Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Axioms Of Scientific Investigation
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1 of 22 (498032)
02-07-2009 12:55 PM


What are the unprovable assumptions that are required in order for scientific, empirical investigation to be considered both valid and worthwhile?
For example - I would suggest that the existence of an objective reality that is external and common to all is an unprovable but necessary assumption for scientific investigation to be considered valid and worthwhile.
That is to say that you are not a brain in a jar (or any other similar scenario) subjectively constructing all that you perceive. Instead we are each individual consciousnesses subjectively experiencing a common objective reality. This cannot be proven but must be assumed.
Science is the attempt to describe, model, understand and quantify this objective reality. If it does not actually exist then such pursuits are invalid and worthless.
So:
Axiom 1: An external objective reality common to all exists.
Is this an axiom of scientific investigation?
Does anybody have any suggestions as to what other "axioms of scientific investigation" there might be?
As an ultimate, and very likely overly-ambitious, aim I would like us to define the set of unprovable, and often unspoken, assumptions upon which scientific investigation is founded.
This is definitely one for those with an interest in the philosophy of science so, if promoted, the 'Is it Science?' forum would seem to be the obvious place for it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2009 2:23 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 5 by Grizz, posted 02-08-2009 9:29 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 10 by Stile, posted 02-11-2009 12:31 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 11 by Stagamancer, posted 02-11-2009 3:17 PM Straggler has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 22 (498034)
02-07-2009 1:50 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 3 of 22 (498041)
02-07-2009 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-07-2009 12:55 PM


From this source there are three axioms that must be accepted to pursue any 'truths'/knowledge.
quote:
  • The First Fact: The fact of our existence. "I exist."
  • The First Principle: The principle of contradiction. "A thing can not be and not-be at the same time in the same respect."
  • The First Condition: The essential capability of the mind to know truth. "My intellect can reason and discover truth."

The first Condition seems to cover your first axiom, but your axiom might be worth noting as well. After that - well, things can get a little more difficult to pin down since each science tends to go down its own branching paths of assumptions.
Further assumptions might be
If an idea has perfect correspondence with something in the external/objective reality world, then the idea is true for that reality.
A bit clumsy perhaps, but a short way of suggesting that if I have the idea that it is raining, and all the things that must be happening in the external world that corresponds to the idea that it is raining (eg there is x amount liquid water falling from nearby clouds) then the idea 'it is raining' is true.
Of course, we can't always know what all the things that must be happening out there are - and if we did we can't always check them, and if we could we couldn't do it with perfect precision or accuracy. But that's what leads us to fallibilism.
How's that, for a start?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 02-07-2009 12:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 02-07-2009 3:38 PM Modulous has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 4 of 22 (498048)
02-07-2009 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
02-07-2009 2:23 PM


Good Start. But........
How's that, for a start?
Yes exactly the sort of thing I had in mind.
The First Fact: The fact of our existence. "I exist."
The First Principle: The principle of contradiction. "A thing can not be and not-be at the same time in the same respect."
The First Condition: The essential capability of the mind to know truth. "My intellect can reason and discover truth."
I once had a one on one debate with Rob (he got permanently suspended during that discussion) where he essentially started from something akin to these statements and went on to deduce the need for supernatural intervention at every opportunity.
However the practical method he derived from this starting point (essentially that: evidence + deductive logic = reliable conclusions) failed spectacularly on numerous practical fronts.
Such a method was unable to solve a simple computer problem or mechanical car problem. The scientific method (essentially that: evidence + deductive logic = hypothesis) in comparison was demonstrably superior. By discarding false hypotheses and thus honing in on a reliable conclusion the scientific method, with it's built in reliability filter, could achieve that which logical contradiction and reason alone could not. Namely the rendering of conclusions as reliable in comparison to the reality that they purport to describe.
So what is my (admittedly rather convuluted) point?
That science is more than contradiction and reason as applied to evidence.
That tentativity, comparison to reality, reliability and the testing of conclusions/hypotheses are key components of what science is
I don't know how these concepts can be incorporated into any axioms of science that we might eventually decide upon but, it seems to me, that the foundational fact, principle and condition that you specify above are in themselves not wholly adequate in reflecting these criteria.
Or am I pushing the definition of axiom (as I have defined it to be) to breaking point in attempting to include such considerations?
What do you think?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2009 2:23 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 02-08-2009 10:33 AM Straggler has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 5 of 22 (498125)
02-08-2009 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-07-2009 12:55 PM


