|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science: A Method not a Source | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Do you agree that prediction is a key component of the scientific method? No, not in the way you seem to understand it. I think you misunderstand 'prediction' as it relates to science. As far as science is concerned, a 'prediction' is just any given implication of a scientifically-derived conclusion; it says: 'if conclusion X is true, then y and z should also be true if we examine them'. We are required to test our implications as much as we test their related conclusions.
It’s your scenario and as described by you in the OP I cannot see any mention of him doing this at all. If he did can you give me an instance where he did do this including details of the prediction made and the actions carried out to test this prediction? You have to read the scenario, Straggler. Here is the scenario below, with 'prediction'-relevant parts highlighted:
A young man in an early human social group is just beginning to take interest in learning. His young age brings him fascination of all things old, and he wishes to learn the age of the human race. He lacks the aid of modern technological equipment, and so has no way of examining things in the physical world to determine how old the human race might be. He decides to ask his parents, who tell him that the human race is older than they are, and then proceed to tell him a history of his tribe. This history goes back about five generations, before which, his parents tell him, they have no evidence of anything existing at all. "Interesting," he thinks, "the only evidence I have, the story of my people, tells me the human race is at least five generations old. But I wonder what other tribes can tell me; perhaps they have information that goes back further." He goes around the valley, asking the elders of the various tribes how many generations their tribes go back. Some tell him four, others five, and a few tell him six. "How interesting! So, my additional evidence tells me that the human race is a little older than five human generations: about six. So, using only the evidence I have at my disposal, and making as few assumptions as possible, I can conclude that humans have been around for about six generations, or 300 years." Never one to be satisfied with a single answer, though, he continues to look for more and more information that may help him refine his conclusion, always aware that he may be wrong at the moment, and so can never stop questioning. He continuously tests the implications of his conclusions by attempting to gather more evidence. I am not quite sure how that fails to meet the standard of having testable 'predictions' (in the scientific sense). So, I again implore you to point out how it does not.
An ability to make specific verified predictions is not an indicator of the accuracy of anything as far as you are concerned then? That's quite a loaded question. I never said nor implied anything along the lines of this; and I specifically spoke against the silly notion of 'accurate conclusions'. Scientists (real ones) tentatively accept the less falsified of a given set of falsifiable explanations. It is really that simple.
Then can I ask you why you think scientists bother to make predictions and test them? Another loaded question. They don't 'make predictions' in the sense you imply. They simply look at their conclusions and say 'if my theory X is true, then y and z should also be true... let's go see if y and z are true as well... gosh this is fun stuff... I need a beer... my lab partner's hot' etc. There is nothing spooky about it; there is nothing complicated about it; there is nothing about the scientific method that a ten year old with a back yard couldn't figure out.
So all unfalsified conclusions are equally accurate as far as you are concerned? Huh? Of course not; no such thing as (scientifically) 'accurate conclusions', and science doesn't work with unfalsified explanations; it works with unfalsified, falsifiable explanations. It is really that simple, why make it seem so complicated?
For example would you not agree that the conclusion that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun rather than being flat and fixed in space is a conclusion that is so well verified and thus deemed to be accurate to such a degree that any tentativity is purely philosophical? No; even in such a case as this, it is required by the scientific method that this conclusion remain tentative and falsifiable. It is stepping beyond this tentativity to suspect the conclusion representative of some absolute truth that is 'purely philosophical'. No conclusion gets a free pass; it's really that simple.
Well if prediction is the method by which we test and determine the accuracy of our models, theories and conclusions it is rather key to the topic is it not? Based on everything you've said, I am quite convinced that you do not understand the workings of the scientific methodMODERN or OLD. Predictions aren't a method; science does not fiddle with determining 'accuracy of models'; and methods do not test things, people do. It is really that simple. Jon BTW, you didn't address any of the other points brought up against your position. Care to do that? Edited by Jon, : - black highlight; + green highlight Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Because any other hypothesis violates parsimony. You can tack a lower limit on if you'd like. As I already mentioned, though, doing so is quite pointless as it does not change the tentativity of the conclusion. Enjoy Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You can tack a lower limit on if you'd like. As I already mentioned, though, doing so is quite pointless as it does not change the tentativity of the conclusion. I'm not sure I'm following you.
Nothing changes the "tentativity" (in the philosophical sense) of any conclusion. The proposition that pigs don't have wings is tentative --- but it is still to be preferred to the contrary proposition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I'm not sure I'm following you.
Nothing changes the "tentativity" (in the philosophical sense) of any conclusion. The proposition that pigs don't have wings is tentative --- but it is still to be preferred to the contrary proposition. I already said you could add it. What's the point in arguing? Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I already said you could add it. And now you've definitely lost me completely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Jon writes: Do you agree that prediction is a key component of the scientific method? No, not in the way you seem to understand it. I think you misunderstand 'prediction' as it relates to science. As far as science is concerned, a 'prediction' is just any given implication of a scientifically-derived conclusion; it says: 'if conclusion X is true, then y and z should also be true if we examine them'. We are required to test our implications as much as we test their related conclusions. Neither Straggler nor anyone else here "misunderstands 'prediction' as it relates to science." You claim you described your young man validating his predictions, but what you quote is just you describing additional evidence gathering. The gathering of additional evidence of the same nature as your existing evidence and finding it is consistent is not validation of predictions. You could have described it differently, e.g.: "Based on what he learns from his interviews of the people in his village he predicts that when he interviews the people from other villages that they will not be able to describe anything before five generations ago." But I think most here would disagree that that's a true prediction. What you describe is just repeating the same experiment and getting the same or very similar results. I think the kind of thing Straggler is referring to is making independent predictions, for example things like this:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: The scientific method itself is a fairly recent development. The systems used in the past were the best ones available to the people at the time. They looked at experience. Well exactly. So they weren't applying the scientific method were they? It seems we agree. Now if the question posed is whether we could reasonably expect them to apply the scientific method then I suspect we could both agree that - No this would not be a reasonable expectation. But that was not what Jon asked.
