|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Philosophy 101 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nwr writes: Straggler writes: The theory of evolution has much to say about about the transitional species we should expect to have existed. Yet your quote is about what can be predicted on the basis of theory + data. Do you think that scientific theories ever operate independently of data?
Nwr writes: It is not a prediction that is solely from the theory. It is indisputably the theory of evolution that yielded the prediction that led to the discovery of Tiktaalik. Can you explain how this is not the case?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Straggler writes:
I'm not sure that question even makes sense. However, it does make sense to distinguish between the role of theory and the role of data, even if they are only ever used in conjunction with one another.
Do you think that scientific theories ever operate independently of data? Straggler writes:
Since you seem to agree that theories are used with data, I'm not sure what the issue is supposed to be here.It is indisputably the theory of evolution that yielded the prediction that led to the discovery of Tiktaalik. Can you explain how this is not the case? Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Nwr writes: However, it does make sense to distinguish between the role of theory and the role of data, even if they are only ever used in conjunction with one another. Exactly. Because various interpretations of the same data can be made to come to different explanatory theories. And different explantory theories make different predictions. So the predictions made regarding the expected behaviour of nature by a specific theory are a distinguishing feature of the theory NOT the data. An ability to more accurately and reliably predict the bahaviour of nature is how we determine the relative worth of competing explanatory theories. Are you familiar with the history of the Big Bang theory Vs The Steady State Hypothesis at all?
Nwr writes: Since you seem to agree that theories are used with data,.... It is trivially true that without data there are no theories. So what is your point?
Nwr writes: I'm not sure what the issue is supposed to be here. The issue is that you seem to think that scientific theories are somehow independent of nature rather than descriptions or models of nature.
Nwr writes: Apparently, I was not clear enough. I'll say it again. Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves. Then why do some theories yield more accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature than others? This remains the question you just cannot answer. But it is absolutely key to the whole issue of competing explanations and the very essence of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Straggler writes:
That's way too simplistic.
Because various interpretations of the same data can be made to come to different explanatory theories. And different explantory theories make different predictions. So the predictions made regarding the expected behaviour of nature by a specific theory are a distinguishing feature of the theory NOT the data. An ability to more accurately and reliably predict the bahaviour of nature is how we determine the relative worth of competing explanatory theories. Straggler writes:
The "at all" part seems a weak requirement, and I am familiar enough to meet that requirement.
Are you familiar with the history of the Big Bang theory Vs The Steady State Hypothesis at all? Straggler writes:
It seems trivially false to me. As a pure mathematician, I have spent some considerable time with theories for which there is no data.
It is trivially true that without data there are no theories. Straggler writes:
I have not suggested that they are independent of nature.
The issue is that you seem to think that scientific theories are somehow independent of nature ... Straggler writes:
You are asserting a false dichotomy.... rather than descriptions or models of nature. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
An absolutely classic Nwr post. An exercise in persistently stating what you don't mean without ever once attempting to tell us what your position actually is. Let's try once again to get past this characteristic vagueness.
Nwr on theories being derived from data writes: It seems trivially false to me. Can you give me an example of a scientific theory that is independent of any data?
Nwr writes: As a pure mathematician, I have spent some considerable time with theories for which there is no data. Maybe your inability to comprehend the innate differences between pure mathematics and scientific empirical investigation is the root of your problem here?
Nwr on scientific theories writes: I have not suggested that they are independent of nature. You have said "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves". You previously spent an entire thread denying that scientific theories are able to yield accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature. Can you explain what you think the link between scientific theories and nature actually is? (Rather than again telling us what your position isn't)
Nwr writes: You are asserting a false dichotomy. If you accept that scientific theories are descriptions and models of nature how can you also maintain that they tell us nothing about the behaviour of nature? Why do some theories yield more accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature than others? My answer is - Because some scientific theories more accurately reflect reality than others. In effect a form of verisimiltude. If you do not accept this what is your alternative? Why do some theories yield more accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature than others?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
nwr writes:
I have not suggested that they are independent of nature. Straggler writes:
Do you even understand "false dichotomy"?If you accept that scientific theories are descriptions and models of nature how can you also maintain that they tell us nothing about the behaviour of nature? I am denying that "theories are independent of naturre" and "theories are descriptions or models of nature" are the only two possibilities. There is a common way of looking at science. In fact it is so common, that most people look at it that way. I will refer to that as "the conventional wisdom." You are very much an adherent of the conventional wisdom. I am an admitted heretic. I don't go along with a view, just because it is popular. As best I can tell, there is no evidence at all supporting the conventional wisdom, unless you count its popularity as evidence. That's probably why most of the writing that presents the conventional wisdom comes from philosophers rather than from scientists. I am not a heretic because I like to be contrary. Rather, it is because I see that the conventional wisdom could not possibly work. It comes from an era where theistic thinking was deeply entrenched. And the conventional wisdom is full of magical thinking, though it's adherents seem to not notice that.
