Science: A Method not a Source

Jar - Why do you think the MODERN (as you insist on calling it) scientific method incorporates prediction as a key component?What do you think the reasoning behind this is? What does it add to the investigative process? Doesn't that tell us more about man's need to come up with explanations and the sort of explanations we are psychologically prone to making?From the perspective of imaginative, story telling humans seeking conscious intent in the actions of nature it is a perfectly understandable thing to do.But what has that to do with logic? Would a purely logical being unblessed with the human gift of imagination come to the same conclusion? You seem determined to conflate what is humanly reasonable with what is logical.But humans are not (thankfully) purely rational beings This is arguably why we need formalised processes such as the scientific method to come to reliable and accurate conclusions. Because left to our own instinctive devices we have a strong tendency to go in more creative directions. Once the belief is already ingrained acting on it is arguably perfectly reasonable from the point of view of the irrational human beings that we are.But where did such beliefs originate and can these sources be accurately described as "rational" or would "human" be a better description?

When you can explain how you determine which of two unfalsified theories best describes reality. What we test and why has EVERYTHING to do with the scientific method. Because the things we choose to test are how we determine which of our competing theories most accurately reflects reality.Are you familiar with the history of the Big Bang Vs Hoyle's Steady State hypothesis? Have you ever heard of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)? How do you think Einstein's theory of general relativity was tested and confirmed?Why don't you look some of these things up and then get back to me? Falsification is only half the story. Are you really going to tell us that you consider some unfalsified explanation for an observed phenomenon to be on par with an explanation for the same phenomenon that results in a mass of specific and verified predictions? Predictions are not things which are already known. They are how we test our theories and discover new phenomenon. Why do you think we are looking for the Higgs Boson (for example)? How do you think anti-matter was discovered? I could go on and on.How do you think the process of discovery occurs in science? Aside from your continual claims to have lots of unanswered points and your ongoing demonstration of your complete ignorance of science and how it actually works - I am unaware of you having actually made any points at all?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Science doesn't just interpret evidence. It tests conclusions and theories. The starting point is relatively unimportant. It is what you test that really matters.

The most famous example is the Big Bang theory Vs the Steady State Theory.One theory's acceptance over the other as a superior and more accurate portrayal of reality was a direct result of the predictions made.

quote:

---

For most cosmologists, the refutation of the steady-state theory came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965, which was predicted by the Big Bang theory. Stephen Hawking said that the fact that microwave radiation had been found, and that it was thought to be left over from the Big Bang, was "the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory."

---

Note: It was not just the existence of the radiation that was predicted by BB theory but the precise value measured. A verified prediction that vindicated the theory exactly because of it’s specificity. What are you talking about?We choose our predictions on the basis of achieving the most exacting and objective test of our theory we can devise. For example it is no use claiming that a new theory of gravitation has been verified because it’s predicts that the Sun will rise tomorrow. A theory is vindicated if it predicts new and previously unknown phenomenon. Why don’t you lookup General Relativity and see all of the verified predictions that theory has resulted in? You might learn something.I asked you why we make predictions and test them. We do this because it is the most exacting and most objective test of our theories we can come up with. It is relatively easy to construct a theory that meets all the known facts and yet which is full of subjective biases and wrong turns. But you devise a theory that directly predicts and leads to the discovery of new facts and you have every right to think you are onto something worth pursuing.And it is this component of the scientific method which your various scenarios and falsification only strategies are woefully lacking.

That isn't an answer to any of the above.Do you agree that it is much more difficult to construct a theory that successfully predicts new observations than it is to construct a theory that merely incorporates known observations? So it has nothing to do with logic. So it is derived from logic after all. Huh?And can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"?I am struggling to see how this conclusion can have arisen without a healthy dose of human imagination thrown in- Can you enlighten me?

So anything that is imagined is as reasoned, logical and real as anything discovered?

How many years have you spent participating on science based debate forums? And yet when asked why prediction is a key component of the scientific method you seem rather bewildered by the question. So I'll ask it again in a different way: Jar - Why do you think prediction is a key component of the scientific method?Speaking as one regular participant on science debate forums to another I would strongly reccommend that you consider this question.And when you have I would be delighted to hear your thoughts. Then what did you say that has any relevance to the question asked? Can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"?Or not?

Obviously. So let's put the question in context shall we? Right. So how does this relate directly to the question asked?Can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"?Or not?

A theory makes specific testable predictions. The prediction is tested. If the prediction is verified the theory is vindicated as being an accurate model of reality. This is how science progresses Jon.We have already considered the Big Bang but let's have a quick look once again at what has been said about that. Big Bang

quote:

---

After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some version of the Big Bang scenario must have occurred.

---

quote:

---

For a while, support was split between these two theories. Eventually, the observational evidence, most notably from radio source counts, began to favor the latter. The discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964[28] secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos.

---

Or we could consider the Standard Model

quote:

---

The Standard Model (SM) predicted the existence of the W and Z bosons, gluon, and the top and charm quarks before these particles were observed. Their predicted properties were experimentally confirmed with good precision. To give an idea of the success of the SM, the following table compares the measured masses of the W and Z bosons with the masses predicted by the SM:

---

quote:

---

Currently, there is one elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model that has yet to be observed: the Higgs boson. A major reason for building the Large Hadron Collider is that the high energies of which it is capable are expected to make the Higgs observable.

---

That is a lot of expense to go to in order to achieve something you are arguing is pointless.Or we could consider General Relativity

quote:

---

That light appeared to bend in gravitational fields in line with the predictions of general relativity was found in 1919 but it was not until a program of precision tests was started in 1959 that the various predictions of general relativity were tested to any further degree of accuracy in the weak gravitational field limit, severely limiting possible deviations from the theory.

---

Or Anti-matter

quote:

---

In 1928 Dirac took an important step towards bringing quantum physics into conformity with Einstein's special theory of relativity by devising an equation (now called the Dirac equation) that could describe the behaviour of electrons at any speed up to the speed of light. This equation provided a natural explanation of one of the electron's intrinsic properties - its spin.

​

Taking the mathematical form of his equation seriously, and searching for a way of interpreting it, Dirac was led, in 1931, to propose that there should exist a class of 'anti-electrons,' particles with the same mass and spin as the electron but with the opposite electrical charge. By correctly predicting the existence of these antiparticles, now called positrons, Dirac became recognized as the 'discoverer' of antimatter - one of the most important discoveries of the century.

​

Then ... in 1932, a professor at California Tech - Carl Anderson - proved Dirac's prediction about antimatter was accurate. While studying showers of cosmic particles in a cloud chamber, Anderson saw a track left by "something positively charged, and with the same mass as an electron."

---

Then we have one for evolution. The prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik

quote:

---

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

​

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a fishopod, beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.

---

All positive evidence Jon. All examples of verification through prediction.By the terms of your argument we wouldn't bother to build particle accelerators, seek specific transitional fossils or make predictions at all. And yet strangely scientists continue to make predictions and get very excited when verified predictions suggest that our theories are strongly in accordance with reality.So whether you like my arguments or not the fact is that you are refuted by the very actions of scientists around the world. Nobody here is disputing the importance of falsification. But not all unfalsified theories are equal. Those that have made verified predictions are superior theories to those that have not.Which part of this are you struggling to comprehend? You asked how the method outlined in the OP differed from the scientific method. It differs in it's lack of testing conclusions by prediction.

Well done for finally getting past your mantra of falsification. No. Which is why it matters what you choose to test. Different theories pertaining to explain the same observations will have different logical consequences. If the logical consequences of one theory are verified to a high degree (as was the case with the Big Bang theory) then that theory will be considered superior. Even if the second theory remains unfalsified or is modified to take account of the new data (which is exactly what Hoyle attempted to do with his Steady State hypothesis).By the mantra of falsification which you have been adhering to up until this point a theory with a glut of verified predictions is no better or worse than any old unfalsified nonsense one can pluck from ones arse.I am delighted to see that you have moved on.But just in case you are still insisting that the Cosmic Microwave Background is a falsification of the steady state hypothesis rather than a verification of the Big Bang theory - Have a look at this NASA page (it doesn’t even mention the steady state hypothesis) The fact is that verified predictions add considerable weight to a scientific theory and only a fool would deny this.This is because it is relatively easy to construct theories that explain and interpret known observations. But it is incredibly difficult to construct theories that predict, and lead to the discovery of, new evidence and which can thus be demonstrated as being in accordance with reality.So to these hypothetical people who you claim are applying the scientific method to the bible (or whatever else) my question is simple. What have you ever discovered? Not what have they concluded. But what have they actually discovered as a direct result of their theories and conclusions?And if the answer to that question is nothing I question whether what they are doing can accurately be called science at all.

And why do you think it is effective? So we seek human-like conscious intent regardless of whether any exists or not and the result is that we imbue mindless physical processes with anthropomorphic traits (emotions, desires etc.)These are not the actions of a purely logical and rational being. These are the actions of beings who have evolved instinctive methods of making sense of the world. Instinctive methods which the formalised methods of science sometime need to overcome if accuracy and reliability is to be achieved.

No. I asked how the conclusion that the world would end if people weren't sacrificed could be arrived at through logic, reason and reality. And my question pertains to the logic and reason that can be used to conclude that the world will end if no sacrifice is made.So the fact that it is possible to be imaginative and logical simultaneously is irrelevant as it doesn't answer that question does it? Dude it's jar's example. Not mine. I don't.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Of course it matters why it is effective.In the context of this thread it matters because the question of how we judge our theories has been raised.How do we assess which theories best reflect reality? Is ability to predict a strong indicator of the accuracy of a theory? These are the questions being considered here.So I ask again - Why do you think prediction is an effective component of the scientific method?In what sense is it "effective"? It shows that the example you presented is not an example of a strictly rational conclusion but instead a very human one.Exactly as I argued in Message 103

So you are determined to remain unthinkingly ignorant as to why the scientific method is as it is? It obviously isn't irrelavant to the question of whether the conclusion under consideration is derived from "reason logic and reality" as you asserted rather than the more human qualities I have argued in favour of. Creative and instinctive qualities which the scientific method is designed to counter in the name of accuracy and reliability. If you agree with the above it is difficult to see how you reconcile this with your previous statement that the Aztec belief that without sacrifice the world would end is "both reasonable and logical".How were the Aztecs not assigning anthropomorphic traits to nature in the forms of gods in order to come to their conclusions regarding the need for human sacrifice?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes Jon. That is how scientific predictions are constructed. If you don't understand this it is no wonder you are failing to see where it is you are going wrong in your OP. Then you have misunderstood.I suspect that this is because you are foolishly taking the words "vindicated" and "verifed" to pertain to some sort of proof that a theory is true.But we are not talking about proving that theories are true. We are talking about verifying that our theories are accurate models of reality and the method by which we we can determine which of our theories is the most accurate.If two theories (e.g. Newtons theory of gravitation and Einsteins General Relativity) both predict the same verified observation then all you have learned is that both of these theories are more accurate than a third theory which is unable to make such predictions. To distinguish between Newtonian and GR theories of gravitation you need to find a prediction on which they disagree or which only one is capable of making.Which part of this are you struggling to comprehend? Right. So not all unfalsified theories are equal are they? Right. So not all unfalsified theories are equal are they? How do you square this with you answers above?The obvious answer to the question is "The one that is able to make the most accurate predictions". As per the GR Vs Newtonian theories of gravitation example above.Which part of this are you struggling to comprehend? Such as? No. On the grounds that discovery is a natural long term consequence of the correct application of the scientific method.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.