|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3403 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Non-scientific evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Hey RAZD,
How's the health? Good I hope.
What is "scientific evidence"? If we define that, then "non-scientific evidence" would be anything left. This can cover a lot of ground. Anecdotal evidence, hearsay, any experience that has not been duplicated ... Once we determine that, then we can talk about how much it can (or can't) be used for making coherent conclusions that have some chance of relating to reality. At first, I was thinking along the same lines, as in there being plenty of "non-scientific" evidence to speak of. But I don't think that's what Woodsy is talking about. In the OP he wrote:
I took the term "non-scientific evidence" to be some kind of evidence that is not based on observation. Judging from what he's posted leading up to this proposal, he's talking about the "un-observed" stuff people still refer to as subjective, or immaterial, evidence. "Non-scientific" is a bad phraseology, imao ![]() But yes, let's allow him to define it for himself, and then we can move on.
Reliable is a tall order. I'm not sure the scientific method with validated evidence necessarily results in reliable conclusions. I disagree. Every time we dropped that weight in the physics lab (as a random example), it fell at 9.8 m/s2... reliably. Nobody really observed it at any other acceleration. Interestingly ![]() Not quite sure where I was going with that... *burp*
But as far as "non-scientific evidence" goes, personally, I think the best you could do would be to develop an untested hypothesis of a possibility. This is where you get into the whole 'agnostic or not towards that possibility' funnel that we should not let each other fall into once again.
Could you link the post so we can see the context? I think he's referring to Dr. Sing... check here Message 215 and up plus here Message 226. I took a look at his last 5 messages posted, or so, and he seems to be another positivist bent against religion, no offense Woodsy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I would like to offer this thread as an opportunity for anyone who wishes to show what "non-scientific evidence" might be, to offer examples, and to demonstrate how it can be shown to be reliable. I not sure they can be shown to be reliable. Especially since being "scientific" relies on the reliability... so its seems paradoxical right up front. But yeah, a better definition would help. Anyways, to throw some examples out there to get started with: A few guys out together who all see the same ghost... If they all saw it, them they probably saw something actual. What it actaully was is unknown. Not "scientific", but "observed". Is that in any way "evidence"? How much can they rely on the similarities in what they saw to draw some kind of edjucated guess as to what it could not have been and what it might have been? A college student tripping his balls off wandering around in the amusement park of a subjective experience... Is that in any way "observed"? He's actually learned things from himself that have changed his life from that night on. How much can he rely on what he learned? The opinion of an Autralian Aborogine on how he feels about the European influences... Observed. Reliable? Lets go from there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Pretty good -- see The Bicycle Team Challenge Excellent! Congradulations.
That some (highly tested and heavily validated concepts) seem reliable does not mean that all are. Ah, you did say necessarily. I agree that its not necessary, but its still reliable nonetheless. I mean, science put a man on the moon. It IS reliable, no? Although, the Principle of Parsimony does cause some issues with myself. Assuming the simplest explanation is the most accurate seems to be a way to miss stuff.
Curiously, avoiding the issue won't make it go away. I don't care if the issue goes away or not, I'd just rather type about something else within these topics for a change.
There are lots of little bits and pieces of evidence floating around, and some of it may coalesce into a new concept, but until the concept is tested and validated it is just a possibility. Well then, out of all those many pieces, share some of the "non-scientific" ones and lets discuss thier reliability as per the topic...
Ah, thanks. Not much to go on there, we may be dealing more with assertions based on confirmation bias than evidence. yeah, I'm not exactly sure what Dr. Sing is talking about. He said there's other ways to investigate the supernatural that are not the scientific method. He listed this stuff in Message 264:
quote: So yes, not much to go on there indeed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That's right. I have seen references to ways of investigating the supernatural that do not use the scientific method a number of times. What I have not encountered is a convincing explanation of just what these methods might be. I'd rather like to know. Maybe I have missed something it would be good to know about. It depends on what you're talking about. The assertions from Dr. Sing are a little "out there", if you know what I mean. But what parts of the scientific method can be ignored but you'd still consider the investigation "scientific". Presumably, folliowing every step except peer review wouldn't cut it out for you. What about the stuff from those ghost hunting TV shows where they're using EMF meters and gathering data and trying conclude hypotheses n'stuff? It looks to be somewhat 'scientifical', but would you call that "non-scientific"? I brought up some other examples in Message 5, did you not see that one?
A message by dwise1 expanded on my request for information quite nicely. Message 271 Did you want to limit this thread to the hoohah that Dr Sing is talking about? Or something else?
"Non-scientific" is a bad phraseology, imao That's quite possible. Dr Sing stated that scientific methods could not be used, so "non-scientific" seemed to suit.
Well, what kinds of things would prevent the scientific method from being use? If you lack the ability to set proper controls for an experiment, then you're not investigating scientifically, but that wouldn't mean the phenomenon is supernatural. I think when people talk about supernatural things not being able to be studied scientifically, I don't think they're just talking about difficulties in the process preventing it (although sometimes they are), but that there's something inherent to the phenomenon that is preventing investigative observation. Like a ghost hunt, if its an intellegent spirit that can decide when it reveals itself, then a controlled experiment isn't going to yield data if they don't want it to. Or if their manifestations are erratic then that would muck it up too. I guess it depends on what you wanted to discuss... So?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Perhaps I could give another way of looking at things; what you described is still data. Reliable data does not guarantee reliable conclusions,
Every time we dropped that weight in the physics lab (as a random example), it fell at 9.8 m/s2... reliably. But the evidence is the data. The conclusion is not the evidence. Does science even say anything about the reliability of its own conclusions? From the OP:
quote: I took that to mean we were talking about the data and not the conclusions.
in the sense that we could conclude the weights are falling at 9.8 m/s2 because that is how hard the invisible gnomes pull things toward their underground burrows. This would of course be an unreliable conclusion,
How can that be shown?
as from it we might infer that if the moon also has invisible gnomes they would pull with similar vigor. How does that inference show the previous conclusion to be unreliable?
In a more broad sense however, it isn't particularly important that scientific theories are correct strictly speaking. If we adapted the hoarding gnome theory of gravitation to reliably match observations by positing weaker and stronger gnomes based on the amount of material in the particular body (or perhaps just more gnomes can live in larger celestial bodies), then the ridiculousness of the gnomes is largely irrelevant.
Why? What about that further inference reduces the ridiculousness? Is that shown in any way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I was referring to what RAZD said, Ah yes, context ![]() ... Because future observations are very likely to contradict the gnome theory? In what way? Are you going to observe something that shows that the gnomes aren't there?
Reliable data about Earth's gravitation does not guarantee that our conclusions about that gravity will also turn out to be reliable. I'm confused. Our conclusion from the experiment was that gravity caused the objects to accelerate at 9.8 m/s2. The data was the distance and the time measured from the falling object. What conclusions about gravity are you talking about? And what's the data? How can those conclusions be shown to be reliable?
An example of an unreliable prediction of the gnome theory would be the possibility of sifting for gravity gnomes, to collect them for our own use. I'm sorry, but I honestly am not getting the point you are making. How do you show that's unreliable?
I didn't say it reduced the ridiculousness, I said that the ridiculousness was largely irrelevant to its reliability. Oh, I see. My mistake.
A theory of invisible greedy gnomes that makes predictions exactly in line with our current understanding of gravitation will be exactly as reliable as that current theory. The point I was making is that the usefulness of scientific theories lies primarily in their reliable predictive power, not in the philosophical explanations behind them. So how does that tie into the OP's request for a demonstration of the reliability of non-scientific evidence and/or conslusions? Are you saying that it can't be done for scientific evidence either?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
When you use the term "reliable" what do you mean? I'm trying to use it in the spirit of the OP, although I'm not exactly sure what that is (but I'm trying to figure it out!) Personally, I just use it in the normal sense... like my car is reliable. I can rely on it working when I need it. I expect it to work. When I try it, it does work. In Message 4 I wrote:
quote: We can rely on a dropped weight falling at that acceleration. Its gonna happen that way. The word "correct" never entered my mind. Am I using it wrong? What do you think the OP is asking for with a request for a demonstration reliability?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That Earthly data combined with observations of several other celestial objects leads us to make the prediction that the force of gravity is proportional to the amount of mass in the object. These conclusions can, and have, been shown to be reliable when examining newly observed bodies. Thus the reliability of our conclusion about the link between mass and gravitation is proven. Yes, of course. That makes perfect sense. I wasn't sure what you were getting at, sorry for being a pain in your ass.
I'm sorry, but I am having a hard time understanding what you are getting at. Are you making some point about my needing to hold your hand through every conclusion? Just give me a minute, I'll catch up! I honestly just wasn't following where you were going.
Humans sift a lot of soil for a variety of reasons. Nobody has ever sifted up a concentration of gravity gnomes, in contradiction of prediction of the gnome theory. Thats an example of an unreliable prediction of the gnome theory. Because I have shown an example of how the predictions of the gnome theory are unreliable, we can by extension conclude that the gnome theory itself is unreliable. This is because it leads to unreliable predictions. Have I covered that step to your satisfaction or should I go over it in more detail? I guess my confusion stemmed from you saying that the gnomes are invisible, which I took to mean that you would expect something like your sifting experiment to come up with nothing, thus making them analogous to those supernatural claims that are said to be "non-scientific". But I understand what you're saying now. (I'm feeling noticebly stupider from a slight hangover today)
I also specifically pointed out that the reliability of scientific conclusions (distinct from evidence remember) is their primary benefit, and largely independent of their accuracy in other respects. I agree. And that independence of accuracy is what causes my problem with things like Straggler brings up with 'liklihoods' and 'correctness'. So in that sense, it doesn't matter if there's invisible gnomes there or not... our scientific conclusions work with or without them, thus their irrelevance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Unless we know what you mean by "reliable" I don't see how anyone can meaningfully converse with you in a topic related to demonstrating reliability. That's funny, I'm trying to figure out what they mean by reliable, and now you're having me define it.