quote:
Axiom 1: An external objective reality common to all exists.
This is pretty much the definition of Realism. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the Idealism of Berkeley, and somewhere in-between the two is Instrumentalism.
Regarding the original question, does it matter which school of thought you subscribe to when it comes to assigning validity to the empirical investigations of science? Basically, no.
I think the biggest misunderstanding held by most laymen, and even many scientists, is that science is a school of thought or an attempt to establish absolute truths. Science is simply a method of inquiry into the world available to the senses. In this method, the observer is of prime importance and the scientific test for 'validity' is nothing more than direct or indirect observations. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, then by definition it's a duck, even if a theory states it should be a cow or a horse.
If I state I am holding in my hand something that is round and red and ask you to discover what it is, you will conduct an inquiry using a particular method. The object could be a ball, an apple, or I could be hallucinating or simply insane. What matters most is not the answer but the method used to go about answering the question and the criteria one chooses as a standard to verify the result.
In your effort to identify the object, you would likely ask many questions -- Is it organic? What's the weight? How big is it , etc...One thing you would most surely not ask is, "Is the object real or are you hallucinating?" To conduct the investigation, you don't need to know that, even if I was hallucinating. The assumption is the object is real and the goal is simply to use the method to achieve an end.
In the case of the scientific method, the only way one could verify and validate the conclusion would be a direct or indirect measurement or observation that would then be compared to measurements and observations already made in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 02-07-2009 12:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Straggler, posted 02-08-2009 3:14 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 6 of 22 (498130)
02-08-2009 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Straggler
02-07-2009 3:38 PM


Re: Good Start. But........
That tentativity, comparison to reality, reliability and the testing of conclusions/hypotheses are key components of what science is
I don't know how these concepts can be incorporated into any axioms of science that we might eventually decide upon but, it seems to me, that the foundational fact, principle and condition that you specify above are in themselves not wholly adequate in reflecting these criteria.
Or am I pushing the definition of axiom (as I have defined it to be) to breaking point in attempting to include such considerations?
You may be stretching 'axiom' to breaking point, but I think I see where you are going. Certain 'principles' of science are 'unproven' (and instead they rely on strong arguments in favour of). Obviously between Science! and what I've outlined there needs a lot of filling in, but I was trying to keep as close to axioms and avoid as much as possible straying into 'principles' as I could.
The philosophy side of 'knowing', or epistemology is simply about trying to figure out when something can be reasonably called 'knowledge'. Then there needs to be acceptance of certain real-world limitations, followed by figuring out what those limitations are, what compromises need to be made (such as the problem of induction) and finally some kind of methodology can be constructed.
The methodology (or rather, methodologies) we have ended up with is called 'science', and there is a lot of metaphysical/epistemological groundwork that goes behind it all - not all of it (any of it!?) 'provable'.
So yeah - science shouldn't be considered an epistemology per se, it is a practical pursuit rather than an idealised one. In an ideal world we'd look at the evidence and be able to deduce reliable conclusions from it, just as Rob implied. However - the real world is not ideal and so various compromises and gaffer tape patches are needed.
The philosophy of science is an interesting subject (even if certain science based posters around here would flat out deny that philosophy and science have anything to do with one another), let's hope someone that disagrees with us pops along and that might spur a bit of creative posting.
So science does lean on some other ideas possibly including
Pragmatism
Coherentism
Parsimony
Fallibilism
Correspondence
And so on and so forth. These kinds of things cannot be proven so are they the kinds of things you are looking for? My favourite is the argument against verificationism which says that since verificationism itself cannot be verified, verificationism by its own standards is incoherent or meaningless. Such wonderful circles one can run in.
Does that help at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 02-07-2009 3:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Straggler, posted 02-08-2009 4:56 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 7 of 22 (498144)
02-08-2009 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Grizz
02-08-2009 9:29 AM


Real or Imagined
In your effort to identify the object, you would likely ask many questions -- Is it organic? What's the weight? How big is it , etc...One thing you would most surely not ask is, "Is the object real or are you hallucinating?"
This is true. I would assume that the object in question does actually exist. Largely because I have a lifetime of experience that suggests the world is made up of objects that are indeed objectively real.
However if it turned out that you and only you could actually oberve this object I would be significantly less inclined to treat it as anything other than a figment of your imagination. No matter how accurately you could describe it's various properties based on your own observations.
In the case of the scientific method, the only way one could verify and validate the conclusion would be a direct or indirect measurement or observation that would then be compared to measurements and observations already made in the past.
Yes. And in particular those measurements and observations made independently by others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Grizz, posted 02-08-2009 9:29 AM Grizz has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 8 of 22 (498155)
02-08-2009 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
02-08-2009 10:33 AM


