Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is good science?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 31 of 88 (225510)
07-22-2005 2:37 PM


Thoughts on a Rational Approach to New Ideas
One of the criticisms I've leveled at Creationists is their determination to explore only the minor uncontroversial details of a new scenario while ignoring the major issues. As I've said elsewhere, any new idea has to pass a couple initial sanity checks:
  • It has to be consistent with known physical laws.
  • It has to be consistent with known evidence.
When one or both of these requirements is violated, then the demands for strong supporting evidence increase exponentially.
Usually this kind of simple review is done informally and unconsciously. Most people are capable of quickly eliminating from consideration any solutions that violate the laws of nature or which are contradicted by evidence. A friend from several thousand miles away calls you on the phone, then ten minutes later appears on your doorstep. Rational person do not consider the possibility that the friend really traveled several thousand miles in ten minutes. Rational people do not just skip past the impossibility of such rapid travel to instead begin considering whether it was magic or teleportation. All sane people conclude a trick has just been played on them.
Or let's say your grandmother's name just happens to be Sheryl Swoopes, and you read in the newspaper that Sheryl Swoopes just set a new one game scoring record in the WNBA. You will not for even an instant ignore the fact that it is obviously not your grandmother they are talking about. You will not find yourself making mental notes to ask your grandmother when she took up basketball and what vitamins has she been taking lately.
But this kind of thing is precisely the Creationist habit. They fall in love with a scenario, then skip right past all the obvious reasons why it's impossible to instead consider details that present far fewer problems. And they can do this because most of their audience hasn't a clue (e.g., Philip), and those that do have a clue also have this same "Creationist Disease" that prevents thinking straight. But they will not be permitted to do this here. This is a science site, not a nonsense site.
These are the types of gross errors Creationists are willing to entertain. If they proposed that people could walk about unprotected on the surface of the moon, then if history is any guide the first thing they'd investigate would be how well clothes would hold up under the vacuum of outer space, the frigid cold of lunar nights, and the incredibly hot sun of lunar days.
TrueCreation asks what gives me the right to set myself up as judge and jury of what is logical and rational, but that's the wrong question. Someone has to set the goals and policies of the site, and that's me. It's his other statement that comes closer to the heart of the matter, that if I make misstatements about science then I only hurt my own credibility. He's right. I assume that if my understanding of science was as screwed up as he believes that the site would not attract so many scientific professionals and academics, and that I would become an object of derision, like Terry over at MSN's TalkOrigins.
There are a lot of weirdos and whackos out there, and I don't have time to give well-considered replies to all challenges about the true nature of science. I will give serious consideration to any well-outlined and well-argued position, and I'll probably ignore most nonsense.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Rahvin, posted 07-22-2005 3:55 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 34 by JonF, posted 07-22-2005 9:45 PM Admin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 32 of 88 (225551)
07-22-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Admin
07-22-2005 2:37 PM


Re: Thoughts on a Rational Approach to New Ideas
I'm new here, but from what I've seen your judgements of "good" and "bad science are sound.
Creationists, like most bad scientists, are guilty of the logcal fallacy "defending the hypothesis." They determine their conclusion FIRST, and then seek to prove it by creating tangled scenarios to force it to fit with established fact.
Real science does the opposite. Science starts with evidence, and formulates a hypothesis based on the evidence. At no point is the hypothesis "proven." Quite the contrary - science is entirely about DISproving hypotheses. If you succesfully disprove an accepted theory with a mountainload of reproducible evidence, you are actually rewarded in the scientific community.
Bad scientists and Creationists simply try to come up with yet another tangled scenario to incorporate the new evidence and STILL reach their original, flawed conclusion.
Discussions I have observed on this site have always demanded evidence and rational discussion. Some members refuse to give it, but the judgements of the administrators as to what is or is not valid have been good, in my opinion.
Keep up the good work, Percy. I rather like the place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Admin, posted 07-22-2005 2:37 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by TrueCreation, posted 07-24-2005 3:53 AM Rahvin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 33 of 88 (225581)
07-22-2005 5:42 PM


Ideas and Evidence
Most startling in any discussion with Creationists is their inability to bring evidence to the table. Here are a few examples of evidence for various scientific ideas:
  • Significant evidence for the expansion of the universe is the red shift.
  • Significant evidence for drifting continents is similar geological and fossil evidence on widely separated continents.
  • Significant evidence for the charge of the electron is the Millikan Oil Drop Experiment.
  • Significant evidence falsifying the notion of the ether is the Michelson-Morley Experiment.
  • Significant evidence for virtual particles is the Casimir Effect.
Evidence is essential in support of scientific ideas, and so Creationists must offer evidence for their ideas. In the case of CPT, they need to complete this sentence:
Significant evidence for CPT is...
Chris, please don't forget Message 18.
This message has been edited by Admin, 07-22-2005 05:45 PM

