Debate:Falsifiability
(→Jorge) |
(→Another edit boobie) |
||
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
:::::::You do realize that ''ad hominem'' means to attack without the substance of an argument. That I provided substance to why Popper-philosophy is not the end-all declaration of what science needs to do to be right, in that his arguments are not wholly accepted, is far from an ''ad hominem''. That I point out your lack of scientific background to showcase that your opinion of what science must do to be right is also not an ''ad hominem''. If you have a science background, provide your credentials; if not, admit it's simply your uneducated opinion. --[[User:Irrationalatheist|Irrational Atheist]] 19:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | :::::::You do realize that ''ad hominem'' means to attack without the substance of an argument. That I provided substance to why Popper-philosophy is not the end-all declaration of what science needs to do to be right, in that his arguments are not wholly accepted, is far from an ''ad hominem''. That I point out your lack of scientific background to showcase that your opinion of what science must do to be right is also not an ''ad hominem''. If you have a science background, provide your credentials; if not, admit it's simply your uneducated opinion. --[[User:Irrationalatheist|Irrational Atheist]] 19:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::::::The "accepted" or "non-accepted" nature of a philosophy is purely ad hominem, because it relies on the people accepting the philosophy, rather than the merits of the philosophy itself. It's really sad to see, over and over, how many people have stopped thinking for themselves and instead punt to "well everybody believes it!" What an unscientific attitude. Science questions, challenges, and demands. It is never satisfied with "well everybody says so!" That's what makes it such a powerful tool. I can't fathom why those who claim to advocate science are running around taking a poll on what everybody thinks. Sad. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 05:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ::::::::The "accepted" or "non-accepted" nature of a philosophy is purely ad hominem, because it relies on the people accepting the philosophy, rather than the merits of the philosophy itself. It's really sad to see, over and over, how many people have stopped thinking for themselves and instead punt to "well everybody believes it!" What an unscientific attitude. Science questions, challenges, and demands. It is never satisfied with "well everybody says so!" That's what makes it such a powerful tool. I can't fathom why those who claim to advocate science are running around taking a poll on what everybody thinks. Sad. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 05:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::::::::How do you argue that? The accepted or non-accepted nature of a philosophy depends on whether it is accepted. Its merits are a major aspect of whether it is accepted. If it is without or lacking merit, why should people accept it? You don't seem to tie together your arguments too well here. | ||
| + | :::::::::Science isn't about beliefs. The scientific attitude is asking questions and seeking answers. But not creationist questions that are setup to be gotcha questions (how very grade school of them, no?), but serious inquiries into the workings of the world. No creationist wants to seek the answers, but just assume the answers from the Bible, etc. I also find your projection of people who have stopped thinking for themselves onto those of us living in reality, when ASK, like CP, is full of people who can't tolerate critical thinking. --[[User:Irrationalatheist|Irrational Atheist]] 21:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::::My point still stands. You have shown yourself to be a science hater, because our scientific understanding of the world begins to unravel the infallibility of the Bible. No great flood was possible. The world wasn't made in six days. The earth cannot stand still. It is impossible to turn water into wine by willing it. Need I go on? --[[User:Irrationalatheist|Irrational Atheist]] 17:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | :::::My point still stands. You have shown yourself to be a science hater, because our scientific understanding of the world begins to unravel the infallibility of the Bible. No great flood was possible. The world wasn't made in six days. The earth cannot stand still. It is impossible to turn water into wine by willing it. Need I go on? --[[User:Irrationalatheist|Irrational Atheist]] 17:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::::Perhaps a little philosophy would help you here. In order to support a statement that I've "shown myself to be a science hater," you need to present evidence that supports your conclusion. I haven't said anything about any of those topics. What you're doing is called "irrelevant rambling." That's why you need philosophy. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 18:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | ::::::Perhaps a little philosophy would help you here. In order to support a statement that I've "shown myself to be a science hater," you need to present evidence that supports your conclusion. I haven't said anything about any of those topics. What you're doing is called "irrelevant rambling." That's why you need philosophy. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 18:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 139: | Line 141: | ||