Well when I hear the term "reliable" I find it impossible not to consider there to be some relation to likelihood. I've noticed ![]() When you say that your car is "reliable" I don't see how that means anything other than that it is more likely to function in the way predicted/expected (e.g. start) than not. Alright, that'll work.
You mean you predict it will happen that way and you consider it likely (indeed exceptionally likely to the point of near certainty in this particular case) that your conclusion will be correct. No? I guess (but its just not how liklihoods and correctness work in my mind). I don't think its going to go any other way so liklihood seems like poor word choice as its entertaining the idea that there might be something else that would happen. And as far as being correct, I guess we could use that word, but it can't be any other way. There is no wrong here to be opposed to. It is what it is.
If you make predictions and that is the measure of reliability how can you not consider being correct the determining factor in demonstrating that reliability? Because science doesn't acheive correctness. When things reliably work like we expect them to then we accept it whether or not its actually correct or not.
How can you separate a reliable conclusion from one that is likely to be correct? That is what I don't get. Because all the weight dropping in the world isn't showing that those invisible gnomes aren't there. There's no way to determine the liklihood of whether or not the scientific conclusion that they are not there is correct or not. And it doesn't matter if it is because its reliable. It works regardless of the gnomes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
When we make predictions are you saying that we cannot determine whether or not those predictions have been verified as correct or not? Correct as what we predicted, yes, but not necessarily correct in the sense of actually reflecting reality. Like, me predicting and verifying as correct that the acceleration would be 9.8 m/s2 doesn't say whether or not those gnomes are involved. The scientific conclusion is that there are no gnomes involved and that is reliable but we don't know if its correct or not.
You seem to be saying that all possible causes of gravity are equal. That space-time curvature can be considered as no more likely to be the cause than can invisible gnomes. Is that what you are saying? Not quite, us not being able to determine the liklihood of a cause does not necessitate that they are equal. Space-time curvature as a cause is reliable and it works, but that is not necessarily correct and the scientific method cannot yield a liklihood of that cause being the correct one.
Because all the weight dropping in the world isn't showing that those invisible gnomes aren't there. I have never said that it will have I? I have simply requested that the basis of a conclusion (e.g. that gnomes are responsible for gravity) be able to demonstrate itself as being superior to blind chance. Randomly plucking possible conceptual causes out of the air. Guessing. Call it what you will. That is what I think the OP means when it asks for demonstrations of the reliability of of non-scientific evidence. Why should we think that your gnomes are any more likely to be the cause of gravity than any of the other conceivable causes? Are we justified in saying that space-time curvature is a more likely cause on the basis of it's ability to make correct predictions? If the verification of the predictions isn't showing that the gnomes aren't there then how are you determining a liklihood of them being there or not by the scientific method? We don't have any reason to suspect that they are there, and predictions based on them not being there are reliable, but this is not a determination of the liklihood of us being correct in our conclusion of their absence. They're irrelevant and science continues on working reliably whether they are there or not but science cannot verify itself like that by determining the liklihood of that conclusion as being correct.
What do we mean when we say one theory is more reliable than another and how do we demonstrate that?
We mean that what it predicts is what we'll observe and we demonstrate it by testing it with the scientific method.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Not much to disagre with here, Taq...
When I think of evidence I think of a scenario where the data could be anything independent of what the theory states. Evidence FOR a claim necessarily includes lack of evidence that would be AGAINST the claim. IOW, if A is true then you should see B and not C. The "not C" part is as important, and perhaps more important, than "B". Falsifiability... yes, important to science. I agree.
If any and all potential observations are consistent with a claim then you can not claim to have evidence. What you have is dogma, which itself is only evidence of your gullibility. Well, there's other stuff too. I brought up some examples in Message 5 where maybe we can better understand where we should be drawing the line between observed or not and reliable or not, and how that relates to what people refer to as "non-sceientific" evidence. They are:
quote: More and/or better examples would be nice.
Space-time curvature as a cause is reliable and it works, but that is not necessarily correct and the scientific method cannot yield a liklihood of that cause being the correct one. Totally agree. Hey, alright. Maybe you can help me explain that to Straggler.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Let's be absolutely clear here - Do you really consider curved spacetime as no more likely to be the underlying cause of gravity than magic gnomes? Really? Of course not. I think that science's conclusion are pretty much The TruthTM. They're probably nearly 99.9% likely to be correct. The point is that this is not something derived from science itself.