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 34 of 88 (225603)
07-22-2005 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Admin
07-22-2005 2:37 PM


Re: Thoughts on a Rational Approach to New Ideas
And they can do this because most of their audience hasn't a clue (e.g., Philip), and those that do have a clue also have this same "Creationist Disease" that prevents thinking straight
AKA Morton's Demon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Admin, posted 07-22-2005 2:37 PM Admin has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 88 (225893)
07-24-2005 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Admin
07-21-2005 9:09 AM


Re: Scientific Confirmation of Hypotheses
Percy,
quote:
This is your opportunity to improve your understanding of what is desired from you in order to continue participating here. If you're convinced that I don't understand science, then because to a large extent it is me that sets the standard for what constitutes legitimate scientific discussion here, EvC Forum must seem a loony bin to you and I don't know why you would want to stay. If this is truly the case then I suggest you go to other boards where the administration has a firmer grasp of scientific principles.
I don't necessarily think that your understanding of science is 'loopy', however it appears to me that it is indeed oversimplified. I used to love this forum. However, lately I think that your dogmatic reinforcement of this simplified view of science is the point of error. Your arguments regarding the requirements of science and how scientific theories are developed and justified will work for many of the YEC's that participate on this forum (indeed, the majority might not even grasp the most fundamental attributes of science), but it is not going to benefit discussions with those who have a better understanding of the sophisticated logic of science. The reason I participate at all here is to (1) potentially benefit my own understanding of things and to (2) benefit others understanding. A larger deeper reason why I am here is to see responses to my thoughts from various perspectives. I will probably not wish to return if I were to determine that those responses are not beneficial to me by lacking quality.
quote:
But if you'd like to remain here then I suggest you cease squandering this opportunity and begin discussing constructively. I have a full time job, a wife, two kids in school, a house, a mortgage, one sport and two websites, and I don't have a lot of time to work my way through what appears to me as obfuscation and evasion. Stop evading and lecturing and start listening.
After hearing you later say "EvC Forum represents the opportunity for Creationists to make this case. Here they can present their views just as they would present them in a mainstream journal to show how the only difference is in the conclusions and not in the approach." I find this contradictory. I know that you have subscriptions to scientific journals so you should know that concepts and arguments are not explained so that a wide group of people can understand. One of the major target audiences of papers are those people within their discipline--ie. those who will because of shared interest critique the paper in depth and develop its concepts further. I presented my ideas and arguments quite clearly in post 6 and 16 to you. I am surprised because The concepts I present therein should not be difficult for you to grasp. If your going to argue that I am 'obfuscating', which I certainly am not then your going to have to lay out the argument. I am evading nothing, however it appears to me that when the answers and rebuttles to your questions and claims have a little bit of meat to it that you don't know how to chew, you don't want to bite.
No one, and especially not me, is going to give you journal quality work when your just going to brush it off your shoulders with a response like telling me to 'put this in english' for even the simpler concepts or to claim that you don't have 'time'.
quote:
You're a kid who has accomplished nothing and couldn't even get into UF.
Don't resort to personal attacks percy. Also, I don't care if you do or not, but I consider knowledge an accomplishment.
quote:
You've got the chutzpah of youth and a good head on your shoulders, a dangerous combination, so don't kid yourself that you know more than you really do because it will only lead you to grief.
I'm not. Indeed in an earlier post I said, "...the reason this thread exists is because someone has a misunderstanding of those processes of how theories are built, justified, and ultimately accepted (maybe its me, but I doubt it!)." I conceed that maybe I am the one who doesn't understand, but based on what your 'arguments' and all of what has been said, and what I do know about science, I still doubt it.
quote:
I've criticized you for not having a good sense of the possible and reasonable, and I've used accelerated radioactive decay as the example.
I thought heat was also an example, what about other examples in CPT like folding and the structure of oceanic lithosphere? But anyways, this was probably the worst topic you could have chosen. There are aspects of CPT that actually have been developed somewhat.
quote:
Let's stick to that topic. You're elevating the problem of accelerated radioactive decay to a lofty status alongside the other great mysteries of science without even having any evidence that it has ever happened. On the basis of your understanding of how science should work, how do you justify this as good science?
Well what part of 'accelerated decay' is not good science? What you need to know is that 'accelerated decay' is a merely a hypothesis. It is inferred by the premise that x>y, where the distribution of radioisotopes in the geologic column represents age, x, where the actual age is given by y. In the case of CPT, x and y are proposed to differ by many magnitudes. Accelerated decay is a potentially falsifiable hypothesis based on that consideration.
Post 27:
quote:
One of the complaints of Creationists is that they're excluded from mainstream science journals and conferences simply because their views are not mainstream, and not because of the quality of their science. EvC Forum represents the opportunity for Creationists to make this case. Here they can present their views just as they would present them in a mainstream journal to show how the only difference is in the conclusions and not in the approach.
See above. I am not even going to think about putting more thought into my posts if you are just going to tell me to 'put it in english'.
quote:
What we instead see are painful illustrations of just how bad Creationist ideas about science really are. Some can describe the concepts and principles of science accurately, some cannot, but none adhere to them while exploring their Creationist ideas.
I do, or at least I try to.
quote:
EvC Forum will not entaintain ideas with no evidence or whose supporting arguments can't pass a simple sanity check. This is not a haven for loons and half-wits.
I think that here your showing your misunderstandings of how science works. You've repeatedly told me to 'start with the evidence' but that is not a criterion of science. The evidence of hypotheses is in its consequence. People entertain (as I am) or adopt hypothess because it would explain, if it were true, some things that have already been considered. The development of hypotheses is to invent some plausible story or description or history of relevant data within the domain of the theory.
Contrary to what you seem to understand, what counts in favor of a hypothesis is a question not to be lightly answered, let alone confined to your criterion of being derived from 'evidence'. Hence, my brief explanation of some of the logic behind justification of theories by confirmation.
PaulK,
quote:
CPT may not be "just speedy PT", but if there are other major differences between CPT and mainstream plate tectonics then it seems that they are also issues you refuse to address.
Its not what I 'refuse' to address, its what can't be addressed. See my statement directly after this (CPT isn't just speedy PT) one in post 14.
quote:
Science can't investigate every logical possibility, it must restrict itself to those that seem likely to be productive. Waiting while every concievable alternative was comprehensively developed and refuted would be a massive waste of time and resources. So far as I can see if we want to make progress we should abandon CPT, since it has contributed nothing and has no reasonable prospect of contributing anything to our scientific knowledge.
Well this is part of the reason that I am not a YEC and certainly have not adopted CPT or any other YECist theory. But this is not a vice of scienctific inquiry it is a virtue in strategy. It is a subjectivist argument in favor of the virtue of conservatism which could be stated as "the less rejection of prior beliefs required, the more plausible the hypothesis--other things being equal". In order to explain the data we are inventing the hypothesis to explain, it may have to conflict with previous beliefs; but the fewer the better.
"Often some hypothesis is available that conflicts with no prior beliefs. Thus we may attribute a click at the door to arrival of mail through the slot. Conservativism usually prevails in such a case; one is not apt to be tempted by a hypothesis that upsets prior beliefs when there is no need to resort to one. When the virtue of conservatism deserves notice, rather, is when something happens that cannot evidently be reconciled with our prior beliefs.
[...]
Conservatism is rather effortless on the whole, having inertia in its favor. But it is sound strategy too, since at each step it sacrifices as little as possible of the evidential support, whatever that may have been, that our overall system of beliefs has hitherto been enjoying. The truth may indeed be radically remote from our present system of beliefs, so that we may need a long series of conservative steps to attain what might have been attained in one rash leap. The longer the leap, however, the more serious an angular error in the direction. For a leap in the dark the likelihood of a happy landing is severely limited."
From: W. V. Quine and J. S. Ullian, 1970, "Hypothesis." From The Web of Belief, 2nd ed. pp. 64-82.
Thus it has no bearing on what is and is not science, or good science. CPT is just a very risky jump.
quote:
It seems to me that your whole point here is to present CPT as a "rising alternative" to the mainstream - when you know full well that it isn't.
Well you can see what my whole point is by looking at what I said:
"Because there are two theories that both contain some statements which are identical does not render the evidences for those identical statements given by the competing theories trivial. They are necessary for motivated inquiry of the rising alternative."
I probably could have put my last sentence in a better context by rephrasing it "They are necessary as a motivation to inquire into the developing alternative".
Roxrkool,
quote:
See now, I don't buy that.
Part of building scientific models is because you want to explain something - usually observational evidence in geology. CPT was suggested because YECs could no longer discount plate movement. So Baumgardner devised the only logical thing - accelerated PT - sans any actual evidence...
I don't see any problem with that.
quote:
And since the reasonable assumption is that there should be observational differences between CPT and PT, it's up to the YEC geologists, and you if you think it's a possible viable alternative to PT, to find evidence that supports CPT and NOT PT. It's not up to mainstream geology to disprove CPT.
I agree because CPT simply hasn't been developed to the point where disconfirmation is easy to determine. See post 14.
quote:
Chris, if there was evidence that supported CPT, we'd have heard about it years ago. And if not years ago, definitely today. And that evidence wouldn't be found in one or two sentences on some obscure website, but an actual TECHINCAL paper published for the world to see.
Are you sure? If you've kept up with the scientific literature, there is a lot we don't know. CPT could not have possibly have even been envisioned when continental drift was first being developed because it required a much more advanced understanding of material physics. Also:
quote:
