Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Scientific Method For Beginners
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 91 of 138 (521664)
08-28-2009 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dr Adequate
08-27-2009 11:56 AM


Tentativity
Well, are you going to leave by the door or the window? Right, the door. Because although you may in a philosophical debate deny that the law of gravity is proven, yet you will always act as though it was. You'd be crazy not to.
I regard the existence of gravity is a fact. One might even say that it is a fact that has been proven by means of the scientific method. If 'proven' is to have any meaning at all, 'demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt' or 'a fact that has been confirmed to be true with such confidence that it would be perverse' seem like perfectly valid meanings. I think the legal system would be very surprised to learn that proof is limited to mathematics, that's for sure.
I think the issue is, that creationists have constantly asked for proof of evolution, and when evidence is presented have retorted that it 'isn't proof', just evidence - that they have the same evidence and come to a different conclusion etc.
But ultimately, they're just words. As long as what people know what is meant - it doesn't matter which words are used, surely. When it becomes clear that there is a semantic argument afoot - I call upon the power of pragmatics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2009 11:56 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 12:44 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 99 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 5:10 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2122 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 92 of 138 (521668)
08-28-2009 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dr Adequate
08-27-2009 2:38 AM


quote:
I've read Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Nagel. I will wager that that's four more writers on the philosophy of science than you've ever read. Oh, would you count Wittgenstein and Hume? How about Kant? None of them contradicts what I actually wrote, which is that we are obliged to regard certain propositions as proven.
Now, I too have asked you a question, namely whether there's anyone in the world who, philosophical quibbling aside, would deny that I can prove that I have two legs.
Why such an antagonistic and derisive tone? I'm here to discuss and learn, not to argue. If you are here for the same reason and really are interested in answers to questions, please ask them respectfully. If you only want to argue and to insult, I have no interest in responding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2009 2:38 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2122 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 93 of 138 (521671)
08-28-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Modulous
08-28-2009 12:26 PM


Re: Tentativity
quote:
I regard the existence of gravity is a fact. One might even say that it is a fact that has been proven by means of the scientific method. If 'proven' is to have any meaning at all, 'demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt' or 'a fact that has been confirmed to be true with such confidence that it would be perverse' seem like perfectly valid meanings. I think the legal system would be very surprised to learn that proof is limited to mathematics, that's for sure.
I don't know of any physicist who would say that the theory of gravity is a fact. We often refer to data and observations as fact, e.g. the fact that an apple falls due to gravity. But not the theory itself. We believe the theory and stake our lives on it, but we do not call it a fact.
quote:
I think the issue is, that creationists have constantly asked for proof of evolution, and when evidence is presented have retorted that it 'isn't proof', just evidence - that they have the same evidence and come to a different conclusion etc.
It is currently popular to say that evolution is "both a fact and a theory," apparently in response to YECs. Such language is not used in physics (e.g. of gravity) and I believe it confuses the issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2009 12:26 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2009 1:13 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 94 of 138 (521680)
08-28-2009 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by kbertsche
08-28-2009 12:44 PM


Re: Tentativity
I don't know of any physicist who would say that the theory of gravity is a fact.
No, but there is a fact of gravity that the theory of relativity explains, right?
We believe the theory and stake our lives on it
We didn't need the theory of gravity to get to the moon. We just needed the fact of gravity and the law of gravity. We needed no explanatory framework to explain how gravity works to get us there.
It is currently popular to say that evolution is "both a fact and a theory," apparently in response to YECs. Such language is not used in physics (e.g. of gravity) and I believe it confuses the issues.
I believe you are mistaken. There is a fact of gravity and a theory of gravity.
Things fall to the ground. This is the fact of gravity.
Spacetime curves around objects with mass is the theory of gravity.
The point I was making still stands: Pragmatics wins over semantics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 12:44 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 1:50 PM Modulous has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2122 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 95 of 138 (521685)
08-28-2009 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Modulous
08-28-2009 1:13 PM


Re: Tentativity
quote:
No, but there is a fact of gravity that the theory of relativity explains, right?
I understand what you mean, but no, we do not use language this way. (And we don't do so precisely because it confuses the concepts of fact and theory.) It is a fact that things fall, and there is a theory that explains this.
quote:
We didn't need the theory of gravity to get to the moon. We just needed the fact of gravity and the law of gravity. We needed no explanatory framework to explain how gravity works to get us there.
But the law of gravity is essentially synonymous with the theory of gravity. (Physics explains everything by mathematics, so theory and law become essentially the same. This may not be the case in other subfields of science.) We needed the 1/r^2 force law to get to the moon; i.e. we needed the theory of gravity.
Though well-established and very accurate, we have no proof that this 1/r^2 force law is fully correct. A "fifth force" was suggested a few years ago to modify gravity, and I expect that this sort of speculation will come back (if it hasn't already) as a possible way to explain dark energy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2009 1:13 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2009 2:45 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 97 by NosyNed, posted 08-28-2009 3:30 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 5:04 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 96 of 138 (521695)
08-28-2009 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by kbertsche
08-28-2009 1:50 PM


theories and facts
I understand what you mean, but no, we do not use language this way. (And we don't do so precisely because it confuses the concepts of fact and theory.)
How does differentiating between a fact and the thing that explains the fact confuse the concepts?
Who are 'we'? In most scientific disciplines, its practitioners don't go hand-wringing over the differences between facts and theories so very few biologists use language this way, either.
If by 'we' you mean physicists, then I'm going to have to say again that I think you are mistaken. Have you done a poll? I'm almost certain it will be possible to find one physicist who uses language like this. For example, John Pratt teaches astronomy at UVSC and here is a page about facts and theories.
It is a fact that things fall, and there is a theory that explains this.
Erm so how is this different than me saying there is a fact of gravity that the theory of relativity explains? How is this not somebody in the 'we' category using language in this exact same way you said they don't?
But the law of gravity is essentially synonymous with the theory of gravity. (Physics explains everything by mathematics, so theory and law become essentially the same. This may not be the case in other subfields of science.)
Newton's inverse law is not a theory in the sense referred to since it doesn't explain anything - it simply describes something. You could call it a theory, but then how is that avoiding confusing things? I appreciate that physics is explained by mathematics, but that doesn't mean that all equations are explanations.
Though well-established and very accurate, we have no proof that this 1/r^2 force law is fully correct. A "fifth force" was suggested a few years ago to modify gravity, and I expect that this sort of speculation will come back (if it hasn't already) as a possible way to explain dark energy.
Yep - unless we decide we want to use the word 'proof' at all. In which case there is evidence that I consider beyond reasonable doubt that the law is at least locally correct. At longer distances, I'd regard the evidence weak enough to not constitute proof just yet.
Still there is a fact of gravity, which it would be perverse to deny (that objects with mass experience an attractive force). There is a law that describes this attractive force (Newton's being a simple example of one), and there is a theory that explains both the attractive force, and the description of its properties (curvature of spacetime explains the inverse square law).
How is that confusing? I appreciate it is possible to split hairs over theories and facts and things. One could argue that in some cases a fact also explains some other fact so where is the line drawn and so on ad nauseum, but I'm not sure what your objection is here.
Still, semantic issues aside - the pragmatics is more important. Which was the point I was making.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 1:50 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 5:50 PM Modulous has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 97 of 138 (521707)
08-28-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by kbertsche
08-28-2009 1:50 PM


Theory of Gravity
But the law of gravity is essentially synonymous with the theory of gravity.
I disagree with this pretty strongly. The law of gravity is simply that massive objects exert a force on each other witch can be calculated using the law given as a formula. The inverse square law the G in it.
However, a theory has to explain why that is the case. Newton had, at best a pretty tentative theory and I'm not sure it was really articulated as such. If it was it would be one of uniform space and time with instantaneous forces acting between bodies. What produced the force, beyond the 'mass', isn't explained.
General realitivity is much more robust as a theory even if still not completely explaining the "why". It is also rather different in it's description of space and time yet it gives a law of gravity that, in many circumstances, gives the same answer ans Newton's laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 1:50 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 6:01 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 98 of 138 (521717)
08-28-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by kbertsche
08-28-2009 1:50 PM


Re: Tentativity
But the law of gravity is essentially synonymous with the theory of gravity.
No, definitely not. Nosy and Mod have explained this well, so there's no need to repeat, but just to emphasise that *this* physicist certainly agrees with their sentiments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 1:50 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 99 of 138 (521718)
08-28-2009 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Modulous
08-28-2009 12:26 PM


Re: Tentativity
I regard the existence of gravity is a fact.
I agree, and this is where I think we have a problem with the (over) enphasis on tentativity. The existence of gravity we regard as an observation, an input into our theory. But it too is the result of a process that actually means that our observation of gravity is the tentative conclusion of a process. As I stated before, each step, sub-step, and micro-step is reduced to a level of tentativity. For science to progress in accordance with the tenets of tentativity, one must caveat every possible micro-step. If we did this, I think we would still be banging rocks together...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2009 12:26 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2122 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 100 of 138 (521724)
08-28-2009 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Modulous
08-28-2009 2:45 PM