:::::::Do I win? [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace McWicked]][[User_Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK ad infinitum</sup>]] 05:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | :::::::Do I win? [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace McWicked]][[User_Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK ad infinitum</sup>]] 05:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::::::Depends what game you're playing. If you're playing the "make myself laugh" game, I'm guessing you won. If you're playing the "actually address the issue" game, not so much. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 05:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ::::::::Depends what game you're playing. If you're playing the "make myself laugh" game, I'm guessing you won. If you're playing the "actually address the issue" game, not so much. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 05:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::::::I gave you the definition of science. You agreed with it. What's non-science? That which isn't science. | ||
| + | :::::::But what you have so much trouble with is the English language. You keep saying you want definitions, and when you get them, argue that they don't explain how science works. That's not what a definition is. That's what an explanation does. That's what a discussion uncovers. | ||
| + | :::::::When you keep looking for definitions and find a lack of explanations, that would be your own fault for not saying what you mean. --[[User:Irrationalatheist|Irrational Atheist]] 21:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
==Is it just me?== | ==Is it just me?== | ||
Revision as of 21:05, 5 May 2009
Contents |
Ungtss
Moved from RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?
Science hater Ungtss declares materialists use science to prove the non-existence of god. The usual "science can't explain free will" and other creationist arguments pop up. And that science can't test history! Glad to know creationists are redefining science in order to point out its shortcomings to other creationists.
- I guess if you think falsificationism is a "creationist redefinition of science," you haven't troubled yourself to read Popper. Try it, you'll like it. Ungtss 16:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- What has your quote got to do with falsification? --Kels 16:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- The article I wrote defined science as experimentally falsifiable. The RW response quoted above accused me of "redefining science." Ungtss 16:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- And the relevance to the quote you placed above is...? --Kels 17:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- The last sentence of the quote is "Glad to know creationists are redefining science ..." I then responded to that quote by saying, in essence, "I don't see how falsificationism is a redefinition of science." Ungtss 17:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Falsificationism isn't, as far as I know. It's the rest of it that seems to be the problem. --Kels 18:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- The last sentence of the quote is "Glad to know creationists are redefining science ..." I then responded to that quote by saying, in essence, "I don't see how falsificationism is a redefinition of science." Ungtss 17:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- And the relevance to the quote you placed above is...? --Kels 17:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- The article I wrote defined science as experimentally falsifiable. The RW response quoted above accused me of "redefining science." Ungtss 16:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- What has your quote got to do with falsification? --Kels 16:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are a number of materialists that argue that science falsifies (or at least makes highly unreasonable) the existence of God. I'd support that assertion with [this] link. The second sentence provides no rebuttal, so I don't know what to say. As to whether science can or cannot test history, what repeatable experiments can be performed to falsify our historical understanding of the Trojan war? Ungtss 18:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- You really don't get what "science" is, do you? History is scientific so far as it is empirical, ie. tests hypotheses against extant evidence. Falsification occurs when new-found data contradicts the hypothesis. It is no more or less repeatable than astronomy.

18:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a little curious how Ungtss thinks we verify dates, check veracity of documents, learn how undocumented artifacts were constructed, and preserve all of those things without science. I also don't buy that a few individuals say much about a large movement existing to falsify God, nor that it has much to say about the foundations of science or its modern mainstream. --Kels 18:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Now who's redefining science? Falsificationism requires a repeatable experiment that could disprove a hypothesis. e.g., throw something up in the air and see if it doesn't come down. History doesn't work that way. That's why we have disputes in history -- because our understanding of it cannot be experimentally tested. Was Stonehenge an astronomical calendar or a temple? Who wrote the Gospels? Did the Vikings find the continent of North America? We can't use science for that. For history, we are dependent on error-prone historical accounts and error-prone interpretation of the evidence. Science is not dependent on those, because an experiment can be repeated.
