|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Scientific Method For Beginners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4423 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
First thanks for being a bit more civil, it is really refreshing
quote:Yip, true (although depends on how you define evolve, but you know my position on that already). quote:No evidence doesn't lie. Yes to testing the validity of an argument by how completly it explains all the evidence. quote:Absolutly True. Same goes for any other person on earth whether creationist, evolutionist, or ...ist. quote:Thanks, I'll go have a look. quote:hmm... as you can guess i disagree with this statement. An example is the prediction made by Russell Humphreys a creationist using a creation model, He predicted the strength of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. These were then proven correct by Voyager II, unlike any of the secular predictions. Edited by Arphy, : oops, typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Arphy writes: quote:The problem here is that we view the process differently. We do not say that there are limits to evolutionary change but that this change is degenerative rather then producing more and more complex organisms and systems. Again, this view of evolutionary change is not suggested by any evidence. The term "degenerative" is especially not descriptive of the mutational and selection processes of evolution. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2688 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Arphy.
Arphy writes: What???, I think you have misunderstood the position of creationists and IDers. No, I have not. -----
Arphy writes: In fact creationists do accept mutations just not the notion of information increasing beneficial mutations, there is a difference between the two. But this is an entirely different view of evolution than the Theory of Evolution presents, which means you were wrong that the two are not in conflict. -----
Arphy writes: Just because my nickname is Arphy doesn't refute my argument. This is what's commonly referred to as a "parody argument." You said that we should change our terminology because of the popular viewpoint.I said you should change your avatar because of the popular viewpoint. They are, in principle, the same argument. If you accept one, you should have no problem with the other. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9053 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Off Topic Material Hidden
An example is the prediction made by Russell Humphreys a creationist using a creation model, He predicted the strength of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. These were then proven correct by Voyager II, unlike any of the secular predictions.
Oh please, please please, give us your source on this. Now can I tell you a little about Dr. Russell Humphreys? From Discover magazine.
quote: Where is his peer-reviewed research published?
quote: Source Morequote: All of Humphreys work has been severely criticized by the scientific communuity. Questions that Dr. Humphreys Can't or Won't Answer
Here is how Humphreys responds to criticism.
quote: You might want to look for a different example . I don't think Humphreys strengthens your case at all. On more minor suggestion. You probably shouldn't just get your info from creationists sites. They lie. All this info took me 5 minutes on "the Google". You might want to try looking for some corroborating evidence before you present these guys. oh and source for this please.
unlike any of the secular predictions.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
hmm... as you can guess i disagree with this statement. An example is the prediction made by Russell Humphreys a creationist using a creation model, He predicted the strength of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. These were then proven correct by Voyager II, unlike any of the secular predictions. Please give references and quotations. Please give them on another thread, because the first interesting thing you have said on this thread is still off topic. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thanks for the note Dr A. Maybe you can help by starting another thread?
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Hooray! An on-topic post!
You are wrong. In the first place, I chose my words very carefully. I did not say that if reality corresponds with the predictions of the hypothesis, then the hypothesis was proven. I said that in that case we are obliged to regard it as proven until and unless we find contrary evidence. And we are. If you will not agree that it has been proved that the Earth is not flat, then you must admit that, unless and until we find contrary evidence, we must regard it as proven. For example, we must direct the navigation of our shipping according to the theory that the Earth is not flat. Also, we must write in our science textbooks that the Earth is not flat. In the second place, you speak of "the philosophy of science", as though there was only one. Now, according to the terminology used by the philosopher of science Karl Popper, we cannot say that we have proved that the Earth is not flat. However, according to the philosophy of science that I adhere to, we can say that we have proved that the Earth is not flat. I compromised between these two views by using the precise wording that I chose --- that we are obliged to regard this proposition as proven. The title of this thread is not "The Terminology Of Science Invented By Karl Popper For Beginners", it is "The Scientific Method For Beginners". If Wikipedia wants to conflate the two, that is not my problem, that is theirs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2121 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:This terminology is not restricted to Karl Popper. Every explanation of the scientific method that I've seen, except yours, is careful not to claim theories as proven. To most people, the word proven implies certain, absolute, unshakeable. But in science, every theory that we hold must be held somewhat tentatively. There is always the possibility that it may be disproved in the future. It is important for people to understand this, but your use of the word proven confuses it. Can you point to any well-known philosophers of science who use your terminology? Or any subfields of science where your terminology is standard? We certainly do not use the word proven this way in physics. I refer you to an excellent recent article in Physics Today, "What is Science?" by Helen Quinn. As Helen writes,
Scientific theories, even when generally accepted after much testing and refinement, are still never complete. Each can be safely applied in some limited domain, some range of situations or conditions for which it has been well tested. Each might also apply in some extended regime where it has yet to be tested, and has little or nothing to offer in still more distant domains. That is the sense in which no theory can be proven to be true; truth is too complete a notion. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : added Helen Quinn reference and quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9053 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Original post hidden.
