Scientific Knowledge

Hot damn! Here's what I wrote 10 months ago:

quote:

---

Message 502

​

I thought one of the big points was that science's conclusions aren't being proposed as the truth. Even with the always accepted amount of tentativety, they still don't go so far as to say that they are, in fact, the correct answers.

​

I've always argued that them working is enough. It doesn't matter if they really are real or not.

---

Pfft. I didn't write it... xkcd did. I just thought it mirrored you fairly well. Regardless, y'all should click that link... that fucker's spot-on hilarious.

Yes, a lot of people would say that. We have the colloquial phrase "its been scientifically proven" that means that since there's a scientific explanation that works, then that's correct explanation. But that's not something that comes from the science, itself. There's multiple reasons. Part of it is how the theory is set-up (rigorous and parsimonious), how simple the falsification test would be, and what you're testing it on. For example, Newtonian Physics works great sometimes, but that doesn't mean it it is more correct than quantum mechanics. But its easier to measure the position of a falling ball, and see that the numbers fit within the simple newtonian equations, than it is to test quantum mechanics. So we'd expect some people to think that newtonian mechanics are more correct, and also to think that quantum mechanics has more problems. And we do see that from the less scientifically inclined people because they think "working" = "correct" and its a lot easier to see newtonian mechanics "work".

Ease of use, and being easily seen to work, is what suggests to people a sense of correctness. A sense of correctness doesn't come from the science, itself. The Theory of Evolution (RM+NS), itself, doesn't say that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. That is something we can deduce from assuming the theory is correct, and yes, that is a statement of actually occurrance. When we're testing the theory, we're finding that RM+NS works as an explanation. As long as it keeps working, we'll continue to use it. If we find that it doesn't work somewhere, then we'll add to or modify it. Injecting a sense of correctness is unneccessary. Sometimes Newtonian Mechanics work better, but that doesn't mean they're more correct. I'm not saying it is knoweldge of something else. Answered in Message 160:

quote:

---

There's multiple reasons. Part of it is how the theory is set-up (rigorous and parsimonious), how simple the falsification test would be, and what you're testing it on. For example, Newtonian Physics works great sometimes, but that doesn't mean it it is more correct than quantum mechanics. But its easier to measure the position of a falling ball, and see that the numbers fit within the simple newtonian equations, than it is to test quantum mechanics.

---

If we're measure the position of a falling ball, its easier to get Newtonian Mechanics to work and "yield more accurate and reliable predictions". But we wouldn't say that it is more "correct" or more "about reality". Saying that is just unneccessary.You can say that if you want to, but its not something comming from the science, itself. The point was that a lot of people inject a sense of correctness into scientific explanations that work and that that isn't something that comes fromt he science, itself.

That's what I'm saying, and that that is the protocol. There's no reason, from a scientific persepective, to talk about the correctness or reality-ness. That question is outside the scope of science, i.e. it is not something science can answer about itself.You're into philosophy at that point.

Well, I do tend to think in terms of Applied Science....I suppose there could be some Theoretical Scientists out there who think of their theories in terms of correct-ness and reality-ness... but that's thier problem But that was my point, that scientists don't give a shit about how accurately they're "describing reality" as long as the theory is working. But then again, I'm thinking about the application here, not some musings outside of the lab. I have work to do in the lab... Have fun musing about how much correctness you've attained.ABE:If you want to talk about correct-ness and reality-ness of scientific theories, then I don't really have a problem with that, hell feel free to throw the word 'know' in there. I know that when you drop your pen that it will fall, and if you tell me what height you're going to drop it from, then I'd know how long it was going to to take to hit the desk, every single time you drop it, I know it is going to accelerate at the same rate. That's because of the reality that we live in and our equations for determining that stuff are correct.But all that is very colloquial...Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

Because it depends on where you're comming from...In a colloquial or philisophical sense, reject away. In a scientific sense, not so much.

I disagree. It doesn't really reject any of them because it doesn't really address any of them. Using Newtonian Mechanics to calculate the amount of time that it will take for your pen to fall to your desk is not a rejection of us all living in the Matrix. Its totally irrelavant and unmentioned and not cared about at all.You seem to want to call that a rejection for some reason...

No, not really. And certainly not explicitly. You could come up with all kinds of silly scenarios that don't fit with a scientific explanation and then say that that explanation rejects it, but you'd just be making it up. The explanation simply explains what it does, it doesn't really reject competing imaginary scenarios.

Yeah: Ignored.But not really "rejected". What you'd have been making up, was that the scientific explanation rejects it. No, not in the colloquial sense, but from a scientific stance, these propositions are simply ignored, not really rejected.

Its this part that I don't like:

quote:

---

more likely to be accurate descriptions of reality

---

We've started to conflate theories with conclusions....The nature of being a conclusion (X years) precludes other answers as possibilities (Y days).But theories are designed to work as explanations of the data, they don't necessarily preclude other theories as possible explanations, and they don't judge themselves as being some liklihood of correctly matching reality.

They both sound awefully colloquial to me...Its common knowledge that scientific theories don't consider themselves to be The Truth.And why would a scientific explanation even address a baseless proposition?

One of the other reasons is because it works. Problems get solved, advances are made, and we get shit done, all the while nobody is musing over whether or not we're more accurately describing reality than some other proposition. Yes, but never in a science class or lab....

---

Yeah, forget about 'em and don't even address them!

---

Which reminds me that you didn't answer my question:

quote:

---

why would a scientific explanation even address a baseless proposition?

---

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.