|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 4 days) Posts: 10328 From: London England Joined: |
Hi Rob
I have reread your edited thesis. The clarity of argument is much improved. Your modified thesis however still totally ignores the nature of evidence and the nature of knowledge. According to you -
Until you recognise the limitations of knowledge with regard to evidence your concentration on the logical aspects of scientific conclusions alone will always result in a definition that wil be intrinsically, inherently and fundamentally flawed. All evidence is inherently imperfect. It really really really is as simple as it sounds.
Then feel free to correct me. I will modify my refutation accordingly. The key deficiencies in your argument will remain the same. Of that I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever. I know that this argument (in the wider sense - not just in terms of this trivial thread) is very close to your heart. I am genuinely sorry if I have burst your bubble somewhat. It is an unfortunate truth of nature that the facts are not always as we would wish them to be. Sometimes it is more noble to admit when you are wrong than to continue to fight the fight no matter how passionately you believe in the cause. If you are unwilling to continue this thread (I personally would prefer that you did continue in terms of clarifying your position despite the fact that I cannot see where your actual argument can possibly go from here) it is my intention to rewrite my refutation as a more general attack on ID as science and start a new thread. Alternatively we could open up this one to the masses (it is your thesis and your thread so that is your call) Stay Happy Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4678 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I agree with almost everything you've said Straggler. And that is what you don't understand.
Elsewhere you mentioned our lack of omnipotence. It is a point I also made in the arguments to support the thesis. Straggler:
By that you mean 'incomplete'... Straggler
Where in the world did you get the impression that I do not advocate testing conclusions? Straggler:
Look at what you said in the statement; sentance 1, 2, and 3... 1) If all evidence is inherently imperfect (due to lack of our omnipotence I agree), then what is the meaning of your second statement? 2)How do we test conclusions based on incomplete evidence? The answer is logical coherence as I said in the argumentation. Science is the law of contradiction. The issue isn't really the perfection of the evidence, but the order we assume at the outset is present in the entire fabric. In this fabric, some of the pieces we have, and some are 'unknowns' (variables). So it's not the evidence that is imperfect, but the fabric. The fact is, some of the pieces are missing. The pieces themselves are perfect, i.e. they fit the fabric. Our question is which fabric best and most logically adopts the pieces into a coherent whole. You said that science will only accept conclusions that have been, or can be, rendered reliable. I agree... Consider this illustration: If we have an algebraic equation to solve, the evidence is imperfect (incomplete). We have some variables in the equation. But if logic is valid, then we consider the matter tested. We do not reject the conclusion because there is an unknown. We fill in the unknown based upon the logical pattern. 1+y=5. If logic is valid the answer is 4. If logic is not valid, then we cannot know the answer. The equation has been tested and rendered reliable. So as I said in the arguments, you are taking the only out you have Straggler. You are saying that we don't have all the evidence to support your preconceived notion of reality. You smuggle in a materialistic philosophy before beginning the journey. And so the evidence from your perspective is incomplete. You do the very thing you accuse the theist of doing.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 4 days) Posts: 10328 From: London England Joined: |
There is a difference between testing a theory and ensuring that it is internally consistent. You derive your conclusion by applying logic to empirical evidence. You then test your conclusion by determining whether or not it is logically consistent with the empirical evidence. This is circular, pointless and to all practical intents and purposes will result in multiple logically valid and internally consistent but utterly contradictory statements (except in the very special case of mathematical certainty where only one answer is logically possible as there is by definition no reliance on empirical evidence). We are using the term "test" in very different contexts here.
Science cannot be the law of contradiction in isolation because the law of contradiction as applied to incomplete evidence will lead to logical inconsistecies which themselves break the law of contradiction. Consider that which I have previously discussed.
If applied to incomplete evidence (which in all practical respects all evidence must be) then the law of contradiction is broken whenever more than one logically valid theory is possible. How do you deal with this problem? What practical relevant empirical evidence based example do you give of your definition in action?
So how do you go about demonstrating the core basis for your argument in terms of coherence? With an example of mathematical certainty. With an example where there can only ever be one possible answer and where the law of contradiction thus remains intact. Of course. How else could you demonstrate a definition that applies only where certainty applies? This is the metaphorical equivelent of having ALL of the evidence ALL of the time. You are claiming omniscience. Proofs and certanty are abstract mathematical principles. In the real world, the world of science, we must deal with uncertanties. Logic, no matter how valid, if applied to uncertanties can only ever result in uncertainties some of which are going to be contradictory. We must embrace this fact and decide how best to proceed. A hypothesis based approach where the "conclusions" drawn are tested for reliablity against that which they purport to describe is the only way forwards. Reliability not proof is the best that we can ever hope to achieve. Your flawed methodology allows neither reliable conclusions to be drawn nor proofs to be derived in anything other than the idealised circumstances of omniscience or mathematical certainty. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 4 days) Posts: 10328 From: London England Joined: |
At the very beginning of this discussion I repeatedly asked you for a detailed practical example of your described method in action. You have yet to do this in anything but summarised form.
