Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Axioms Of Scientific Investigation
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1 of 22 (498032)
02-07-2009 12:55 PM


What are the unprovable assumptions that are required in order for scientific, empirical investigation to be considered both valid and worthwhile?
For example - I would suggest that the existence of an objective reality that is external and common to all is an unprovable but necessary assumption for scientific investigation to be considered valid and worthwhile.
That is to say that you are not a brain in a jar (or any other similar scenario) subjectively constructing all that you perceive. Instead we are each individual consciousnesses subjectively experiencing a common objective reality. This cannot be proven but must be assumed.
Science is the attempt to describe, model, understand and quantify this objective reality. If it does not actually exist then such pursuits are invalid and worthless.
So:
Axiom 1: An external objective reality common to all exists.
Is this an axiom of scientific investigation?
Does anybody have any suggestions as to what other "axioms of scientific investigation" there might be?
As an ultimate, and very likely overly-ambitious, aim I would like us to define the set of unprovable, and often unspoken, assumptions upon which scientific investigation is founded.
This is definitely one for those with an interest in the philosophy of science so, if promoted, the 'Is it Science?' forum would seem to be the obvious place for it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2009 2:23 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 5 by Grizz, posted 02-08-2009 9:29 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 10 by Stile, posted 02-11-2009 12:31 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 11 by Stagamancer, posted 02-11-2009 3:17 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 4 of 22 (498048)
02-07-2009 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
02-07-2009 2:23 PM


Good Start. But........
How's that, for a start?
Yes exactly the sort of thing I had in mind.
The First Fact: The fact of our existence. "I exist."
The First Principle: The principle of contradiction. "A thing can not be and not-be at the same time in the same respect."
The First Condition: The essential capability of the mind to know truth. "My intellect can reason and discover truth."
I once had a one on one debate with Rob (he got permanently suspended during that discussion) where he essentially started from something akin to these statements and went on to deduce the need for supernatural intervention at every opportunity.
However the practical method he derived from this starting point (essentially that: evidence + deductive logic = reliable conclusions) failed spectacularly on numerous practical fronts.
Such a method was unable to solve a simple computer problem or mechanical car problem. The scientific method (essentially that: evidence + deductive logic = hypothesis) in comparison was demonstrably superior. By discarding false hypotheses and thus honing in on a reliable conclusion the scientific method, with it's built in reliability filter, could achieve that which logical contradiction and reason alone could not. Namely the rendering of conclusions as reliable in comparison to the reality that they purport to describe.
So what is my (admittedly rather convuluted) point?
That science is more than contradiction and reason as applied to evidence.
That tentativity, comparison to reality, reliability and the testing of conclusions/hypotheses are key components of what science is
I don't know how these concepts can be incorporated into any axioms of science that we might eventually decide upon but, it seems to me, that the foundational fact, principle and condition that you specify above are in themselves not wholly adequate in reflecting these criteria.
Or am I pushing the definition of axiom (as I have defined it to be) to breaking point in attempting to include such considerations?
What do you think?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2009 2:23 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 02-08-2009 10:33 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 7 of 22 (498144)
02-08-2009 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Grizz
02-08-2009 9:29 AM


Real or Imagined
In your effort to identify the object, you would likely ask many questions -- Is it organic? What's the weight? How big is it , etc...One thing you would most surely not ask is, "Is the object real or are you hallucinating?"
This is true. I would assume that the object in question does actually exist. Largely because I have a lifetime of experience that suggests the world is made up of objects that are indeed objectively real.
However if it turned out that you and only you could actually oberve this object I would be significantly less inclined to treat it as anything other than a figment of your imagination. No matter how accurately you could describe it's various properties based on your own observations.
In the case of the scientific method, the only way one could verify and validate the conclusion would be a direct or indirect measurement or observation that would then be compared to measurements and observations already made in the past.
Yes. And in particular those measurements and observations made independently by others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Grizz, posted 02-08-2009 9:29 AM Grizz has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 8 of 22 (498155)
02-08-2009 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
02-08-2009 10:33 AM


Re: Good Start. But........
Does that help at all?
Yes. I will look at the links you provided more thoroughly at a later point but my initial reaction is to think I am confusing my own definition of the term axiom.
I have stated that I mean it to be those unprovable assumptions upon which science is considered to be valid in my OP.
I think I have then unconsciously strayed into partially thinking of axioms as the base starting point from which the methods of scientific investigation can be derived in my second post.
To defend this confused thinking on my part I would add the following:
We both agree that Rob's definition of science was neither accurate nor workable in any practical sense.
If the axioms (as in the unprovable assumptions) that we identify for scientific investigation are equally as valid for a myriad of non-scientific forms of investigation then what is it we will have actually identified?
A set of unprovable assumptions upon which various (both scientific and non-scientific) forms of investigation rely?
If so, then although strictly speaking the aim of my OP would have been achieved, my intended aim would not. As what I am really interested in doing is defining a set of axioms that are unique to scientific investigation. If such a thing exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 02-08-2009 10:33 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 13 of 22 (498549)
02-11-2009 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Stile
02-11-2009 12:31 PM


Re: Axioms and derivations
Are we necessarily worried about being "brains in jars" or not?
That is, even if we *are* brains in jars... we can still do "science" within our jar-existence, whatever that is, right? In which case, we don't really require an axiom to say we *are* in an external, objective reality.
In short - No. I disagree.
If all I am doing is imagining myself discover "facts" about that which I have imagined such that my imaginary cohorts can be imagined to verify my imagined facts.....
Then what am I doing other than exercising my imagination? Nothing. There are no "facts". There is no verification. There are no independent consciousnesses with which to interract.
If there is no objective reality, assumed or otherwise, then I fail to see what the point of any investigation into what that perceived reality might be from any conceptual point of view.
From a practical point of view it could be argued that there was some merit in such an endevour I suppose.......
If one had to accept that one's reality was limited to ones imagination then testing the limits of that imagination might be worthwhile.
But even then the real knowledge would come from identifying that which limited the imagination. Is the brain in a jar receiving external stimulation? On what is the brain basing it's memories, it's knowledge etc. etc.
The truly scientific questions would relate to that beyond the imagined reality. All else would be "engineering".
Thus I stick with my original proposed axiom.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Stile, posted 02-11-2009 12:31 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Stile, posted 02-12-2009 7:43 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 15 of 22 (498757)
02-13-2009 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Stagamancer
02-11-2009 3:17 PM


Consistency of Physical Laws?
Given the various corroborating evidences that have all successfully independently made verifiable (and indeed verified) predictions based on the consistency of phtysical laws I would consider the consistency of phyical laws in time to be an evidenced conclusion of science rather than an assumption.
I agree that most scientists take this as read with little further consideartion in practical terms.
But I don't think that this is an unevidenced assumption in it's own right.
Others with a finer eye for detail in aspects of physical evidence (RAZD springs to mind) might be able to explain better then specific reasons for concluding that physical laws are indeed constant?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Stagamancer, posted 02-11-2009 3:17 PM Stagamancer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Son Goku, posted 02-14-2009 5:20 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 16 of 22 (498760)
02-13-2009 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Stile
02-12-2009 7:43 AM


Re: Axioms and derivations
There seems to be a testable, verifiable, falsifiable test for being in an "external, objective reality" where there is no testable, verifiable, falsifiable test for "I exist."
That seems to be a rather large difference. Are you sure we can call them both axioms?
Well "I exist" seems inherent in the very fact that you are considering the question of your existence.
Whether or not you exist as "Stile" (or whatever your real name is) the human being etc. etc.etc. is another question.
But there can be no doubt in your mind that you exist in some form or another.
I don't see what falsifiable, testable, verifiable thing you can do to determine that I exist? How can you ever ever ever really really know that everything you experience is not the product of your imagination?
You cannot.
All you can reliably say is that "you" exist in some form or another.
The rest must be assumed to some degree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Stile, posted 02-12-2009 7:43 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by anglagard, posted 02-14-2009 4:19 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 20 by Stile, posted 02-17-2009 7:19 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 19 of 22 (498944)
02-15-2009 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by anglagard
02-14-2009 4:19 AM


Re: Axioms and derivations
So you don't think therefore you are not.
Yeah, I been through this before. Decartes>Locke>Berkley>Hume>Kant while the whole time I should have been doing some unprintable things to Carol Nagano (or others, if not her).
Carol who?
All this epistemology is a dead end. Either go with Wittgenstein and accept the way things are or wander off into the desert with Carlos Castaneda.
I think an objective reality common to us all as independent consciousnesses has to be an assumed starting point for scientific investigation.
Otherwise we enter a whole rabbit warren of holes.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by anglagard, posted 02-14-2009 4:19 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 21 of 22 (499244)
02-17-2009 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Stile
02-17-2009 7:19 AM


Re: Axioms and derivations
Hi Stile
I think we are getting confused with "I" and "you" being used in relative terms.
Yes. That's what I said. I totally agree that there is no testable, verifiable, falsifiable test for "I exist" and that it must be assumed to some degree. That's why I said I agree that "I exist" is an axiom.
I don't think that "I" exist is an axiom.
It is demonstrably true fromthe very fact that "I" am considering my existence.
My point was to question having an external, objective reality as an axiom rather than simply something we can test for. I was comparing how it is different to something we both agree is an axiom - "I exist."
Beyond the fact that "I" exist it is impossible to reliably determine whether all else is imagined or otherwise.
What I was saying is that this is not true for there being an "external, objective reality." There are verifiable, falsifiable tests for there being an external reality (namely... me measuring something and seeing if you get the same result... if you do not, then this lends evidence against it. If you do, then this lends evidence towards it).
If you are imagining me verifying your imaginary measurements then how does that prove anything.......?
I am saying that "I" exist (in whatever form) cannot really be in doubt.
BUT that an objective reality external to me must be assumed. AND is therefore an axiom.
So we seem to be disagreeing but have yet again managed to find each other in a topic where the terminology is inherently confusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Stile, posted 02-17-2009 7:19 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Stile, posted 02-18-2009 7:37 AM Straggler has 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