Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Science: A Method not a Source
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 177 (589193)
10-31-2010 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Straggler
10-31-2010 6:35 AM


Science: A Method, not a Madness
Jon writes:
Perhaps you could help me by pointing out where the poor lad failed to do what you say he failed to do.
Do you think testing ones conclusions against reality through prediction is a key component of the scientific method?
Did he do this?
So, you're unable to point out the instances in which the lad failed to do what you say he failed to do?
Jon it is still very unclear as to whether or not you accept that some conclusions are actually more accurate and in accordance with reality than others.
I do not accept that some conclusions are more accurate; no honest scientist would. What I accept is that some conclusions are less false than others when compared to available empirical data. But, how does this relate specifically to the topic of this thread?
For example - Is there an actual age of the Earth that is correct regardless of ones epistemology? Or do you think that there are no correct answers to such questions because all knowledge is derived from axioms? Thus making any one logically derived conclusion as good as any other. This is certainly the stance you took in the previous Verifying Epistemologies thread.
Are you still wedded to this stance or have you moved on?
My stance in that thread is irrelevant here; if you wish to discuss it, go to that thread.
Western civilisation has largely abandoned biblically derived conclusions in favour of scientifically derived conclusions regarding such things as the age of the Earth. How do you think this came about if not by the application of the scientific method?
Huh? Who are you arguing against with this?
Jon writes:
Your talk of an 'ultimate end' makes me strongly suspicious of whether your not you fully understand the scientific method even as you describe it.
I didn't use the phrase "ultimate end".
Perhaps you could explain what you meant, then, when you said:
quote:
Straggler in Message 42:
That the scientific method requires that one constantly compare ones models and conclusions with reality thus meaning that whatever starting point one chooses should be largely irrelevant as to the models and conclusions one ultimately ends up deeming as accurate.
Without a stopping point, how do we 'ultimately end up deeming [a conclusion] as accurate'?
Jon
[ABE]
To clarify some things that Percy pointed out as unclear:
I have asked you to point to specific instances of the young lad's process that you feel fail to meet the criteria for being scientific (Message 44). You answered by posting (rhetorical?) questions related to my viewpoints on evidence, the potential accuracy of conclusions, and epistemology, none of which I felt addressed the matter you were asked to address, thus prompting me to inquire as to how they were related, or more precisely, as to how you felt these questions about my viewpoints on evidence, the potential accuracy of conclusions, and epistemology were an answer to the questions asked of your position.
So, if you could point out where you feel the young lad failed to behave scientifically and why you believe him to have failed so, it would do much in accelerating my understanding of your position. It is not easy to have a discussion without first understanding one's position, and I cannot understand your position if you don't tell me. And asking me my position repeatedly goes not very far toward telling me yours. In your next reply to me, would you be able to address these matters, and bring any issues you have regarding my viewpoints on evidence, the potential accuracy of conclusions, and epistemology to their related threads? (You can click my name to find the threads I started on Evidence, and Epistemology, and you can find my viewpoint on the accuracy of conclusions addressed above in this very post.)
Thank you.
[/ABE]
Edited by Jon, : ABE to clarify; I hope this can help get the discussion moving productively again!

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2010 6:35 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 10-31-2010 1:29 PM Jon has replied
 Message 69 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2010 12:12 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 177 (589197)
10-31-2010 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Percy
10-31-2010 1:29 PM


Re: Science: A Method, not a Madness
So testing your conclusions against reality is off-topic in this thread?
Not at all. I was just asking Straggler if he could explain how he sees it as being related, so as to better understand his position.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 10-31-2010 1:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 10-31-2010 2:32 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 177 (589212)
10-31-2010 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Percy
10-31-2010 2:32 PM


Re: Science: A Method, not a Madness
I'm having trouble understanding what you mean. When Straggler says that conclusions need to be tested against reality it seems unambiguously related to the topic.
Yes, it is related, but in many ways. I would like Straggler to explain the ways he sees it as related; he makes this statement, but fails to show to which parts of the OP it applies, and so I am unsure which aspect of my argument he believes this fact to refute. As far as I can tell, I see this fact as refuting no parts of the OP whatsoever; thus my confusion and why I am requesting clarification.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 10-31-2010 2:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 10-31-2010 8:49 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 177 (589235)
11-01-2010 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
10-31-2010 8:49 PM