"We have seen the stimulation and the unification of effort, and we have seen also the first major dissent. The new global tectonics has enjoyed such phenomenal success as a working hypothesis that it is becoming a ruling theory. The dangers of this situation are shown by a quotation from a distinguished paper by C. E. Wegmann in 1963:
"because commonly the notions, concepts and hypotheses control the selection of facts recorded by the observers. They are nets retaining some features as useful, letting pass others as of no immediate interest. The history of geology shows that a conceptual development in one sector is generally followed by a harvest of observations, since many geologists can only see what they are asked to record by their conceptual outfit." "
From: Wyllie, Peter J., 1971, The Dynamic Earth: Textbook in Geosciences, pg. 378.
In quote: Wegmann, C. E., 1963, Tectonic patterns at different levels. Geol. Soc. South Africa, annexure to 66, 1-78.
Part of this fact of field research is well illustrated in the philosophy of science as the difference between epistemic and practical reasons for believing a hypothesis, where epistemic reasons count toward the truth or falsity of the hypothesis and practical reasons have no bearing on the truth or falsity, but rather on the usefulness of believing the hypothesis. The same differentiation of the epistemic and practical can be attributed to field research and the reasons for performing some experiment. Practicality is not necessarily bad, indeed it makes research easier and focuses the scope on what is more plausible--we are human and so must deal with our humanity--however it must be understood that the logical consequence is that the conclusions may be wrong and the truth may be radically different.
Moreover, see my signature.
quote:
Additionally, the 'flexibility' of mainstream geology is the result of 200+ years of geologic research that is congruous within itself and with other sciences - that's a GOOD thing.
I agree, however I also strongly disagree as per the point of my bringing up refutability as a virtue of hypotheses like those in general geosciences. Generality and comprehensiveness of explanatory and predictive power is an enormous practical benefit of theories. However, the way theories are continually developed and structured reveals an inherently vexing problem. While I don't think anyone can do much about it (as it is logically inherent tendency to any general theory), modern geology consists foundationally of very general hypotheses and theories (such as those which are under dispute from CPT like PT). It is known that the most general hypotheses tend to be the least answerable to any particular observation, since subsidiary hypotheses can commonly be juggled and adjusted to accomidate conflicts. I elaborate further on the virtue of refutability in post 4.
quote:
This robustness, of course, requires a whole hell of a lot more work on the part of YECs if they want to overturn mainstream geology.
Exactly!
quote:
And frankly, it's not going to happen.
probably not. I would like to determine that it cannot, however. Of course this is a personal ambition.
quote:
If you don't know what predicitions CPT makes, then how are you critically evaluating it? Or are you?
We must first be sure that 'what is predicted by CPT' actually would be predicted by it. It is a question of the truthfulness of auxiliary hypotheses inherent in the premise, "if CPT, then what?" The "what" is a singular test implication that is supposed to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis which is CPT. However, the validity of any such case of confirmation or disconfirmation is based on the truthfulness of auxiliary assumptions required for the "CPT then What?" premise to be reasonable. I explain this further in post 4 and 6.
quote:
Why WOULDN'T we expect more volcanics? This is the sort of answer you must provide to support your position. Subduction zones are all associated with magmatic systems. Is this simply a coincidence? We don't have to know exactly why things happen to know they're related in some way. If you're subducting a whole lot of crustal material, it's got to go somewhere. So either the earth is expanding or it's coming up as volcanics or plutons.
Well, lets take a brief look:
Our premise in question: If (Catastrophic Plate Tectonics) and (An) then (more island arc volcanism is predicted) is implied
"Normal" volcanism is observed
Therefore Catastrophic Plate Tectonics is disconfirmed
What we need to do in order to grant credibility to the conclusion of disconfirmation of CPT by this logical inference is establish that all auxiliary hypotheses (notated by An) confirm that the test implication (more island arc volcanism is predicted) actually is logically predicted by the Hypothesis (Catastrophic Plate Tectonics). So lets look at what auxiliary hypotheses must be true. We might have:
A1 = Subduction occurs during CPT
A2 = Large-scale melting occurs as a result of runaway subduction
A3 = Melt Plumes impinging the continental lithosphere and crust are not blocked by an impermeable layer, but find and/or create necessary conduits to the surface (for extrusive volcanism) and crustal interior(for intrusive).
A4 = The quantity of melt produced above the runaway subducting slab is greater than x, where x is the quantity of island arc volcanism in the geologic record for about the last "500 My".
A5 = The quantity of melt reaching the surface and crustal interior from island arc volcanism during CPT is greater than x.
etc.
Looking at A1 through A5, we can be confident that A1 is probably true. But what about the rest? These are auxiliary hypotheses that are required for our previous premise to be true but their truth is very speculative and not well founded. Therefore the degree to which CPT is disconfirmed by the logic of the argument "if CPT then more island arc volcanism" is also speculative and not well founded.
You were exactly right when you said "This robustness[of conventional geology and PT], of course, requires a whole hell of a lot more work on the part of YECs if they want to overturn mainstream geology."
-Chris Grose
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-24-2005 03:43 AM

