Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Working Hypothesis -- what is the value?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 92 (735632)
08-19-2014 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by herebedragons
08-18-2014 11:26 PM


...
Indeed. In fact, engineers as a whole are the brightest and most gifted individuals on a college campus.
Well I always thought so ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by herebedragons, posted 08-18-2014 11:26 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 92 (735633)
08-19-2014 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by NoNukes
08-19-2014 9:31 AM


for the purpose of discovering further evidence
So you would agree that such a working hypothesis would be unfalsifiable.
Good question. I am taking you at your word that you want to use an unfalsifiable hypothesis. In any event, you are describing using it in a way where you won't notice or allow falsification. I suggested forming a null hypothesis and you indicated that you would not be doing that and that you would not be doing a scientific investigation.
Would you agree that such an hypothesis could lead to the discovery of further evidence (possibly which would not otherwise be found), and that this could lead to a formal scientific hypothesis?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2014 9:31 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 08-19-2014 11:14 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 92 (735659)
08-20-2014 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by NoNukes
08-20-2014 9:37 AM


Re: Example 4 -- bridge design
... . If I were trying to find a novel to synthesize a particular organic molecule that is already known to produce a particular affect, would I be an engineer simply because I was working for a company that was looking to exploit the compound? Surely that cannot be correct.
No that would not be correct. You would be a lab technician. You are confusing all A are in the set B with all B are in the set A ... the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.
Here you are saying that all engineers produce things of practical use
Person A produces something of practical use, therefore they are an engineer ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 08-20-2014 9:37 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 08-21-2014 12:35 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 54 of 92 (735660)
08-20-2014 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tangle
08-19-2014 2:02 PM


Re: Example 4 -- bridge design
Well yes, but as you are not a practicing scientist, surely you have to rule yourself out? Or is having once held a test tube and owned a white coat enough? (if so, I qualify as a chemist, a biologist, a physicist a couple of other ists two ologies and a chef.)
The point is that when I talk about what an engineer does versus what a scientist does I speak from a basis of experience in those areas.
Failure of their design is the last thing an engineer wants to see, while falsification of their hypothesis is near, if not at, the top of what a scientist wants to see.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tangle, posted 08-19-2014 2:02 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Tangle, posted 08-21-2014 3:28 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 59 by Stile, posted 08-21-2014 9:24 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 92 (735661)
08-20-2014 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by NoNukes
08-19-2014 12:18 PM


Re: for the purpose of discovering further evidence
I would like RAZD to indicate what lines of inquiry he believes would not be followed if this hypothesis were used. RAZD seems to believe that there is evidence of yetis that only non-skeptics have a chance of finding.
Consider the hypothesis as a guide to discovery of new information, for instance:
Message 47: B) Leading to verifiable predictions (e.g. proclaimed sightings of the creature conform to observable migration patterns of bears in the region, physical evidence of the creature is analysed and found to be bear fur/droppings/whatever))
Another would be comparing the times of the year when sightings occur and whether that would fit a pattern of (similar to polar) bear behavior in traveling to and from hibernation sites from lower elevations.
To my mind it is much more compelling to consider that an unknown member of the bear family is behind the legends than some unknown member of the ape\hominid family.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2014 12:18 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 08-21-2014 12:55 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 60 of 92 (735674)
08-21-2014 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by NoNukes
08-21-2014 12:35 AM


Re: Example 4 -- bridge design
dbl post
Edited by RAZD, : dble post

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 08-21-2014 12:35 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 61 of 92 (735675)
08-21-2014 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by NoNukes
08-21-2014 12:35 AM


logic and science vs engineer
... but the person designing the novel process for synthesis ...
That was not part of your original statement, which I took to be just replicating work already done by others.
And the point is still that you made a logical fallacy ...
As far as the logical fallacy you named, no I did not make that error either.
What you said was:
engineer produces a product of practical use
a person produces a product of practical use
therefore the person is an engineer
False logic is false logic, do you want to add equivocation to your list?
Chemist - Wikipedia
And regarding chemical engineers:
Curiously you make my point ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 08-21-2014 12:35 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by NoNukes, posted 08-22-2014 12:26 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 63 of 92 (735678)
08-21-2014 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by NoNukes
08-21-2014 12:55 AM