Re: Science: A Method, not a Madness
Straggler said that he could have tested his conclusions against reality.
But he never said how, nor did he point out where the lad failed to do this by all investigative techniques within his means, and of which he knew.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : Expanded
Edited by Jon, : + did he

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 10-31-2010 8:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 11-01-2010 8:44 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 177 (589236)
11-01-2010 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dr Adequate
10-31-2010 9:19 PM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
There are (at least) two explanations for his observations. One involves a known, observable process, the other involves an unknown, unobserved process. He jumped to the conclusion that he should explain his observations by the means of the latter and not the former. This is unscientific.
Huh? If your parents tell you their family history back to four great grandparents, why should you not, lacking any other forms of evidence, tentatively conclude that humanity has existed at least as far back as your first ancestor? In such a case, I seriously think anyone who failed to make the same tentative conclusion would not only be rejecting the scientific method, but would also be acting just downright stupid.
Are you saying this kid must behave like an idiot in order to behave scientifically?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2010 9:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2010 12:26 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 177 (589258)
11-01-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dr Adequate
11-01-2010 12:26 AM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
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.
The particular wording in the story was a little ambiguous, hence my clarification:
quote:
Jon in Message 1:
This young man, in his search for knowledge, has investigated the only thing he has the means for investigating and has come to a tentative conclusion that is based only on the evidence available and requires as few assumptions as possible.
quote:
Jon in Message 12:
Modulous writes:
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
Scientific conclusions should be logical. The only scientific thing this young man can actually say is
quote:
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 at least six generations: 300+ years
And the confidence would be increased by independent convergent lines of evidence.
The alteration you've suggested may indeed be appropriate; I even considered using that very wording, but was not convinced that it was much different than the wording I ended up going with. I did indicate further along in the post that his conclusion was admittedly tentative, and that he was always willing to admit more evidence as it became available.
This one change in wording aside, though, I believe the point of the post still standsno matter which wording is chosen. Would you agree?
Thus, the matter on which you now quibble has already been brought up and settled.
But as you brought this back up, I have thought more about it, and I am beginning to wonder why it is the young man should believe his figure to rest potentially on the lower end. Given the evidence he's collected, it may also be reasonable to be curious as to whether his conclusion is an over-estimationthat is, whether his conclusion might be wrong in either direction. Isn't it more scientific for his conclusion to be tentative, rather than to assert a hard limit at either direction of the time line? And if he says his conclusion is 'tentative', doesn't that make his choice of using at least, about, or at most in its wording irrelevant?
I think we may be too quick to jump and say he must come to a conclusion that includes our current figure, but that's certainly just our own bias, no? Is that really what the scientific method would require?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2010 12:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2010 10:32 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 177 (589261)
11-01-2010 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Phat
11-01-2010 8:50 AM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
But our hypothetical enquirer was around at a time before the scientific method had even been developed.
I believe the scientific method is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It is certainly possible to follow this method without ever having read or heard about it, and it existed and was being used long before ever being written down.
You may say: Our hypothetical enquirer was around at a time before the scientific method had even been written down, but then your point becomes moot, as it still does not address whether or not he was behaving in accordance with that method; written, unwritten, or otherwise.
He cant be faulted for working with what he had. Can he?
If you mean to say we cannot judge his methods negatively because he failed to use investigative technologies not at his disposal, then I agree. If you mean to say we cannot judge him because he may not have used the scientific method, then I disagree, for we can certainly fault him as behaving unscientifically if he failed to use the scientific method. Whether that is a mark on his sloppy thinking or on his character in general is another matter entirely. Which is why I am more interested in the lad's methods than in the lad himself.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : - because irrelevant + becomes moot

