Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Testing Theories of Origins
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(6)
Message 17 of 143 (694386)
03-24-2013 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 10:37 AM


How important are the tests of censorship, stultification, integration, research passion, and destiny implications to you?
Well, I regard them as dishonest vacuous self-serving rhetoric.
One mark of their vacuity is this: Ross is an Old-Earther, isn't he? Well, is there anything in there an equally dishonest or deluded Young-Earther couldn't have said?
I view the tests of explanatory power and predictive success as adequate tests.
A few caveats are needed. Many people fail to understand the scientific method, and as Ross is a creationist, it's likely that he too has failed to do so.
(1) Predictive power. This is only a test of a theory if the predictive power emerges from the theory instead of being built into it.
Let me give you an example. Suppose I come to you saying: "The theory of gravity is a crock, the planets are being pushed around by angels."
You point out, as you would, that this has no predictive power, unlike the theory of gravity.
I think about this for a while and then come back saying: "The theory of gravity is a crock, the planets are being pushed around by angels. God has ordered the angels to push the planets in ellipses having one focus at the Sun. Better now?"
I've added predictive power, but you're not impressed, because the predictive power is based on finding out what happens and then "predicting" that just by taking it as a premise of the theory. Another way to look at this is that the angels, and God, could be removed from my theory by Occam's razor, leaving me with: "The planets move in ellipses having one focus at the Sun".
Now a creationist can perform a similar maneuver. For example, if we postulate a creator who desires the existence of spotted mammals with very long necks, then we can "predict" the giraffe, and yet this is not very impressive.
So we need to see where Ross's "predictive power" actually comes from. Can he derive his predictions from the existence, in the beginning, of an omnipotent being and a whole lot of nothing, or does he have to add premises based on what is known a posteriori to be true?
(2) Explanatory power. Well, explanatory power as such can never be taken as evidence for a theory. In those cases where it apparently can, the explanatory power can be converted into predictive power. Let me explain what I mean.
Again, consider the "angels are pushing things" theory. It has all the explanatory power you could ask for. It explains anything you like. "How do you explain that?" you ask me. "Angels did it!" I reply.
Now, the theory of gravity also explains the motion of planets. So far, they appear equal.
However, the theory of gravity is better than the theory of angels in that though it can explain the observations, their are potential observations which it couldn't explain. It couldn't explain if the planets orbited the sun in triangles or octagons or a host of other shapes. So instead of saying: "The theory of gravity is good because it can explain why the planets move in ellipses", we should note that every theory predicts that the observations should be a subset of the things that it can explain, and we should say: "The theory of gravity is good because it can predict that the planets will move in ellipses". The statement about explanatory power can be converted into a statement about predictive power.
Now we can't do this with the notion that angels are pushing things, because there is nothing about angels that dictates how they should push things; they might push planets around in octagons if such was the divine will.
And similar remarks apply to creationism. Of course "Goddidit" can be used to explain anything you like. Can its explanatory power be converted into predictive power? That seems more difficult. Since God is by hypothesis omnipotent, there is nothing we can say he couldn't have done, so that offers us no way to get any predictive power out of creationism.
But also, "his ways are not our ways", as the Bible says, so it's hard to say what he wouldn't have done. Can anyone honestly say something like (for example): "If an omnipotent being created a universe, he definitely wouldn't have made any griffins, so the creation hypothesis predicts an absence of griffins"? On the contrary, it is certain that if there were griffins, the creationists would all be claiming that they were produced by the will of God --- and why not? Creationism could explain griffins. Or their absence. It has too much "explanatory power": it can explain anything you choose. And this means that the explanatory power cannot be converted into the predictive power which is the real hallmark of a good theory.
---
This, of course, is why evolution is superior to creationism. It can't explain anything imaginable, but it can explain the things lying within the scope of the theory which are actually true.
We may note that any successful creationist theory, in order to displace evolution, will have to explain why this should be so. (Just as Einstein needed to explain why Newton was so successful, and Galileo needed to explain why the Earth appeared to stand still.)
---
The most common problem with creationism, of course, is that creationists have no idea what the evidence is: they blithely provide predictions and explanations of "facts" which are not actually true; they are blissfully unaware of real facts which contradict their systems; and they ignore large classes of evidence which support evolution, because they're not sufficiently interested in biology to have heard of them. Obviously it is no test of the predictive power of a hypothesis to see if it can predict things that creationists have made up; nor indeed would it be a fair comparative test of evolution to see if it can predict and explain the extremely limited set of facts (or made-up "facts") which creationists have heard of.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 10:37 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by JonF, posted 03-24-2013 2:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 25 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 19 of 143 (694393)
03-24-2013 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by JonF
03-24-2013 2:23 PM


