![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » March 13th, 2017, 6:11 am wrote:Although the original post is fairly long I think instead of asking if we should believe scientists it would be better to ask if we should believe in those things that have considerable scientific consensus. The tricky part is that scientists almost always avoid being dogmatic by qualifying the consensus as being current but subject to refinement. This gets back to the question of truth being relative. I would say relative in the sense of approximation. Absolute truths tend to be mundane or if you like trivial. To some extent even scientific truths are trivialized because we take them for granted if they are well entrenched in our paradigm.
To be the devils advocate if we compare science to philosophy doesn't the same problem emerge in the sense that every philosophy is approximately representing some metaphysical principle?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Does smoking really cause cancer? (*cough*) Is global warming really due to our planetary mismanagement? Do quarks exist? Are tectonic plates real? (ever seen one?) Is the luminiferous aether real? (J. C. Maxwell allegedly claimed it was the most highly confirmed entity in all science).
That said, what is the appropriate epistemological weight we should assign to the knowledge claims of science? When should we believe them, and when might a more circumspect attitude be appropriate?
Do quarks exist? Is the luminiferous aether real?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos » Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:04 am wrote:Does smoking really cause cancer? (*cough*) Is global warming really due to our planetary mismanagement? Do quarks exist? Are tectonic plates real? (ever seen one?) Is the luminiferous aether real? (J. C. Maxwell allegedly claimed it was the most highly confirmed entity in all science).
This is a good time to list the scientific crackpots who, years later, were vindicated as having the correct theory.
Alfred Wegener. Said the continents are drifting slowly over geological plates. Rejected as a crackpot for 40 years. His theory suddenly transformed into canonical geology in the early 1950s.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Eclogite » March 13th, 2017, 1:16 am wrote:hyksos » Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:04 am wrote:Does smoking really cause cancer? (*cough*) Is global warming really due to our planetary mismanagement? Do quarks exist? Are tectonic plates real? (ever seen one?) Is the luminiferous aether real? (J. C. Maxwell allegedly claimed it was the most highly confirmed entity in all science).
This is a good time to list the scientific crackpots who, years later, were vindicated as having the correct theory.
Alfred Wegener. Said the continents are drifting slowly over geological plates. Rejected as a crackpot for 40 years. His theory suddenly transformed into canonical geology in the early 1950s.
Wegener was not rejected as a crackpot. Such a statement makes good background for a Hollywood dramatisation, but it fails to consider the facts. I shall be happy to expand upon these points if required....
Wegener is rightly acknowledged for spotting something curious in the data, but he did not deliver an explanatory paradigm in the way that Darwin did for evolution (unless you are thinking of Erasmus).
And, to repeat, he was not judged a crackpot. (Unless you have significant citations to the contrary.)
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » March 12th, 2017, 9:58 pm wrote:I would say that there is a certain appeal to authority here that is unwarranted. Whatever Kuhn and Popper may have had to say on scientific dogmatism, dogmatism remains a logical fallacy. That is not to say that just because something is illogical that it is wrong. In this case however there is sufficient evidence that scientist engage in the construction and the defense of theories not dogma to make calling their rejection of dogma a fairy tale disingenuous. If we take the accepted definition of dogma as a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true then you could argue that science is impossible without dogma but that is an oversimplification. Of course there is a building up of evidence that is a waste of time to question most of the time but in science the principles are not established by an authority but by a preponderance of evidence. Even then I have never known a scientist to say that any principle is absolutely true outside of it's logical framework. Dogma in fact is almost exclusively the domain of religion because for a principle to be absolutely true it has to be derived from an absolute authority. If you can point to an absolute authority in science then I would accept your argument. Principles and sets of principles in science are constantly being challenged by refinements. In many cases it is not that the principles and sets of principles are wrong it is just that a closer approximation is made possible by advancements in technology or insight.