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Phat, posted 11-01-2010 8:50 AM Phat has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 177 (589268)
11-01-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by ringo
11-01-2010 10:39 AM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
The evidence he has is that all offspring have parents. Why would he even wonder about a "beginning"?
It wasn't mentioned that he had this evidence in the OP, but if we do throw this into the mix of evidence he has, then yes, it would definitely alter his conclusion. He may end up concluding that all living things that currently exist have existed forever. Given this additional evidence, such would certainly be a reasonable conclusion.
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ringo, posted 11-01-2010 10:39 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 11-01-2010 11:20 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 177 (589275)
11-01-2010 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dr Adequate
11-01-2010 10:32 AM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
I'm not sure how he would arrive at "our current figure".
You misunderstood. By saying 'a conclusion that includes our current figure', I was talking about the use of a lower limit (by means of at least) that excluded any values under 300 years, but made any value beyond 300 years (including our own currently-accepted figure) possible and in accordance with the conclusion. Because a conclusion of at least accords with our present figure, I feel folk are jumping to require such wording, but I am not certain his evidence, or the scientific method, requires it.
Why must he place a lower limit, even in a tentative conclusion?
That doesn't excuse conclusions that are wrong because they exceed the evidence or ignore it.
This has me confused. What evidence did the lad have (as discussed in the OP) that he ignored or from which drew too strict a conclusion?
Not really. All conclusions are "tentative" in the technical sense.
Okay, then why must he place a lower limit? How is failing to place a lower limit wrong by way of exceeding or ignoring evidence?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2010 10:32 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2010 5:17 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 177 (589283)
11-01-2010 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by ringo
11-01-2010 11:20 AM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
Whether he had the evidence or not is tough to say, as he is a completely fictional character. The issue is whether or not given the evidence he is said to have had (as laid out in the OP) his conclusion was derived scientifically. If he had the evidence 'all offspring have parents', then his conclusion is not likely scientifically derived.
Whether or not inquiring about his ancestry constitutes evidence of him having this knowledge (and it may well be the case that it does) is somewhat off the point. Whether you believe him to have this evidence or you do not believe him to have this evidence, the two conclusions he draws are both very much scientifically derived in their relationship to the evidence we know he has.
So, a question for everyone: Let's say he does have the evidence ringo says he has, that all offspring have parents, would his conclusion that the human race is eternal, then, have been scientifically derived?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 11-01-2010 11:20 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 11-01-2010 12:11 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 177 (589324)
11-01-2010 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Straggler
11-01-2010 12:12 PM


It's Simple... Really (Re: Testing BY Prediction)
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2010 12:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 11-03-2010 8:15 AM Jon has replied
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 11-03-2010 4:38 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 177 (589326)
11-01-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Dr Adequate
11-01-2010 5:17 PM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2010 5:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2010 6:55 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 177 (589343)
11-01-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dr Adequate
11-01-2010 6:55 PM


Re: The Bible and the Scientific Method
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2010 6:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2010 7:44 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 177 (589588)
11-03-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Percy
11-03-2010 8:15 AM


Re: It's Simple... Really (Re: Testing BY Prediction)
I think the kind of thing Straggler is referring to is making independent predictions, for example things like this:
  • "The young man predicts that if he excavates the tribe's latrines that he will find waste matter going back only five generations."
  • "The young man predicts that if he examines the tribe's cemetery that he will find graves going back only five generations."
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 11-03-2010 8:15 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 11-03-2010 3:57 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 177 (589657)
11-03-2010 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Straggler
11-03-2010 4:38 PM


Re: It's Simple... Really (Re: Testing BY Prediction)
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?
No; it isn't. I've told you numerous times that I don't. When will you stop asking?
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?
What: Hypotheses
How: Look, touch, taste, listen, smell
Why: Who cares?
What does this have to do with your inaccurate portrayal of the scientific method?
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.
The goal of science is not to verify, but to falsify. Who ever learned anything by finding out something they already knew?
Anyhow; what relationship at all does this reply of yours have to the points I made regarding your position?
Jon

Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 11-03-2010 4:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Straggler, posted 11-04-2010 9:36 AM Jon has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024