Re: Good Start. But........
Does that help at all?
Yes. I will look at the links you provided more thoroughly at a later point but my initial reaction is to think I am confusing my own definition of the term axiom.
I have stated that I mean it to be those unprovable assumptions upon which science is considered to be valid in my OP.
I think I have then unconsciously strayed into partially thinking of axioms as the base starting point from which the methods of scientific investigation can be derived in my second post.
To defend this confused thinking on my part I would add the following:
We both agree that Rob's definition of science was neither accurate nor workable in any practical sense.
If the axioms (as in the unprovable assumptions) that we identify for scientific investigation are equally as valid for a myriad of non-scientific forms of investigation then what is it we will have actually identified?
A set of unprovable assumptions upon which various (both scientific and non-scientific) forms of investigation rely?
If so, then although strictly speaking the aim of my OP would have been achieved, my intended aim would not. As what I am really interested in doing is defining a set of axioms that are unique to scientific investigation. If such a thing exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 02-08-2009 10:33 AM Modulous has not replied

  
lincdean 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5524 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 02-11-2009


Message 9 of 22 (498484)
02-11-2009 4:38 AM


Awesome! Article.
Thanks for that.
Edited by Admin, : Administrative action.

http://www.lincenergy.us

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 10 of 22 (498522)
02-11-2009 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-07-2009 12:55 PM


Axioms and derivations
Straggler writes:
Axiom 1: An external objective reality common to all exists.
I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm wondering if this "axiom" isn't actually necessary. That is, maybe there are deeper axioms from which this can be derived.
If we take Mod's axioms:
quote:
The First Fact: The fact of our existence. "I exist."
The First Principle: The principle of contradiction. "A thing can not be and not-be at the same time in the same respect."
The First Condition: The essential capability of the mind to know truth. "My intellect can reason and discover truth."
Are we necessarily worried about being "brains in jars" or not?
That is, even if we *are* brains in jars... we can still do "science" within our jar-existence, whatever that is, right? In which case, we don't really require an axiom to say we *are* in an external, objective reality.
We can talk to others, and get information that way, without agreeing to an external, objective reality axiom. We can see if others can reproduce our results as well. This can lead us to believe that we are in an external, objective reality in itself... no axiom required.
Although I certainly agree that we cannot ever "prove" such a thing.
But... maybe that's not something we want to "prove", I mean, what if our environment only appears external and objective in a local-sense? Wouldn't science be able to show that our environment is not external and objective, if it were so?
Maybe an axiom along the lines of "other people are seperate entities from myself" would be sufficient?
Or am I missing something?
What are the unprovable assumptions that are required in order for scientific, empirical investigation to be considered both valid and worthwhile?
On the "worthwhile" side of things, I would suggest some sort of common priority such as: "truth is important" and maybe "curiosity on it's own is a reason to discover"... or something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 02-07-2009 12:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2009 6:54 PM Stile has replied

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 11 of 22 (498535)
02-11-2009 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-07-2009 12:55 PM


What are the unprovable assumptions that are required in order for scientific, empirical investigation to be considered both valid and worthwhile?
I think another important, unprovable assumption that we must make for empirical investigation to be considered both valid and worthwhile is that the "laws" of our reality remain more or less similar and consistent through time. If we did not assume this, then we could make no justifiable predictions for the future based on the past, nor could we use past evidence to even explain the present. For example, our past studies of gravity tell us that the next time we drop a hammer it will fall, or that the Earth will make more or less the same path around the Sun every year, or even that the reason that I am currently sitting in my chair, not flying off the face of the planet, is because I'm stuck in a well of warped space and time. This assumption may not be UNIQUE to science, but I feel it is a integral part to the way science is conducted.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 02-07-2009 12:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Stile, posted 02-11-2009 3:51 PM Stagamancer has not replied
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2009 3:25 PM Stagamancer has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 12 of 22 (498537)
02-11-2009 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Stagamancer
02-11-2009 3:17 PM


Chicken or the egg
Stagamancer writes:
I think another important, unprovable assumption that we must make for empirical investigation to be considered both valid and worthwhile is that the "laws" of our reality remain more or less similar and consistent through time.
Again, I'm not sure if this is so much an "axiom" as it is something that is discovered in itself.
If the laws of our reality do not remain more or less consistent through time... isn't it the scientific method that is going to show us this inconsistency?
That is, if we assume they are consistent, and make predictions, and see those predictions verified... that then lends evidence towards our initial assumption. Or, on the otherhand, perhaps we will one day find those predictions falsified, in which case this would lend evidence to the laws not being static.
Such a thing sounds more like a discovery after using the scientific method rather then an axiom used in order to function scientifically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Stagamancer, posted 02-11-2009 3:17 PM Stagamancer has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 13 of 22 (498549)
02-11-2009 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Stile
02-11-2009 12:31 PM


