Well Straggler, is see your still struggling.
Is that your idea of being specific?
Argument from incredulity. It is sufficient, if you know what the evidence was that was explained, and the conjectural results that were predicted by the theory ... and can tell the difference.
By your dictionary definitions the whole of Special Relativity was conjecture. Thus General Relativity itself was derived from "just conjecture". Gravitational lensing - conjecture. Time dilation - conjecture. Gravitational redshifting - conjecture. Mass energy equivalence - conjecture. I could go on. You have also already stated that by your definitions the prediction of antimatter and the CMBR were also both "conjecture".
Looks like you
can't tell the difference between hypothesis and the predictions based on it: it's relatively simple to spell out:
Relativity explained the existing evidence of gravity, defaulting to match Newton's formula in the conditions we see locally. It also explained the known anomaly of mercury's orbit, which Newton did not.
Gravity - Wikipedia
quote:
By the end of the 19th century, it was known that the orbit of Mercury showed slight perturbations that could not be accounted for entirely under Newton's theory, but all searches for another perturbing body (such as a planet orbiting the Sun even closer than Mercury) had been fruitless. The issue was resolved in 1915 by Albert Einstein's new General Theory of Relativity, which accounted for the small discrepancy in Mercury's orbit.
In addition, Einstein included a fudge factor to make the universe a constant size instead of expanding or contracting, as was what he thought to be the case at the time:
Fudge factor - Wikipedia
quote:
In theoretical physics, when Einstein originally tried to produce a general theory of relativity, he found that the theory seemed to predict the gravitational collapse of the universe: it seemed that the universe should either be expanding or collapsing, and in order to produce a model in which the universe was static and stable (which seemed to Einstein at the time to be the "proper" result), he introduced an expansionist variable (called the Cosmological Constant) whose sole purpose was to cancel out the cumulative effects of gravitation. He later called this, "the biggest blunder of my life."
Thus the theory explained the existing evidence as it was then known. The fudge factor was later deleted when further evidence showed that it was an error. This is the way science works, modifying or revamping theory when invalidated by new evidence, yes? The theory then still explains the existing evidence. Before a theory has been validated by passing some falsification tests it is considered a hypothesis, but that hypothesis must also necessarily explain existing evidence in order to grow into a theory when tested.
Gravitational lensing - conjecture. Time dilation - conjecture. Gravitational redshifting - conjecture.
Again, this is not the hypothesis, they are predictions based on the hypothesis that explains existing evidence, to see what new evidence would confirm or invalidate the hypothesis. This too is science: predictions are tested
because they are conjectures based on the hypothesis. When they are validated then they become additional existing evidence that supports the theory. This too is how science works.
It makes one wonder what the likes of Einstein, Feynman, Dirac, Hawking et al could have achieved if they had done some real science rather than all this mere conjecturing eh RAZ?
Argument from incredulity again. But they did. Unlike you, and your formula, they formed hypothesis based on existing evidence, then used that hypothesis to form conjectural predictions based on the hypothesis, and then proceeded to test those predictions. When reality did not match the predictions (see fudge factor above) the theory\hypothesis was modified to explain the new evidence in addition to the old evidence, and they began again, forming conjectural predictions based on the hypothesis and to test the predictions. This is how science works, not just by extrapolations.
Oh that is big of you. In truth I couldn't really give a rats arse as to what words are used. I find argument by dictionary tedious in the extreme. "Conjecture", "hypothesis". Whatever. As long as the differences in conceptual understanding are clear I don't care.
Then you should admit that in science, hypothesis explains existing evidence. Predictions are based on the hypothesis, and they are tested because they are conjectures -- inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence.
If you were really concerned with the meanings of the words then you would concede that your conjecture about alien life on other planets is conjectural extrapolation and not an hypothesis as used in science.
What I find wholly unjustified, incredibly arrogant and unbelievably dishonest here is your attempt to use paltry dictionary defintions to equate the term "conjecture" as applied to your hopelessly flawed ideas of subjective "evidence" (a form of "evidence" that you are completely unable to demonstrate to be superior to randomly guessing) with the "conjecture" that has resulted in some of the greatest discoveries and advancements in human knowledge.
