|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scientific Knowledge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I have no idea what you are talking about "unnecessary" for. If you want to just want to use scientific theories to predict things (e.g. in an engineering sense) then you can certainly just do that and not worry about anything else. That's what I'm saying, and that that is the protocol. There's no reason, from a scientific persepective, to talk about the correctness or reality-ness.
But if you want to ask the question as to why some theories yield more accurate and reliable results than others you inevitably have to confront the idea that some theories are better descriptions of reality (i.e. more correct) than others. That question is outside the scope of science, i.e. it is not something science can answer about itself. You're into philosophy at that point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: If you want to just use scientific theories to predict things (e.g. in an engineering sense) then you can certainly just do that and not worry about anything else. CS writes: That's what I'm saying, and that that is the protocol. How can that be the "protocol" when scientific theories are seeking to provide explanation and understanding rather than just predictions for engineers?
CS writes: There's no reason, from a scientific persepective, to talk about the correctness or reality-ness. If you want to construct a theory that accurately describes reality then of course there is. How could there not be? What kind of lunatic would say that evolutionary theory is a superior theory to the Genesis account regarding the origins of species without meaning that it is a more accurate description of reality?
CS writes: You're into philosophy at that point. So what? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
How can that be the "protocol" when scientific theories are seeking to provide explanation and understanding rather than just predictions for engineers? Well, I do tend to think in terms of Applied Science.... I suppose there could be some Theoretical Scientists out there who think of their theories in terms of correct-ness and reality-ness... but that's thier problem
If you want to construct a theory that accurately describes reality then of course there is. How could there not be? But that was my point, that scientists don't give a shit about how accurately they're "describing reality" as long as the theory is working. But then again, I'm thinking about the application here, not some musings outside of the lab.
CS writes: You're into philosophy at that point. So what? I have work to do in the lab... Have fun musing about how much correctness you've attained. ABE: If you want to talk about correct-ness and reality-ness of scientific theories, then I don't really have a problem with that, hell feel free to throw the word 'know' in there. I know that when you drop your pen that it will fall, and if you tell me what height you're going to drop it from, then I'd know how long it was going to to take to hit the desk, every single time you drop it, I know it is going to accelerate at the same rate. That's because of the reality that we live in and our equations for determining that stuff are correct. But all that is very colloquial... Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Straggler tries to welcome me:
Having established your credentials as a RAZ classified "pseudoskeptic" (welcome to the club) . . . Consider this post excerpt from Zen Deist in Message 265:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism
quote: I draw your attention to the 4 references to Example Usage, which all imply that the Pseudoskeptic has NOT provided evidence to support being 6 or more. Here, from Zen Diest's Message 274:
Without substantiating empirical objective evidence positions 3, 4 and 5 are valid, while 1, 2, 6 (as Straggles claimed last time he listed) and 7 are invalid. Notice the sentence below the box. "Without substantiating empirical objective evidence..." In they case of my pen experiments on my desk, I have substantiating empirical objective evidence, both from own investigation and by the world-wide independent experiments on gravity, to justify taking a 6d position on it doing something supernaturalishly unexpected without being Pseudoskeptical. I might add that even with some substantiating empirical objective evidence, Positions 1 and 7 are logically invalid. But I won't go into that now - that's another day. continuing...:
If in a thread supposedly about scientific knowledge we cannot all agree that Lord Voldermort is all-but-certainly made-up then it is time to call the men in white coats to take someone away. I forget - who has not agreed? Edited by xongsmith, : The agony of clone Edited by xongsmith, : clarity- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Straggles,
I'm pretty booked up and only have a little time for responses at the moment. I was in luddite land yesterday, and my phone and aircard got dumped just after my last post. Doing a little better now, but time ...
