Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the power of prediction?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1 of 34 (293680)
03-09-2006 1:29 PM


What is a scientific prediction?
wikipedia writes:
In a scientific context, a prediction is a rigorous (often quantitative) statement forecasting what will happen under specific conditions, typically expressed in the form If A is true, then B will also be true. The scientific method is built on testing assertions which are logical consequences of scientific theories. This is done through repeatable experiments or observational studies.
In another thread, discussion about what makes a prediction cropped up. You can see the origins of this thread here.
Part of science is prediction. A scientific theory should make predictions on the nature of the evidence that will be found. Here is an example of a prediction that is relevant to the debate:
"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence"
Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, 1965
To translate. If ToE is true and if Evolution happened then we should see congruence. The theory predicts this congruence, before the congruence is discovered. This is a prediction, we know that classifying organsisms based on cladistics produces basically the same tree as one done using the molecular evidence; there is no reason outside of the ToE why the data is congruent like this.
Faith's response to this, in order to present a contra-opinion was
This is not like REAL science of the sort Robin gave an example of where when something is predicted to happen based on a particular theory it actually does or doesn't happen and you can know for sure from the result that the theory was correct or not.
I'd like to explore this. I guess the question is, what is the power of prediction? When is a prediction the result of real science, and when is it not? Are some predictions better than others? I suspect the specificness of the prediction, and the number of possible ways the data could be go towards some kind of metric to judge how confirming a prediction is of a theory.
Naturally, the focus is specifically in comparing 'real' scientific predictions with ToEs predictions to see if ToE is 'real' science.
Is it Science?(?)/Bio Evo? Probably the former I'd think.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 09-March-2006 07:12 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 2:58 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 4 by ramoss, posted 03-09-2006 3:09 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 03-09-2006 3:36 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 03-10-2006 8:47 AM Modulous has replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 34 (293707)
03-09-2006 2:25 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 34 (293716)
03-09-2006 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
03-09-2006 1:29 PM


prediction about the future
I guess the question is, what is the power of prediction?
A real prediction is a prediction about the future. I predict that a certain space object will be in a particular precise location at a particular time according to my figures based on the theory of relativity.
Somebody else is going to predict the future location of this object by the standard Newtonian method. By this method, the object is supposed to be a little to the left of my prediction.
We take a look at this object and sure enough it ends up exactly where I said it would. Good evidence for the truth of the theory of relativity.
Later we repeat it with a different object. Same result.
That's a prediction. That is convincing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2006 1:29 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 3:11 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2006 3:51 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 17 by ramoss, posted 03-09-2006 5:22 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 4 of 34 (293718)
03-09-2006 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
03-09-2006 1:29 PM


It seems to me that the 'power of prediction' is the ability to try to prove a theory false. While it does not prove a theory true, the fact that new observations match what the theory would need to ahve if it was true strengthens the viablity of the theory. If the information about the new evidence contradicts the expected predictions, then the theory will have to at least be modified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2006 1:29 PM Modulous has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 5 of 34 (293719)
03-09-2006 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 2:58 PM


Re: prediction about the future
robinrohan,
A real prediction is a prediction about the future.
So if I predicted a solar eclipse occurred 2,000 BC, & an Egyptian document was discovered that recorded it, that wouldn't be a "real" prediction?
If we have evidence that fossil X is the ancestor of fossil Z, & therefore internediate fossil Y should have characters 1,2,3,4,5, that's not a real prediction, either?
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 03-09-2006 03:11 PM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 2:58 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 3:18 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 3:25 PM mark24 has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 34 (293721)
03-09-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by mark24
03-09-2006 3:11 PM


Re: prediction about the future
So if I predicted a solar eclipse occurred 2,000 BC, & an Egyptian document was discovered that recorded it, that wouldn't be a "real" prediction?
That's not a prediction. You shouldn't call it that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 3:11 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 3:29 PM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 34 (293722)
03-09-2006 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by mark24
03-09-2006 3:11 PM


Re: prediction about the future
If we have evidence that fossil X is the ancestor of fossil Z, & therefore internediate fossil Y should have characters 1,2,3,4,5, that's not a real prediction, either?
That's a prediction if you find the intermediate fossil AFTER you make this comment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 3:11 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 3:33 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 03-09-2006 3:41 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 8 of 34 (293723)
03-09-2006 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 3:18 PM


Re: prediction about the future
robinrohan,
That's not a prediction. You shouldn't call it that.
Why not? We are stating that data should exist of something, it is therefore predictive in its very nature. How can it not be a prediction?
In future could you please support your assertions with a bit more than flat denial.
Mark
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-09-2006 02:30 PM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 3:18 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 3:43 PM mark24 has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 9 of 34 (293724)
03-09-2006 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 3:25 PM


Re: prediction about the future
robinrohan,
That's a prediction if you find the intermediate fossil AFTER you make this comment.
So it is a prediction despite being in the past?
Isn't it still a prediction of the theory regardless of when it was discovered?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 3:25 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 4:08 PM mark24 has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 34 (293726)
03-09-2006 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
03-09-2006 1:29 PM