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Admin, posted 07-21-2005 9:09 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2005 7:31 AM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 38 by Admin, posted 07-24-2005 8:39 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 88 (225898)
07-24-2005 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Rahvin
07-22-2005 3:55 PM


Re: Thoughts on a Rational Approach to New Ideas
quote:
Creationists, like most bad scientists, are guilty of the logcal fallacy "defending the hypothesis." They determine their conclusion FIRST, and then seek to prove it by creating tangled scenarios to force it to fit with established fact.
Real science does the opposite. Science starts with evidence, and formulates a hypothesis based on the evidence.
Right and wrong. You are right that real science does the opposite, but you did not correctly state where the inverse relation was. Science does state a 'conclusion' first--that 'conclusion' is the accuracy of some hypothesis. The inverse relation is that science seeks to disprove, or more accurately, disconfirm that hypothesis (or at least this is the primary method, subsidiary goals are also useful, like confirmation of hypotheses although Popper would disagree). To say that science formulates a hypothesis based on 'evidence' cannot logically be deduced (also note that 'evidence' and 'data' are completely different). And to say that science formulates hypotheses based on 'facts' is oversimplified and misleading. The evidence of a hypothesis is seen in its consequence.
So what is so logically fallaceous about 'defending the hypothesis'?
-Chris Grose
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-24-2005 04:53 AM

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Rahvin, posted 07-22-2005 3:55 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Admin, posted 07-24-2005 3:44 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 73 by Rahvin, posted 07-25-2005 12:32 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 37 of 88 (225920)
07-24-2005 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by TrueCreation
07-24-2005 3:18 AM


Re: Scientific Confirmation of Hypotheses
I think it is quite clear what you mean.
Given the absence of any genuine scientific motivation to investigate a proposed alternative it is necessary to fabricate a pretence. The evidence for plate tectonics in general is not a valid motivation for investigating CPT at all.
And I will add that I do have a basic familiarity with the philosophy of science that you are abusing. You could argue in the same way for any hypothesis, no matter how loony. That in itself indicates that your arguments have no value as a defence of CPT. If you want to consider philosphy of science you might like to consider Lakatos' ideas of research programs. What would Lakatos say about a research program that is dedicated solely to generating auxiliary hypotheses to evade falsification ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by TrueCreation, posted 07-24-2005 3:18 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Admin, posted 07-24-2005 9:29 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 43 by TrueCreation, posted 07-24-2005 2:56 PM PaulK has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 38 of 88 (225923)
07-24-2005 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by TrueCreation
07-24-2005 3:18 AM


Re: Scientific Confirmation of Hypotheses
TrueCreation writes:
I don't necessarily think that your understanding of science is 'loopy', however it appears to me that it is indeed oversimplified.
It appears oversimplified because your mistake is of the simplest kind: you're ignoring the evidence. I will not make the rebuttal to your approach any more complicated than necessary. You have no evidence, Chris. Nothing else need be said.
I presented my ideas and arguments quite clearly in post 6 and 16 to you. I am surprised because The concepts I present therein should not be difficult for you to grasp. If your going to argue that I am 'obfuscating', which I certainly am not then your going to have to lay out the argument. I am evading nothing, however it appears to me that when the answers and rebuttles to your questions and claims have a little bit of meat to it that you don't know how to chew, you don't want to bite.
I know *you* think you're making sense, but you're not making sense to anyone else here. If my views of science are incorrect then people would tell me. They aren't. If your views of science are incorrect then people would tell you. They are.
Accelerated decay is a potentially falsifiable hypothesis based on that consideration.
This is irrational. In the absence of strong evidence, accelerated decay is not something that any rational and knowledgable person would ever consider. All life on earth hasn't been wiped out by radiation, heat hasn't melted the planet, the sun hasn't gone supernova and the light from stars 5000 light years away is normal. It shouldn't be necessary to make these obvious points, but for some reason it is, and that's why this thread exists: because you (and TB) can't tell the difference between a rational proposal and a mind-poppingly unbelievable one.
This isn't to say that mind-poppingly unbelievable theories cannot be proposed in science. They can, but they require strong supporting evidence. Ten years ago it would have been mind-poppingly unbelievable to propose that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. We didn't even suspect that it might be accelerating. Then the evidence came in.
Evidence, Chris, evidence.
I think that here your showing your misunderstandings of how science works. You've repeatedly told me to 'start with the evidence' but that is not a criterion of science.
This explains the difficulty you are having. Science builds theories to explain phenomena of the natural world. We characterize phenomena by gathering evidence. Only after we have evidence can we form hypotheses and eventually theories.
Your one week suspension in the geology forum is up today, but this thread makes clear that you would continue to contribute irrational arguments. I don't think it would be productive to have a discussion where one side says, "That makes no sense," while the other side replies, "It does too make sense." So I think it best to leave the suspension in place until progress is made here.
Try completing the sentence, "The significant evidence for CPT is..." This is not to turn this thread into a discussion of CPT, but only to let you show that you're beginning to understand the dominant role evidence plays in science. Theories must be consistent with and interpret existing evidence, and they must provide a framework for interpreting new evidence. CPT is contradicted by existing evidence, has no supporting evidence, and it has never made a prediction that's been borne out. Start seeking supporting evidence and deal forthrightly with the contrary evidence. That's all that is asked.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by TrueCreation, posted 07-24-2005 3:18 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 39 of 88 (225927)
07-24-2005 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
07-24-2005 7:31 AM


Re: Scientific Confirmation of Hypotheses
PaulK writes:
What would Lakatos say about a research program that is dedicated solely to generating auxiliary hypotheses to evade falsification ?
I've been avoiding directly addressing TC's claim that any theory that can in principle be falsified is valid because I feared it would distract me from my main point, so I'm glad you've addressed this. Your accurate characterization reminds me of TC's previous visit here last year where it became obvious that he was trying to shoehorn his theory into the nooks and crannies of science where knowledge is lacking so as to be falsifiable yet avoid falsification, at least in the short term until we know more.
But I think we're probably all having trouble figuring out why TC would think this exercise of any value, because he hasn't avoided falsification at all, he's just ignored it. How he can in all seriousness make statements like, "Accelerated decay is a valid hypothesis that deserves consideration," or even worse, "What heat problem?" is beyond me. No, TC, accelerated decay isn't a valid hypothesis, at least not without supporting evidence. If you don't understand that then you don't belong here.
I won't enumerate all the contrary evidence against CPT yet again, but in everyone else's eyes it has already been falsified along multiple independent lines of evidence. CPT lies in the realm of traditional Creationism, and it's interesting to note that even evangelicals have largely abandoned it, at least publicly, flocking instead to the promotion of ID.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2005 7:31 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PurpleYouko, posted 07-24-2005 12:46 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 41 by CK, posted 07-24-2005 1:41 PM Admin has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 40 of 88 (225942)
07-24-2005 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Admin
07-24-2005 9:29 AM


Re: Scientific Confirmation of Hypotheses
My 13 year old son and i just read the arguments for accepting CPT as a valid theory.
His take on the matter....
"What a retarded idea!"
Out of the mouth of babes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Admin, posted 07-24-2005 9:29 AM Admin has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 41 of 88 (225954)
07-24-2005 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Admin
07-24-2005 9:29 AM