I can agree to the above with one proviso. The proviso is this - Where we have a known truth or high confidence concept where "conclusions regarding probable reality can be made" we are also able to make equally conclusive conclusions regarding mutually exclusive alternatives. For example: If we know that 0+1=1 is axiomatically and thus definitely true then we can know with equal confidence that 1+1=1 is axiomatically and thus definitely NOT true. First we need to look at what you are claiming in more detail to see where you take what I see as a false step in your reasoning. I will start with the math, as it should be the clearest example to deal with: I. A Priori Assumptions A:
We could go on and say B+B = C and define that concept as 'two' and then develop a whole bunch of fun maths, but the point is:
Because these results 1a and 1b are proven, we can have Absolute Confidence in the mathematic conclusions contained within the "blue" area defined by A Priori Assumptions A - that A+A = A and A+B = B where A ≠B. II. A Priori Assumptions B: If instead we assume we are refering to a {set\class\group\bunch} of objects, then adding more examples of the {set\class\group\bunch} still results in one {set\class\group\bunch}: for example a dog will always be a dog, any new offspring will still be dogs ...
Because these result 1a is proven, we can have Absolute Confidence in the mathematic conclusions contained within the "blue" area defined by A Priori Assumptions B - that A+A = A and B+B = B and A ≠B. III. Extending the conclusions outside their "blue" areas: We have absolute confidence in the results of A Priori Assumptiona A within the "blue" area defined by the A Priori Assumptions A:
AND we have absolute confidence in the results of A Priori Assumptions B within the "blue" area defined by the A Priori Assumptions B:
If these results apply outside their respective "blue" areas, then we have:
and because both cannot be true outside their respective blue areas at the same time, we have an irreconcilable, unavoidable contradiction.
&there4 The results are dependent on the definitions or a priori assumptions, and the definitions or a priori assumptions are NOT proven by the internal consistency and proven results of the maths that are based on the a priori assumptions. That would be circular reasoning.
Absolute confidence inside a blue area does not translate into any confidence outside the blue area. Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or no Now we move on to:
If we scientifically know that the Earth is billions of years old and consider this a high confidence conclusion regarding probable reality then conversely we know that it is very improbable that in reality the Earth is just a few days, weeks or years old. In short - Where we have an evidenced conclusion which is justifiably deemed "probable" mutually exclusive but untested conclusions can legitimately be deemed "improbable". First, I want to compare these statements to ones I make in Message 161 (which are also in Message 123):
quote: I think you will agree that they are substantially similar: yes or no The significant difference that I see is that you assume you can backflush confidence in the initial assumption from the evidence derived from it, whereas I do not. The proofs given above carry over into logic used in science: the reason I do not, and why you can not, backflush confidence in the initial assumption/s, from the high confidence derived from testing based on the assumption, is that this high confidence dissappears if you do not make the initial assumption. If you assume that evidence is, or may be, a lie, then you cannot derive any scientific confidence it the validity of any measurement, test or observation. In fact you cannot make any conclusions, because any piece of information or evidence could be false.
quote: Internal consistency, no matter how cohesive, consilient, comprehensive and massively cross-connected and interlocked the developed picture\map\description is, it cannot say anything about what lies outside the blue area. What we CAN legitimately say is that
If we assume that the evidence does not lie, then we know(1) that the evidence and scientific testing and conclusions are consistent with the Earth being billions of years old and we consider this a high confidence conclusion regarding probable reality, AND we ALSO know(1) that the evidence and scientific testing and conclusions are NOT consistent with an Earth that is just a few days, weeks or years or even thousands of years old, and we consider this an equally high confidence conclusion regarding probable reality. BUT: we cannot say anything about whether or not the evidence actually is a lie with any confidence -- it is assumed that it is not a lie, there is no evidence for this assumption being true or false, and thus it necessarily sits at the zero confidence level. Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or no Enjoy* items added by edit marked thus * Notes: (1) - know with scientific tentativity Edited by Zen Deist, : minor adds, don't affect current non-reply Edited by Zen Deist, : * Edited by Zen Deist, : vs changed to *AND* for syntax (yes there is a sin tax) plus some minor edits -- does not affect the non-response type replies. Edited by Zen Deist, : language correctionby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
LOL. Very good.
That should keep him busy for awhile.
Is there some aspect of this that prevents him from agreeing with it? yes or no LOL. Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
It is a rather long-winded evasion, isn't it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
These pen dropping tests you did - They necessarily came well after the prediction you made in the actual scenario put to you in Message 147. I suggest you read it again. So unless you are claiming precogniscience your subsequent tests are of little consequence to your pseudoskeptical conclusion made before the event. Any wally can know their "predictions" are correct if they don't make any "predictions" until after the event has occurred.
Straggler writes: If in a thread supposedly about scientific knowledge we cannot all agree that Lord Voldermort is all-but-certainly made-up then it is time to call the men in white coats to take someone away. X writes: I forget - who has not agreed? Neither you nor RAZD has been able to explicitly state a position on the actual existence of Voldermort in terms of rejecting the untestable "Hogwarts Hypothesis". Until you do so your position is frankly untenable. Will you unequivocally agree that (at least) a 6 position is rationally justified despite this proposition being untestable?
RAZD's scale writes: 6. Strong skepticism - {X} is considered more likely not true than true, with little uncertainty(a) The Dumbledore magic mind manipulation proposition is as follows:
Dumbledore magically implanted JK Rowling with knowledge of Harry Potter's real adventures in such a way that even the author herself thinks that her writings are works of fiction when in fact they are magically inspired historical accounts. The "Hogwarts Hypothesis" as the secret cult of Potter call it. There is no objective empirical evidence that falsifies this proposition. You have done no tests. Indeed it is untestable. If we can all agree that this proposition can be rationally and robustly rejected regardless of being untestable maybe we can finally put to bed this insidious notion that testing untestable propositions has any bearing on the validity of scientific theories or rational conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
See Message 163.
Until you can explicitly state that the untestable Dumbledore mind manipulation proposition is worthy of a 6 on your little scale what is the point in talking to you? Until you do I can only conclude that you are either a nutjob or a dishonest debater.
RAZD writes: First we need to look at what you are claiming in more detail... If you want to know what I am claiming I suggest you read what I have said re axioms/a-priori assumptions. Message 42 Rather than subjectively picking and choosing which baseless but untestable propositions can be rejected, which need be assumed a-priori and which demand your brand of absolute agnosticism why not take the scientific approach and treat all such propositions equally and consistently?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Consistency is fine in moderation and in some areas such as science, but insistence on consistency in much of life simply diminishes and denigrates the experience.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Well, I do tend to think in terms of Applied Science.... Well Mr Applied Scientist - When we have competing explanations how do we decide which explanation most accurately describes reality? By seeing which one makes the most accurate and reliable predictions. So, whether you realise it or not, even as an applied scientist, you are in the business of applying scientific theories that have proven themselves as descriptions of reality which are "correct enough" descriptions of reality for the job at hand (e.g. Newtonian mechanics) For example - I challenge you to successfully apply Aristotelian notions of elements to whatever scientific task it is you are currently undertaking.
CS writes: But that was my point, that scientists don't give a shit about how accurately they're "describing reality" as long as the theory is working. Apparently you are willing to simply and unthinkingly put the numbers into the equations and reap the benefits of those who have actually sought to explain and understand the world. I know lots of professional scientists. And I can assure you that this is not the approach taken by any of them.
CS writes: I know that when you drop your pen that it will fall, and if you tell me what height you're going to drop it from, then I'd know how long it was going to to take to hit the desk, every single time you drop it, I know it is going to accelerate at the same rate. That's because of the reality that we live in and our equations for determining that stuff are correct. Well I utterly agree that the 1 second universe proposition can be rationally rejected as baseless nonsense even before being tested. Because I reject ALL such evidentially baseless notions as "very improbable" on the same basis. However you have previously told me that there are all sorts of equally baseless things (e.g. Last Thursdayism) that I cannot reject in this way. So I have no idea how you are rejecting some and demanding RAZDian style agnosticism towards others?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I am sure that my appreciation of art is very inconsistent.
But this has nothing to do with scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So I have no idea how you are rejecting some and demanding RAZDian style agnosticism towards others? Because it depends on where you're comming from... In a colloquial or philisophical sense, reject away. In a scientific sense, not so much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
But science rejects all such propositions.
See Message 42
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But science rejects all such propositions. I disagree. It doesn't really reject any of them because it doesn't really address any of them. Using Newtonian Mechanics to calculate the amount of time that it will take for your pen to fall to your desk is not a rejection of us all living in the Matrix. Its totally irrelavant and unmentioned and not cared about at all. You seem to want to call that a rejection for some reason...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024