Is the problem the difference in meaning between prediction in science and the popular (that is, ordinary) meaning of prediction? That is the impression I get when the argument turns to the meaning of this word.
An example relevant to this message board would be an important prediction made by using the theory of evolution. According to the theory of common descent through small changes, it should be possible to classify the known species in a nested heirarchical pattern. And, indeed, this has been observed -- the species can be classified just as predicted by the theory of evolution.
Of course, this classification was known well before Darwin came up with his theories. So this wasn't a prediction in the colloquial sense of something that will be observed in the future. (In fact, I have seen the word retrodiction used for this.)
But as far as science goes, it counts as a prediction. The heirarchical classification is not a part of the assumptions that go into the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution was not front loaded with nested heirarchical classification. The nested heirarchy comes out logically and independently from the assumptions that forms the axioms of the theory.
But this may be confusing to people who might thing that prediction must refer to phenomena that have not yet been observed (or perhaps not yet recognized).
What I am not sure about is the case of Newton and Keplar. Newton formulated his laws of motion and his law of gravity in order to produce Keplar's laws of planetary motion. However, nowhere in the mathematical formulation of Newton's are the orbits of planets explicitly mention; yet, from his laws of motion and the inverse square law of gravity Keplarian orbits can be predicted. Does this count as a prediction of Newton's laws? Or does the fact that Newton formulated them in order to achieve Keplar's laws invalidate this as a prediction?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 03-09-2006 1:29 PM Modulous has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 11 of 34 (293728)
03-09-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 3:25 PM


Re: prediction about the future
robin,
Don't get caught up in the etymology of the word "prediction".
If I "predict" something before I find evidence of it, that's still a prediction, even if the event happened in the past.
For example, I can "predict" Napoleon's shoe size, as a ratio of his height, without knowing in advance what it is. Then I can go to the shoe closet and verify or falsify my prediction.
The "pre" refers to the order in which we learn things, not the order in which they happened.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 3:25 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 34 (293729)
03-09-2006 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mark24
03-09-2006 3:29 PM


Re: prediction about the future
In future could you please support your assertions with a bit more than flat denial.
No thanks. I prefer to just deny things.
Let me explain why one sort of "prediction" is not as convincing as another sort, even though they are both called "predictions."
The sort of prediction you are talking about is not a prediction about the future, but an idea about what something would be like probably, if such-and-such theory is true.
If evolution is true, there should be this "heirarchy" of life forms. We knew that there was this set-up already in the 18th century. Men, for example, would be very similar in some ways to apes, less similar to other primates, and then even less similar to more distant relatives. Morphological or DNA--doesn't matter. The genotype determines the phenotype.
What does this prove? In regard to evolutionary theory, it tells us that this heirarchical set-up that we find does not falsify the theory. If evolution is true, such a set-up would presumably have to be the case. Such in fact is the case.
What kind of convincingnesss does this have? It has some, but not nearly as much the real prediction I gave above.
That's why we need to make a distinction between these two types of "prediction."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 3:29 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 4:00 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 13 of 34 (293732)
03-09-2006 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 2:58 PM


predicting the future state of a phase-space
A real prediction is a prediction about the future. I predict that a certain space object will be in a particular precise location at a particular time according to my figures based on the theory of relativity.
OK, so if I was able to predict a specific pattern would emerge out of a possible 100,000 patterns using five different methods, would that be a convincing prediction?
What about if I was to predict a very close pattern (within error bounds) out of a possible 1074 patterns, would that be a good prediction? All I would use to do this is the ToE.
What if the possible number of patterns was massively larger than this? Of all the possible outcomes, I can use a theory to predict what general pattern would emerge before even understanding how to employ the method for testing it?
What if I was to predict where in a massive pattern of organisms a given organism would be found? Would that be a prediction? This organism has never been tested before.
We take a look at this object and sure enough it ends up exactly where I said it would. Good evidence for the truth of the theory of relativity.
If predicting where an object will be in space and time is a good prediction, why is being able to predict where an object will appear in a certain 'phase-space' and 'phase-time' not a prediction?
This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 09-March-2006 08:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 2:58 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by robinrohan, posted 03-10-2006 8:08 AM Modulous has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 14 of 34 (293733)
03-09-2006 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by robinrohan
03-09-2006 3:43 PM


Re: prediction about the future
robin,
What does this prove? In regard to evolutionary theory, it tells us that this heirarchical set-up that we find does not falsify the theory. If evolution is true, such a set-up would presumably have to be the case. Such in fact is the case.
Nevertheless, it is a prediction of the theory.
The sort of prediction you are talking about is not a prediction about the future, but an idea about what something would be like probably, if such-and-such theory is true.
Correct, but in & of itself I fail to see why this lessens the evidential power of the prediction.
What kind of convincingnesss does this have? It has some, but not nearly as much the real prediction I gave above.
Why should nested hierarchies be less convincing because they were known about before the theory rather than after? It is merely a fact that is consistent with the theory. The ToE's veracity is unaffected by whether it was known before, or after. This is why we can say something is predicted by the theory & it doesn't matter, either way.
I know what you are saying, something always seems much more impressive if it is discovered after the theories formulation, it has the appearance of a dramatic confirmation, but there is no reason why new data is more impressive than older data, per se.
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 03-09-2006 04:03 PM
This message has been edited by mark24, 03-09-2006 04:04 PM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by robinrohan, posted 03-09-2006 3:43 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 34 (293736)
03-09-2006 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by mark24
03-09-2006 3:33 PM


Re: prediction about the future
Isn't it still a prediction of the theory regardless of when it was discovered?
If you already had the intermediate fossil, you didn't predict anything. You just noted it. It's more convincing if you can predict something that is going to happen.
If you didn't have the intermediate fossil, and you predicted that if such a fossil could be found, it would have the predicted chracteristics, then that's better proof.
This happened I think with the lizard-bird they found(prediction of birds descending from dinosaurs, 19th century.) That's convincing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mark24, posted 03-09-2006 3:33 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by EZscience, posted 03-09-2006 5:03 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 18 by mark24, posted 03-10-2006 3:03 AM robinrohan has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024