Re: theories and facts
quote:
How does differentiating between a fact and the thing that explains the fact confuse the concepts?
Who are 'we'? In most scientific disciplines, its practitioners don't go hand-wringing over the differences between facts and theories so very few biologists use language this way, either.
If by 'we' you mean physicists, then I'm going to have to say again that I think you are mistaken. Have you done a poll? I'm almost certain it will be possible to find one physicist who uses language like this. For example, John Pratt teaches astronomy at UVSC and here is a page about facts and theories.
We (physicists) do not call gravity a fact, but a theory or law. I believe this is true of most physicists, especially those who write on what science is and how it is done. I'm sure you can find some who use terms differently, but they are not the norm.
quote:
Erm so how is this different than me saying there is a fact of gravity that the theory of relativity explains? How is this not somebody in the 'we' category using language in this exact same way you said they don't?
We generally would not use the phrase "facts of gravity" because it implies that gravity is a "fact."
quote:
Newton's inverse law is not a theory in the sense referred to since it doesn't explain anything - it simply describes something. You could call it a theory, but then how is that avoiding confusing things?
In a sense, all of science is descriptive. It attempts to describe things at lower, more fundamental levels, which we call "explaining", but this is still fundamentally descriptive.
We (physicists) do call the inverse square law a theory; it is Newton's theory or law of gravity. (Note the use of both "law" and "theory" in this wiki article.)
quote:
Still there is a fact of gravity, which it would be perverse to deny (that objects with mass experience an attractive force).
Again, I think I understand what you mean, but "fact of gravity" is non-standard language in physics. It is more normal to say that "there are facts which are described or explained by gravity."
quote:
I'm not sure what your objection is here.
Good question. We (physicists) generally view gravity as the theory or law itself, not as the results of or support for the theory or law. It would be like saying "there is a fact of the standard model" or "there is a fact of the Big Bang." No--this is bad terminology. It implies that the theory or law is itself a fact, which is wrong.
quote:
Still, semantic issues aside - the pragmatics is more important. Which was the point I was making.
Yes, I believe we agree on the main concepts. The major disagreement is terminology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2009 2:45 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 6:00 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 111 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2009 6:59 PM kbertsche has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 101 of 138 (521725)
08-28-2009 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by kbertsche
08-28-2009 5:50 PM


Re: theories and facts
We (physicists) do not call gravity a fact, but a theory or law.
I am very confused by this. The vast difference between a theory and a law should be second nature to you if you are a practising scientist, and your conflation is very strange. I appreciate that gravitation and relativity may not be your field, but I would stress the same were we talking about the relationship between thermodynamic "laws" and statistical mechanics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 5:50 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 6:11 PM cavediver has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2122 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 102 of 138 (521726)
08-28-2009 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by NosyNed
08-28-2009 3:30 PM


Re: Theory of Gravity
quote:
I disagree with this pretty strongly. The law of gravity is simply that massive objects exert a force on each other witch can be calculated using the law given as a formula. The inverse square law the G in it.
However, a theory has to explain why that is the case. Newton had, at best a pretty tentative theory and I'm not sure it was really articulated as such. If it was it would be one of uniform space and time with instantaneous forces acting between bodies. What produced the force, beyond the 'mass', isn't explained.
General realitivity is much more robust as a theory even if still not completely explaining the "why". It is also rather different in it's description of space and time yet it gives a law of gravity that, in many circumstances, gives the same answer ans Newton's laws.
It seems that the word "theory" is used in at least two ways in science:
1) The word "theory" is sometimes used interchangeably with "law", as in Newton's law or Newton's theory. In this sense, a law is essentially a theory which has been extremely well established. I was using the term in this way earlier in the thread, and it is easy to find examples of this usage in physics. (Maybe it's less common in other fields of science?)
2) The word "theory" is sometimes used in a more over-arching sense, as you suggest. (The wiki article on "scientific theory" claims that this is the only usage, and that my usage is wrong. But I believe they overstate their case.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by NosyNed, posted 08-28-2009 3:30 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 6:07 PM kbertsche has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 103 of 138 (521729)
08-28-2009 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by kbertsche
08-28-2009 6:01 PM


Re: Theory of Gravity
In this sense, a law is essentially a theory which has been extremely well established.
No, no, no - couldn't be further from the truth! A law is an embodiment of observation, not of theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 6:01 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 6:21 PM cavediver has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2122 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 104 of 138 (521732)
08-28-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by cavediver
08-28-2009 6:00 PM


Re: theories and facts
quote:
I am very confused by this. The vast difference between a theory and a law should be second nature to you if you are a practising scientist, and your conflation is very strange. I appreciate that gravitation and relativity may not be your field, but I would stress the same were we talking about the relationship between thermodynamic "laws" and statistical mechanics.
Maybe you're right; perhaps my usage of "law" was/is too sloppy. Maybe it's better to view a "law" as a subset or a consequence of a theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by cavediver, posted 08-28-2009 6:00 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Perdition, posted 08-28-2009 6:19 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 106 by Theodoric, posted 08-28-2009 6:20 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 105 of 138 (521734)
08-28-2009 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by kbertsche
08-28-2009 6:11 PM


Re: theories and facts
As I understand it, a law is a mathematical model of how things happen. A theory is an attempt to explain why things happen that way. I could be wrong though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by kbertsche, posted 08-28-2009 6:11 PM kbertsche has seen this message but 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