![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Heavy_Water » May 3rd, 2017, 7:51 am wrote:Depends on what the particular topic is.....insofar as believing what scientists tell you.
On matters like politics, art, theology, and fashion, perhaps they're not your optimal go to guys.
But in questions pertaining to their respective fields of expertise, sure, a scientist in that area is the best source you can hope for.
It's what they do.
Sure, exceptions are possible. Scientists are not always infallible. Or even right. And done if them do have personal agendas that may color their opinions on things. Or even the outcomes of their experiments. But by and large, mostly due to the process of peer review, a man of science working professionally in his field is your most likely source for correct and objective answers.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » Tue May 02, 2017 5:50 am wrote:If the point is still unclear, suppose the question is "What is the capital of France?" Our friendly omniscient evil demon -- a maths whiz to boot! -- informs you that my answer (a non-expert) has a 5% probability of being correct. The expert's answer, meanwhile, has a 10% probability of being right.
Now, if what you're advocating here is a kind of instrumentalist approach to scientific claims ("who cares about truth and knowledge as long as the planes fly, the computers don't break down, the Viagara works, and science can get us to the Moon and back safely") then your position is very close to my own.
But you did use the B-word (believe) in your last post, after all. What is a man to think?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » Tue May 02, 2017 10:33 pm wrote:The former, with its presumptuous capitals, has been refuted. The latter receives little or no serious attention. Why? At least in part this is out of a fear that paying it attention will give comfort to the creationists and in part because the static of ID drowns out any id signal that may be there.[/i]"
... as pernicious propaganda, inasmuch as a lay audience, less familiar with the ins and outs of the philosophy of science, is likely to take the scientist at his word, and thus be led down the garden path without knowing it.
"refuted to my satisfaction", or "refuted, in my opinion" I can live with, but "refuted" simpliciter stands as an insult to intellectual integrity.
(I'm not religious in case you're wondering, not that it should matter in cases such as these)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » Tue May 02, 2017 10:57 pm wrote:I agree with what you say -- you're more likely to get the correct answer from a scientist (on matters of science) than from a non-scientist -- but this, in itself, does not constitute sufficient grounds for belief.
See my two posts at the bottom of the previous page. I believe you're falling foul of the same fallacy as Ken. In order to constitute sufficient warrant for belief you'd have to demonstrate that the expert/scientist is more likely to be right than wrong.
"the best source you can hope for" and "your most likely source for correct and objective answers" (here I'm quoting you) is not enough.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 9:40 am wrote:
You are shading the percentages to make this sound close - if its 5% non-expert compared to 99% expert the decision is then a no-brainer - just to shade it the other way :D
SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 9:40 am wrote:
I don't think it counts to say I used the B-word if I was just restating the question you posted lol. Regarding an instrumentalist approach - are there any scientist out there who do not take this perspective? Even your favorite guy Tyson will say something is "FACT" when really it just has tons of "planes flying behind it support" so to speak. How many times does the sun need to rise for it to be a fact that the sun always rises?
SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 9:40 am wrote:The latter receives no serious attention because "intelligent design" offers no predictive input. What influence does an intelligent design offer to outcomes we are observing? Should we add a G representing god factor to all mathematical formulas? The notion is a waste of time.
SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 9:40 am wrote:Fallacy? lol. Ok, perhaps you can clarify what exactly constitutes sufficient grounds for belief?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » Wed May 03, 2017 1:08 am wrote:SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 9:40 am wrote:
You are shading the percentages to make this sound close - if its 5% non-expert compared to 99% expert the decision is then a no-brainer - just to shade it the other way :D
I'm shading the percentages to make a conceptual point. What the actual percentages would be in any real world scientific case are almost certainly indeterminate. If you disagree, tell me the probability that evolutionary theory, say, is true. 5%? 99%? Don't forget to show us your working. :-)SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 9:40 am wrote:
I don't think it counts to say I used the B-word if I was just restating the question you posted lol. Regarding an instrumentalist approach - are there any scientist out there who do not take this perspective? Even your favorite guy Tyson will say something is "FACT" when really it just has tons of "planes flying behind it support" so to speak. How many times does the sun need to rise for it to be a fact that the sun always rises?
I presume, though I have no statistics, that the vast majority of scientists do not take this perspective [i.e. instrumentalism], but, rather, take their theories to be attempts at representing reality. Instrumentalism, by contrast, treats theories as only a tool; a calculating device. Ask Eclogite how he feels on that perspective. :-)
(Quantum physics may well constitute an exception to my claim: QM, as these guys will tell you themselves, is weird, and thus seems to defy any common-sense realistic interpretation. As a calculating device, on the other hand, it works wonders by all accounts. "Shut up and calculate; never mind what it all means" as they say LOL)
As for "facts", suit yourself. You might be in a tight spot one night, though, when a gang of armed but philosophically-inclined muggers hold a pistol to your head and demand to see your rational justification for this "fact". Better start rehearsing LOL. "Um, well, er, it's always been that way. Don't shoot me, bro!". See also Russell's chicken and the fact that the farmer comes to feed it every day.SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 9:40 am wrote:The latter receives no serious attention because "intelligent design" offers no predictive input. What influence does an intelligent design offer to outcomes we are observing? Should we add a G representing god factor to all mathematical formulas? The notion is a waste of time.
If what you say is true then evolutionary theory deserves no serious attention either inasmuch as it, too, offers no (non-trivial) predictive input.SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 9:40 am wrote:Fallacy? lol. Ok, perhaps you can clarify what exactly constitutes sufficient grounds for belief?
You're the salesman, pal. I would suggest the burden of proof lies with yourself.
Pssttt! Wanna buy a piece of the Cross? You can trust me it's real. (Got it in Bangkok)
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 10:32 am wrote:You are the one saying "its good enough" does not reach sufficient grounds for belief - I need you to clarify that before we can move on!
I'd be interested to hear what Eclogite has to say about it - I'll wait to see his response before moving forward on that topic -- other than with regards to the chicken who obviously ceased further scientific investigation to his detriment.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » Wed May 03, 2017 1:37 am wrote:SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 10:32 am wrote:You are the one saying "its good enough" does not reach sufficient grounds for belief - I need you to clarify that before we can move on!
I'd be interested to hear what Eclogite has to say about it - I'll wait to see his response before moving forward on that topic -- other than with regards to the chicken who obviously ceased further scientific investigation to his detriment.
That makes no sense, and I've been uncommonly sensible lately, by my own standards anyway.
Where did I say that?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 10:56 am wrote:
So I am assuming my fallacy is suggesting that attaining real world results "demonstrates" that experts/scientists are more likely to be right than wrong. (Which in the sports world, the argument would simply be called, "Scoreboard")
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 10:56 am wrote:
Therefore - what constitutes sufficient grounds for belief?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » Wed May 03, 2017 2:15 am wrote:(i) the pessimistic induction argument : the history of failed theories in science gives us little reason to be complacent about the epistemic status of our current theories, and
(ii) the argument from underdetermination : any given body of data/evidence is compatible with an indefinite number of logically incompatible theories. Therefore, it would be something of a miracle if we had, from among this embarrassment of riches, hit upon the true candidate.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 11:36 am wrote:The premise is flawed in that it assumes there is no connection between progressive scientific theories. In other words it denies scientific progress.
SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 11:36 am wrote:Another way to write the The Pessimistic induction argument would be that once a scientist is wrong he can never be right again. Its horribly prejudiced to the detriment of anyone who wants to know how the world really works!
SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 11:36 am wrote:Regarding the second argument I think you meant to say *compatible* theories, as per wikipedia:
The argument is as follows:
There are an infinite number of possible theories,
There can only be a finite amount of experimental evidence,
Therefore it is impossible to disambiguate between all viable theories.
as suggested by Wikipedia, this is why we have Occam's razor - to identify the simplest of theories to explain a phenomenon.
SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 11:36 am wrote:All this though is fun to bicker about, but I think the problem lies here:
"I'm not sure I understand you correctly, Ken, but I think what you're doing here (as other members have done throughout the thread) is arguing from the success of scientific theories to the truth of scientific theories."
I am arguing the success of scientific theories is why we should "believe" what scientist have to say. Truth is a whole different concept.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » April 29th, 2017, 7:59 am wrote:I don't think I'd ever be inclined to bet for.
How would you bet yourself, Positor?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Positor » May 3rd, 2017, 12:17 pm wrote:On the question of belief: if you object to "believing" that something is so, would you be happy with "thinking" it is so? Is there a crucial difference? (There are different strengths of belief, e.g. "I believe in the One Almighty God"; "I believe what you say"; "I believe [= think] he is right"; "I believe she may have spoken to you".)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » Wed May 03, 2017 3:08 am wrote: To believe a proposition X is, almost by definition, to believe that X is true. Can you believe "Paris is the capital of France" if you don't think Paris is the capital of France? o_O
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen » May 3rd, 2017, 12:41 pm wrote:NoShips » Wed May 03, 2017 3:08 am wrote: To believe a proposition X is, almost by definition, to believe that X is true. Can you believe "Paris is the capital of France" if you don't think Paris is the capital of France? o_O
You love this example - but it is not the same thing. Paris by consensus is the capital of France. This was not true at the dawn of time and may not be true in the future - it is purely our agreed upon reality that Paris is the capital of France. However, objects of mass fall to the earth -we can't wish that away by consensus. Newtonian physics was for its time the best approximation of the phenomenon. Likewise, the theory of evolution is the best approximation we have for the phenomenon for why organisms change with time. But this Paris stuff -- that is just apples and oranges.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » Wed May 03, 2017 3:50 am wrote:To be less flippant, what you're doing is drawing a distinction between observer-dependent facts (money, capital cities, etc) and observer-independent facts (the Sun and the Stars and the lovelight in your eyes...).
The distinction is valid, but both are facts nonetheless, and thus both "truth evaluable" (can be assigned a value of true or false). Unless you wanna hand over the dosh, sucker.
It is not a matter of opinion that Paris is the capital of France. It is an institutional fact.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » May 3rd, 2017, 3:15 am wrote:There's no denying the "no miracle" argument is certainly persuasive, at least at first blush, but the antirealist's (and antirealist, I hasten to add, does not equate with anti-science) arsenal is not without counter-weaponry. The anti-realist is likely to appeal to:
(i) the pessimistic induction argument : the history of failed theories in science gives us little reason to be complacent about the epistemic status of our current theories, and
NoShips wrote:(ii) the argument from underdetermination : any given body of data/evidence is compatible with an indefinite number of logically incompatible theories. Therefore, it would be something of a miracle if we had, from among this embarrassment of riches, hit upon the true candidate.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » May 1st, 2017, 7:33 pm wrote:Braininvat » May 2nd, 2017, 5:37 am wrote:Let them [philosophers] natter on about Truth, keeps them out of trouble, and the rest of us can get on with our lives and living in this world.
As promised, the BBC will intermittently be posting quotes, as we come across them, to demonstrate that it's not just philosophers with no lives who natter on about truth.
"All this [i.e. Kuhn's ideas] is wormwood to scientists like myself, who think the task of science is to bring us closer and closer to objective truth."
-- Steven Weinberg (from "Facing Up", essay 17, "The Non-Revolution of Thomas Kuhn")
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Positor » May 4th, 2017, 12:33 am wrote:That depends on the degree of confirmation of the "theory". Highly speculative theories often fail; seemingly well-confirmed theories (e.g. the luminiferous ether) sometimes fail. But there is a level of confirmation (quantifiable in principle, I think) above which theories/beliefs are never seen to fail — e.g. that the Earth is roughly spherical, or that water boils at 100 degrees C at normal pressure. (Note: Here I am not just picking examples that have happened to survive so far; I am correlating them to a certain degree of confirmation, and saying that because of that they have a vanishingly low likelihood of failing.)
Positor » May 4th, 2017, 12:33 am wrote:Why should we adopt a methodological principle if it is not based on (approximate) truth? Why should we expect it to work? Sure, it has worked in the past (in general and in particular cases), but if we do not think it is true, what grounds do we have for thinking it will continue to work?
Positor » May 4th, 2017, 12:33 am wrote:A few questions for NoShips:
1. Are scientific theories usually wrong? [Y/N]
2. Do you think/believe that scientific theories are usually wrong? [Y/N]
3. You mentioned degrees of belief; do you have degrees of belief? [Y/N]
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Yes, scientific theories almost invariably turn out to be (regarded as) false, but this is not necessarily reason to despair. One might counter-argue, for example, it is precisely because of the exacting standards they set themselves in rigor and accuracy that they succumb in this way.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » May 4th, 2017, 1:35 am wrote:
I think that's why I'm not posting much here. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think concrete examples make clear that science and philosophy go a slightly different direction in using a word like "truth." The place in science where a truth can be absolute in in equations that are effectively tautological and so can't really be wrong. F=ma, for example, is really just defining what we mean by "force." It doesn't really wobble or crumble in some Quinean web of assumptions and theories. It's just a trivial defining statement like: "Duck" refers to those things that quack and have webbed feet. Two things plus two things is called "four things." Etc.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
vivian maxine » May 5th, 2017, 2:05 am wrote:Biv, as for "truth", doesn't the same hold for "proven"? I have been told - and read - many times that science never proves anything. They develop the best evidence and others work at it to confirm what has been said. The more confirmations, the closer they come to "proven" but they never make it 100% (as Newton would confess if he could).
Vivian, you are correct in saying that science does not prove things. Results can be more or less strongly confirmatory, but they don't render proof in the way that a logician or mathy does.
![]() |
![]() |
Return to Philosophy of Science
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests