|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The scientific method is based on a logical fallacy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Which is pretty much what I said in my post, isn't it? This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
The point is why scientific evidences are referred to as theories, since there is a possibility or possibilities that other factors may occur to change the possible outcome. This defines science and states the reason why there is a constant attempt to find the correct answer to any proposed hypothesis and even when accepted there will still be attempts to refine the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Observation: Marsupials are the dominant form of mammalian life in Australia, but relatively rare elsewhere in the world. Hypothesis: Marsupials became isolated on Australia from other forms of mammalian life when the land masses drifted apart. Prediction: Fossilized marsupials will be found on Antarctica. The logical structure of this prediction and its confirmation is as follows: If marsupials became isolated on Australia from other forms of mammalian life when the land masses drifted apart, then fossilized marsupials will be found on Antarctica. Fossilized marsupials have been found on Antarctica. First, I don't know if it's typos or not but you seem to be interchanging Australia and Antarctica. More importantly, you've completely left of a much more important part of science. Science is not founded solely on predictions, it's founded on the ability to disprove falsehoods. So, your above statement should read more like this: Hypothesis: Marsupials became isolated on Australia when it seperated.Prediction: Marsupial fossils will be found in Australia. Disprovable: Marsupial fossils should not be found elsewhere. Evidence: Marsupial fossils _are_ found in Australia. Marsupial fossils have not been found elsewhere. If Marsupial fossils are found elsewhere, we then need to review both the hypothesis and it's predictions. Without testability, you aren't describing science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
First, I don't know if it's typos or not but you seem to be interchanging Australia and Antarctica. No - the problem is with the wording, not the words (or something). The hypothesis is that marsupials travelled from America to Australia via Antartica. If that hypothesis is true, we should find fossils in Antartica and America following a consistent pattern demonstrating radiation. We do.
quote: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/marsupials.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Agnostic Member (Idle past 5964 days) Posts: 36 From: Netherlands Joined: |
No - the problem is with the wording, not the words (or something). The hypothesis is that marsupials travelled from America to Australia via Antartica. If that hypothesis is true, we should find fossils in Antartica and America following a consistent pattern demonstrating radiation. We do. Though not finding fossils wouldn't prove they didn't live there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Though not finding fossils wouldn't prove they didn't live there. Unless there were very good reasons, according to our current understanding, that we really should be able to find fossils if they lived there. Then not finding fossils would be evidence that they didn't actually live there. Contrary to some peoples' conceptions, it is possible to prove a negative. Of course, considering how rare fossils can be, and how difficult it can be to find fossils, then you are probably correct in this case: not finding fossils would not necessarily mean that they didn't live there. "The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness." Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2895 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
Now suppose that we come across a white raven. So now we have a scientific falsification of our simple hypothesis that all ravens are black. We now have to do one of three things: (1) Find out whether we made an experimental or observational error:That's not a raven, moron, that's a swan! (2) Modify the original theory (and then test the modifications):All ravens are black except those that suffer from white fungus albinism. (3) Abandon the theory altogether under the weight of contrary evidence:Out of 1000 ravens in the sample, 700 were black, and 300 were white. I guess that not all ravens are black after all. Good post Chiroptera. What about (4)? (4) Stick with the theory despite the weight of contrary evidence. For example, rather than abandon the law of gravity, claim dark matter exists. So instead of evidence driving the theory, the theory starts driving the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Good post Chiroptera. Thanks. I'm quite happy with it. -
(4) Stick with the theory despite the weight of contrary evidence. For example, rather than abandon the law of gravity, claim dark matter exists. So instead of evidence driving the theory, the theory starts driving the evidence. What "weight of contrary evidence" do you see in this example? Let's examine another historical analogy. In the 19th century, it was discovered that the motion of Uranus did not obey Newton's Universal Law of Gravity. One could have decided that this was sufficient "weight of contrary evidence" to abandon his law of gravity, but instead it was hypothesized that an as yet unknown planet was causing perturbations in Uranus' orbit -- sort of a 19th century version of "dark matter". Then the perturbations were analyzed carefully to give some indication as the the possible locations of the hypothesized planet, and a search for the planet was carried out. A new planet, Neptune, was in fact discovered, and it was precisely in the right locations to give the observed perturbations of the orbit of Uranus. I suppose that this could count as "sticking to the theory despite the weight of contrary evidence", but seeing that they were actually correct it seems to me that something far more interesting was going on. "The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness." Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2895 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
What "weight of contrary evidence" do you see in this example? The law of gravity predicts a different rate of expansion of the universe from what is observed.
but instead it was hypothesized that an as yet unknown planet was causing perturbations in Uranus' orbit -- sort of a 19th century version of "dark matter". Not quite. In your example of Uranus, no "new" science is being proposed. The adequacy of the law is truly being tested. "Dark matter", on the other hand is very much about banking on "new" science. What would it take to falsify the law of gravity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
(4) Stick with the theory despite the weight of contrary evidence.
What "weight of contrary evidence" do you see in this example? For example, rather than abandon the law of gravity, claim dark matter exists. So instead of evidence driving the theory, the theory starts driving the evidence. The law of gravity predicts a different rate of expansion of the universe from what is observed. "Dark matter", on the other hand is very much about banking on "new" science. And yet this theory is adequate for getting rockets and little cars to Mars. It would seem a little premature to abandon something that works just because we can't explain the dark stuff effects. Rather the overwhelming evidence is that Newton's gravity is adequate for most computations, Einstein adds a few more, and the things that can't be covered by those are such that I would not call gravity a "theory in crisis" ...
What would it take to falsify the law of gravity? A new theory that explains all the current evidence as well as the current theory AND explains the dark stuff effects, that can be tested and verified\validated and found to be a sound concept (that nasty scientific method again). Simple. Got any contenders? Cause I'm interested. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
But tossing out gravity is also being proposed just as you seem to think should be done. There are some suggestions for a replacement.
They are exactly following the evidence but haven't figured out where it is leading them yet. Keeping General Relativity and it's newtonian subset seems like a reasonable thing to attempt to do since it is so well supported in other ways. But even though it is very, very reasonable other things are being considered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2895 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
I would not call gravity a "theory in crisis" ... Is your definition of "universal law" a theory that is "not in crisis"? ![]() Note, I merely added (4) to the list in Chiroptera's very well presented and illustrated post Message 10. I believe it needs to go in irrespective of how premature any choice is deemed to be.
A new theory that explains all the current evidence as well as the current theory AND explains the dark stuff effects, that can be tested and verified\validated and found to be a sound concept (that nasty scientific method again). Isn't this what creationists are accused of doing? Instead of addressing the flaws in their own argument they point out that other arguments are incompleteness or flawed. Hardly a good basis for falsification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2895 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
But tossing out gravity is also being proposed just as you seem to think should be done. There are some suggestions for a replacement. They are exactly following the evidence but haven't figured out where it is leading them yet. Do you agree that its current status is "falsified". Should the "universal" law of gravity be taught in the science class?
Keeping General Relativity and it's newtonian subset seems like a reasonable thing to attempt to do since it is so well supported in other ways. But even though it is very, very reasonable other things are being considered. You are using very subjective terms here. "Seems" and "reasonable". What happened to the quantitative rigour? Falsification is falsification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Do you agree that its current status is "falsified". Should the "universal" law of gravity be taught in the science class? Would you mind explaining what you mean by the "universal" law of gravity? I've never heard of it. Is this something you were taught in Part II? And if so, by whom? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2895 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
There is a force between any two particles proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance apart.
The constant of proportionality, G, is called the universal gravitational constant.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024