Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: anil dahar
Post Volume: Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Percy
Member
Posts: 22955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 496 of 614 (736085)
09-01-2014 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by Percy
09-01-2014 7:32 AM


Re: Faith responds about "proof"
Faith has responded to my Message 485 at her That annoying complaint about the terms "prove" and "proof", so I'll reply here.
Faith writes:
UPDATE 9/1: Percy has "answered" this post, and of course NOT by doing what I requested at the end of it, that is, by providing the terminology to make the point I'm making. In other words, I have a point I'm making with perfectly reasonable ordinary usage of the word "prove," and if it can be made in more accurate terminology, fine. But helping me make my point is not on Percy's agenda, obscuring it is the agenda.
I'm sorry, Faith, but I was only trying to explain how you're using the word "prove" incorrectly. As I said, scientists use the word "prove" all the time, but they don't mean it in any mathematical sense. Nothing in science is ever proven in any mathematical sense. Science is tentative. When scientists use the word "prove" all they mean is that they can provide persuasive evidence.
You asked for help in expressing what you're trying to say, so let me try. Avoid the word "prove" altogether. I think it would work much better to say that interpretations of evidence are tentative, and that some interpretations are better supported by evidence than others.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by Percy, posted 09-01-2014 7:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by Percy, posted 09-02-2014 2:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 497 of 614 (736086)
09-01-2014 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by Percy
09-01-2014 9:58 PM


Re: Reply to "What I mean by the Unwitnessed Past"
The reference to your rejection of the possibility that statistics really were absent in the Crick/Watson work was only intended to highlight the similarity with Einstein's rejection of quantum phenomena like spooky action at a distance and such. It wasn't meant as a taunt.
Sigh.
I did not reject the 'possibility' that statistics was absent. Is that what my saying 'perhaps you are right' a couple of times sounds like to you? I said that there was reason to believe statistics were used to be found in the paper and that the issue went beyond whether or not statistics were explicitly presented in the paper.
Given that acceptance of Watson, et. al work is the sole example you gave in support of your position regarding quantitative results, I think requesting you to make that argument was reasonable.
Ah, well. So be it.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Percy, posted 09-01-2014 9:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17919
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 498 of 614 (736089)
09-02-2014 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by Percy
09-01-2014 9:15 PM


Re: Reply to "What I mean by the Unwitnessed Past"
quote:
I couldn't accept that any quantitative result will involve statistics (your Message 471), and this alternative expression is still a bit unpalatable. Does a measurement include simple counts?
How much uncertainty is there in simple counts ? If there isn't enough to worry about, no need to use statistics. If there is, then how else do you deal with it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by Percy, posted 09-01-2014 9:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 499 of 614 (736103)
09-02-2014 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by Percy
09-01-2014 10:31 PM


Re: Faith responds about "proof"
Faith has now responded to my Message 496 at her That annoying complaint about the terms "prove" and "proof". Again, I'll reply here.
Faith writes:
Percy continues:
I'm sorry, Faith, but I was only trying to explain how you're using the word "prove" incorrectly.
You know what, Percy, I am not using it incorrectly. I'm using it the way it is used in ordinary English, and for conveying what I want to convey it is correct.
You say you're not using the word prove in any mathematical sense, but you're still using a definition that is tangled up with the concept of "truth" or "correctness". I think the definition of prove that you're using goes something along these lines: To establish the truth of, as by evidence or argument. Do I have that right? If so then you can't really use that definition with science, because science doesn't establish anything with finality. Science is tentative. Truth, once established, doesn't change, but scientific conclusions, once established, can change.
When scientists use the word prove they actually have in mind a meaning something more like this: to subject to a technical testing process. If you tell a scientist he can't prove something, then by the way scientists use the term you're saying that they can't subject something to a technical testing process. But everything can be subjected to a technical testing process, so it would make no sense to say that.
At one point you say about the term prove, "I am using it the way it is used in ordinary everyday English," but there is no single everyday English definition of prove. Pulling my good dictionary off the shelf I see that it lists 7 definitions.
Earlier you said this:
There is really no way to discuss the difference between the conclusions that are possible from testable science versus from science that studies the prehistoric past, without pointing out that you CAN prove testable hypotheses in a sense that is simply not possible in the other case.
Stating the case without the word prove, science can employ a technical testing process on anything in the natural world, including those parts of the natural world that happen to be very ancient.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Percy, posted 09-01-2014 10:31 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by Taq, posted 09-02-2014 9:44 PM Percy has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10304
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 500 of 614 (736107)
09-02-2014 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 499 by Percy
09-02-2014 2:22 PM