Re: Scientific Confirmation of Hypotheses
it's a different area but this reminds me very strongly of the debates that we used to have about Ron Wyatt and his discovery of the Ark and various other things.
The threads would go around and around, with the skeptics asking for evidence and the supporters making fairly lengthy posts that had lots of omission, assumptions and evasions. Eventually the Wyatt supporters were asked to simply LIST the locations of the evidence and the independent tests that had been performed. They were unable to do this and just carried on offering 5000 words of rubbish.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 24-Jul-2005 01:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Admin, posted 07-24-2005 9:29 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by TrueCreation, posted 07-24-2005 2:56 PM CK has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 42 of 88 (225971)
07-24-2005 2:40 PM


On a Hypothesis.
It is said, perhaps apocryphally, that Einstein's first glimpse of relativity came from asking himself "What would the world look like if I was traveling on a beam of light?"
From that he went on to describe what would be seen, perhaps the Clock Tower in the center of town. Based on that one simple question, he and others postualted other things that would be observed if that were true.
IMHO, that is good science. To relate that to our current discussion of CPT, a valid question might be "What would we see if there had been Catastrophic Plate Techtonics?"
Such a question would be, I believe, a valid one. But so far that's where the CPT discussion has fallen down. What I have seen is lots of discussion from the CPT proponents to show how CPT could happen. That is immaterial. Whether or not CPT could occur is unimportant. The question is "If it happened, what would we see?"
So far all of the discussions have been people on one side, those opposing CPT, asking the valid question "What would we see?" and the supporters of CPT simply handwaving away such objections.
If CPT is to enter the world of Good Science it needs to step back and ask the question, "If CPT happened what would we see?" If the answer is as has been posted several times here, the same things we see in PT, then the question can be dropped right now. If it explains nothing new then it's not needed.
If we would see something different if CPT happened, then it is up to the scientific community to look to see if those things happened.
So far, no evidence for any NEW thing that's been brought up has been found. In fact, much evidence has been shown that seems to imply that the NEW things did not happen. If we look at the world, it does not look like what we should see if CPT happened.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by TrueCreation, posted 07-24-2005 3:05 PM jar has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 88 (225975)
07-24-2005 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
07-24-2005 7:31 AM


Re: Scientific Confirmation of Hypotheses
Paul K,
quote:
Given the absence of any genuine scientific motivation to investigate a proposed alternative it is necessary to fabricate a pretence. The evidence for plate tectonics in general is not a valid motivation for investigating CPT at all.
I disagree. Data in favor of a hypothesis is a not a bad motivation to investigate the hypothesis further.
quote:
And I will add that I do have a basic familiarity with the philosophy of science that you are abusing. You could argue in the same way for any hypothesis, no matter how loony.
no you could not, because CPT explains a certain amount of data as a primative hypothesis. CPT unifies diverse phenomena and with fine-tuning could potentially be used to make novel predictions or falsify itself entirely.
quote:
That in itself indicates that your arguments have no value as a defence of CPT. If you want to consider philosphy of science you might like to consider Lakatos' ideas of research programs. What would Lakatos say about a research program that is dedicated solely to generating auxiliary hypotheses to evade falsification ?
I think you misunderstand Lakatos' ideas about auxiliary hypotheses, which is not much different from how I have presented the concept. In fact, the purpose of the formulation of auxiliary hypotheses is to evade falsification. That is a basic premise shared by most philosophers of science, Lakatos, Kuhn, and Feyeraband alike. However, Lakatos puts the usefulness of auxiliary hypotheses in the context of his so called positive heuristics where auxiliary hypotheses compose a 'protective belt' around the core statements of the research program. This 'protective belt' of auxiliary hypotheses may change tentatively as long as the core statements of the sequence of theories remain unchanged. There is a difference between Ad Hoc hypotheses and auxiliary hypotheses--where auxiliary hypotheses progress theory development. Ad Hoc hypotheses, unlike auxiliary hypotheses, may not be falsifiable and only cover the observations it was invented to account for, so that it is totally useless in prediction. Auxiliary hypotheses bring about new predictions which are useful to the parent hypothesis.
As I have argued throughout my posts, auxiliary hypotheses may or may not be correctly inducted from observations depending on how well the hypothesis being tested is understood. The core statements of catastrophic plate tectonics are understood so that it is compatible with Lakatos' more sophisticated ideas about science progressing through 'research programes', however the 'protective belt' of auxiliary hypotheses is only beginning to be determined.
Moreover, the difficulty in determining the correct auxiliary hypotheses for new theories like CPT is it is a proposed alternative to the very general theory of PT and mainstream geology. It must explain ultimately explain huge amounts of diverse phenomena for which there is data available.