Why is this off topic? Arphy used Russell Humphreys as a source claiming that creationism uses the scientific method. I was responding to him showing that this is not what the scientific method is? The topic is "The Scientific Method for Beginners". My post is showing Arphy that his interpretation of the scientfic method is flawed. ABEOK, ok I get it. I should not have responded in this thread to an off topic part of the post. Sorry Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This terminology is not restricted to Karl Popper. Every explanation of the scientific method that I've seen, except yours, is careful not to claim theories as proven. To most people, the word proven implies certain, absolute, unshakeable. But in science, every theory that we hold must be held somewhat tentatively. There is always the possibility that it may be disproved in the future. It is important for people to understand this, but your use of the word proven confuses it. No, your use of the word "proven" confuses it. According to the Popperian use of the word "proven", I cannot prove that I have two legs. For I might in principle be a ten-legged lobster-like creature trapped in a Matrix-style virtual reality designed to convince me that I have only two legs. I admit that. And yet I should like to be able to say to people that I can prove that I have two legs, because if "prove" doesn't relate to that sort of proposition, then what does it mean?
Can you point to any well-known philosophers of science who use your terminology? Or any subfields of science where your terminology is standard? In the first place, I would point out that in the English language, my terminology is indeed "standard". Is there anyone in the world --- apart from philosophers --- who would deny that I can prove that I have two legs? Count 'em. Philosophers may say what they choose, but I shall still regard it as "proven" that I have two legs according to the meaning of that word in standard English rather then in philosophical jargon. In the second place, I should like you to read my post more carefully. I am well aware of the stuff that philosophers say, and so I was very careful to write: "we are obliged to regard it as proven until and unless we find contrary evidence". I made a very careful compromise between Popperian philosophical jargon and the English language as it is spoken. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Use of the word "prove" in its various forms is problematic in debates like this. Claiming that something has been proven connotes removal of uncertainty, and this can never be the case in science. No finding in science is ever either proven or unproven. There can only be a scale of certainty or uncertainty, depending upon how you want to look at it.
Scientists use words like prove and proven all the time, but they only mean "supported by a convincing and persuasive amount of evidence," and they don't mean to imply certainty. It complicates language to stop using the word prove, and maybe a disclaimer similar to one Gould claimed for the word fact could be employed where proven would mean, "Supported by evidence to the point where it would be perverse to withhold at least provisional assent," which is what I think your position is. But such uses of the word prove are probably best considered informal. Where precision is required, being explicit and clear about the degree of evidential support is perhaps best. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Use of the word "prove" in its various forms is problematic in debates like this. Sure, but only because in debates like this, people introduce philosophical jargon. Which is what I should like to avoid. In plain English, I can prove that I have two legs, I can prove that the Earth is more than 6000 years old, and I can prove that I have a common ancestor with monkeys. I can also explain why there is a philosophical question-mark over all these statements, and I shall be happy to do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Dr Adequate writes: In plain English, I can prove that I have two legs, I can prove that the Earth is more than 6000 years old, and I can prove that I have a common ancestor with monkeys. Informally, sure. And when conversing with those who in large measure agree with you this is fine, but in discussions like this it helps to be clear that you can only support these positions with evidence. You can't prove things that are only tentatively true. Proving things is not within the provenance of science.
I can also explain why there is a philosophical question-mark over all these statements, and I shall be happy to do so. Tentativity isn't mere philosophy. It's foundational to science. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2121 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
You still have not answered my questions from Message 68:
Can you point to any well-known philosophers of science who use your terminology? Or any subfields of science where your terminology is standard?
I'm looking for some solid external support for your use of terminology. (What field of science are you active in or trained in, BTW?)
quote:We can never prove a scientific theory. This language is not restricted to Popperian philosophy; it is the standard terminology and a foundational principle in the physical sciences. Most physicists are careful not to use proof the way that you do in their writing, whether writing for the general public or for specialized journals. quote:I did read your post very carefully. What you propose is disingenuous. We would not "regard something as true" when it is really false. Likewise, we should not "regard something as proven" when it cannot, in fact, be proven. I again recommend Helen's article in Physics Today. She uses terminology correctly, yet explains it clearly enough for a layman to understand:
Scientific theories, even when generally accepted after much testing and refinement, are still never complete. Each can be safely applied in some limited domain, some range of situations or conditions for which it has been well tested. Each might also apply in some extended regime where it has yet to be tested, and has little or nothing to offer in still more distant domains. That is the sense in which no theory can be proven to be true; truth is too complete a notion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 274 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You still have not answered my questions from Message 68: To which I will reply with another question. Can you name any person who is not a philosopher, who speaks the English language, who has access to the relevant evidence, and who will maintain that I cannot prove that I have two legs?
We can never prove a scientific theory. This language is not restricted to Popperian philosophy; it is the standard terminology and a foundational principle in the physical sciences. Most physicists are careful not to use proof the way that you do in their writing, whether writing for the general public or for specialized journals. And will any of them really claim that I cannot prove that I have two legs? Except in the special philosophical sense in which this is true? And in any case, let me say again: I did not claim that the fact that all the evidence agrees with the theory that I have two legs proves that I have two legs. What I said about such propositions was that "We are obliged to regard it as proven until and unless we find contrary evidence".
I did read your post very carefully. Evidently you didn't. Let me quote myself again: "We are obliged to regard it as proven until and unless we find contrary evidence".
What you propose is disingenuous. And your mother is a whore. What, did you find that insulting? Well, I am equally insulted by you telling me that I'm "disingenous". No, I am not. I may possibly be wrong, but I have been honestly saying what I think in the clearest way that I can think of right now. Perhaps I am mistaken, in which case I hope that you will make this clear to me by lucid argument rather than name-calling, but everything I have said is as true as is within my limited capacity to make it.
I again recommend Helen's article in Physics Today. And I recommend that you read the words in that article: "this is the sense in which".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024