![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » April 18th, 2017, 12:09 am wrote:Seems to me all above (Eclogite, Lomax, BiV) are simply trivializing Prof Feynman's remarks: so you're telling me that what he means by scientists being ignorant is that they don't know everything?; they're not omniscient?
Well, whoever thought they were?
(e.g. "When we concede that scientists don't know everything..." - Lomax) You don't say! Next you'll be telling me they can't leap over tall buildings in a single bound :-)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump » April 18th, 2017, 10:39 pm wrote:
Well there might be some prospect for clarity here. Although I would prefer to avoid dwelling on contrasting definitions, some of this seems more like the definition of a realist (leading me to wonder if there is a sharp distinction between an empiricist vs a realist - I am more familiar with the dichotomy of realists vs. positivists). But I will move on.
By what I take to be your usage, the empiricist simply notes observations, presumably including correlations between phenomena, but without looking for underlying causal factors? So no attempt is made to determine whether correlations are spurious?
How about something as simple as dropping a ball? In your useage, wouldn't even the most strict empiricist eventually notice that a released ball almost invariably moves in a very predictable direction that would/could/should(?) be explained by the unobservable (?) "cause" of this metaphysical thing we call gravity? Would it then be consistent with that view that we still don't have a solid handle on what causes gravity (beyond the perhaps now trite observation that gravity appears to be just a property of matterwithout having to go further)?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » April 18th, 2017, 11:31 pm wrote: Nosh
The chat has moved on, but I wanted to comment briefly on the above. I hoped my dinosaur bone example addressed the issue of taking a theoretical framework for granted. I pointed out that the assumptions behind K-Ar dating were all carefully scrutinized and not at all taken for granted. E.g. bones that can't themselves be dated, can be dated by determining the age of igneous rocks in the layer or surrounding layers they are found. Lots of empirical basis for that. Potassium-40 decays at a constant rate, regardless of temperature and pressure. Lots of empirical basis for that. And many honest attempts at falsification are thrown at each assumption. Could a bone gravitate away from its original level of rock somehow? Could a radionuclide decay at a variable rate? Et cetera. Just saying, a lot of what Kuhn talks about is not science per se, but bad science, or maybe I should say, the potential of science to go bad. So maybe the discussion should focus on: How do we recognize a bad scientist, so that we cannot be duped into believing her/him? Or, in some cases, a whole area of science that has been corrupted in some way? Having solid criteria for this would, presumably, enable us to identify good science that we may, provisionally, accept. I would prefer to say "provisional acceptance" rather than "belief," given the pitfalls of belief.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen » April 18th, 2017, 11:45 pm wrote:
No ships I'm going to attempt a new approach to understanding the scientific process that might justify why we should believe scientist.
I think it might be better to think of scientist as lawyers - which I know will probably make you believe scientist even less. Scientific experiments yield facts - but it is important to remember these facts are always conditional. A news article may report something like "Coffee prevents heart disease", which sounds like a scientific fact. However, the reality of this hypothetical study is that the data show coffee was beneficial over the timeline of the study in specific groups of people with each having their unique lifestyle/genetic differences, while most likely reaching a significance level whereby there remains still a slightly less than 5% chance the observed differences were due to pure chance.
This is where the scientist come and and act like lawyers. Just like a lawyer building a case with facts (evidence) to propose a concept (i.e. the man is guilty) beyond a preponderance of doubt (99% likelihood of guilt), the scientist is going to build a case with facts (scientific studies) to propose a concept (i.e. coffee prevents heart disease), beyond a preponderance of doubt (p value arbitrarily decided to be less than 0.05). Both are interpreting facts, while knowing the caveats of the facts, the support a claim.
Can a layman do this? Sure. Can a layman defend themselves in court? Sure. Is that a good idea? probably not. Likewise attempting to grasp scientific concepts without a background in science may also have similar complications to going to court without an attorney.
Furthermore - both can be wrong - innocent men have gone to jail and we all think running marathons is good for your health.
Hope this helps!
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Lomax » April 19th, 2017, 8:01 am wrote:Then it's hard to tell what you can possibly think Feynman meant. Did he mean that science is believing that the experts are so dumb they are never worth listening to? One, so to speak, doubts it. Otherwise you will have to explain to me the point of the Feynman quote and why you think it works in your favour.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump » April 19th, 2017, 11:36 am wrote:I'd take that bet. What do I have to lose?
Forest_Dump » April 19th, 2017, 11:36 am wrote:Obviusly you have a different age in mind, so how old do you think the earth is?
Forest_Dump » April 19th, 2017, 11:36 am wrote:I might also note that either you believe these aliens have supernatural powers or they just have a better developed science than we have. I would guess the latter.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:34 am wrote:
Well, if you wanna talk about 'scientific facts', be my guest... and be it on your own head, friend.
The problem is, given that you admit the fallibility of all scientific knowledge claims, you may find yourself having to countenance absurdities such as:
"It's a scientific fact that X, but it might not be true."