Re: for the purpose of discovering further evidence
The above is not an example of something that requires deviating from the scientific method. The experiment might be done as part of a verification of h1 or in an attempt to reject h0.
Curiously I have no trouble with this being "part of a verification" of the working hypothesis ... which has been my point from the first post ... nor have other elements of the scientific method ... what I have trouble with is the concept of a valid falsification test ...
Yes, I've noticed the compelling of your mind. But surely there are some alternatives far more likely than the ape\hominid possibility. How about the possibility that no single species is involved and that while some sightings may have been bears, others may have been other animals, while others may have been humans or hoaxes. It's entirely possible that there really is no yeti.
Other animals would include snow leopards or other felines, even though felines rarely walk on two legs, and it is the bipedal gait of the legendary yeti that has led to the hypothesis of an ape\hominid. Bears are known to occasionally be bipedal, but more compelling in my mind is that they tend to live solitary lives rather than living in family groups as most ape\hominids are known to live ... and I am not away of a sighting of more than one yeti at a time.
And I would not be surprised by some embellishment in the telling of any sightings, or that some hoaxes have been involved, what I see as impossible to prove\demonstrate is the premise that it is all imaginary, that no yeti ever existed, and that pretending that this is a falsification test is nothing more than denial biased thinking.
So, generalizing from the yeti question as one specific example, I see a working hypothesis involving all the elements of the scientific method except falsification, and that it can lead to predictions and possible avenues of investigation for the purpose of developing more information that may lead to a formal scientific (falsifiable) hypothesis.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 08-21-2014 12:55 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Straggler, posted 08-22-2014 1:44 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 08-22-2014 12:18 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 64 of 92 (735679)
08-21-2014 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tangle
08-21-2014 3:28 AM


no true
I'm sorry, your experiences are worthless unless you're a 'true scientist' - I find myself unable to take any notice of what you say. This is rather unfortunate as before I knew that you were not a 'true scientist' I thought you had a lot of useful information and ideas.
Unfortunately I am not part Scotchman ... even though I have drunk a fair share of scotch in my time ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tangle, posted 08-21-2014 3:28 AM Tangle has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 68 of 92 (735737)
08-22-2014 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by NoNukes
08-22-2014 12:26 PM


Re: logic and science vs engineer and equivocation
That's not at all what I said. ...
Curiously I note that you tend to get into these little nit-picky arguments with a bunch of people ... people that I do not see getting into little nit-picky arguments with others. Perhaps your problem is lack of clarity.
. What I actually said was that a person who designed a novel process for producing a useful chemical might well be a chemist or a chemical engineer and I invited you to make a distinction.
No that is NOT what you actually said -- you have since added "chemical engineer" and changed the wording (equivocation) -- your original statement was
Message 52:
(RAZD): And, curiously, that is why engineers in general are not scientists, because "the point is that the design is not being done for the purpose of verification of the principles, the purpose is to provide a practical use of those principals"
I'm not sure that distinction works in practice. If I were trying to find a novel to synthesize a particular organic molecule that is already known to produce a particular affect, would I be an engineer simply because I was working for a company that was looking to exploit the compound? Surely that cannot be correct.
I provide my previous comment for context ...
(Premise 1) from my comment: an engineer is someone who produces a product of practical use
(Premise 2) from your reply: Person in question produces a product of practical use ...
(Conclusion) from your comment you imply that the conclusion would be: Person would be an engineer ...
Which is the logical fallacy already documented.
If that was not your intended meaning then I suggest your lack of clarity is the problem.
You decided instead to add another person to my hypothetical which allowed you to duck the question. A lab tech might still be practicing science or engineering, so in truth you did not manage to do much that was not silly.
And you skipped over the part where I said that your hypothetical situation would not make them an engineer because that would be a logical fallacy.
Focusing on the lab technician is you avoiding the fact that what you implied in your argument involved a logical fallacy: I apologize for confusing you with extraneous information, and I will attempt to be more concise in the future.
And of course stripping out the details and worse, the context does leave you with a possible fallacy. But that's your work, not mine.
Actually going back to the original context and quoting you in full detail is what shows that your post did involved the fallacy.
What's your next equivocation?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by NoNukes, posted 08-22-2014 12:26 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 08-22-2014 8:25 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 72 of 92 (735749)
08-23-2014 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by NoNukes
08-22-2014 8:25 PM