Re: Faith responds about "proof"
When scientists use the word prove they actually have in mind a meaning something more like this: to subject to a technical testing process.
I would say that scientists use the word "prove" in much the same way that courtroom dramas do. They mean "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". As you say, they don't mean proven beyond any doubt.
Stephen Jay Gould used this for his definition of fact:
"confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money
In this sense, proven and fact are interchangeable.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by Percy, posted 09-02-2014 2:22 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by Percy, posted 09-02-2014 11:06 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10304
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.3


(4)
Message 501 of 614 (736108)
09-02-2014 10:01 PM


Creationism and Intellectual Nihilism
In the end, it all boils down to "anything goes" in the mind of Faith. From her blog post found here:
quote:
Oh and one more thing. The evidence you keep touting can only be interpreted, not proved. Creationists have a different interpretation (talking about the unwitnessed/prehistoric past here) and since you can't prove yours, so much for your evidence. And (answering Coyote in this case) this is what is meant when we say all you have is theory too. It's unprovable interpretation. This has been explained many times but you continue to recite the party line and claim your theory is more substantial than that. It gets tiresome repeating these simple obvious points.
The idea that any old interpretation is just as probable or plausible as any other is intellectual nihilism, by which I mean a position that does away with any need to think. All you need to do is invent a story that you like, and that story is as good as any scientific study because . . . well, it's an interpretation.
This runs through all of Faith's posts. All she needs to do is say, "I find this plausible," and she is done. No need to support any interpretation with a comprehensive set of evidences and mechanisms. Nope. Just say that it's plausible for no apparent reason, and move one.
If the real world did work like this, perhaps it would be a bit easier at times. All a defense attorney would have to do is say, "It's entirely plausible that invisible unicorns planted my client's DNA at the crime scene." According to Faith, this is an entirely valid interpretation. To sane people, it isn't a valid interpretation, but that is beside the point when discussing these subjects with Faith.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 503 by jar, posted 09-03-2014 8:57 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 504 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-03-2014 10:38 AM Taq has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 502 of 614 (736111)
09-02-2014 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by Taq
09-02-2014 9:44 PM


Re: Faith responds about "proof"
Taq writes:
I would say that scientists use the word "prove" in much the same way that courtroom dramas do. They mean "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". As you say, they don't mean proven beyond any doubt.
Sure, I suppose a scientist's threshold for believing he'd proven something could be labeled "beyond a reasonable doubt". But finding that point doesn't seem easy. Earlier I was talking about how consensuses form, and I don't think it's possible to know when enough is enough in terms of evidence, argument and building a conceptual framework of understanding.
Stephen Jay Gould used this for his definition of fact:
"confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
I've never felt comfortable with this. When I'm only willing to give my "provisional assent" to something, I'm not going to call it a fact.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by Taq, posted 09-02-2014 9:44 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by Taq, posted 09-03-2014 11:59 AM Percy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 503 of 614 (736115)
09-03-2014 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 501 by Taq
09-02-2014 10:01 PM


