's why "proofs" exist only in mathematics, not science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
People accept that you have two legs because of the supporting evidence, and in an informal sense we might say that you have proven you have two legs. But in a scientific sense we can only say that we provisionally accept that you have two legs. Then "the scientific sense" is not the English language, and if you want to use the word "proof" in your way, you should notify people when you do so. For example, every time you use the word "proof", you should say: "Oh, and so as not to mislead you, I am using the word "proof" in such a strange way that, according to my use of the word "proof", it would be actually impossible for you to prove, even to yourself, that you have two legs."
Your choice of terminology is a problem. You're attempting to incorporate the principle of tentativity by saying that we're only "obliged to regard it as proven," but science regards nothing as proven. "Provisionally proven" is a scientific oxymoron. But we are obliged to regard some things as true. To quote Hume:
Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall learn by and by, when the company breaks up: we shall then see, whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether you really doubt if your body has gravity, or can be injured by its fall; according to popular opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more fallacious experience. Well, are you going to leave by the door or the window? Right, the door. Because although you may in a philosophical debate deny that the law of gravity is proven, yet you will always act as though it was. You'd be crazy not to. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Not very. But there is a small possibility that your legs are a hallucination, that you are really a disembodied brain hooked into the Matrix. Sure. That's what I said. And yet I'm still obliged to behave as though the world is real, because if I have what some philosopher might suggest was merely the illusion of dropping an illusory brick on my illusory foot, then I will still have the illusion that it hurts every bit as though it was real.
Tentativity looks like an asymptote ... No it doesn't --- once you introduce the idea that we might be living in the Matrix. Once you go into this epistemological nightmare, then the accumulation of data cannot make you more and more certain of your hypothesis. You might not be approaching truth --- you might just be becoming more and more deeply duped by the illusion being fed to you. And if you're arguing with me, aren't you meant to be sticking up for Popper? It is my view that I can legitimately become better and better convinced of a hypothesis. This is totally in opposition to his (flawed) concept of "falsification".
Of course, at a certain point certitude is so close to 100% that you may as well consider it to be completely verified for all practical concerns. Not just "may" --- must.
That's why "proofs" exist only in mathematics, not science. They do? Whoopee. I shall now tell all my fellow-mathematicians that although scientists can make mistakes about science, they can never make mistakes about math. Perhaps some Cartesian demon is fooling the minds of scientists into thinking that the world is not flat, but it would be impossible for a similar demon to fool the minds of mathematicians into thinking that the angles in a triangle sum to 180. For some reason. This epistemological exception to human fallibility is a burden as well as a privilege. I hope we won't get too swanky about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Once you go into this epistemological nightmare, then the accumulation of data cannot make you more and more certain of your hypothesis. You might not be approaching truth --- you might just be becoming more and more deeply duped by the illusion being fed to you. This is my own concern. We are forced into not only treating the conclusion as tentative, but every step, sub-step, and micro-step along the 10,000 year long path from "rocks fall when dropped" to "Hubble mirror can be corrected by use of X". If at each micro-step we have a finite probability of error, then the accumulated error by the final conclusion could well be material... is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This is my own concern. We are forced into not only treating the conclusion as tentative, but every step, sub-step, and micro-step along the 10,000 year long path from "rocks fall when dropped" to "Hubble mirror can be corrected by use of X". If at each micro-step we have a finite probability of error, then the accumulated error by the final conclusion could well be material... is it? Apparently not, because scientists were right about how to fix the Hubble telescope.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024