The Scientific Method For Beginners

No, your use of the word "proven" confuses it.According to the Popperian use of the word "proven", I cannot prove that I have two legs. For I might in principle be a ten-legged lobster-like creature trapped in a Matrix-style virtual reality designed to convince me that I have only two legs.I admit that. And yet I should like to be able to say to people that I can prove that I have two legs, because if "prove" doesn't relate to that sort of proposition, then what does it mean? In the first place, I would point out that in the English language, my terminology is indeed "standard". Is there anyone in the world --- apart from philosophers --- who would deny that I can prove that I have two legs?Count 'em. Philosophers may say what they choose, but I shall still regard it as "proven" that I have two legs according to the meaning of that word in standard English rather then in philosophical jargon.In the second place, I should like you to read my post more carefully. I am well aware of the stuff that philosophers say, and so I was very careful to write: "we are obliged to regard it as proven until and unless we find contrary evidence". I made a very careful compromise between Popperian philosophical jargon and the English language as it is spoken.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sure, but only because in debates like this, people introduce philosophical jargon. Which is what I should like to avoid.In plain English, I can prove that I have two legs, I can prove that the Earth is more than 6000 years old, and I can prove that I have a common ancestor with monkeys.I can also explain why there is a philosophical question-mark over all these statements, and I shall be happy to do so.

To which I will reply with another question.Can you name any person who is not a philosopher, who speaks the English language, who has access to the relevant evidence, and who will maintain that I cannot prove that I have two legs? And will any of them really claim that I cannot prove that I have two legs? Except in the special philosophical sense in which this is true?And in any case, let me say again: I did not claim that the fact that all the evidence agrees with the theory that I have two legs proves that I have two legs. What I said about such propositions was that "We are obliged to regard it as proven until and unless we find contrary evidence". Evidently you didn't. Let me quote myself again: "We are obliged to regard it as proven until and unless we find contrary evidence". And your mother is a whore.What, did you find that insulting?Well, I am equally insulted by you telling me that I'm "disingenous".No, I am not. I may possibly be wrong, but I have been honestly saying what I think in the clearest way that I can think of right now. Perhaps I am mistaken, in which case I hope that you will make this clear to me by lucid argument rather than name-calling, but everything I have said is as true as is within my limited capacity to make it. And I recommend that you read the words in that article: "this is the sense in which".

Oh, now you're just jerking me around.When I believe that I have two legs, is that belief tentative? Is that really the attitude I should take to the proposition that I have two legs? Except in the wildest daydreams of philosophers?

... then I would be made entirely out of straw.Now let us consider the position of a real person who actually exists, namely you. Would you really describe my belief that I have two legs as tentative?

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.If you can't introduce me to such a person, that's OK. Simply admit it. I didn't notice you asking that before. I am a mathematician. That is, I am active in the very field to which strict Popperians would reserve the word "proof".Thanks for asking. No, I am not.Your assertion against mine, who will win? Yes, I am. I'm glad you noticed, otherwise I'd have been wasting my time there. No, you are to infer that when you call my arguments "disingenuous", that is different only in degree from if I say that your mother's a whore. It is an insult without warrant. Apology accepted.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You: So, Dr Adequate, you claim that you have two legs?Me: Yes.You: You are absolutely certain that you have two legs?Me: Yes.You: Can you prove that before this court?Me: Yes. If the court will allow it, I will now remove my pants.Judge: In the interests of justice, I'm going to allow that.Me: See, this is me with my pants off. I have two legs. Count 'em.You: So you claim to have proved that you have two legs?Me: Well, actually, I'm kind of interested in epistemological philosophy. So it might be a more accurate statement of my position to say that we are obliged to regard it as proven.You: I invite the jury to observe the shifty demeanor of the witness. Also that he's ugly. But let me ask you again, Dr Adequate --- if that is your real name --- have you or have you not just proved that you have two legs?Me: Well, you know, when we start using the term "proof", it all depends what we ...You: If it please the court, I should like the court reporter to read back the questions put to the witness, and the answers given by the witness.Judge: I shall allow that.Court reporter: "So, Dr Adequate, you claim that you have two legs?" "Yes." "You are absolutely certain that you have two legs?" "Yes." "Can you prove that before this court?" "Yes. If the court will allow it, I will now remove my ..."You: That's enough. So, Dr Adequate --- if that is your real pseudonym --- you testified under oath that you could prove that you have two legs.Me: I guess.You: You guess? Shall I get the court reporter to read your testimony to you again?Me: OK, OK, I admit it! I really can prove that I have two legs.You: And you claim to have proven this remarkable claim before this court?Me: Yes, dammit. I'm standing here wearing no pants.You: And yet, Dr Adequate, I put it to you that hypothetically there might exist some supernatural being ...My lawyer: Objection, Your Honor! If it please the court, this line of questioning has no relevance.Judge: Over-ruled. Apart from anything else, I really want to see where this is going.You: Thank you, Your Honor. So, Dr Adequate, I put it to you that a magical invisible being possessing supernatural powers could fool us all into thinking that you have two legs, when in fact you have five tentacles, or seven pseudopodia.Me: Well ... in principle ... I guess so.You: And if you admit this possibility, then you cannot prove that you have two legs?Me: I guess not.You: Your Honor, if it please the court, this witness has perjured himself. He claimed that he could prove that he had two legs, and now he admits that this is impossible to prove.Judge: Why, you silly twit. You silly, silly twit.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And my claim to have two legs? How "tentative" is that?

Then "the scientific sense" is not the English language, and if you want to use the word "proof" in your way, you should notify people when you do so. For example, every time you use the word "proof", you should say: "Oh, and so as not to mislead you, I am using the word "proof" in such a strange way that, according to my use of the word "proof", it would be actually impossible for you to prove, even to yourself, that you have two legs." But we are obliged to regard some things as true.To quote Hume: 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.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sure. That's what I said. And yet I'm still obliged to behave as though the world is real, because if I have what some philosopher might suggest was merely the illusion of dropping an illusory brick on my illusory foot, then I will still have the illusion that it hurts every bit as though it was real. No it doesn't --- once you introduce the idea that we might be living in the Matrix. Once you go into this epistemological nightmare, then the accumulation of data cannot make you more and more certain of your hypothesis. You might not be approaching truth --- you might just be becoming more and more deeply duped by the illusion being fed to you.And if you're arguing with me, aren't you meant to be sticking up for Popper? It is my view that I can legitimately become better and better convinced of a hypothesis. This is totally in opposition to his (flawed) concept of "falsification". Not just "may" --- must. They do? Whoopee. I shall now tell all my fellow-mathematicians that although scientists can make mistakes about science, they can never make mistakes about math. Perhaps some Cartesian demon is fooling the minds of scientists into thinking that the world is not flat, but it would be impossible for a similar demon to fool the minds of mathematicians into thinking that the angles in a triangle sum to 180. For some reason.This epistemological exception to human fallibility is a burden as well as a privilege. I hope we won't get too swanky about it.

Apparently not, because scientists were right about how to fix the Hubble telescope.

Very well. If the proposition that I have two legs was carefully examined by anyone who could [a] examine me [b] count [c] define the word "leg", would their conclusion be "tentative"? And I have said so. I have made more that a "quick conciliatory nod" to this particular philosophical consideration. I have treated it with the utmost cordiality, considering that it has never done anything for me. However, I would point out that if we are ever to get anything useful done at all, we have to stop wasting our time obsequiously bowing down to this tinpot idol and get on with stuff, such as investigating the Universe. The place that this particular consideration has in the philosophy of science is that it is obligate on every philosopher of science to explain why we should in practice ignore it.

So now there's a "technical" meaning of "tentative" which I also have to worry about?Look, "tentative" has a plain meaning in plain English. It does not apply to the opinions that people who counted my legs might form about how many legs I have. It's not going to happen all that frequently, because how many people am I going to meet who will want to make, and I quote, "trivial, irrelevant and annoying points", every time I maintain that the proposition that I have two legs should be regarded as proven?You, on the other hand, if you insist on using your "technical" language, may possibly run into derision rather more often.

True. Under those circumstances, people such as myself will dismiss such considerations at length with well-reasoned arguments.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There are two types of doubt.In scientific doubt, we acknowledge that if contrary evidence to our theories was found tomorrow, we would change our minds. Of course we would. Duh. If, for example, in Haldane's famous phrase, someone found "rabbits in the Cambrian", then so much for the history of evolution. If an asteroid had a triangular orbit, so much for the theory of gravity.But we have to exclude the "brain in a jar". For if we start to entertain that philosophical doubt, then how can we do science at all? According to scientific doubt, I am very sure of, for example, the broad outlines of the history of evolution, but would change my mind given contrary evidence.According to philosophical doubt, of the "brain in a jar" type, not only could I not be very sure of any proposition, but I should also never know that it was falsified. Consider, for example, the case where I am a brain in a jar and have been fed completely accurate information about biology. But tomorrow someone feeds me false information about rabbits in the Cambrian. But I can ignore it under the hypothesis that I am a brain in a jar.According to the principle of scientific doubt, my opinions can be trumped tomorrow by contrary evidence.According to the principle of philosophical doubt, my opinions have already been trumped by the fact that it is possible to produce an ad hoc argument.In order to do science at all, we have to reject the principle of philosophical doubt.What should we write in our science books? --- for example, that humans have one heart, or three, or none? According to our normal ideas, we are obliged to say one. And according to the principle of philosophical doubt, we can't say one way or the other.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.