Re: logic and scientist vs engineer and equivocation
I don't apologize for picking a nit. The distinction you are trying to make is pretty nitty.
Curiously I don't see it that way. I believe you agree that just having a degree doesn't make you a scientist ...
Thus having a PhD in Mechanical Engineering doesn't make you a scientist.
And I believe you would agree that anyone, even middle and high school students can do science (as noted earlier, see science fairs) -- but are they scientists?
So is doing a little science sufficient to be called a scientist? From your posts it would appear that you seem to think so.
It is also possible that a person with a little math and access to reference material could do a little engineering -- is that sufficient to make them an engineer? Certainly the various engineering associations don't think so. From your posts it would appear that you seem to think so, do you?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 08-22-2014 8:25 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 08-23-2014 1:31 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 08-23-2014 1:31 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 75 by NoNukes, posted 08-23-2014 1:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 79 of 92 (736351)
09-07-2014 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Straggler
08-19-2014 11:14 AM


discovering further evidence and "human imagination" pseudoscience
With regard to the abominable snowman and bears as per the OP — One could hypothesise that the abominable snowman is a myth borne of human invention combined with the embellishment of some genuine, but highly misinterpreted, bear sightings.
This hypothesis has the benefit of:
A) Being falsifiable (by the discovery of a creature that is consistent with the legend rather than just a bear)
B) Leading to verifiable predictions (e.g. proclaimed sightings of the creature conform to observable migration patterns of bears in the region, physical evidence of the creature is analysed and found to be bear fur/droppings/whatever))
C) Being based on the wealth of evidence that human beings have a tendency to create such myths and make such embellishments
This is actually two hypothesis combined ... the original OP hypothesis and the "human imagination" hypothesis that keeps resurfacing ...
B) Leading to verifiable predictions (e.g. proclaimed sightings of the creature conform to observable migration patterns of bears in the region, physical evidence of the creature is analysed and found to be bear fur/droppings/whatever))
Which is the benefit of the original hypothesis as previously noted and discussed, and is not due to nor benefiting from the tacking on of the "human imagination hypothesis" and the question becomes then what does the "human imagination hypothesis" add to the discussion\investigation ...
A) Being falsifiable (by the discovery of a creature that is consistent with the legend rather than just a bear)
C) Being based on the wealth of evidence that human beings have a tendency to create such myths and make such embellishments
Typical claims of this purported "hypothesis" ... and not much of practical use in any investigation -- let's see why:
The "human imagination hypothesis" typically goes something like this:
Anything that is believed to exist without empirical objective evidence is actually due to human imagination, rather than any objective reality or observation.
Curiously, there are several failings of this hypothesis that adherents seem loath to accept, admit or confront:
(1) it seems to explain almost everything not covered by science ...
Solid verificaion is difficult^1, and assumed or apparent confirmations are not validation, as Popper noted^2:
quote:
The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which "verified" the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. ...

If an hypothesis can explain everything, then it actually explains nothing of use for investigations^2:
quote:
... the theories in question were compatible with the most divergent human behavior, so that it was practically impossible to describe any human behavior that might not be claimed to be a verification of these theories.

So it leads to confirmation bias in adherents. What is touted as a strength is actually a (fatal) weakness.
(2) it doesn't predict anything risky to the hypothesis ...
It can't be falsified in any honest\real sense, as any observation of objective evidence for a believed phenomena makes it no longer subject to the hypothesis, it just bounces along to the next belief. There is no risk for the hypothesis, and the degree of risk is an important element, as Popper also noted, comparing the difference of risk for Einstein's theory^2:
quote:
Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted. The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation ...

This is the basis for his principle of falsification, the predictions should be high risk tests of the hypothesis.
Nothing ventured nothing gained. There is no risk to the "human imagination hypothesis" from any contrary evidence.
(3) and finally, it doesn't predict anything useful, doesn't open up new avenues of investigation ... which is the prime purpose of having an hypothesis ... even a "working hypothesis" ... the practical prediction for investigation touted above actually comes from the original working hypothesis, not the "human imagination hypothesis.
It is the "god-did-it" hypothesis for skeptics, equally impractical for leading to any investigation of any phenomena. Rather - like "god-did-it" - it becomes an excuse to NOT investigate things further ... the phenomena is explained, so why look further ...
As such it doesn't even qualify as a working hypothesis, imho, and should be considered on a par with astrology, pseudoscience:
quote:
There were a great many other theories of this pre-scientific or pseudo-scientific character, ...
Thus the problem which I tried to solve by proposing the criterion of falsifiability was neither a problem of meaningfulness or significance, nor a problem of truth or acceptability. It was the problem of drawing a line (as well as this can be done) between the statements, or systems of statements, of the empirical sciences, and all other statements whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudo-scientific. ...