(where I come from, at least, there are no untrue facts; if it ain't true, it ain't a fact)
These red faces can be easily avoided with a little prudence:
"We think it's a scientific fact that X"
The same applies, mutatis mutandis, for those who insist on speaking of "proof" in science. After all, do you really wanna be caught in the spotlight endorsing:
"We've proved it; but we might be wrong"
That such honorific assignments are at odds with our semantic intuitions I think can be easily demonstrated by considering the following. Suppose X turns out to be false after all. Would you be inclined to say
(i) "X used to be a scientific fact, but no longer is", or
(ii) "We used to think X was a scientific fact, but turns out we were wrong"
(try it yourself with "prove")
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen » April 19th, 2017, 12:15 pm wrote:NoShips » Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:34 am wrote:
Well, if you wanna talk about 'scientific facts', be my guest... and be it on your own head, friend.
The problem is, given that you admit the fallibility of all scientific knowledge claims, you may find yourself having to countenance absurdities such as:
"It's a scientific fact that X, but it might not be true."
(where I come from, at least, there are no untrue facts; if it ain't true, it ain't a fact)
These red faces can be easily avoided with a little prudence:
"We think it's a scientific fact that X"
The same applies, mutatis mutandis, for those who insist on speaking of "proof" in science. After all, do you really wanna be caught in the spotlight endorsing:
"We've proved it; but we might be wrong"
That such honorific assignments are at odds with our semantic intuitions I think can be easily demonstrated by considering the following. Suppose X turns out to be false after all. Would you be inclined to say
(i) "X used to be a scientific fact, but no longer is", or
(ii) "We used to think X was a scientific fact, but turns out we were wrong"
(try it yourself with "prove")
You are seriously complaining just to complain my friend. So because there is a slim possibility that science might be wrong you are throwing the whole thing out??? Yet scientific methodology continues to deliver progress. Is there any other worldview that provides more than somebody writing fables to explain everything? Do you have any alternative or are you just going to continue to bash science for just being mostly right.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:19 am wrote:Um, everything I said to you consisted of semantic analysis. There was no science-bashing. You misread.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips wrote:Aliens? Who mentioned aliens?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump » April 18th, 2017, 7:36 pm wrote:I'd take that bet. What do I have to lose? (By the way, BiV has nothing to lose either - so long as the gun is pointed at his (empty) head and not the vat.)
Obviusly you have a different age in mind, so how old do you think the earth is?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
My problem NoShips, that makes it difficult for me to take you seriously, is that in many of your posts there is the same agenda driven, semi-hysterical, evangelical outpouring that you condemn. It gets in the way of what could be an interesting discussion. So I'll probably just go away.NoShips » Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:10 pm wrote:The audience seemed to enjoy it, though, judging by the rapturous applause. What's the difference between a televangelist and a Neil deGrasse Tyson? Never mind, I'll be in my cave if you need me.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
To which I'd respond: I do have that option, thank you, professor. Is there any equation in science which was ever considered more absolutely certain, more immune to revision, than "f=ma"? Well, we're now told f=ma is not applicable in all situations, which is to say it is -- strictly speaking -- false.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips: To which I'd respond: I do have that option, thank you, professor. Is there any equation in science which was ever considered more absolutely certain, more immune to revision, than "f=ma"? Well, we're now told f=ma is not applicable in all situations, which is to say it is -- strictly speaking -- false. What makes you so sure e=mc2 will not suffer the same ignominy?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » April 20th, 2017, 9:57 am wrote:
This is where your Ignorance Slip is showing, Noships. "Strictly speaking" F=ma is still true, but in a limited case. That is NOT the same as "false." It's these casually dropped inaccurate remarks on your part that undermine your thesis.
Braininvat » April 20th, 2017, 9:57 am wrote:As for E=mc2 turning out false....hey, that would be great, we could stop worrying about nuclear warheads and learn to love the Bomb! But, alas, the relationship between matter and energy shows no signs of altering, so you may be in for a disappointment. Well, actually, you should be happy because it means the sun keeps shining and warming the Earth so we don't turn into a ball of ice.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen » April 20th, 2017, 10:06 am wrote:
Just to pile on - I think the issue you are facing in relating to scientist is that you have a very binary view of truth. F=MA is true in probably 99.9999% of the situations you will observe in your life -but because it may not be true 0.0001% of the time then F=MA is false and should be dispensed with?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips wrote:And P.S. If there are 99 black cats, and one white cat, the hypothesis "all cats are black" is false. This is not negotiable lol.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump » April 20th, 2017, 10:44 am wrote:
But it is definitely safe to say that most of the cats are black. In fact 99% of them are black. If I were to bet on the colour of any given cat...
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:12 am wrote:SciameriKen » April 20th, 2017, 10:06 am wrote:
Just to pile on - I think the issue you are facing in relating to scientist is that you have a very binary view of truth. F=MA is true in probably 99.9999% of the situations you will observe in your life -but because it may not be true 0.0001% of the time then F=MA is false and should be dispensed with?
What if I was a quark? Would f=ma still be "true in probably 99.9999% of the situations I will observe in my life"?
And P.S. If there are 99 black cats, and one white cat, the hypothesis "all cats are black" is false. This is not negotiable lol.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips wrote:I never said f=ma is not useful (got us to the Moon, and all that); I said it's not true (according to scientists' own diagnosis).
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen » April 20th, 2017, 12:30 pm wrote:
Well good thing you are not a quark right?
What you are not grasping is in this world being mostly right is enough to get the job done.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
NoShips » Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:16 am wrote:Forest_Dump » April 20th, 2017, 10:44 am wrote:I never said f=ma is not useful (got us to the Moon, and all that); I said it's not true (according to scientists' own diagnosis).
|
![]() |
![]() |
Return to Philosophy of Science
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests