Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science: A Method not a Source
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 47 of 177 (589194)
10-31-2010 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Jon
10-31-2010 1:16 PM


Re: Science: A Method, not a Madness
Jon writes:
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?
So testing your conclusions against reality is off-topic in this thread? Do I have that right? If so, that seems like leaving scoring out of a discussion about what makes a good football team, which would make no sense.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Jon, posted 10-31-2010 1:16 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Jon, posted 10-31-2010 1:44 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 49 of 177 (589202)
10-31-2010 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Jon
10-31-2010 1:44 PM


Re: Science: A Method, not a Madness
Jon writes:
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.
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. Did you maybe mean to say that you'd like Straggler to tell you what specific things he thinks need to be tested against reality?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Jon, posted 10-31-2010 1:44 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Jon, posted 10-31-2010 4:46 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 52 of 177 (589224)
10-31-2010 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Jon
10-31-2010 4:46 PM


Re: Science: A Method, not a Madness
Jon writes:
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.
I don't know why you're unsure or how this quibbling about the ways an answer is related to your topic is even relevant. You asked what more the person could have done to follow the scientific method, and Straggler said that he could have tested his conclusions against reality. Seems related to the topic, and you agree since you say, "Yes, it is related," so why not simply continue the discussion by responding to what he said instead of asking funky questions about how specifically his answer is related to the topic. You asked a question, he answered. If you disagree with his answer then just say so and explain why so the discussion can continue.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Jon, posted 10-31-2010 4:46 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Jon, posted 11-01-2010 12:08 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 57 of 177 (589251)
11-01-2010 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Jon
11-01-2010 12:08 AM


Re: Science: A Method, not a Madness
Jon writes:
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.
That makes perfect sense as a response. I suggest posting another message to Straggler that says this instead of asking him how his response relates to the topic. Now that I see this I think that what you really meant to ask was whether he realized his response did not take into account all your preconditions and constraints.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Jon, posted 11-01-2010 12:08 AM Jon has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 81 of 177 (589528)
11-03-2010 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Jon
11-01-2010 5:56 PM


Re: It's Simple... Really (Re: Testing BY Prediction)
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:
  • "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."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Jon, posted 11-01-2010 5:56 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Jon, posted 11-03-2010 1:15 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 87 of 177 (589634)
11-03-2010 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Jon
11-03-2010 1:15 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Jon, posted 11-03-2010 1:15 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Jon, posted 11-03-2010 6:03 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 96 of 177 (589676)
11-03-2010 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Jon
11-03-2010 6:03 PM


Re: It's Simple... Really (Re: Testing BY Prediction)
Hi Jon,
Yeah, I think that's a good idea to try to shift the focus away from your hypothetical. The next time someone brings it up just say that the example is proving to be more an obstacle than an aid to understanding.
Concerning what you quoted from the OP about the Bible, the objection to the religious methodology is the same one as for your example: there's no testing against reality.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Jon, posted 11-03-2010 6:03 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Jon, posted 11-03-2010 8:56 PM Percy has seen this message but 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