Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent tree growth
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 1 of 5 (275350)
01-03-2006 2:10 PM


Is intelligent poofing science?
I have a tree in my back yard. I planted it maybe 15 years ago as a seedling at around 12 inches high. It is now 20 feet in height.
There is a biological theory of how trees grow. Let's refer to it as "The Biological Theory of Trees", or BToT for short.
BTOT happens to be quite useful. Much can be predicted about tree growth. Planters, orchardists, etc, can use BTOT to guide them in ways to control tree growth so as to manage fruit picking and other kinds of harvesting.
From what I have seen, BTOT explains my tree quite well. The tree grows pretty much as BTOT suggests. I use my knowledge of BTOT when pruning, and that works well too.
If I am completely honest, I have to admit that BTOT could be wrong. I have never actually seen the tree grow. If have at various times noticed that it was bigger than it had previously been. But any actual growth happens at too slow a speed for observation.
So maybe trees don't grow at all. Maybe every now and then, at a time when nobody is watching, the tree simply poofs out of existence, and a new slightly larger tree poofs into existence to replace it. Let's refer to that as the Theory of Intelligent Tree Growth, or TITG.
Let's suppose that TITG turns out to be true, and BTOT turns out to be false. Maybe I had a convincing experience, including a supernatural revelation, where I learned of the truth of TITG.
What should I then do?
My contention is that I should continue to use BTOT. I should perhaps become an anti-realist with respect to BTOT. That is, I should say that BTOT is not what really happens. Nevertheless it is a sound scientific theory for pragmatic reasons. It predicts tree growth. It allow control of tree growth by orchardists, horticulturalists and others. By contrast, although TITG is shown to be true, it is of no practical use. It gives me no ability at prediction or control.
Comments anybody?
[Note: This is a reaction to randman's skeptical view of evolution, such as he is expressing in various posts in A Whale of a Tale. It is my contention that such skepticism should lead to an anti-realist attitude toward ToE, rather than to an outright rejection. The intention is to discuss what makes for a good scientific theory.
Percy writes:
Creationism/ID isn't suddenly correct if evolution is wrong. If evolution is ever falsified you'll discover that Creationism/ID is still left out of science classrooms because it still doesn't qualify as science.
See Message 51.
ToE is not adopted because it is true. Rather, it is adopted because if its empirical usefulness. Even if found untrue, it would continue to be used until there is a replacement theory that is at least as useful.]

Antirealism

The following is taken from Page not found | UCL Philosophy - UCL — University College London:
Scientific Realism Versus Antirealism
Scientific theories seem, if taken literally, to describe an unobservable reality underlying the phenomena. Are there good reasons for interpreting theories in this way and for holding that they are true, or at any rate approximately true? Would the success of science be a miracle without this interpretation of theories? Or should we instead think of theories as merely instruments for codifying and predicting phenomena? Does the fact that any given set of data can be accommodated within an infinite number of possible scientific theories mean that there are never good reasons to accept any particular scientific theory on the basis of given data? Does the existence of scientific revolutions (and the possibility of further revolutions in the future) imply that there is no good reason to think our present theories even approximately true? Is there even an objective notion of what it takes for a claim to be false, but approximately true?
(Suggest: "Is it Science")
This message has been edited by nwr, 01-03-2006 01:12 PM
This message has been edited by nwr, 01-03-2006 02:48 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-03-2006 2:39 PM nwr has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 5 (275364)
01-03-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nwr
01-03-2006 2:10 PM


As per message 1's content, I just don't see this topic working
Perhaps you could post an addition message to cause me to think otherwise.
Not much of a critique, but I wanted to try head off a premature promoting of this topic.
Adminnemooseus
Added by edit:
It is my contention that such skepticism should lead to an anti-realist attitude toward ToE, rather than to an outright rejection.
The above seems to be a key point. I personally don't know what an "anti-realist attitude" is. Perhaps you could expand on that sentence.
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-03-2006 02:47 PM

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nwr, posted 01-03-2006 2:10 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 01-03-2006 4:02 PM Adminnemooseus has replied
 Message 4 by AdminBen, posted 01-03-2006 5:02 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 3 of 5 (275401)
01-03-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
01-03-2006 2:39 PM


Re: As per message 1's content, I just don't see this topic working
I added some information on anti-realism to the OP, and slightly expanded the notes toward the end.
I am attempting to get at some of the issues that concern randman, but to discuss it in terms of something that randman does not find as controversial as ToE.
Any scientific theory has implications about things not observed. In the case of ToE, randman repeatedly points to such unobserved implications, and asserts that since they have not been observed, therefore we have no basis to support ToE.
What I am wanting to discuss, is that the basis for accepting scientific theories is their empirical usefulness. That a theory has implications that have not been observed is usually considered a strength of that theory, not a weakness. For such implied consequences are a basis for further tests of the theory.
Note: act as you think appropriate. I won't be offended if the topic is rejected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-03-2006 2:39 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-03-2006 9:39 PM nwr has not replied

AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 5 (275431)
01-03-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
01-03-2006 2:39 PM


Re: As per message 1's content, I just don't see this topic working
For this subject, nwr's thought process is very similar to mine, and I think the topic is an important one. And not just to address randman, but to address those who conflate scientific theory with "truth." Thus, I'm "for" promoting the topic, as I see these two interesting paths of discussion. I think it's useful.
I know you have reservations about the topic Moose, and I don't mean to intervene. I just wanted to drop a note in support of promotion.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-03-2006 2:39 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

    Adminnemooseus
    Administrator
    Posts: 3974
    Joined: 09-26-2002


    Message 5 of 5 (275517)
    01-03-2006 9:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 3 by nwr
    01-03-2006 4:02 PM


    Message 1 spun-off to become new topic
    Stand by. Will do next.
    Adminnemooseus

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by nwr, posted 01-03-2006 4:02 PM nwr has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024