Your definition of science is fundamentally unable to be applied in practise to produce any reliable conclusions at all. Scientific investigation is impossible and scientific conclusions are unobtainable using your methods. Irrespective of whether they relate to the material world or any other that you might claim exists. REAL LIFE EXAMPLE SCIENTIFIC METHOD - FORMAL ANALYSIS Obviously I did not consciously think through my computer problem in this formal "hypothesised" manner. The point is that we ALL use the scientific method ALL of the time without even thinking about it. Because in the absence of ALL of the evidence it is the only method of narrowing down the possibilities and reaching reliable (albeit tentative) conclusions. THE CHALLENGE THE RULES Good luck Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : Added formal challenge!! Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4678 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Straggler:
Once again Straggler, you misinterpret my position and then go to battle against a strawman. I do not test my conclusion as you said. I test the assumption. Like I said in the argument, if the natural world is logically consistent (coherent), then our assumptions (theories) must be logically coherent, if they are going to match the coherent pattern of the evidence. The same test we use to test empirical evidence must also be applied to our assuptions. And that test is the law of contradiction. What part of that do you not understand? Can I help you? The rest of your post is irrelevant, because it does not follow from a mistaken premise.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4678 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
My thesis, is that the methodology of science is to test for contradiction, or coherence. That means you need at least two entities to compare so as to find a match. So let's look at the process you used to ultimately find the match.
Straggler:
Double check? Why can't you just use the evidence to tell you? Ah.... because a test requires at least two entities to confirm or deny each other. The other checks in your process of deduction failed to provide the answer. Congratulations Straggler! As I told you before, you can use any scientific example you like. It's a test for contradiction or coherence. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12715 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
I'm poking my nose in again, this time because I see a strong disconnect between Straggler's posts and your responses. I think Straggler's idea of an example of how you would apply your methodology is a good one. You could use Straggler's wall outlet example or create your own.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4678 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I already played this game in message 48 Percy.
quote: For the record, I did change the intial term from 'conclusion' to 'theory' as compared to message 48. I also added the words 'designed by intelligent human agents' to the supporting evidence. I thought Straggler was doing fine Percy. He proved my thesis to be correct.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12715 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Okay, let's let Straggler have a look at your example.
It isn't what you think of how you're doing that counts, but how others think you're doing. Most of your contributions here have been unintelligible, and why you think you're doing so well is I'm sure a mystery to everyone. This is already the second time in this thread where you've become reluctant to engage the discussion, and if you stop now I don't think anyone will have any idea what you've been on about. Anyway, please quit quitting, quit declaring how wonderful you're doing, and start focusing on the discussion. Please, no replies to this message.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4678 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I said I thought Straggler was doing fine. I've never said that I am doing fine.
If you want to get in on this discussion then do so. Otherwise don't just say that something is unintelligible... show why it is unintelligible. All you have to do is show a contradiction. It's a simple procedure. Your accusation is a logical fallacy. An appeal to ignorance. And that is not an argument, but a judgment.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12715 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Well, Rob, I guess this is goodbye again for another 24 hours. Next time when I say, "Please, no replies," assume I mean it.
I am moderating this discussion, not participating. About this:
What you said in Message 70 was:
That's sarcasm, Rob, not praise. I'm adding another 24 hours to your suspension. When you return please constructively engage the discussion. AbE: Please, no replies to this message. Edited by Admin, : Add request for no replies.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 4 days) Posts: 10328 From: London England Joined: |
Indeed that is the nature of hypotheses. The law of contradiction is applied so as to compare ones informed guesses with the realities of the empirical world. Your complete inability to apply your method to a detailed practical example is now plain and obvious for all to see. Despite your attempt to dress up your theory in the clothes of philosophy, logic and science I think that at root you are suffering from the same common misconception of what science is and how it works as all of the other less thinking, less analytical, less poetic and more easily dismissed disciples of the "Intelligent Design is Science" movement. You see science as the search for empirical evidence that will support a preconceived or predefined conclusion. Because your methodology does not work if the conclusion is not already in place Because your definition is designed to meet a single known or assumed conclusion thus there can be no rival conclusions Because the conclusion in your examples is not a variable but an assumed definite Because if the (incomplete) evidence and assumed conclusion are already in place then the only part of the equation missing is the logical analysis When you say "Science IS the law of contradiction" this is what you mean isn't it? You are simply stating the age old IDist argument that unless a theory can be disproven by the empirical evidence available that it should be considered a valid scientific interpretation of evidence. In your desire to redefine science such that Intelligent Design be considered scientific you have managed to successfully demonstrate exactly why it is not scientific. Your logical analysis of an indefensible position has led you to advocate a version of science that is a method of confirming desired results but which in itself is incapable of deriving reliable conclusions from the starting point of limited physical evidence alone.
Thankyou ;) Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12715 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Hi Rob,
This is the second time you've made yourself inactive in this discussion. It isn't right to engage someone's effort and attention and then turn your back. Twice. I'll wait a couple days for you to restore yourself to active status and resume the discussion, after which I'll make the suspension permanent.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 4 days) Posts: 10328 From: London England Joined: |
There is no straw man. Only an inability on your part to recognise the logical implications of your own flawed position.
A sudden change of terminology on your part? Does your methodology no longer make conclusions? Only assumptions? Are they "reliable assumptions"?
Then in a logically consistent world you should be able to describe how your theory of 'logical coherence' can be applied to solve a simple computer problem. I have demonstrated why logically you will be unable to do this. You have thus far failed to refute this argument either in theory or practise. Exactly as I predicted.
An assumption that is to be tested? Isn't that called a hypothesis?
The part that I do not understand is the part where I demonstrate that logically your methodology will fail to be applicable in the absence of a predefined conclusion, omniscience or mathematical certainty and then when you fail to apply your method (in the absence of a predefined conclusion, omniscience or mathematical certainty) you claim it as either irrelevant or some sort of moral victory. This I do not understand.
Yes you can. You can either describe in detail how your methodology can be applied in order to derive a simple but unobvious conclusion (as per the challenge in Message 64) or you can acknowledge that your methodology is inherently incapable of deriving reliable conclusions.
Yes I can. The problem it appears is that you cannot.
This is purely and evidently a debating tactic at best. QUESTIONS Whether you are willing or able to accept my arguments or not it should be obvious to you that unless you can derive conclusions using your methodology that are at least as reliable as those rendered by the conventional scientific method then your definition of science is fatally flawed and doomed to failure. You cannot derive initially unknown conclusions using your method. Please.... Just stop and think about it. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 4 days) Posts: 10328 From: London England Joined: |
Unless Rob ends his self imposed exile in time to avoid a permanent suspension this could well be the last post in this thread. As such I think that it is time that I tackled the whole “coherence†issue head on. Putting myself into the 'mind of Rob' has been a strange and bewildering experience. The nature of this post reflects that.
Rob whatever our differences I hope you do choose to come back to EvC. I think it is more interesting with you here. CURRENT POSITION Despite his theory of logical coherence being demonstrably subject to all of the faults exactly as described by my analysis Rob has repeatedly insisted that I am attacking a “straw manâ€. AIM ROB’S EXAMPLE
So in what way does this example differ from the position summarised and refuted in Message 59? Rob wholeheartedly accepted the refutation. He just claimed it was not his argument that had been refuted. So if we can show the position above to be no different to the refuted argument Rob’s thesis will have been utterly dismantled even by his own admission. (incomplete empirical evidence)+(valid logic)=(unreliable conclusions) After this point conventional science and Rob science diverge considerably. Whilst conventional science embraces the fact of incomplete evidence and necessarily unreliable conclusions by taking a hypothesis based approach where results are validated by comparison with the empirical realities of nature itself Rob claims that this unnecessary and in fact logically flawed. Instead Rob proposes a test for logical coherence as a superior and more consistent alternative. Rob's position can be summed up thus - (incomplete empirical evidence)+(valid logic)+(test for coherence)=(reliable conclusion) Before we consider the specific case of ID any further lets examine this new and confusing term (test for coherence) in more detail. WHAT IS A TEST FOR LOGICAL COHERENCE IN THIS CONTEXT? (incomplete empirical evidence)+(valid logic)+(test for coherence)=(reliable conclusion) What exactly is the generalised form of the (test for coherence)? What is tested? What two elements are compared in order to apply the law of contradiction in order to validate a conclusion? 1) The element with which the conclusion is to be compared is highly specific to the case under consideration Rob has been unable to make clear any generalised form of what it is he is comparing his conclusions to. This is why many of his posts are so damned confusing. I don’t think a generalised term is actually possible. It is basically whatever element can be compared to Rob’s preordained conclusion in order to give a favourable result. INTELLIGENT DESIGN – CASE STUDY
What do we mean when we say that there is the appearance of design? How do we recognise the appearance of design?
It should now be obvious that the reasoning here is circular – i.e. Nature seems to have attributes that I recognise as design due to my experience of human designed objects. I logically conclude that nature also has an intelligent designer. I confirm this conclusion by virtue of comparing human design and the design in nature. (incomplete empirical evidence)+(valid logic)+(circular logic)=(“reliable†conclusion) By virtue of the fact that circular logic is inherently pointless we can remove this term to get (incomplete empirical evidence)+(valid logic)=(“reliable†conclusion) But we have already met this form of the equation in Message 59 and we already know that in the event of incomplete evidence the equation must be written (incomplete empirical evidence)+(valid logic)=(unreliable conclusion) CONCLUSION INTELLIGENT DESIGN = UNRELIABLE ASSUMPTION ;) Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021