Re: Axioms and derivations
Are we necessarily worried about being "brains in jars" or not?
That is, even if we *are* brains in jars... we can still do "science" within our jar-existence, whatever that is, right? In which case, we don't really require an axiom to say we *are* in an external, objective reality.
In short - No. I disagree.
If all I am doing is imagining myself discover "facts" about that which I have imagined such that my imaginary cohorts can be imagined to verify my imagined facts.....
Then what am I doing other than exercising my imagination? Nothing. There are no "facts". There is no verification. There are no independent consciousnesses with which to interract.
If there is no objective reality, assumed or otherwise, then I fail to see what the point of any investigation into what that perceived reality might be from any conceptual point of view.
From a practical point of view it could be argued that there was some merit in such an endevour I suppose.......
If one had to accept that one's reality was limited to ones imagination then testing the limits of that imagination might be worthwhile.
But even then the real knowledge would come from identifying that which limited the imagination. Is the brain in a jar receiving external stimulation? On what is the brain basing it's memories, it's knowledge etc. etc.
The truly scientific questions would relate to that beyond the imagined reality. All else would be "engineering".
Thus I stick with my original proposed axiom.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Stile, posted 02-11-2009 12:31 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Stile, posted 02-12-2009 7:43 AM Straggler has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 14 of 22 (498617)
02-12-2009 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Straggler
02-11-2009 6:54 PM


Re: Axioms and derivations
Straggler writes:
The truly scientific questions would relate to that beyond the imagined reality. All else would be "engineering".
Thus I stick with my original proposed axiom.
I suppose that what I'm trying to say is that one day science may very well be able to identify that we do not have an objective, external reality.
-Science may be able to verify that some results do necessarily depend upon how they are measured
-Science may be able to verify that the reality I measure does not equal the reality that you measure
...if science is able to verify/falsify such things, then it is not an "axiom" so much as it is a tentatively held conclusion.
If it were an axiom, then if it were ever "shown to be false", we would then be forced to keep the axiom. If, however, we are willing to get rid of the data if it were ever "shown to be false", then it is a tentatively held conclusion, and not an axiom.
Then again... maybe I'm thinking about the word "axiom" incorrectly. Because I could even say this about Mod's first axiom of "I exist."
That is, what if science one day shows that I, in fact, do not exist? Then it is was no longer an axiom?
I think I'm not really understanding what an "axiom" is as compared to a "tentatively held conclusion."
What's the difference between holding "we exist in an external, objective reality" or "I exist" tentatively, or holding "F=ma" tentatively?
I suppose there is evidence leading us to believe "F=ma" to be correct. There are also falsifiable tests that "F=ma" currently passes.
There does not seem to be any evidence one way or the other that "I exist" is correct. I can't think of any falsifiable way to test such a thing either.
But there is evidence leading us to believe "we exist in an external, objective reality." Namely... I can measure an object and get a result. And then you can measure the object and get the exact same result. Such a thing is a test for an "external, objective reality." Also, it can be falsified, that is, if I measure an object and get a result, and then you measure the same object but you get a different result... repeatedly... then we have falsified that we exist within an "external, objective reality."
There seems to be a testable, verifiable, falsifiable test for being in an "external, objective reality" where there is no testable, verifiable, falsifiable test for "I exist."
That seems to be a rather large difference. Are you sure we can call them both axioms?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2009 6:54 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 02-13-2009 4:12 PM Stile has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 15 of 22 (498757)
02-13-2009 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Stagamancer
02-11-2009 3:17 PM


Consistency of Physical Laws?
Given the various corroborating evidences that have all successfully independently made verifiable (and indeed verified) predictions based on the consistency of phtysical laws I would consider the consistency of phyical laws in time to be an evidenced conclusion of science rather than an assumption.
I agree that most scientists take this as read with little further consideartion in practical terms.
But I don't think that this is an unevidenced assumption in it's own right.
Others with a finer eye for detail in aspects of physical evidence (RAZD springs to mind) might be able to explain better then specific reasons for concluding that physical laws are indeed constant?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Stagamancer, posted 02-11-2009 3:17 PM Stagamancer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Son Goku, posted 02-14-2009 5:20 AM Straggler 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