jar writes: No, not really. As fallible, often irrational, and imaginative human beings I am sure we can all understand and empathise with the idea that such conclusions might seem very reasonable under certain social circumstances. But believing that the world will end if you don’t sacrifice a goat (or whatever) is ultimately a belief based on appeal to authority or appeal to popularity isn’t it? Both of which are logically fallacious arguments are they not? So whilst such beliefs are very understandable and arguably even sometimes reasonable from an entirely human perspective that doesn’t mean that they are logically sound or strictly rational does it? It certainly doesn't mean that they are scientific. Which, as I understand it, is the question being asked here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So they weren't applying the scientific method were they? Not as we know it today.
As fallible, often irrational, and imaginative human beings I am sure we can all understand and empathise with the idea that such conclusions might seem very reasonable under certain social circumstances. But believing that the world will end if you don’t sacrifice a goat (or whatever) is ultimately a belief based on appeal to authority or appeal to popularity isn’t it? Both of which are logically fallacious arguments are they not? I think it is irrelevant whether the argument is logically fallacious or not. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I think the kind of thing Straggler is referring to is making independent predictions, for example things like this:
The young man does not have these investigative techniques (the knowledge of waste buildup and the ability to dig things up in the graveyard) at his disposal; he has no legitimate reason to believe that digging holes or anything of the like will assist him in his investigation. Remember, our hypothetical excluded his knowledge of such things. Why would he ever consider unknown 'predictions' relating to his conclusions? Why should anyone ever be expected to consider things they do not know? Besides, how are these things not simply implications of any set of conclusions (i.e., the conclusions the young man comes to plus a few others, such as, e.g., the way waste piles up over time)? Does rewording our implications using the word 'prediction' so drastically alter their content? Does it so drastically alter their ability to be tested and checked against aspects of the world?
You claim you described your young man validating his predictions But that is not at all what I claimed; I claimed exactly the opposite. The young man actually falsified his 'prediction' when he went to interview the folk from the other villages. Remember, his first figure was five generations; when the story left him, he was up to six.
"Based on what he learns from his interviews of the people in his village he predicts that when he interviews the people from other villages that they will not be able to describe anything before five generations ago." Are you saying that to be a 'prediction' it must be stated in a specific linguistic formula? That he would not find anything described prior to five generations was implied with his first conclusion. I fail to see how this does not meet the criteria of 'testable prediction' in all ways aside from his failure to word it in some special way.
The gathering of additional evidence of the same nature as your existing evidence and finding it is consistent is not validation of predictions. You seem to be saying that proper application of the scientific method requires multiple ways of evidencing the same thing; is this what you are saying? Are you saying that to behave scientifically, the predictions drawn from one's conclusions must be related to other types of evidence, even evidence about which we know absolutely nothing? Jon Edited by Jon, : parenthetical note Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: I think it is irrelevant whether the argument is logically fallacious or not. Irrelevant to what? The accuracy of the conclusions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, to the accuracy of the conclusions.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Jon writes: The young man does not have these investigative techniques (the knowledge of waste buildup and the ability to dig things up in the graveyard) at his disposal; he has no legitimate reason to believe that digging holes or anything of the like will assist him in his investigation. Remember, our hypothetical excluded his knowledge of such things. Now you're just being silly and making things up. This is a bright young man with an inquisitive mind, and I don't think he'd have any trouble figuring out simple things like what ends up in the latrine in winter rather than summer, resulting in layers. And if they have the technology to put bodies in the ground, then they certainly have the technology to dig them up again. You need to add being dumb as a log to your hypothetical if you're going to continue arguing in this way. Your example is too often the object of focus and is distracting attention away from your topic. Stop quibbling about your "hypothetical" and start moving the discussion forward. If all you really wanted to ask whether someone is doing science if they propose a theory for which no tests are possible then just look at string theory. People ask if it's really science all the time. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: I think it is irrelevant whether the argument is logically fallacious or not.
Straggler writes: Irrelevant to what? The accuracy of the conclusions? Yes, to the accuracy of the conclusions. So illogical conclusions are just as valid, just as accurate and just as in accordance with reality as logical conclusions as far as you are concerned?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So illogical conclusions are just as valid, just as accurate and just as in accordance with reality as logical conclusions as far as you are concerned? We've been down this road before so I'll just point out that it is irrelevant whether or not I am concerned. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
I strongly recommend that you have a look at, and take part in, the thread The Scientific Method For Beginners Jon writes: Predictions aren't a method; science does not fiddle with determining 'accuracy of models'; and methods do not test things, people do. Of course people test things. But what do they test, how do they conduct these tests and why do they even bother to perform these tests? There are numerous examples of scientific theories being vindicated by means of verified prediction. In fact such verification is arguably the gold standard by which scientific theories are judged. Do you really think that a theory that has resulted in whole series of specific verified predictions is considered no more or less accurate and in accordance with reality than another theory which has nothing going for it beyond being unfalsifiable? Is that really how you think science works?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024