More argument from incredulity, with a little hyperbole and some (more)
ad hominem thrown in for spice? Amusingly, your opinion has no impact on reality, it cannot make reality conform to your concept of the universe, and your opinion will not be the basis on which conjectures are validated or invalidated, no matter what their source is.
No RAZ Nessie is not an example of something that is "wholly subjectively evidenced". No it was not "intellectually incontinent". A bit "out there" in my opinion but not "pissing in the wind" as such. We have objective evidence that the sort of creature being proposed had existed at one point in time. It was not completely beyond the realms of evidenced possibility that such a creature might somehow still exist in a Loch in Scotland. Throw in some poor quality photos and a lot of wishful thinking and you end up with the Nessie phenomenon.
Curiously, the "objective evidence that the sort of creature being proposed" was imposed on this afterwards, as a hypothetical explanation of the evidence of a subjective experience, and this hypothesis is not the subjective experience. So I ask again:
Was the scientific search for Nessie "intellectually incontinent?" Or was this based on some "subjective experience of objective reality" eh? See if you can keep from confusing the evidence and the hypothesis formed to explain the evidence this time. Was the evidence a "subjective experience of objective reality" or was it a "wholly subjective experience"?
The next question for you, is whether science was done to investigate this phenomena:
- Was there evidence?
- Was a hypothesis formed to explain the evidence?
- Were predictions made based on the hypothesis?
- Were the predictions tested?
- Has the hypothesis been revised based on the result of tests?
If science was done, then you need to revisit your opinion on subjective evidence as a basis for doing science - if you are honest with yourself. If science was not done, then you need to explain what they
were doing and how it was not science.
It is a disgraceful example of conflation absurdium by dictionary definition. Absolutely outrageous!
More argument from incredulity. This is how denial works, Straggler: you just can't believe the truth of the argument, you can't argue against it, so you end up in a tirade about how impossible it is, and attack the messenger instead of the message. I've demonstrated that it is more than just a dictionary definition, it is the way these words are actually used in practice.
Do we truly have complete and conclusive evidence of any scientific theory or hypothesis? Is not all science tentative to some degree? Is not all science thus "conjecture" by the blanket definition you are applying here? Regardless, the question here is of scientific and evidential validity.
LOL. Let me return your "message" (slightly paraphrased):
quote:
What I find wholly unjustified, incredibly arrogant and unbelievably dishonest here is your attempt to use paltry dictionary defintions to equate the term "conjecture" as applied to your hopelessly flawed ideas of subjective "evidence" "formula" (a form of "evidence" "formula" that you are completely unable to demonstrate to be superior to randomly guessing science fiction) with the "conjecture" that has resulted in some of the greatest discoveries and advancements in human knowledge.
See how well your argument from incredulity works? Perhaps you'll see why I find your argument so ... unconvincing.
No, straggler, we don't have "complete and conclusive evidence of any scientific theory" - and that is why we have scientific tentativity. But once again you are confusing the
hypothesis, that explains existing evidence, with the
predictions, that are conjectures of possible new evidence,
based on the hypothesis. What we have are hypothesis that tentatively explain all the known evidence as best as we are able to determine, and then we have predictions of potential new evidence, conjectures that are not based on sufficient evidence to be considered a hypothesis. Such predictions are necessarily more removed from objective reality than the hypothesis, and this extra remove justifies calling them conjectures, and allow us to distinguish them from hypothesis - the tentative explanation of evidence.
Your extrapolation of the existence of alien life on other planets is such a conjecture of possibility for new evidence, but it is not an explanation of
existing evidence. The concept of ID still beats you out there: it explains existing evidence and it can be used to make predictions of potential new evidence, even predict life on other planets ....
Are the predictions of astrobiologists "conjecture" in the sense that they are derived from incomplete evidence? Certainly. As was every single one of the predictions made by scientists throughout history.
Yes, and those predictions are\were not the hypothesis, they were based on the hypothesis, and the hypothesis was based on existing evidence. When you talk about astrobiology you find it is a much more tentative science than earthbound biology, for it is abiogenesis on another planet, and we aren't even that sure about the mechanisms of abiogenesis yet.
Are the predictions of astrobiologists equivalent to randomly guessing on the basis of no objective evidence whatsoever? As is the case with various subjectively "evidenced" claims of the supernatural, alien visitation etc? No. Of course they are not.
Amusingly, you have once again based your argument on incredulity and hyperbole, finishing with an assertion that is just your opinion. Strangely, once again, your opinion is not the arbiter of reality.
I find your insistence on "randomly guessing" rather amusing, another indication of your denial of the process as I have really discussed it (rather than your subjectivized story version of it). It is always amusing when creationists call evolution random chance when in reality a small bit of natural selection over time adds up to significant selection and non-random results. Would you not agree that a selection mechanism can turn an otherwise random process into a non-random process?
Tell me, Straggler, was the investigation of Nessie equivalent to "randomly guessing" or did they select a "most likely" hypothesis based on the subjective evidence, and then test that hypothesis? Is it "randomly guessing" to look at a subjective experience, form a set of hypothesis selected to explain the evidence, and then use the best of those hypotheses to make predictions of things that would occur as new evidence if the hypothesis were true, and then test those predictions to see if the hypothesis is valid or invalid?
Do you really think that because you have managed to dictionary your way into using the same term for the legitimate workings of science that you use to describe your notions of subjective "evidence" that the two are somehow evidentially equivalent or equally valid?
And here we have yet another example of the argument from incredulity.
Actually, what I have used is
evidence, evidence from the dictionaries, from encyclopedia, from general descriptions of the scientific method to show that your equation does not meet the criteria of a
scientific hypothesis, and that it is a conjectural extrapolation not significantly different from science fiction.
All you have used is assertion, opinion, incredulity, hyperbole and
ad hominems.
So the predictions of astrobiologists regarding the possibility of simple life elsewhere in the universe are, according to you, unevidenced unscientific conjecture.
And again I ask, do you have evidence, objective evidence for you, of life on a single other planet? Or are you confusing prediction with evidence now?
Message 36Again I ask: does this make science fiction a branch of science now (perhaps one that should have a department devoted to it)?
No RAZ. That would be silly.
Be specific.
OK.
This shorthand description is simply stating that all untested scientific conclusions are derived from a combination of objective evidence and logic.
As are science fiction stories. So far you have demonstrated zero difference between using your formula to extrapolate the existence of alien life on other planets and science fiction. You have failed to demonstrate that this formula alone separates scientific methodology from fiction. If it is incapable of doing that alone, then logically it is incomplete or overly simplified - similar to saying that "evolution is change" - and as such, it is not useful.
Once again you are using "scientific" to modify the conclusion in order to ask if the result is scientific. What we see is, when we only look at red cars, that all well built cars are red. This isn't because being red results in being well-built but because you have begged the question by omitting well built blue cars.
This fails to demonstrate that your equation does not apply to science fiction while applying to your alien life conjecture, just that you have committed a special pleading ... because it would be "silly" for one but not for the other.
Message 1(objective evidence) + (logic) = (hypothesis)
If you only include hypothesis that are derived in science (your equivocation now to "untested scientific conclusions"), and then ask if your formula results in scientific hypothesis, then the answer will always be yes because you have already included ONLY scientific hypothesis in your set under evaluation. You've limited the selection to the desired result, curiously, like creationism using preconceptions to blind oneself to reality.
It also does not demonstrate that you cannot start with a subjective experience and do science, as in the subjective experience at Loch Ness that resulted in the hypothesis that there was a living plesiosaur in the lake, a hypothesis that made testable predictions, and resulted in experiments to test those predictions.
To invert this, as you are doing, by suggesting that all examples of combining objective evidence and logic are therefore untested scientific conclusions is to commit a logical fallacy of the following form:
I'll leave it to you (or someone else) to state which specific fallacy this is as I always get the terminology of such things woefully wrong.
Perhaps as wrong as your claim that it is an inversion.
Xongsmith on dreams as subjective evidence writes: writes:
he didnt say they were not. he merely said he didnt want to discuss them here:
(RAZD)
Actually no. This is a reference to a previous discussion. RAZD does indeed seem to think that he is the arbiter of what is and is not valid subjective evidence. And apparently dreams don't count for some unspecified reason.
Actually yes. This is yet another example of your misrepresentation of my argument. When I say:
Message 275quote:
All I argue is that (a) your experience is an indication of the possibility that a cat crossed the road and (b) that it is justification for you to believe you saw a cat cross the road.
If someone claims to have seen a cat, this is relatively mundane, and is supported by the evidence we have all seen that cats do exist, and so his claim has a high probability of being true ("true" in this sense meaning "the cat actually existed in objective reality, and did in fact run across the street").
As noted, the fact that people have had similar experiences increases their likelihood of accepting the experience of others.
Claiming that a deity exists, however, is ...
NOT part of this thread. I don't understand the inability to accept this restriction.
How many people have had dreams involving ...
Nor is it about dreams or fantasies.
All I said was that they were not part of the topic under discussion. I am NOT saying that dreams are not subjective.
If we had direct or historical evidence of such things we wouldn't need to predict them would we?
Which is why they are conjectures ... and why they can be false.
If we take the objectively evidenced explanatory theories that we have as to how life arose and evolved on this planet then use these to predict the possibility of life evolving in similar conditions elsewhere then we seem to have met all of RAZD's explanatory requirements to justify the term "hypothesis" and predictions derived from scientific theory.
Correct, but the prediction is not the hypothesis, the prediction is based on the hypothesis and not on the evidence.
But RAZD's denial of this is just a tedious exercise in semantics and phraseology as he attempts to self justify the "evidenced" nature of whatever it is he actually believes in supposedly on "faith".
It is all very contradictory.
Curiously, I am not the one who has confused hypothesis with prediction, nor conflated the general track record for science to apply to a cherry picked set of conjectures to imply that conjectures in general are scientific.
Not if the defence lawyer can show that the "witness" was not actually present at the scene of the crime. Nor if the defence lawyer can show that the "witness" was high on serious hallucinogens at the time of the crime. Not if the witness was blind and deaf. Nor if there is not actually a dead body or a murder weapon or various other elements of corroborating objective evidence.
None of which applied to the person with the subjective experience on the shores of Loch Ness, and all of which
together are in the minority in such cases -- weeded out by the prosecution before being used.
Courts are interested in objective reality. The fact that this objective reality is necessarily subjectively experienced and that testimony is thus objectively imperfect should not be conflated with flawed notions of "subjective evidence".
The subjective interpretation of objective reality is inevitable and just a fact of human reality. And is indeed used in court.
But you try telling a judge or a jury that you weren't actually physically able to witness the event but instead have had a wholly subjective "experience" as to how a crime has occurred and see how long it takes you to get thrown out for contempt of court.
And here we have it - as predicted - the "subjective experience of objective reality," somehow magically discerned by Straggler from "wholly subjective experience" -- when they are equally real to the person with the experience, and we are back to the question from the shores of Loch Ness:
Was that initial experience a "subjective experience of objective reality" or a "wholly subjective experience" .... and how do you know?
Big foot may exist somewhere in the Northern hemisphere. Since there is adequate terrain and food sources to sustain such a creature and since every conceivable place such a creature could exist has not been simultaneously searched.
That is an exceptionally poor evidential basis for a "hypothesis".
It seems logical to assume that a homonid bipedal type creature yet undiscovered could exist in the remote regions of un-explored forest.
It takes quite a leap of logic to draw that conclusion.
And yet just this kind of discovery happened recently - and not just one but two large mammals:
http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/species.html
quote:
Pseudoryx nghetinhensis
This is the first of the new mammal species discovered. First found in Vu Quang forest reserve, which is in Ha Tinh province of north central Vietnam.
Megamuntiacus vuquangensis
This robust muntjak deer was discovered in Vu Quang forest reserve, in Ha Tinh province.
Which just proves that your arguments from incredulity and your personal opinion on the value of evidence are no measure of reality.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : qs fix
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
™ Version 4.2