Magical intelligent design thinking: The designer had a plan for the world, and the laws of nature are part of that plan. Science is the effort to search for patterns in the world, so as to discover those laws and that divine plan. Evolutionary thinking: Science is an evolving product of human attempts to better deal with their world. The laws of science are human constructs, part of that evolving product which is science. Straggler writes:
I'll give you an analogy.Can you explain what you think the link between scientific theories and nature actually is? A nature photographer takes many pictures. Those pictures are descriptions of nature. But the camera he uses is not any kind of description of nature. Yet the camera is needed in order to take the photographs. I am saying that the relation between theory and data is analogous to the relation between the camera and the photographs.
Straggler writes:
Why do some cameras take far better pictures than others?Why do some theories yield more accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature than others? Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Why do some theories yield more accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature than others? Nwr writes: Why do some cameras take far better pictures than others? Dude it's your analogy - You tell me? What equates to the predictions yielded by scientific theories in your camera analogy? Your analogy seems rather limited. But feel free to expound upon it if you think that is helpful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So is that it? 'Science is like a camera'. Is that the extent of your much referenced alternative to "the conventional wisdom" (as you call it)? Because this still doesn't explain why some theories yield more accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature than others. The failure of your alternative to address this, indeed your previous denial that scientific theories can yield accurate and reliable predictions at all, would seem to be a rather damning criticism of your position here.
Why does General Realtivity result in more accurate and reliable predictions than Newtonian gravity? Why are scientific theories able to yield accurate and reliable predictions regarding nature where religious and mystical attempts to make sense of the world cannot?
Nwr writes: The alternative is that all theories (including voodoo, astrology, or tossing a coin) would make equally good predictions. Exactly. So what is it about science that makes it superior to these other methods of knowing? Surely it is the fact that scientific theories are derived from and tested against the thing they purport to describe. Namely nature. No?
Nwr writes: The laws of science are human constructs, part of that evolving product which is science. Yes they are human constructs but they are not arbitrary constructs. This is very much in tune with the idea of verisimilitude. It certainly doesn't lead to your conclusion that "scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves" or your denial that scientific theories are attempts to describe the world and the way in which nature behaves. Does it? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I was thinking something along the same lines myself but not sure how to express it. "Sometimes the questions are as important as the answers" is the sort of trite soundbite I have been railing against recently. If asked what exactly I mean by that I would be hard pressed to answer. But I think there is something in it none-the-less. Even If I am struggling to convey what I mean exactly Dennett may have said it well enough:
Dennett writes: I think the midwife image is just about right. I say, along with many predecessors, that philosophy is what you are doing when you don't yet know what the right questions are. Once you ask the right questions (and know why these are the right questions), your attempt to answer them is not philosophy but . . . whatever it is - science, history, economics, . . . So philosophy is inescapably informal, more like art than science, a matter of imaginatively poking around and trying things out--with plenty of rigorous criticism of those attempts, but still, it's the bold strokes of imagination that do the heavy lifting. At its best (when it is well informed in the discipline whose questions it is trying to refine and improve), it makes significant contributions. But it's chief risk are flights of fantasy that may only divert the fantasists (while diverting the attention of more reality-based researchers from the questions they could more fruitfully pursue). I know I could look it up but A) It is easier to ask and B) I am going to follow your train of thought here - Who are the founders of that philosophical movement? Who should I look up if I want to see the sensible foundations of this? The names I'd struggle with. But the general idea that what we call knowledge is shaped by our cultural biases seems worthy enough. If taken to the extreme it becomes 'knowledge is opinion', but if we look at the work of Wittgenstein or Russell for example - many arguments could be settled if both participants are playing the same word game:- that is to say if both could agree to discuss in some formal language rather than a culturally inherited language agreement would be possible. In its sensible shoes, it also warns of the hubris of certainty in knowledge - and the inadvertant injustices that can be carried out. It is the turning upside of convention to show its weaknesses. Unfortunately, it's interesting ideas quickly lead to a lot of discussions about chmess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1369 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Modulous writes: The names I'd struggle with. But the general idea that what we call knowledge is shaped by our cultural biases seems worthy enough. If taken to the extreme it becomes 'knowledge is opinion', but if we look at the work of Wittgenstein or Russell for example - many arguments could be settled if both participants are playing the same word game:- that is to say if both could agree to discuss in some formal language rather than a culturally inherited language agreement would be possible. In its sensible shoes, it also warns of the hubris of certainty in knowledge - and the inadvertant injustices that can be carried out. It is the turning upside of convention to show its weaknesses. the problem is that it's significantly easier to go astray with "knowledge is informed by culture bias" than it is with "knowledge can be objective". the first statement can even lead you to question things that are objective -- or that objectivity can even exist in the first place. for an interesting take on this debate, i suggest probably any of alan sokal's books.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024