|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Arguments 'evolutionists' should NOT use | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
my initial impression is that this crowd is either not very scientifically literate or is intentionally being disingenuous to promote some agenda other than science. If you click on the name of the person to whom you are conversing, you will call up part of their post ing history. That will give an impression of what that person is generally like. If you click on the profile button in that page, you will get their profile, which may tell you a little more about that person. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes: I am really surprised at how many folks here misunderstand or disagree with the scientific method! It's not a question of misunderstanding or disagreeing with the scientific method. It's a question of how the scientific method is presented to lay people. The topic is about arguments used by evolutionists, presumably to educate creationists. I'm not saying that the no-proof argument is a "bad" argument, per se or that it's "wrong". I'm saying it's an ineffective, even counter-productive argument when used on people who don't understand the scientific method. Maybe I should have called it a bad strategy instead of a bad argument. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
RAZD writes:
You missed the cr ac kp ot s. I think you'll find there are three kinds of posters here: your typical creationist (who can't be swayed by any amount of evidence that contradict what they believe they know), people of varying education levels with a keen desire to learn more (and some may think they know more than they do), and bonafide science types Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given. We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
LOL
... your list is not complete ... ... but I don't think it ever will be (and I think you'll find them already covered).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2564 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:Sometimes the theory is changed, and sometimes it's scrapped, and sometimes neither happens. Take an example: Ray Davis's solar neutrino experiment was devised to test solar models, which made specific predictions about neutrino production by solar fusion. The experiment took many years, but in the end the results were clearly in conflict with the predictions. The result? The theory survived unscathed, even though the data were (and are) perfectly valid. What had to be changed was not the theory, but an auxiliary hypothesis about the behavior of neutrinos. Yes, scientific theories do indeed have to be testable, and are always subject to revision, but treating falsification as having a special logical status, the way Popper did, is not consistent with actual scientific practice.
quote:Well, yes, that is how it's taught in grade schools, but it's not how it's taught in current philosophy of science, at least as far as I know. quote:I've been doing science professionally for a good twenty years now. It is worth noting that scientists are notoriously bad at systematically describing what they do for a living, so scientific experience may not be all that useful here. quote:But also read some of the criticisms of falsification in that same article. For a web-based look at some of the criticisms, you could start with Home – Physics World. For a deeper investigation, check out the collection Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave. There are probably better references, but as I said, I'm not a philosopher of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The experiment took many years, but in the end the results were clearly in conflict with the predictions. The result? The theory survived unscathed, even though the data were (and are) perfectly valid. What had to be changed was not the theory, but an auxiliary hypothesis about the behavior of neutrinos. So there was a theory that was falsified and that was changed: the one about neutrino behavior. The hypothesis that was based on the theory is still a hypothesis that is allowed with the change to the the theory of neutrino behavior, but it has not been tested yet. This gets more into theory based on theory based on theory than it does on theory falsification. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Take an example.... Actually, my favorite example is the irregularities in the orbit of Uranus in the 19th century. Rather than "falsifying" Newton's Theory of Gravity, it lead to the discovery of Neptune. Of course, what this means is that "falsification" is a little more subtle than the cartoon Popperian idea. Edited by Chiroptera, : Unnecessarily belligerent comment changed to a more benign one. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Ringo writes:
Thanks for the clarification. My approach is still to start by trying to explain the classic scientific method to non-scientists. I find that this gives a better context for discussing science, and it's not very hard to explain. I'm not saying that the no-proof argument is a "bad" argument, per se or that it's "wrong". I'm saying it's an ineffective, even counter-productive argument when used on people who don't understand the scientific method. Maybe I should have called it a bad strategy instead of a bad argument. One of the problems that I see with science at the lower levels (grade school, high school, even undergrad) is that it is presented much too dogmatically. This gives people the mistaken notion that science is all about "truth" and "certainty", whereas it is really better characterized by "exploration" and "discovery". Explaining the scientific method helps to address this.
sfs writes:
My understanding of the philosophy of science is that there are lots of different perspectives which conflict with one another. The leading proponents are not scientists, and do not really understand science. They offer some good insights, but get lots of things wrong, too. So I would take philosophy of science with a grain of salt.
Well, yes, that is how it's taught in grade schools, but it's not how it's taught in current philosophy of science, at least as far as I know. sfs writes:
This is often true. In addition, different scientific specialties do their science quite a bit differently. I've been doing science professionally for a good twenty years now. It is worth noting that scientists are notoriously bad at systematically describing what they do for a living, so scientific experience may not be all that useful here. So if most scientists can't explain what they do, and most philosophers of science don't really understand science, where do we go for an explanation of how science is done? The best perspectives I've seen on how science is done come from actual scientists who have gotten interested in philosophy, but these folks are not as famous as the professional philosophers of science. i agree that the classic scientific method is an oversimplification in some ways, but I believe that it's still a good framework to explain science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2564 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:Sure, some other theory was falsified. (Or rather, a better theory for neutrinos was found to match neutrino behavior better than the existing theory, which is not exactly the same thing.) The point is, however, that they thought they were testing a theory about the sun, but weren't. This is always a possibility when you have evidence that you think falsifies a theory -- maybe it's actually some other assumption that you've made that's wrong. That's why you can't know for certain that you have disproved a theory any more than you can know for certain that you've proved one. Both falsification and verification are problematic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
That's why you can't know for certain that you have disproved a theory any more than you can know for certain that you've proved one. Both falsification and verification are problematic. So you think it is actually possible that the earth is flat?
(Or rather, a better theory for neutrinos was found to match neutrino behavior better than the existing theory, which is not exactly the same thing.) The original theory did not match the data so it was falsified, the result was to modify the theory to match the data. What part of this is not the scientific process? Knowledge was still increased by the process yes?
The point is, however, that they thought they were testing a theory about the sun, but weren't. This is always a possibility when you have evidence that you think falsifies a theory -- maybe it's actually some other assumption that you've made that's wrong. Which is why it is unreasonable to build too many theories on top of theory on top of theory with some steps involving unvalidated theories (hypothesis really) ... however this too is part of the review process on any theory in conflict with the evidence: the question is where the error comes from, not a discarding of the evidence to maintain the theory. Any part of the logical foundation can be the source of the error.
Both falsification and verification are problematic. Validation is always problematic, but some things are definitely falsified with no equivocation: that the earth is young is one. We may not know exactly how old the earth is, but the certainty is that it is not less than 4.5 billions of years old. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
sfs writes:
But this is pretty much the same idea as "falsifiability." It is the same sense that Newton's theories were "falsified" by Einstein's. Newton's still work quite well in many cases, but there are cases in which they break down and are "false".
Sure, some other theory was falsified. (Or rather, a better theory for neutrinos was found to match neutrino behavior better than the existing theory, which is not exactly the same thing.) The point is, however, that they thought they were testing a theory about the sun, but weren't. This is always a possibility when you have evidence that you think falsifies a theory -- maybe it's actually some other assumption that you've made that's wrong.
And this is how many scientific discoveries are made; things don't work as expected, and a good scientist hunts for the answer and finds that unexamined assumptions were wrong.
That's why you can't know for certain that you have disproved a theory any more than you can know for certain that you've proved one. Both falsification and verification are problematic.
Yes, on the basis of a single experiment one can never be sure. (And even on the basis of multiple experiments all done the same way.) This is why science demands repeatability and testability. Other experimenters will test a new theory with different procedures to try to improve upon the accuracy or precision, and eventually the various pieces will be sorted out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2564 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:I don't think there's a realistic possibility that the Earth is flat, no. The argument here is about whether things can be disproven but not proven. Do you really think we can say for certain that the Earth is not flat, but that we can't say for certain that the Earth is roughly spherical? Because that is what is being argued. quote:That would be the scientific process if it had happened that way, but it didn't. Scientists did not look at the data and say, "Aha, it disagrees with our theory about neutrinos, and therefore the theory is wrong." They looked and saw that there was a disagreement with predictions, which meant that something was wrong, but they didn't know what; conflicting data by itself could not falsify any of the theories involved. Perhaps the solar models were wrong, perhaps there were unexpected artifacts in the experimental process, perhaps neutrino interactions with matter had been calculated incorrectly, perhaps neutrinos actually oscillate into different flavors. What permitted the scientific process to work in this case was the existence of a new theory of neutrinos (an obvious extension of the old one); that theory could explain the anomoly in the solar neutrino measurements, and also made other testable predictions. When those predictions were confirmed by observation, then it became clear what was going on. In other words, it wasn't a conflict between theory and data that did in the old theory, it was validation of a new theory that did it. You can try to cast this story (and many others) into falsificationist terms, but it's really a misrepresentation of what happened if you do. And why would you want to? Popper promoted falsification as the essential element in science because he thought it solved the problem of induction, but it doesn't. So why treat it as more than one tool that science uses?
quote:The problem with your comment is that essentially all of modern science is built of theories on top of theories on top of theories. Every scientific instrument incorporates all kinds of scientific knowledge from multiple fields, none of which have been fully validated (since nothing in science can ever be fully validated, right?). The theory that turned out to be wrong in the solar neutrino case was the Standard Model of particle physics, possibly the best-tested theory in the history of science -- it was not some off-the-cuff hypothesis somebody slapped together. I quite agree with your conclusion, however. No one has suggested tossing out evidence. What I am arguing is that falsification is not the essence of science, and that disproof is just as problematic as proof. Neither of those points has anything to do with throwing out data.
quote:So your position is that we know for certain that the Earth is not younger than 10,000 years old, but we do not know for certain that it is older than 10,000 years old?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2564 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:Look again at what you've written. How can one theory be falsified by another theory? Falsification is about comparing the predictions of a theory with observations, not with predictions from a different theory. Note that in the case of Newtonian physics, the existence of anomolous data was not enough to overthrow the theory; instead it took the discovery of a different theory that could explain both standard and anomolous data and that was simpler than the ad hoc ether explanations that were being cooked up. quote:Sure, but exactly the same can be said about validations of a theory: the more methods used to validate a theory, the greater the confidence in it. In neither falsification nor validation does confidence ever reach exactly 100%, but it can come very close. So what's logically special about falsification?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I think an important point is being missed.
As others have noted, in practice it may be difficult to "prove" a theory is falsified. There is often wiggle room which may be very legitamate or just someone clinging to a pet theory for too long. However, the point about falsification is that a theory MUST be falsifiable in principle. That is, the theory must be robust enough to allow for predictions based upon it that can be tested. It must have some way of tying it to some potential observations that would allow it to be giving some confirmation or disconfirmation. A current example is the concern that string theory has no such potential falsification with current technology. It is derided by some because it can't be "tested". In this context "tested" is used exactly as "prove" is used in "The exception proves the rule." It is the potential for a "test" which can, of course, be failed that is why falsification is a central and esential part of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
sfs writes:
This is called a nitpick. He was relying on the fact that it is well known that at the time newtonian mechanics couldn't explain certain observations, such as the orbit of mercury. Nitpicking on his choice of words would hardly move the conversation forward, would it?
Look again at what you've written. How can one theory be falsified by another theory? Sure, but exactly the same can be said about validations of a theory: the more methods used to validate a theory, the greater the confidence in it. In neither falsification nor validation does confidence ever reach exactly 100%, but it can come very close. So what's logically special about falsification?
This really is the crux of the matter as far as what I've been taught. Even among the science minded people, there is often the misunderstanding that science works more in a robotic manner than not. In reality, true science is more like porn... I know it when I see it. We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024