Philosophy 101

Do you think that scientific theories ever operate independently of data? It is indisputably the theory of evolution that yielded the prediction that led to the discovery of Tiktaalik. Can you explain how this is not the case?

I'm not sure that question even makes sense. However, it does make sense to distinguish between the role of theory and the role of data, even if they are only ever used in conjunction with one another. Since you seem to agree that theories are used with data, I'm not sure what the issue is supposed to be here.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Exactly. Because various interpretations of the same data can be made to come to different explanatory theories. And different explantory theories make different predictions. So the predictions made regarding the expected behaviour of nature by a specific theory are a distinguishing feature of the theory NOT the data. An ability to more accurately and reliably predict the bahaviour of nature is how we determine the relative worth of competing explanatory theories.Are you familiar with the history of the Big Bang theory Vs The Steady State Hypothesis at all? It is trivially true that without data there are no theories. So what is your point? The issue is that you seem to think that scientific theories are somehow independent of nature rather than descriptions or models of nature. Then why do some theories yield more accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature than others?This remains the question you just cannot answer. But it is absolutely key to the whole issue of competing explanations and the very essence of science.

That's way too simplistic. The "at all" part seems a weak requirement, and I am familiar enough to meet that requirement. It seems trivially false to me. As a pure mathematician, I have spent some considerable time with theories for which there is no data. I have not suggested that they are independent of nature. You are asserting a false dichotomy.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

An absolutely classic Nwr post. An exercise in persistently stating what you don't mean without ever once attempting to tell us what your position actually is. Let's try once again to get past this characteristic vagueness. Can you give me an example of a scientific theory that is independent of any data? Maybe your inability to comprehend the innate differences between pure mathematics and scientific empirical investigation is the root of your problem here? You have said "Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves". You previously spent an entire thread denying that scientific theories are able to yield accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature.Can you explain what you think the link between scientific theories and nature actually is? (Rather than again telling us what your position isn't) If you accept that scientific theories are descriptions and models of nature how can you also maintain that they tell us nothing about the behaviour of nature? Why do some theories yield more accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature than others? My answer is - Because some scientific theories more accurately reflect reality than others. In effect a form of verisimiltude. If you do not accept this what is your alternative?Why do some theories yield more accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature than others?

Do you even understand "false dichotomy"?I am denying that "theories are independent of naturre" and "theories are descriptions or models of nature" are the only two possibilities.There is a common way of looking at science. In fact it is so common, that most people look at it that way. I will refer to that as "the conventional wisdom."You are very much an adherent of the conventional wisdom. I am an admitted heretic. I don't go along with a view, just because it is popular.As best I can tell, there is no evidence at all supporting the conventional wisdom, unless you count its popularity as evidence. That's probably why most of the writing that presents the conventional wisdom comes from philosophers rather than from scientists.I am not a heretic because I like to be contrary. Rather, it is because I see that the conventional wisdom could not possibly work. It comes from an era where theistic thinking was deeply entrenched. And the conventional wisdom is full of magical thinking, though it's adherents seem to not notice that. I'll give you an analogy.A nature photographer takes many pictures. Those pictures are descriptions of nature. But the camera he uses is not any kind of description of nature. Yet the camera is needed in order to take the photographs.I am saying that the relation between theory and data is analogous to the relation between the camera and the photographs. Why do some cameras take far better pictures than others?

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Dude it's your analogy - You tell me?What equates to the predictions yielded by scientific theories in your camera analogy?Your analogy seems rather limited. But feel free to expound upon it if you think that is helpful.

So is that it? 'Science is like a camera'. Is that the extent of your much referenced alternative to "the conventional wisdom" (as you call it)? Because this still doesn't explain why some theories yield more accurate and reliable predictions regarding the behaviour of nature than others. The failure of your alternative to address this, indeed your previous denial that scientific theories can yield accurate and reliable predictions at all, would seem to be a rather damning criticism of your position here.Why does General Realtivity result in more accurate and reliable predictions than Newtonian gravity? Why are scientific theories able to yield accurate and reliable predictions regarding nature where religious and mystical attempts to make sense of the world cannot? Exactly. So what is it about science that makes it superior to these other methods of knowing? Surely it is the fact that scientific theories are derived from and tested against the thing they purport to describe. Namely nature. No? Yes they are human constructs but they are not arbitrary constructs. This is very much in tune with the idea of verisimilitude. It certainly doesn't lead to your conclusion that "scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves" or your denial that scientific theories are attempts to describe the world and the way in which nature behaves.Does it?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Dennett may have said it well enough: The names I'd struggle with. But the general idea that what we call knowledge is shaped by our cultural biases seems worthy enough. If taken to the extreme it becomes 'knowledge is opinion', but if we look at the work of Wittgenstein or Russell for example - many arguments could be settled if both participants are playing the same word game:- that is to say if both could agree to discuss in some formal language rather than a culturally inherited language agreement would be possible.In its sensible shoes, it also warns of the hubris of certainty in knowledge - and the inadvertant injustices that can be carried out. It is the turning upside of convention to show its weaknesses.Unfortunately, it's interesting ideas quickly lead to a lot of discussions about chmess.

the problem is that it's significantly easier to go astray with "knowledge is informed by culture bias" than it is with "knowledge can be objective". the first statement can even lead you to question things that are objective -- or that objectivity can even exist in the first place.for an interesting take on this debate, i suggest probably any of alan sokal's books.

---

אָרַח