Is curved space-time a superior explanation of gravity than magic gnomes or not? And if it is how can it not be considered superior in terms of accurately reflecting reality (i.e. being relatively likely to be correct)? Of course its superior, it can be shown to be accurate and reliable. We got nothing for the gnomes. But the science, itself, does not show itself to be more accurately reflecting reality than some unfalsifyable concept like the gnomes. Hell, the gnomes could be the ones bending the spacetime and then the scientific conclusion wouldn't even be contradicting the gnome one.
Science is not just a predictive methodology. Scientific theories are also explanatory frameworks. The predictive ability of an explanatory framework is an indicator of how accurately that explanation reflects reality (as well as being a useful tool in itself). If all we've seen is white swans then we can inductively conclude that all swans are white and use that as an explanatory framework to predict that no black swans will be found. But this is not saying that black swans do not exist nor can we conclude from that how accurately our explanation of all swans being white reflects reality, nor can we us it to come up with a liklihood of the existence of a black swan. Finding another white swan does not indicate how accurate the framework of 'no black swans exist' reflects reality. We would be finding the prediction accurate and the framework would be shown to be reliable.
Curved space-time is the evidenced explanation for gravity and it has been verified as being an accurate model of reality by it's ability to make accurate predictions. To my knowledge the gravitational gnome theory remains both unevidenced and unable to make any verifiable predictions. Thus space-time curvature can be considered as relatively likely to be correct in terms of reflecting and modelling reality as compared to the competing notion that gnomes are responsible for gravity. Sure, you could consider it that if you want. You could consider it to be 99.864% more likely to be correctly reflecting reality if you want to. But this is not something that follows from the science.
How can you not factor in whether or not an explanation accurately reflects reality when considering competing theories? By simply looking at the evidence we do have. We have evidence that shows the curved spacetime theory is accurate in its predictions and is reliable. We don't have anything for evidence towards the gnomes and they are an unfalsifyable concept, so considering the competing theories, the gnomes loose. But we haven't determined anything about whether or not those gnomes actually exist or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
These guys are jumping right to the conclusion by claiming it was a ghost. Ugh. Damnit, I knew that's what someone was going to say. I just used "seeing a ghost" to be a short consice description of what was going on (as I figured people would pretty much know what I was talking about). I specifcally said What it actually was is unknown to say that they had not concluded that is really was a ghost. The point was to explore where the evidence would fit as far as being "observed" and if there could be any reliability to it and how much they could use it to form some kind of educated guess on what they were seeing maybe with some if/then scenarios on top of it or something.
What did they actually observe? How did they confirm those observations through other means? How do they know that it wasn't an optical illusion? The question I often ask is if you observe David Copperfield levitating an object do you look for the wires or do you proclaim "Wow, that's magic!"? Approaching a problem/observation from as many angles as possible is a very big deal in science. In science circles there is a something called a "one hit wonder". It is used to describe a spectacular result produced through a single experiment and/or a single observation. These one hit wonders are looked upon with heavy skepticism. What scientists want to see is consilience of many different approaches to the same question. One of the questions a scientist is always asking himself is "I observed it, but is it real?". The "art" of science is figuring out how to try and prove yourself wrong while secretly hoping you are right. Yes, that's all fine and dandy for scientific evidence. And it takes a lot of controlling the varibles to figure out. That's not always possible. I thought we'd be talking about non-scientific evidence and how reliable it can be. If a few guys all saw something then we can figure it was objective, but its not scientific. How reliable can it be and how do we determine that? That kind of stuff. But now Dr. Sing has jumped in and the route he's taking this thread is completely different from what I thought was going to go on. So we can just drop this if you want or don't care or whatever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
We have scientifically established that curved space-time is far more likely to be the underlying cause of gravity than magic gnomes. No? No, we have not scientifically established that.
Yes based on it's predictive power curved space-time is considered a reliable model of reality. More reliable and thus more likely to be correct (in terms of approximating reality) than your gnomes causing gravitational effects. No. How have we shown that the gnomes aren't causing it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So what does the predictive power of a theory tell us about it's superior ability to reflect reality? Nothing? That its reliable. That we can build further upon it. That we can use it.
Why do we need to show that every single conceivable possible cause of gravity (a near infinite array of concepts limited only by our imagination - gnomes are the tip of the iceberg) are NOT the cause? We don't. You're the one who wants to show that one conclusion is more likely to be correct than the other so you're the one who's gonna have to show that the gnomes aren't involved. Me... I don't care about the liklihood of correctness. I'm satisfied knowing that the scientific model is working and that the gnomes are irrelevant.
We have an evidenced predictively verified explanation. Why is that not the one we would consider most likely to accurately reflect reality? We do consider it as the most likely to be accurate, but this is not something that follows from the science itself.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024