Percy, Evidence is seen in the consequence, of hypotheses. I still don't know why you cannot understand this.
quote:
This explains the difficulty you are having. Science builds theories to explain phenomena of the natural world. We characterize phenomena by gathering evidence. Only after we have evidence can we form hypotheses and eventually theories.
No, this is wrong. It is logically impossible to gather evidence BEFORE formulation of hypotheses. Science does not build hypotheses by gathering 'evidence' and cannot. Scientific methodology formulates hypotheses and then attempting to disconfirm it by dealing with the data. I will repeat it again--evidence of hypotheses is seen in its consequence. Your simplified version of science is not logically coherent. You still do not know what 'evidence' is.
quote:
Theories must be consistent with and interpret existing evidence, and they must provide a framework for interpreting new evidence. CPT is contradicted by existing evidence, has no supporting evidence, and it has never made a prediction that's been borne out.
This is why I keep trying to explain to you how disconfirmation and confirmation are determined. CPT is low in development, and thus a good understanding of what it predicts cannot yet exist. Most instances of disconfirmation and confirmation of CPT are not well founded because of the problem of auxiliary assumptions whose accuracy is conjectured and not well understood but are required to be true for the test's conclusion to be plausible.
quote:
But I think we're probably all having trouble figuring out why TC would think this exercise of any value, because he hasn't avoided falsification at all, he's just ignored it.
Wrong. You still don't understand what i've been explaining about disconfirmation and confirmation and the logical existance of auxiliary assumptions.
quote:
How he can in all seriousness make statements like, "Accelerated decay is a valid hypothesis that deserves consideration,"...
Your putting words in my mouth! I never said accelerated decay 'deserves consideration'. However, I have argued that (although there are existing hypotheses that already explain the relevant data) it is not logically consistant to say that it should not be considered.
quote:
or even worse, "What heat problem?" is beyond me
You probably missed my lengthy post 127 in the CPT thread that explained how there are several sources of heat in CPT. I don't know which one(s) you were referring to. And I think it is not productive for you to reference all of them because they should each be considered independently of the others as the processes involved in the process of heat generation vary with each source.
quote:
I won't enumerate all the contrary evidence against CPT yet again, but in everyone else's eyes it has already been falsified along multiple independent lines of evidence.
I would agree that CPT is a wildly risky and probably wrong theory, but I maintain that it has not been falsified. And that it has been able to evade falsification gives it some instances of confirmation which are some of the only reasons I still entertain the idea.
-Chris Grose
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-24-2005 03:42 PM

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2005 7:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2005 3:48 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 51 by Admin, posted 07-24-2005 5:08 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 88 (225976)
07-24-2005 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by CK
07-24-2005 1:41 PM


Re: Scientific Confirmation of Hypotheses
Our case is quite different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by CK, posted 07-24-2005 1:41 PM CK has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 88 (225978)
07-24-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jar
07-24-2005 2:40 PM


Re: On a Hypothesis.
quote:
From that he went on to describe what would be seen, perhaps the Clock Tower in the center of town. Based on that one simple question, he and others postualted other things that would be observed if that were true.
IMHO, that is good science. To relate that to our current discussion of CPT, a valid question might be "What would we see if there had been Catastrophic Plate Techtonics?"
Most exactly.
quote:
Such a question would be, I believe, a valid one. But so far that's where the CPT discussion has fallen down. What I have seen is lots of discussion from the CPT proponents to show how CPT could happen. That is immaterial. Whether or not CPT could occur is unimportant.
Actually, this is very important because if it could be determined that CPT could or could not occur it would disconfirm and some might even say falsify the hypothesis.
quote:
So far all of the discussions have been people on one side, those opposing CPT, asking the valid question "What would we see?" and the supporters of CPT simply handwaving away such objections.
This is not handwaving. I am giving credit where credit is (logically) due. I have explained several times the logic behind confirmation and disconfirmation. I am sorry if logically it isn't as easy as once believed to falsify a hypothesis like CPT, but logic is logic.
quote:
If we look at the world, it does not look like what we should see if CPT happened.
The question is--how can we really determine that beyond mere speculation?
-Chris Grose

"...research [is] a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education. Simultaneously, we shall wonder whether research could proceed without such boxes, whatever the element of arbitrariness in their historic origins and, occasionally, in their subsequent development." Kuhn, T. S.; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 5, 1996.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 07-24-2005 2:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 07-24-2005 3:17 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024