Playing these semantical games such as discussing the meaning of dogma is exactly why many scientist reject philosophy because it reminds them of the tactics theologians used on their predecessors. Ironically it is the scientists unwillingness to commit to absolutes that makes the trap so effective for non scientist to employ.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » March 12th, 2017, 3:03 am wrote:
Have scientists been wrong before? I have no doubt whatsoever: the historical list is both lengthy and incontrovertible. Even those theories considered most highly confirmed and embraced with certainty, or near certainty (Newtonian mechanics, say), have subsequently been abandoned by scientists themselves as an accurate representation of reality, if not as a useful tool ("Got us to the Moon", and all that).
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » March 17th, 2017, 2:41 am wrote:
But isn't science wrong far more recently revealed by revolutionary new theories? Not in the hard sciences! The FIRST test of whether a theory even could be true is whether it agrees with current theory where the current theory is proven to be correct. Take an example like General Relativity. The first test is to show it reduces to Newtonian gravity in regime where those formulas are known to work. It was already known that there were conditions where Newtonian gravity didn't work and it is why we looked for something like General Relativity. Thus the fact is, that modern hard science is founded on evidence that NEVER GOES AWAY! Because of this, Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions is pure hogwash when it comes to the hard sciences.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » March 12th, 2017, 11:41 pm wrote:It's all about the quality of the evidence, my friend.
E.g. Chomsky's theory of universal grammar and recursion and that "innate language organ." (let's pick on Noam for a minute - his ego will survive, from what I've seen) The field of linguistic science grew up with this as a cornerstone, then Daniel Everett published his famous 2014 paper on the Piraha tribe of the Amazon, which he had studied for decades. Universal grammar, that great edifice, crumbled. Turned out that Chomsky and his cadre of indoor linguists (they didn't touch field work, it seems, and looked down on it from their lofty towers of ivory, or Building 20 at MIT) had never had terribly good evidence and hadn't really comprehensively beaten the bushes (literally) for aboriginal groups that strayed from the principles of UG. Everett found a black swan, it seems. Many of the elements of a universal grammar and recursion were absent from the Piraha's language. Could it be that humans simply had an array of cognitive skills that opened the door for inventing vocal communication systems in various ways, but didn't actually constitute an innate language organ? Everett injected healthy levels of doubt into the matter.
I think it's a good example, offering suggestions as to how to judge scientific theories. Are they based on mysterious hypotheticals (innate organs of language) or on years of scrupulous data collection. Do they follow a charismatic public intellectual (like Chomsky) or wherever the evidence leads? The more a theory circles around a black box ("we don't know what's in there, but we think it might be this..."), the longer the jury should deliberate.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » March 24th, 2017, 8:52 am wrote:mitchellmckain » March 17th, 2017, 2:41 am wrote:
But isn't science wrong far more recently revealed by revolutionary new theories? Not in the hard sciences! The FIRST test of whether a theory even could be true is whether it agrees with current theory where the current theory is proven to be correct. Take an example like General Relativity. The first test is to show it reduces to Newtonian gravity in regime where those formulas are known to work. It was already known that there were conditions where Newtonian gravity didn't work and it is why we looked for something like General Relativity. Thus the fact is, that modern hard science is founded on evidence that NEVER GOES AWAY! Because of this, Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions is pure hogwash when it comes to the hard sciences.
Hmm, it's not quite that simple, I'm afraid. Let's go all the way back to to first post, J. C. Maxwell, the luminiferous aether, and his comment to the effect that the aether is the most highly confirmed entity in all science (quoted somewhere in Laudan). Had Maxwell been asked about the evidence supporting the existence of said aether, he -- and countless others like him -- would presumably have described it as strong, or perhaps even overwhelming. What else does highly confirmed mean if not well supported by evidence?
I choose Maxwell and the aether because I assume you Mitchell, and all the rest of us, can agree on the following:
(i) physics is a hard science
(ii) the late 19th century can be regarded as "modern"
(iii) the aether does not exist
So, returning to your claim which I highlighted, Mitchell, and granting the trio of assumptions above, it would seem your options are:
1. Insist there is still strong/overwhelming evidence for the aether. ("... [evidence] that NEVER GOES AWAY"), or
2. Withdraw the claim as false
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » March 25th, 2017, 6:43 am wrote:@ Mitchell (directly above)
(i) We thought we had very strong evidence for electrons, but turns out we were wrong. After all, there can be no evidence for a non-existent entity. (see also witches), Or
(ii) The evidence for electrons remains very strong, even though they are now known not to exist.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » March 25th, 2017, 8:58 am wrote:No need to be alarmed: electrons are still safe and sound last I heard.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RoccoR » March 25th, 2017, 10:02 am wrote:Re: A Simple Question: Should We Believe Scientists?