Certainly it doesn't produce any better predictions than astrology does.
Isn’t that a better hypothesis?
Still think so? Or do you remain an adherent to the "human imagination" pseudoscience?
Don't you agree that an honest skeptic would be skeptical of any benefit of this "hypothesis" for practical investigation of the natural world?
Enjoy
Notes:
^1 - it requires admission by the author, otherwise it can only be assumed.
^2 - here are excerpts from Popper falsification article to show context of above quotes, which have been bolded below:
quote:
It was the summer of 1919 that I began to feel more and more dissatisfied with these three theoriesthe Marxist theory of history, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology; and I began to feel dubious about their claims to scientific status. My problem perhaps first took the simple form, "What is wrong with Marxism, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology? Why are they so different from physical theories, from Newton's theory, and especially from the theory of relativity?"
The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which "verified" the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation which revealed the class bias of the paper and especially of course what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their "clinical observations." As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, Although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. "Because of my thousandfold experience," he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: "And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold."
With Einstein's theory the situation was strikingly different. Take one typical instance Einstein's prediction, just then confirmed by the finding of Eddington's expedition. Einstein's gravitational theory had led to the result that light must be attracted by heavy bodies (such as the sun), precisely as material bodies were attracted. As a consequence it could be calculated that light from a distant fixed star whose apparent position was close to the sun would reach the earth from such a direction that the star would seem to be slightly shifted away from the sun; or, in other words, that stars close to the sun would look as if they had moved a little away from the sun, and from one another. This is a thing which cannot normally be observed since such stars are rendered invisible in daytime by the sun's overwhelming brightness; but during an eclipse it is possible to take photographs of them. If the same constellation is photographed at night one can measure the distance on the two photographs, and check the predicted effect.
Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted. The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observationin fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected.[1] This is quite different from the situation I have previously described, when it turned out that the theories in question were compatible with the most divergent human behavior, so that it was practically impossible to describe any human behavior that might not be claimed to be a verification of these theories.
I may perhaps exemplify this with the help of the various theories so far mentioned. Einstein's theory of gravitation clearly satisfied the criterion of falsifiability. Even if our measuring instruments at the time did not allow us to pronounce on the results of the tests with complete assurance, there was clearly a possibility of refuting the theory.
Astrology did not pass the test. Astrologers were greatly impressed, and misled, by what they believed to be confirming evidence so much so that they were quite unimpressed by any unfavorable evidence. Moreover, by making their interpretations and prophesies sufficiently vague they were able to explain away anything that might have been a refutation of the theory had the theory and the prophesies been more precise. In order to escape falsification they destroyed the testability of their theory. It is a typical soothsayer's trick to predict things so vaguely that the predictions can hardly fail: that they become irrefutable.
The Marxist theory of history, in spite of the serious efforts of some of its founders and followers, ultimately adopted this soothsaying practice. In some of its earlier formulations (for example in Marx's analysis of the character of the "coming social revolution") their predictions were testable, and in fact falsified.[2] Yet instead of accepting the refutations the followers of Marx re-interpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree. In this way they rescued the theory from refutation; but they did so at the price of adopting a device which made it irrefutable. They thus gave a "conventionalist twist" to the theory; and by this stratagem they destroyed its much advertised claim to scientific status.
The two psycho-analytic theories were in a different class. They were simply non-testable, irrefutable. There was no conceivable human behavior which could contradict them. This does not mean that Freud and Adler were not seeing certain things correctly; I personally do not doubt that much of what they say is of considerable importance, and may well play its part one day in a psychological science which is testable. But it does mean that those "clinical observations" which analysts navely believe confirm their theory cannot do this any more than the daily confirmations which astrologers find in their practice.[3] And as for Freud's epic of the Ego, the Super-ego, and the Id, no substantially stronger claim to scientific status can be made for it than for Homer's collected stories from Olympus. These theories describe some facts, but in the manner of myths. They contain most interesting psychological suggestions, but not in a testable form.
At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all or very nearly all scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Examples are Empedocles' theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides' myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein's block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning). I thus felt that if a theory is found to be non-scientific, or "metaphysical" (as we might say), it is not thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or "meaningless," or "nonsensical."[4] But it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the "result of observation."
(There were a great many other theories of this pre-scientific or pseudo-scientific character, some of them, unfortunately, as influential as the Marxist interpretation of history; for example, the racialist interpretation of history another of those impressive and all-explanatory theories which act upon weak minds like revelations.)
Thus the problem which I tried to solve by proposing the criterion of falsifiability was neither a problem of meaningfulness or significance, nor a problem of truth or acceptability. It was the problem of drawing a line (as well as this can be done) between the statements, or systems of statements, of the empirical sciences, and all other statements whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudo-scientific. Years later it must have been in 1928 or 1929 I called this first problem of mine the "problem of demarcation." The criterion of falsifiability is a solution to this problem of demarcation, for it says that statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations.
Edited by RAZD, : subt

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 08-19-2014 11:14 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Omnivorous, posted 09-07-2014 5:58 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2014 1:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 81 of 92 (736355)
09-07-2014 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Omnivorous
09-07-2014 5:58 PM


discovering further evidence and "human imagination" pseudoscience
That seems a bit unfair, RAZD. Perhaps this formulation more closely tracks what Straggler is saying:
Phenomena believed to exist despite the lack of empirical evidence may be due to the human imagination.
Which is even less risky and less demonstrable, thus harder to falsify\refute\invalidate, and that makes it weaker, imho, not stronger. It seems to me that is more like the Adlerian psychological "theory of inferiority feelings" discussed and dismissed by Popper, which can be applied to any case or situation.
At any rate, Straggler's argument deserves to be opposed in its strongest form, not in its most vulnerable.
Taking the position that it is human imagination in its strongest form is still just an excuse to not investigate, nor does provide any practical avenue of investigation into any specific phenomena. It is the 'god-did-it' answer for, to revisit an old theme, pseudoskeptics ...
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : subt

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Omnivorous, posted 09-07-2014 5:58 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by NoNukes, posted 09-07-2014 8:58 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2014 2:28 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 84 of 92 (736375)
09-08-2014 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by PaulK
09-08-2014 2:28 AM


Re: discovering further evidence and "human imagination" pseudoscience
It is easier to falsify the hypothesis that Yeti are imaginary than the hypothesis that they exist. Accordingly, surely the hypothesis that they are imaginary is "riskier".
What is falsified and what is not falsified if a 'yeti' bear is actually found?
The working hypothesis (Message 1) is that the 'yeti' is a bear -- not falsified
The 'human imagination' hypothesis (Message 79) is that anything that is believed to exist without empirical objective evidence is actually due to human imagination, rather than any objective reality or observation. -- also not falsified ... for two reasons:
  1. Either the bear is denied as being a 'yeti' and is just a new animal discovery, and thus it doesn't invalidate the hypothesis, or
  2. the bear is accepted as being a 'yeti' and thus the hypothesis is not tested because the bear is not an imaginary animal.
The only thing shown to be false is the assumption that the hypothesis applied to the yeti, but the hypothesis itself remains unchanged and unaffected by such a discovery.
Note that the 'human imagination' hypothesis does not make a prediction that puts the hypothesis at risk of being invalidated or forced to change.
Further note that the 'human imagination' hypothesis does not provide any useful or practical prediction of something not previously known or considered -- a good (strong?) scientific hypothesis has two aspects:
  1. It is falsifiable, and
  2. It provides something new, it predicts something of value
And a good 'working hypothesis' may not be falsifiable but it provides something new, it predicts something of value, something that can be investigated further.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2014 2:28 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2014 1:37 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2014 9:21 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 87 of 92 (736405)
09-09-2014 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by PaulK
09-08-2014 1:37 PM


Re: discovering further evidence and "human imagination" pseudoscience
In other words the working hypothesis is that there are no yeti. Just bears mistaken for yeti.
Correct, although it may be more correct to say some may be bears ... and this provides predictions for analysis of past information and to look for new information. This can lead to either a discovery or to sufficient information to form a more rigid scientific hypothesis.
Sighting stories can be compared to known bear behavior.
Dates of sightings could be analyzed to see if there is a migration or hibernation pattern.
Lower elevations can be investigated for bears to see if there is a link.
etc
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2014 1:37 PM PaulK 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