Ross is a fully qualified and expert astrophysicist. I think we can take it as given that he understands the scientific method.
Not necessarily. He could just understand astrophysics. It is perfectly possible for someone to get good at one science without deriving from that one science the very abstract epistemological concepts which underlie the scientific method.
(After all, every adult has derived truths from observation, albeit usually not while wearing a white coat, and yet the scientific method needs to be explained to them.)
That doesn't mean that he applies that understanding to his religious views.
Well, quite. I'd be astonished if he did. Though not so astonished as he would be if he did.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by JonF, posted 03-24-2013 2:23 PM JonF has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 22 of 143 (694398)
03-24-2013 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 3:00 PM


Re: Censorship? What censorship?
There is a strong effort to keep any criticism of evolution out of the scientific journals.
Rubbish.
You probably realize these tests, for the most part, have been used against creationism in the past.
WTF?
What about the five minor tests discussed? You probably realize these tests, for the most part, have been used against creationism in the past. If they are valid tests, then they are valid for every scientific model, correct?
Yes. For example if the "censorship test" works, then flat-Earthism, homeopathy, geocentrism, young-Earthism, 9-11 Truthism, and indeed every stupid idea anyone's ever had would be validated by the same test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:00 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 143 (694404)
03-24-2013 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 3:06 PM


Re: On Testing Scientific Models
I don't think anyone will attempt to criticize the two major tests ...
I thought I had, especially when I explained how "explanatory power" as such is worthless as a test of a hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:06 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 29 of 143 (694406)
03-24-2013 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 3:20 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Explanatory power is the ability of a model or theory to explain data we already have. For example, we need a theory that explains why life popped up on planet earth almost immediately after it cooled. We need a theory that will explain the Cambrian explosion, the cessation of new life forms after mankind came on the scene and the role of extinctions (why there are fewer species alive on the planet now than earlier).
Predictive success is the ability to predict new discoveries and observations. It is purely about data we do not yet have but based on the model we would expect to find in the future. If it does not happen in the future, it is not a prediction.
Does that help?
Well, that's not what "prediction" means in the context of the scientific method. The predictions of a theory are the logical consequences of it being true, whether or not they are already known. For example, it is perfectly in order to say that Newton predicted that planets should move in elliptical orbits, even though this had already been discovered by Brahe. Why? Because Newton was able to logically derive the elliptical orbits from the inverse square law and the laws of motion.
"Prediction" is perhaps a misleading word, but it's the one we've got. And this is the concept we need, because we're trying to explain the epistemological relationship between a hypothesis and the data, and from that point of view it doesn't matter a damn whether the hypothesis was invented before or after the observation of the data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:20 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 30 of 143 (694407)
03-24-2013 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 10:37 AM


Research Passion
A large percentage, perhaps a majority, of America’s science and engineering graduate students now come from other countries. South Korea, with only one-sixth the U.S. population, graduates almost as many engineers. In a 2003 address to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Richard Smalley, Nobel laureate in chemistry (1996), forecast that by 2010, if current trends continue, over 90 percent of all physical scientists and engineers in the world will be Asians working in Asia.
Could it be that, to some degree, the American science education crisis stems from the quelling of controversy? Has dismissive attitude toward any alternative to strict naturalism made science education boring? Is fear of the religious or philosophical implications of amazing new scientific discoveries prompting American science educators to squash discussion of the important and intriguing why questions? Do science educators avoid the very issues with the most potential to engage their students?
It the RTB model widely taught in Korea? No? You astonish me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 10:37 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 31 of 143 (694409)
03-24-2013 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 3:20 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Explanatory power is the ability of a model or theory to explain data we already have. For example, we need a theory that explains why life popped up on planet earth almost immediately after it cooled.
Well, this is the sort of thing I was warning against. "Goddidit" is not actually superior even to "I don't know", because although it gratifies the desire to have an explanation, there's no predictive power there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 3:20 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 4:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 143 (694448)
03-24-2013 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 4:15 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Explanatory power - means the ability to explain data we have.
Predictive success - means the ability to make predictions about what we are going to learn in the near future.
No. No, that's not what it means. Not in the context of a discussion of the scientific method. Nor would that be a particularly useful concept.
Ross claims the RTB Creation Model has had more predictive success ...
Well that can't be true in your sense of "predictive success", since the near future hasn't arrived yet. You can't have had "predictive success" in your sense, you can only believe without evidence that you're going to. That wouldn't be a test at all.
1.Are there any other major tests you think are as valuable as explanatory power and predictive success?
As I have pointed out, in the proper sense of the term (i.e. not yours) only predictive power counts.
2. Are there any minor tests you think add value as confirmatory tests of a model?
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 4:15 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 10:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 68 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 8:24 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 58 of 143 (694458)
03-25-2013 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by NoNukes
03-24-2013 10:07 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Hugh simply proposes that the predictions will be confirmed in the future.
But if he "proposes that these predictions will be confirmed in the future", then that can't be used as a test of the theory, since the future hasn't arrived yet and we don't know if they will in fact be confirmed.
To test a theory we compare its predictions (in the sense of "logical consequences") with the data available to us now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2013 10:07 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2013 1:35 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 03-25-2013 8:14 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 143 (694459)
03-25-2013 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 8:08 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Science is supposed to be self-correcting but it cannot be if one viewpoint is precluded from participating.
Yes, how can science be self-correcting if they won't publish my paper on how magical winged pigs are stealing my thoughts?
Oh, wait.
Actually, that is science self-correcting at a very early stage. Instead of someone having to correct my stupid idea after I've published it in Nature, the correctness of the scientific enterprise is corrected by not publishing it at all, limiting the incorrectness to the crazy thoughts in my head.
The editors of a journal have not only a right, but a duty to their readers, to be selective about what they publish. There's already a place where people can publish anything they like. It's called "the internet". The whole purpose of a journal is that it's selective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 8:08 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 73 of 143 (694499)
03-25-2013 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 8:24 AM


Re: The Major Tests
Yes, Ross claims it is true. Ross claims to have made predictions in the past which have come true.
Then he's comparing the predictions to data now in his possession.
So it is nearly time to check the scorecard.
One question one would have to ask is: did creationism make those predictions, or did Hugh Ross? Were they easy to make without reference to creationist ideas?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 8:24 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 74 of 143 (694501)
03-25-2013 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 8:20 AM


Re: Censorship? What Censorship?
Science debates are typically conducted in the science literature. Someone writes a paper and another writes a response. The original author writes a reply and the critic writes a rejoinder. But this type of debate within the scientific literature is not happening because the Darwinian priests are afraid of a public scientific debate.
Or because the creationists can't come up with any argument which isn't too puerile to publish. And given the stuff that creationists come up with in venues where they can publish what they like (e.g. the Internet) this is certainly the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 8:20 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 143 (694503)
03-25-2013 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by AdminNosy
03-25-2013 8:44 AM


Re: Clarification
However, others point out that this isn't the scientific concept of "predictive power". It is instead that the theory produces logical consequences which actually describe what is seen. General relativity is also an example of this as the orbital behavior of Mercury is a consequence of the theory.
No, gravitational lensing. The precession of Mercury had already been observed.
One could then discuss whether a "prediction" in the second sense counts as a "prediction". I think some argue that it is in the context of a scientific theory.
I agree that "prediction" was a poor choice of words, but it's the choice of word that's been made, that is the term of art and what it means.
Which ever side one comes down on I think we can agree that emotionally it is somehow more impressive if the logical consequence is derived before the observation.
That depends on one's emotions and what one finds impressive, neither of which are relevant to the goodness of a theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by AdminNosy, posted 03-25-2013 8:44 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 143 (694504)
03-25-2013 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 8:12 AM


Re: Censorship? What Censorship?
Ross argues that Christianity developed the scientific method. This is actually an interesting topic that deserves its own debate. Briefly, (and from memory) it is because of certain statements in the Bible show God put order in the universe that caused men to seek to understand that order.
Whereas the ancient Greeks just lounged about eating olives. That's why the Renaissance was such a great leap backwards in western thought.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 8:12 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 78 of 143 (694506)
03-25-2013 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
03-25-2013 3:29 AM


Re: Parsimony
Essentially, parsimony is the idea that we should make as few assumptions as we can get away with. This can be a subtle point and counting assumptions is not always simple.
Parsimony is a useful concept, but one has to be careful applying it. The question one needs to ask is whether the same predictions can be made by a proper subset of the things one thinks is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 03-25-2013 3:29 AM PaulK has 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