NoShips , et al,
Many thanks. The JJ Thomson particle is a key.NoShips » March 25th, 2017, 8:58 am wrote:No need to be alarmed: electrons are still safe and sound last I heard.
(COMMENT)
However I do understand the urge to throw the "penalty flag" when Physicists start with the quark business. While I do believe that the collision of proton beams does make for exotic detector pictures, I suppose that such collision occur naturally in the universe.
When I listen so the Physicists take about Up-Quarks, Down-Quarks and Strange Quarks, and the eV and mV charges and (and the two-thirds, one-third charges) how the fit together to make photons; I tend to think that they are making this up to explain impact chips of energy created by the collision. They dazzle people with the puzzle of hadron remnants --- like filming two crystal glasses colliding and trying to make sense of the shards.
Yeah, I understand the nature of the question (Should We Believe Scientists?) and count myself somewhat skeptical at these far fetched explanations. I shook my head at the explanation of Beta (-) decay when a Neutron mysteriously changed into a Proton (the invention of a anti-neutrino in order to balance the equation and balance/conserve energy). I guess the turning point for was when they speak the "Strong Nuclear Force" attractive until the nuclei space reaches ≈ 0.5 femtometers, then magically changes its force characteristics --- almost becoming repulsive. THEN: there is the Gluon as the messenger carrier for the "Strong Force." It has no mass and no electric charge (how can that be called a particle and how could it affect anything). In fact, how can we even detect a Gluon if it has no mass and no charge?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » March 25th, 2017, 5:43 am wrote:And if you choose (ii), I'm afraid I'll not only have to shoot you, but talk to you about God too. After all, the evidence for God, until quite recently, was taken to be so overwhelming as to be not worth mentioning -- by virtually everyone, um, if you'll pardon my Eurocentricity. Ask Isaac Newton. Or perhaps, on his behalf, I might impertinently ask you, Mitchell: "Just look at all that exquisite design in nature, eh. Don't you agree that the evidence for God's existence is overwhelming?"
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
How would I rate the chances of his [Chomsky] latest theory (whatever that is) being true and still being widely regarded as so, say, 500 years from now? Roughly zero.
How about you, Biv?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » March 27th, 2017, 2:01 am wrote:
I think, as Mitchell points out, that matters are much clearer with hard sciences. Whatever we construe an "electron" to be, in some deep ontological way (only looks "pointy" when a field perturbation is measured in a certain way, is really just a knot of field strength, it's all just fields interacting and fields are just spacetime fibers woven into an attractive rug that ties the whole room together, whatever), certain kinds of evidence of a regular pattern of behavior will remain. But we may end up talking about the measurement in different ways. Galileo measured quite carefully the behavior of classical objects as they are acted upon in Earth's gravity field, and his evidence is still valid when we are talking about a certain macro-scale field of play. If a man sitting in a boat tosses a tennis ball up in the air, the ball will still travel with the boat and land back in his hand if he's not clumsy. The evidence is solid and in no way undermined by the discovery of a quark or a boson or quantum entanglements between Alice and Bob. Hard science adds layers, and old layers still have some validity and use.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:49 pm wrote:I once had a fall-out with a scientist friend (sigh!) for contradicting her in her insistence that science is characterized by open-mindedness. Seems to me scientists, by and large, would be found somewhere very near the closed end of the spectrum -- no Loch Ness monster, no aliens, no psychics, thank you very much -- which is precisely where they ought to be.
What's so great about being open-minded, ladies and gentlemen? ... oh, and you too, Bigfoot.
![]() |
![]() |
Return to Philosophy of Science
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests