Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 61 of 273 (77628)
01-10-2004 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-09-2004 2:08 PM


Re: Where have you looked?
quote:
First, can you state, out loud to yourself or to someone you care about, that you choose with whatever free will you have, to search for the truth by examining ideas with plausibilities ranging from above zero to below one?
I don't get this. Are you saying that anyone who does not have the time, inclination or means to examine EVERY possibility, regardless of history or degree of plausibility, is guilty of poor science? If so, it indicates that you enjoy numerous luxuries in your pursuit of truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-09-2004 2:08 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-11-2004 1:31 PM edge has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 62 of 273 (77665)
01-10-2004 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-09-2004 2:08 PM


quote:
First, can you state, out loud to yourself or to someone you care about, that you choose with whatever free will you have, to search for the truth by examining ideas with plausibilities ranging from above zero to below one?
Uh, yeah. I'm not going to go through a long list of all sorts of things I've tried, as if that proves anything... after all you can always claim I must not have done them right (or if they are not Xian that they never would).
My scepticism is always overcome by my curiosity, when it comes to trying new things out. However my intellectual honesty is never overcome by my gullibility.
Methodological Naturalism is the best way to ensure that results are uninfluenced by personal bias and that data is tightly correlated to what is under study.
Are you claiming this is not true?
quote:
Second, you state ... "I keep hearing grand claims regarding amounts of evidence, but have seen none yet."... Where have you looked?
Uhm, I was actually saying I saw none in your posts, despite your claims. But as I said above, I have my own experience that other methodologies don't work, and most supernatural theories that demand we depart from MN aren't real.
Ever watched Penn&Teller's show Bullshit! ? How about stuff by the Amazing Randi? Ever read the Skeptical Inquirer? How about the debunking work of Harry Houdini?
quote:
Free will trumps every other human concern. If that's your choice, and it will be unless you state otherwise, we're done here.
I don't know what this means. What does free will have to do with anything? I am completely agnostic on that subject.
I do get that--- for humans--- absolute truth will probably never be known. But that does not mean that a very good methodology for testing possible truths, so as to judge what is most useful and probable, cannot be developed.
You seem to be stating that we must accept every theory, and more problematic to me any methodology in order to make every theory yet more credible.
I have yet to see you explain why using the tightest methodology is something bad. It does not exclude any theory, only excluding experiments that involve biased judgement of data. You might complain that this hurts some theories, but if they are real it cannot possibly destroy them. The worst MN can do is stretch out the time to collect definitive data.
Why is this upsetting?

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-09-2004 2:08 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-11-2004 1:44 PM Silent H has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 273 (77767)
01-11-2004 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by edge
01-10-2004 4:51 PM


Re: Where have you looked?
Edge,
You say,
to examine EVERY possibility,
I didn't say EVERY, or even every. I could have said "any" though. The point is to commit to "anything is possible, nothing is certain." I pick ideas to think about scientifically based on trustworthy authority, and inspired art. Not to mention potential usefulness. Or just plain inspiration. My compulsive fascination with the Dickcissel was, in retrospect, based on the authority of God, some sort of weird gift. I have tried to choose and develope that sort of fanaticism on my own, unsuccessfully. But, when I spot it anyone, I tell them to get to work on it, no matter how impractical it seems. And I pray for it to happen again to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by edge, posted 01-10-2004 4:51 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by edge, posted 01-13-2004 12:48 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 273 (77770)
01-11-2004 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Silent H
01-10-2004 9:12 PM


Methodological naturalism
Holmes,
You ask,
Methodological Naturalism is the best way to ensure that results are uninfluenced by personal bias and that data is tightly correlated to what is under study.
Are you claiming this is not true?
Yes, it's not true. It's basically inductive, tied too tightly to existing paradigms and mind-sets about reality.
There is nothing wrong with the protocols you suggest, only something wrong with saying that because they exist, others that are weaker are wrong. The weaker methods take you places the strong ones cannot, just more slowly than if you were able to use the strong ones.
Ever watched Penn&Teller's show Bullshit! ? How about stuff by the Amazing Randi? Ever read the Skeptical Inquirer? How about the debunking work of Harry Houdini?
Some, enough to make me very determined to find the best method for getting to the truth. That's how I settled on H-D science, in spite of the fact that, though approved by the majority of philosophers of science, scientists in general do not like H-D scientists. Read the preface to my Populations in a Seasonal Environment, written when I was a rampant evolutionist. MacArthur told me that admitting that I was a H-D scientist was going to cost me many friends. He was right.
But, my science was successful.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 01-10-2004 9:12 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 01-11-2004 2:54 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 273 (77772)
01-11-2004 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by nator
01-10-2004 3:34 PM


Re: Bible Code Statistics
Schrafinator,
I've looked carefully at both. Have you? Why do you suppose the Biblecodedigest to be biased, and the other not? Why do you trust "sneer" review.
As I was trained, the "peer reviewed" article is a fraud, as was the editorial decision to publish it. Gans proves this at Witztum's site, with ample documentation.
Ever hear the expression, "That dog don't hunt."? Don't let it apply to you. Nothing wrong with barking, but you need to hunt, as well. And if bias is your concern, you do understand that humans are inevitably biased, you as well as everyone else. It's playing by the H-D scientific method that lets you get to the truth in spite of your biases. The Code critics don't play by the rules, so their bias is killing them and everyone who stumbles over their deception.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 01-10-2004 3:34 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by nator, posted 01-12-2004 7:20 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 66 of 273 (77789)
01-11-2004 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-11-2004 1:44 PM


quote:
Yes, it's not true. It's basically inductive, tied too tightly to existing paradigms and mind-sets about reality.
I'm sorry... what paradigms and mindsets about reality is MN tied to? The only thing I am aware it does is exclude methods that from experience have led to incorrect conclusions because of the acceptance of researcher bias, and loose data-subject correlation.
quote:
There is nothing wrong with the protocols you suggest, only something wrong with saying that because they exist, others that are weaker are wrong. The weaker methods take you places the strong ones cannot, just more slowly than if you were able to use the strong ones.
I didn't say the others were wrong. I only said that MN was the best, since it makes knowledge a harder club to get into.
If a theory is correct then MN cannot NOT take you there eventually, it will just be slower. The problem with the weaker methods is that you often end up in wrong places much faster, and unable to discern which is the way back to the right place.
It's all about not being taken for a chump. I'd rather use MN and have to hold off on statements of knowledge, than pretend the palmreader knows all until it can be proven wrong.
quote:
That's how I settled on H-D science, in spite of the fact that, though approved by the majority of philosophers of science, scientists in general do not like H-D scientists.
I think this is a bogus claim. Give me the stats that the majority of philosophers of science have rejected MN and turned over to this H-D thing. Or do I have to take this on faith as well?
By the way, scientists are practicing philosophers of science.
quote:
But, my science was successful.
And so is mine. And so is mine. Oh yeah, and mine too. Boy this sure is easy. Reduce all criticism to not understanding true science, and you get to keep the claim that your science is successful.
I am wondering how anyone's science ever ends up unsuccessful.

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-11-2004 1:44 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-12-2004 2:14 PM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 67 of 273 (77935)
01-12-2004 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-11-2004 1:53 PM


Re: Bible Code Statistics
So, basically you are saying that the descision of the professional Journal "Statistical Science" to publish the bible code paper was correct, but the descision to publish the contradictory article was a complete mistake?
Are you saying that peer review is an unreliable method for evaluating scientific findings, or do you consider it unreliable only when it disagrees with your preferred worldview?
I suppose biblecodedigest to be biased because biblecode digest is an entire site dedicated to the uncritical promotion of the idea that the biblecodes are real. It is a cheerleder, "true-believer" site, never mentioning any problems or limitations, other than saying that every single critic is wrong.
They say "our own researchers have uncovered this or that", but have these fidings been evaluated by others? That's what peer-review is for; to help you not fool yourself.
The thing is, the researchers writing a real scientific paper typically bend over backwards to show the ways in which the findings might be wrong, or other ways the findings could be explained, and then go on to make their case for what they think the findings mean, as supported by evidence from theor own, and others', research.
I don't see that happening at biblecodedigest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-11-2004 1:53 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-12-2004 2:11 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 68 of 273 (77938)
01-12-2004 7:39 AM


According to what I know, the only assumption of methodological naturalism is that naturalistic explanations can be found for natural events.
To emphasize, it is a methodological assumption; that is, in science, we act as if it is true without asserting that it is definitely true.

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 273 (78039)
01-12-2004 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by nator
01-12-2004 7:20 AM


Re: Bible Code Statistics
Schrafinator,
You say,
So, basically you are saying that the descision of the professional Journal "Statistical Science" to publish the bible code paper was correct, but the descision to publish the contradictory article was a complete mistake?
The original paper was published after eight years of review, in which every one who would or could review it was invited in. The critique was published without asking the most obvious reviewers in to review it. Yes, it was a mistake.
Are you saying that peer review is an unreliable method for evaluating scientific findings, or do you consider it unreliable only when it disagrees with your preferred worldview?
I realize that this is a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question, but studies of peer review (Read "Getting into print" in Beth Savan's Science Under Seige, for examples) find it fraught with many difficulties and generally counter-productive for controversial new ideas. The point is, referees do "beat their wives" and reject papers they disagree with, because they disagree with the worldview or paradigm. If reviewers were sent a check-list of methodological flaws, or stuck to deductive problems (provable mathmatically), there wouldn't be so much a problem. As a H-D scientist, I know the rules, and judge accordingly. No matter how I feel about the study.
Your sense about BibleCodedigest describes pretty much what I sense about the skeptics sites. But I look at them anyway, to judge for myself. I know how to pick through bias, to separate the precious from the vile. The facts that either present are informative; I don't think either one is intentionally lying. Just being diligent to get facts for me that I might find useful, so that I can make up my own mind. But just listening to one side of a debate, because the other side has a point of view? Sounds pretty opinionated to me.
But, my only purpose here is to be sure that you have access to whatever understanding you want to seek out, and to sources of information that you might not encounter otherwise. What you choose to do is on you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by nator, posted 01-12-2004 7:20 AM nator has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 273 (78040)
01-12-2004 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Silent H
01-11-2004 2:54 PM


Methodological naturalism and electrons
Holmes,
Just to be clear, how does MN deal with electrons?
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 01-11-2004 2:54 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 01-12-2004 3:15 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 71 of 273 (78056)
01-12-2004 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-12-2004 2:14 PM


quote:
Just to be clear, how does MN deal with electrons?
If you are unable to answer this question yourself, then I have some serious reservations regarding your claims about science and philosophy of science.
But maybe I am misunderstanding your point. The way it looks to me is that you are trying to suggest that MN has some sort of dual standard by allowing for the existence of electrons (which cannot be directly seen) and yet not allowing for supernatural entities (which are also unseen). Such confusion can only occur if you are ignorant of what MN is, and what electrons are conceived of as by scientists.
What you should know is that electrons are not fully described entities, yet are part of science based on their measurable effects. There is something we call charge, associated with electromagnetic phenomenon (a particular force acting over distance). There is an entity which exhibits a charge (arbitrarily labelled negative), and also a particularly small mass. These entities can be measured to move between molecules and across various media (leading to a concept called current). The fact that such an entity has measurable effects requires them to be considered in molecular models (among other things). We call those entities electrons.
Now what does this have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that I am being gullible for believing in electrons?

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-12-2004 2:14 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-13-2004 12:12 AM Silent H has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 273 (78137)
01-13-2004 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Silent H
01-12-2004 3:15 PM


Gullibility is good
Holmes,
You are way too afraid of gullibility, my friend! Love believes all things, for the sake of testing anyway. Give any idea a break; the science will sort it all out.
Now, I'm not sure how many of my posts on observable scientific and personal consequences of the Orthodox Theology hypothesis you have read, but even Gould thought (Rocks of Ages) that the scriptural story of Thomas (didn't want to be gullible), being allowed to experiment with the risen Yeshua, was pertinent. Then there is Malachi 3:10. "Prove me now in this." says the Lord. I was really hoping to get out of this theological "nonsense" (to me at the time--I was hoping to show up some Jesus-freak types who were harassing my evolution class) by doing the tithing experiment. That was 30 years ago. I did the experiment, and it worked. For the first time in my life, I had more dollars than I knew what to do with, and also enough of most everything else. To stop tithing and go back to the incessant hassle of enough money, and "the devourer" eating up my productivity, would just be crazy, to me. It was many months before I became convinced that it was Jehovah, not "the force" that was working, making this happen. But, I'm too cheap to stop tithing. It works to well.
Anyway, the supernatural beings do manifest themselves, just as electrons. But, they are persons, not things, so the science is more psychology than physics. Not a big deal to H-D science. Does it matter so much to MN?
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 01-12-2004 3:15 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 01-13-2004 12:53 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 73 of 273 (78139)
01-13-2004 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-11-2004 1:31 PM


Re: Where have you looked?
quote:
I didn't say EVERY, or even every. I could have said "any" though. The point is to commit to "anything is possible, nothing is certain."
Nonsense. If one lives in an ivory tower, I suppose this is a valid philosophy, but most of us have to be a bit more practical. I have to make concrete decisions in my profession. I'd be eaten alive by my competitors, my contractors and my clients with your approach... This is getting sillier by the post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-11-2004 1:31 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 74 of 273 (78142)
01-13-2004 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-13-2004 12:12 AM


I already said I try all sorts of different things out, just to see if they work. Other than the appearance of something working with tarot, nothing "supernatural" ever has worked. So even with an open experimental practice, I have had no success.
The gullibility part comes in when one is going to add an experience to the body of knowledge. You can easily say something works, but one must have a pretty good description/understanding of how and why before it becomes knowledge of a phenomenon.
MN is the best method for weeding out spurious explanations for things that "work".
quote:
Anyway, the supernatural beings do manifest themselves, just as electrons. But, they are persons, not things, so the science is more psychology than physics. Not a big deal to H-D science. Does it matter so much to MN?
My interest is about gone, if you think this is some kind of convincing argument.
Without assuming something is real in an apriori sense, please explain how one MUST ascribe to a supernatural agent any natural phenomena you have discussed so far.
The difference between supernatural agents and electrons is that electrons BECAME NECESSARY as an explanatory mechanism, and thus we MUST talk about them. Supernatural agents are both unnecessary, and would not have entered the picture at all except for the demands of the faithful.
No one said "I am a scientist who does not believe in the supernatural, so there must be some thing called an electron somewhere. Let me try and find experiments to prove the existence of such things."
However, this is exactly what you are doing with H-D, and so are not being scientific. By which I mean you are making yourself liable to creating really bad theories, supported more by presumption than assessment. While I am willing to give you that people can use this H-D idea to try things out, perhaps for later/better research, it is not useful as a tool of science for determining best models/paradigms.
And unfortunately passing your criteria off as practicing good science, does allow for charlatans to hoodwink others. You have yet to give one reason why using the most stringent method is NOT the best method for creating the human knowledge base.
As it happens, MN would allow for supernatural agents as soon as... like electrons... the become necessary for explaining a particular phenomena. That would include psychological phenomena as well.

holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-13-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-13-2004 12:12 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-13-2004 1:47 AM Silent H has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 273 (78148)
01-13-2004 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Silent H
01-13-2004 12:53 AM


What the supernatural is best at explaining
Holmes,
How do you explain widespread religious belief?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 01-13-2004 12:53 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 01-13-2004 1:39 PM Stephen ben Yeshua 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