- It's naive to say that all empirical methods of study are "scientific." Science is falsifiable. Not all empirical methods of study are falsifiable, although they may well lead to reliable conclusions.
- But if you'd like to redefine science, go ahead. If science doesn't require repeatable, falsifiable experiment, then what does it require? Ungtss 18:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I would say you are. By seizing on the word "falsification" and claiming that it means solely experimentation and nothing else. And further, by claiming that science cannot and should not study things that have been the purview of religion such as the existence of the soul (at one point, I believe, it was assumed to be physical, was it not?). So by artificially restricting the definition of science, you are, in fact, redefining it. --Kels 19:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and before I forget, archeology uses many scientific techniques, so yes, your examples about Stonehenge and the Vikings would apply. As to the Gospels, all of the ancient writings that make up the Bible have been subject to ongoing scientific examination, including the hated C-14 dating, DNA testing, chemical analysis of ink and paper, and a host of other tests, all of which are unquestionably scientific in nature. --Kels 19:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I would say you are. By seizing on the word "falsification" and claiming that it means solely experimentation and nothing else. And further, by claiming that science cannot and should not study things that have been the purview of religion such as the existence of the soul (at one point, I believe, it was assumed to be physical, was it not?). So by artificially restricting the definition of science, you are, in fact, redefining it. --Kels 19:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a little curious how Ungtss thinks we verify dates, check veracity of documents, learn how undocumented artifacts were constructed, and preserve all of those things without science. I also don't buy that a few individuals say much about a large movement existing to falsify God, nor that it has much to say about the foundations of science or its modern mainstream. --Kels 18:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- You really don't get what "science" is, do you? History is scientific so far as it is empirical, ie. tests hypotheses against extant evidence. Falsification occurs when new-found data contradicts the hypothesis. It is no more or less repeatable than astronomy.
- Seizing upon the word "experimentation?" Experiment is the heart of the scientific method. What model of the scientific method lacks "experiment" as a key component? As to studying the unfalsifiable, I am not saying it "cannot and should not." I am saying it "cannot, but other methods can." History is a very valuable realm of inquiry, and there are many innovative means to perform it. But unless experiment can be performed, it is not science. Ungtss 19:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please read again, thanks. --Kels 19:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- You haven't answered my question. If science does not require experiment and falsification, then what does it require? Ungtss 19:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- your examples about Stonehenge and the Vikings would apply.
- How? What experiment can we run to determine whether Stonehenge was a temple or a highly advanced observatory? Ungtss 19:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- As to the Gospels, all of the ancient writings that make up the Bible have been subject to ongoing scientific examination, including the hated C-14 dating, DNA testing, chemical analysis of ink and paper, and a host of other tests, all of which are unquestionably scientific in nature.
- Please read again, thanks. --Kels 19:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
--Kels 19:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- The point I'm making is that science is about looking for answers in one specific way, which is highly reliable, but only capable of answering questions which can be tested by experiment. Ungtss 19:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- And you're full of shit, because science has always used observation alongside experiment. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo's astronomy was not experimental, yet it was still science. Newtonian gravity was not experimental in the celestial realm, yet it was still science. Geology is rarely experimental, yet it is still science. Francis Bacon himself wrote extensively on the application of empirical study to civil history, as well as countless other fields. There's a reason why what we call "science" was long "natural history"

19:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Kepler's science was experimental in nature. His models could be tested against the condition of the skies on any given night. Hypothesis -- "The Earth revolves in X path." Experiment -- "Observe celestial objects and document locations." Falsification -- "If observations do not comport with predictions of the model, model is incorrect." It is repeatable and testable. Was then, is now. If you want to define science to include beliefs that don't require experiment, then please be a dear and tell me what you need to do to perform science so we can discuss your redefinition of the term. Ungtss 19:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I know it's the evil WP, but a read of this would be a good start. Lots of good references at the bottom. Me, I'm very much a layperson (more of a fan of science than anything), so there's only so far I can take you. --Kels 19:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think that article supports my argument pretty well. The scientific method requires experiment. No experiment, no scientific method. No scientific method, no science. Ungtss 19:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- How exactly does "Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, record observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work." support what you just said? --Kels 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think that article supports my argument pretty well. The scientific method requires experiment. No experiment, no scientific method. No scientific method, no science. Ungtss 19:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- And you're full of shit, because science has always used observation alongside experiment. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo's astronomy was not experimental, yet it was still science. Newtonian gravity was not experimental in the celestial realm, yet it was still science. Geology is rarely experimental, yet it is still science. Francis Bacon himself wrote extensively on the application of empirical study to civil history, as well as countless other fields. There's a reason why what we call "science" was long "natural history"
- The point I'm making is that science is about looking for answers in one specific way, which is highly reliable, but only capable of answering questions which can be tested by experiment. Ungtss 19:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- The "Controlled method" mentioned is defined two sentences later: "The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions." Ungtss 20:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Split hairs, much? What's the difference between an observation based on an experiment and an observation not based on an experiment? Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- A direct observation is an experiment. But a historical inference about an event that cannot be directly observed is not. "The human heart has four chambers" is a hypothesis that can be experimentally tested anytime. "Socrates had a mole on his cheek" is not. Ungtss 20:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I do like how you've managed to redefine "include" to mean "is limited to". Well done. --Kels 20:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- You asked me to explain how the article supported my view that science requires experimentation. I did. You still haven't defined what the "Scientific method without experiment" looks like. Ungtss 20:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's true. I asked you how it supported your view. You responded by dishonestly ignoring and redefining the terms you found there. Congratulations, you make an excellent Creationist. --Kels 20:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I just quoted the article's one-sentence definition of the methods of science, which included experiment. You still haven't explained how the scientific method works without experiment. How is anyone supposed to take your views seriously when they are completely unsupported? Ungtss 20:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Included. Yes. Do you know what "included" means? --Kels 20:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- "Included" can be read in an inclusive (includes plus more) or exclusive (includes only) sense. If you want to read it in an inclusive sense, then go ahead and include more things. How does the scientific method work without experiment? What are the criteria? What's your scientific method without experiment? Ungtss 20:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Included. Yes. Do you know what "included" means? --Kels 20:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I just quoted the article's one-sentence definition of the methods of science, which included experiment. You still haven't explained how the scientific method works without experiment. How is anyone supposed to take your views seriously when they are completely unsupported? Ungtss 20:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's true. I asked you how it supported your view. You responded by dishonestly ignoring and redefining the terms you found there. Congratulations, you make an excellent Creationist. --Kels 20:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- You asked me to explain how the article supported my view that science requires experimentation. I did. You still haven't defined what the "Scientific method without experiment" looks like. Ungtss 20:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I do like how you've managed to redefine "include" to mean "is limited to". Well done. --Kels 20:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- A direct observation is an experiment. But a historical inference about an event that cannot be directly observed is not. "The human heart has four chambers" is a hypothesis that can be experimentally tested anytime. "Socrates had a mole on his cheek" is not. Ungtss 20:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- (Actually, more to the point, do you understand the difference between observation, hypothesis, law and theory?) Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. Can anyone explain to me what the "Scientific method without experiment" looks like? Ungtss 20:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, one can use an experiment to verify a hypothesis. But that doesn't mean you can't use observations that were not bourne out of an hypothesis.
- Suppose, for example that we wanted to understand the color of a certain group of compounds are related to structure. Must we have a hypothesis before we look at the complexes? Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I never said you need a hypothesis. But you need experimental observation that could falsify the assertion. In that case, anyone could replicate your method and see if the compounds turn the color you say they did. Testable, falsifiable science. Ungtss 20:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Then your beloved creation science is a waste of time because we can never observe the creation. But evolution is science because it is observed all the time. Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I never said you need a hypothesis. But you need experimental observation that could falsify the assertion. In that case, anyone could replicate your method and see if the compounds turn the color you say they did. Testable, falsifiable science. Ungtss 20:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. Can anyone explain to me what the "Scientific method without experiment" looks like? Ungtss 20:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Split hairs, much? What's the difference between an observation based on an experiment and an observation not based on an experiment? Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's where you set up your double standard. Common descent is the point at issue, not variation and natural selection. And common descent is not observed all the time, because all the relevant events occurred in the past and are not experimentally repeatable. It's not that creationism is science. It's that common descent is not. Ungtss 20:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- One could say that common descent is a hypothesis from natural selection and variation. Speciation has been observed. There is no reason to think it hasn't occurred in the past as well. As for baraminological distinctions, they are worthless. They aren't even defined well. Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a hypothesis, it's an inference. It goes like this, "Species vary naturally, therefore all the complexity in life is due to natural variation diverging from a single protocell." It takes a limited observation and extrapolates it to explain things that have not and cannot be experimentally observed or tested. You may or may not think it's a reasonable inference, but it's not experimentally testable, observable, and falsifiable, so it isn't science. Unless you can explain how science works without experiment. Ungtss 20:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Um, all hypotheses and all science involve inferential reasoning. Speciation has been observed and implies common descent. Let's take chemistry again. That atoms exist is inferential thinking. No one has ever observed an atom with an eye. Yes, they have detected them through indirect methods, usually spectroscopy. Does that mean that atoms don't exist?
- When you take a crystal structure of DNA, we don't observe directly how it was formed. Does that mean we can make any inference--any hypothesis--about how DNA comes to be based on the structure? Can we assume that replication worked the same way in the past as it did in the present even though we don't have the same DNA strand or sequence? That's an inference after all. Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- The assertion "Atoms exist" could be falsified if any of the spectroscopy methods detected phenomena inconsistent with their existence, so it is science. The assertion "DNA has always worked the same way as it does in the present" is indeed an inference, not science. If common descent is true, DNA has come through a lot of evolution to get where it is today, and has not always worked as it has. If creationism is true, on the other hand, DNA probably has always worked the same way. This one can't be tested, and therefore isn't science. Ungtss 20:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Science is inductive ("inferential") reasoning. It is not deductive thinking. Why are you making this distinction? Sterilewalkie-talkie 21:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Science is a subset of inductive reasoning -- it is knowledge that is derived from controlled, repeatable experiments and observations. That's why it is reliable. But there are many inferences that are not scientific, because they are not experimentally based. Ungtss 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Science is knowledge and does not always require experiment. Often a simple measurement is sufficient to prove something. In some branches of science like physics or chemistry, many experiments are nothing more than just measurements although sometimes there is a "what-if" factor. In history, archaeology provides the science by measurement of dates (C-14 or dendrochronology for example), physical location (through direct or inferred measurement - geophysics can show the outlines of ancient buildings where all physical remains have vanished) or DNA analysis of ancient human remains. Troy was thought to be a myth until it was discovered by an archaeological dig. Scientific analysis showed that there were nine phases to the city, ancient myths only told of a single episode. Science provides the skeleton for historians to hang a skin on. What you cannot do is make the skeleton fit the skin, the skin has to fit the skeleton. Psychology has shown that human memory is fallible and that people often see what they want to see, eye-witnesses to a crime or accident often give conflicting accounts and repeated copying and translation of documents introduces differences from the original and those who record the details may have their own biases which corrupt the facts. So historical documents always have to be treated with some scepticism. Of course it is entirely feasible to do experiments in history/archaeology. Many experiments have been done to see how the stones that were used to create Stonehenge could have been moved and erected.
ГенгисGum disease 21:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- You say "often a simple measurement is sufficient to prove something." Yes, and if the conditions leading to that measurement can be repeated, then it is an experiment. Experiment required and supplied. You say "archaeology provides the science by measurement of days, physical location, etc." Again, insofar as the location of the objects can be observed, it is experimental, because the locations of the objects can be verified by observation. But insofar as archaologists infer things that cannot be observed or tested, they are not doing science -- they are speculating. You say "Many experiments have been done to see how the stones that were used to create Stongehenge could have been moved and erected." Yes, but those experiments cannot show how it was moved and erected -- only how it could have been. There is no way to scientifically answer how it was erected. Ungtss 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Science is inductive ("inferential") reasoning. It is not deductive thinking. Why are you making this distinction? Sterilewalkie-talkie 21:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- The assertion "Atoms exist" could be falsified if any of the spectroscopy methods detected phenomena inconsistent with their existence, so it is science. The assertion "DNA has always worked the same way as it does in the present" is indeed an inference, not science. If common descent is true, DNA has come through a lot of evolution to get where it is today, and has not always worked as it has. If creationism is true, on the other hand, DNA probably has always worked the same way. This one can't be tested, and therefore isn't science. Ungtss 20:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a hypothesis, it's an inference. It goes like this, "Species vary naturally, therefore all the complexity in life is due to natural variation diverging from a single protocell." It takes a limited observation and extrapolates it to explain things that have not and cannot be experimentally observed or tested. You may or may not think it's a reasonable inference, but it's not experimentally testable, observable, and falsifiable, so it isn't science. Unless you can explain how science works without experiment. Ungtss 20:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- One could say that common descent is a hypothesis from natural selection and variation. Speciation has been observed. There is no reason to think it hasn't occurred in the past as well. As for baraminological distinctions, they are worthless. They aren't even defined well. Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit break
So the experiments to replicate the RNA world have no meaning because... Sterilewalkie-talkie 21:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's not that they have no meaning. It's that they cannot make the scientific claim that "life originated this way," because that hypothesis cannot be tested by experiment. There are a lot of things in life that are not science but yet have meaning. The mistake of our generation is equating "true" with "science." No, science is a reliable method of observation, but things may be true and not science, and things come to through science may or may not be true. Ungtss 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- So if I observe that it is raining today, but I didn't look up the pressure and temperature conditions yesterday, I can't make any assumptions about how the unique, distinct rain system of today formed? Sterilewalkie-talkie 21:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Of course you can make assumptions. They just wouldn't be "science." Ever notice why the weather guys are so often completely wrong? It's because they can't do a controlled experiment on the weather. Ungtss 21:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- But you can bracket the pressure and temperature ranges and assign a probability that they are correct, no? And they aren't as far off as you would imply. Sterilewalkie-talkie 21:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you can bracket temp/humidity parameters, and develop probabilities. And probabilities are very valuable tools. But it would only be scientific insofar as you drew a hypothesis about tomorrow's weather from a model, and tested that model against reality. But the weatherman predicted mostly cloudy and gusty in southern Turkiye today, and we got sunny with a gentle breeze. Ungtss 21:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- And BTW, science can only be validated. Truth is something else. Sterilewalkie-talkie 21:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- But you can bracket the pressure and temperature ranges and assign a probability that they are correct, no? And they aren't as far off as you would imply. Sterilewalkie-talkie 21:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Of course you can make assumptions. They just wouldn't be "science." Ever notice why the weather guys are so often completely wrong? It's because they can't do a controlled experiment on the weather. Ungtss 21:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- So if I observe that it is raining today, but I didn't look up the pressure and temperature conditions yesterday, I can't make any assumptions about how the unique, distinct rain system of today formed? Sterilewalkie-talkie 21:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. The problem is that people run around calling a lot of things "science" that can't be experimentally tested -- like common descent. Ungtss 21:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- ...except that it can, in precisely the same way that orbital mechanics can be tested. We have never directly observed Pluto orbiting the sun. We have never traveled to, say, Betelgeuse to find out how far away it is. Much of science is impossible to DIRECTLY test experimentally.
- However, what a valid theory will do is generate predictions--and those PREDICTIONS can be tested. If the predictions turn out to be true, then it is likely that the theory is true; the more predictions are proven true, the more likely that the theory is correct.