Re: Creationism and Intellectual Nihilism
This runs through all of Faith's posts. All she needs to do is say, "I find this plausible," and she is done. No need to support any interpretation with a comprehensive set of evidences and mechanisms. Nope. Just say that it's plausible for no apparent reason, and move one.
That holds true beyond Faith's positions on science and includes all of Faith's Biblical assertions as well. She denies there are contradictions in the Bible, that there is only one Flood story in the Bible, that prophecies have been fulfilled and that there are Old Testament Prophesies about Jesus...her fantasies simply continue and no amount of actual evidence or reality seems to intrude.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by Taq, posted 09-02-2014 10:01 PM Taq has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 504 of 614 (736116)
09-03-2014 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 501 by Taq
09-02-2014 10:01 PM


Re: Creationism and Intellectual Nihilism
And I think it's very revealing.
Imagine two men under suspicion of the same crime. One says to the police: "Sure, take my fingerprints, take my DNA. You want to look at my clothing? Sure. The GPS in my car? Take it. My online history? You're welcome. Look at all the evidence you want, I'm fine with you running the full battery of forensic tests, in fact I insist upon it."
The other says: "Nonononono, mere data is subject to all sorts of interpretations and can never prove anything about a crime to which, as you admit, there are no witnesses. My DNA, my fingerprints, can never truly prove anything, and any conclusions you might draw from them will be fallacious."
Which man has something to hide? You wouldn't invent an epistemology like that unless you knew that a study of the evidence would reveal facts that you are desperate to conceal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by Taq, posted 09-02-2014 10:01 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10304
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 505 of 614 (736122)
09-03-2014 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 502 by Percy
09-02-2014 11:06 PM


Re: Faith responds about "proof"
Sure, I suppose a scientist's threshold for believing he'd proven something could be labeled "beyond a reasonable doubt". But finding that point doesn't seem easy. Earlier I was talking about how consensuses form, and I don't think it's possible to know when enough is enough in terms of evidence, argument and building a conceptual framework of understanding.
I will entirely agree that there is an arbitrary line between proven and unproven (beyond a reasonable doubt). That is part of the art of science, and the human aspect of science. A consensus is a recognition that a particular theory has very compelling evidence behind it, and that the theory should garner respect and attention. The consensus theory sets the bar that challengers must meet.
I've never felt comfortable with this. When I'm only willing to give my "provisional assent" to something, I'm not going to call it a fact.
I find that interesting, given that your position departs from my own. In my experience, there are theories that undergird our collection of facts. A CCD camera that measures the luminosity of a type Ia supernova does so on the basis of many different theories, and your acceptance of the data is based on the provisional acceptance that the camera and methodology will accurately measure luminosity.
Or I could be failing to understand your position and have everything wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by Percy, posted 09-02-2014 11:06 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by Percy, posted 09-03-2014 1:02 PM Taq has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 1118 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 506 of 614 (736125)
09-03-2014 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 480 by Percy
08-31-2014 5:18 PM


Re: Reply to "What I mean by the Unwitnessed Past"
It's a holiday weekend, we'll probably hear from him within another day or two.
Yea, the campground I was staying at had a very slow internet connection (reminded me of 56k dial-up) and I didn't want to spend my whole weekend just waiting for a page to load
I don't really find much to agree with in the distinctions people have tried to draw between various fields of science.
I am not advocating distinguishing between entire fields of science and trying to say for instance that geology is inferior to biology. I did mention geology, but did not intend for it to be a sweeping generalization of the whole field.
I guess I have this intuitive sense that some scientific pursuits lend themselves to more reliable conclusions than others. The idea that those "less reliable" pursuits are everything in the historical past is just plain silly, but I was trying to consider what would be a better way to delineate this idea about that distinction. I was also kinda thinking that it would be a more objective and reasonable way for someone like Faith to make the distinction that they are considering.
So, the thought that lead me to thinking about what I said was that in the work I do, I would not dare to draw conclusions without analyzing my data with statistics. One-off events don't lend themselves to this type of analysis and so conclusions must be based on simple observation. Is that as reliable? That's what I was thinking.
The lack of statistics apparently was not a concern of the Noble committee.
Keep in mind that the structure that Watson and Crick proposed was hotly debated for about 25 years after their publication. It wasn't until data upon data was collected and observation after observation was made that critics were silenced. Statistics certainly came into play during that whole process. So while W & C may not have used or published statistical data, in the end, it was that data analysis that finally brough their structure to the level of fact.
High confidence factors and tiny error bars or ranges give us confidence in the research and analysis. They do not translate into confidence factors that the research is correct.
I was using confidence strictly in the sense of statistics. I would agree that doesn't translate directly into a confidence level of a particular field or piece of knowledge.
I think there is a difference between what I termed "observational science" and "analytical science", however, I will recant that that distinction can categorically say anything about reliability.
I am short on time right now, but I hope that sort of clarifies what I was trying to say.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by Percy, posted 08-31-2014 5:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by Percy, posted 09-04-2014 8:16 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 507 of 614 (736126)
09-03-2014 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 505 by Taq
09-03-2014 11:59 AM


Re: Faith responds about "proof"
Taq writes:
I find that interesting, given that your position departs from my own. In my experience, there are theories that undergird our collection of facts. A CCD camera that measures the luminosity of a type Ia supernova does so on the basis of many different theories, and your acceptance of the data is based on the provisional acceptance that the camera and methodology will accurately measure luminosity.
Assuming the camera is properly adjusted and calibrated, is in good working order, and is used properly, why would I only provisionally accept its measurements?
But I do get your point, concisely captured in the carpenter's dictum, "Measure twice, cut once." The definition of provisional you're working with is probably along the lines of accepted or adopted tentatively. I agree that ultimately even our facts are tentative, and I've argued as much on several occasions, but in that case we must allow that there exists a hierarchy of tentativity. Our facts are less tentative than our theories, so we can't indiscriminately refer to them both as tentative or provisional since they are not equally so.
So except in discussions where the distinction is important I consider facts our stakes in the ground and the theories we construct around these facts we gather as tentative.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by Taq, posted 09-03-2014 11:59 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-03-2014 3:09 PM Percy has replied
 Message 509 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-03-2014 3:14 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 508 of 614 (736130)
09-03-2014 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by Percy
09-03-2014 1:02 PM


Re: Faith responds about "proof"
Our facts are less tentative than our theories ...
Well, not necessarily. I might, for example, regard a single datum about, say, the average temperature of aardvarks as less reliable than the theory of evolution; or data about the position and velocity of a single asteroid as less reliable than the theory of gravity; or the claim that "such-and-such an infectious agent is the sole cause of the following symptoms" as less credible than the germ theory of disease.
I don't necessarily say that I would, or that I'd be right, these are just examples off the top of my head, but we might, and might justifiably, be more confident of a theory than of a particular item of the data it's meant to subsume.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Percy, posted 09-03-2014 1:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by Percy, posted 09-03-2014 3:31 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 509 of 614 (736131)
09-03-2014 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by Percy
09-03-2014 1:02 PM


Re: Faith responds about "proof"
To take a real-world example, Dawkins described it, IIRC, as a "scandal" in the theory of evolution that bdeloid rotifers reproduce asexually. We didn't on that basis throw over the theory of evolution, and it turned out that although technically they're asexual, they engage in lateral gene transfer. The theory was correct, the facts that called it into doubt were wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Percy, posted 09-03-2014 1:02 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22955
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 510 of 614 (736132)
09-03-2014 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 508 by Dr Adequate
09-03-2014 3:09 PM


Re: Faith responds about "proof"
Good points, though I do think I'll try to keep things more simple in the discussion with Faith where she's claiming we can't prove anything about the distant past. Hopefully she'll eventually come to understand that we're not trying to prove things about the ancient past, we're only trying to examine and analyze evidence from the ancient past to see what it can tell us. It turns out it can tell us quite a bit.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-03-2014 3:09 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by Coyote, posted 09-03-2014 11:15 PM Percy has seen this message but 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