Common descent (which is YOUR goalpost, Mr. "The scientists are imposing a double standard") has a high inductive probability of being correct based on an overwhelming amount of observation, particularly biological, but also geological, chemical, etc. It comes directly from the observed principles of genetic drift and natural selection. The "ark model" has a much lower inductive probability of being correct based on the same evidence. It comes from one source, the Bible. Sterilewalkie-talkie 21:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- You keep asserting without support that science can proceed without experiment and giving me concrete examples of things you think "are science," and therefore support your conclusion. However, you have not defined this "scientific method without experiment," and I can find no basis for it or description of it in philosophy of science, anywhere. I'm not going to debate concretes with you until you go to the trouble of defining your term. What are the criteria of a scientific method without repeatable, testable experiment?? Ungtss 03:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- New member here; please forgive me for any violations of wiki etiquette and for my ignorance of wiki editing protocols. Question: why is it that everyone (creationist or otherwise) looks to Popper for a definition of science? I'm not aware of anyone in contemporary philosophy of science who uses falsification as a solution to the demarcation problem. Falsification is a good thing to have in a theory, but it's neither necessary nor sufficient to make something science. So the claim that common descent is not falsifiable (which is itself questionable) and hence is not science is a non sequitur. Common descent is a consequence of the models used in evolutionary biology. These models are well-confirmed, and that gives us good reason to believe that all extant organisms on Earth descended from a small number of common ancestors.TallMan 02:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- The difference is that it is possible, in the logical sense, to disprove the theory of evolution (if, for example, Noah's Ark turned up on an archaeological dig), while a theory like Last Thursdayism is known not to be falsifiable.
ListenerXTalkerX 03:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- The issue here isn't really falsification, though; evolution is susceptible to empirical investigation, whereas Last Thursdayism isn't. Last Thursdayism is really a kind of skeptical hypothesis, and as such it's designed to be compatible with any piece of evidence you might try to provide (compare: I might be dreaming/deceived by an evil demon/a brain in a vat/hallucinating/imagining everything). LTism can't be falsified, which is a problem; falsifiability is a virtue in a theory. But the real problem is that LTism doesn't provide a model of the world at all.TallMan 03:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- TallMan -- if you don't think falsificationism is a good criteria for the demarcation, which one do you propose? Ungtss 03:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've been watching this all day. Prediction. A good test of a hypothesis is accurate prediction. ħuman
03:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, here's my "theory." What goes up will come down, because little fairies in the sky pee invisible piss on everything you throw, because Pan told them to. Accurate prediction: What goes up does in fact come down. Boom! Accurate prediction! Science! Ungtss 05:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, talk about a stupid response. ħuman
05:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, talk about a stupid response. ħuman
- This is why I prefer to make models central to demarcation. "Little fairies pee on things" isn't a model until you flesh it out. What properties do these fairies have? What properties does their piss have? In what way does their piss interact with objects? How do the fairies interact with objects? Give me some numbers here, show me how they entail that the fairies piss on the appropriate objects in the appropriate amounts, and then you'll be doing science. You'll be doing bad science, because your theory will not be parsimonious and will be ad hoc. Your theory will be false, because there are no invisible fairies, and once you've specified their properties it will probably be easy to show that this is the case. But that doesn't mean you're not doing science.TallMan 05:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Now there are some good criteria for science. Much better than "accurate predictions!" The thing about models, parsimony, and "not-ad hoc" criteria are all good criteria for reasoning, and are therefore things to strive for in science. However, while they are all necessary for science, none of them are sufficient conditions for science, and therefore do not make for good demarcation. Regarding the "model" criterion: theology has an extremely complex, detailed, nuanced model of God and theodicy. But none of it's falsifiable, so it's not science. Regarding the "parsimony" criterion -- parsimony is probabilistic, not experimental -- that is to say, it tells us to prefer simpler theories because they're more likely true, but the fact that the doctrine of humors is "simpler" than modern molecular biology does not mean it's "science," because is has been falsified. As to the "not ad hoc" criterion, again, it is necessary for science, but not sufficient. "There is no God" is certainly "not ad hoc." But it isn't science, either. Ungtss 07:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Theology doesn't have a model for God, since it doesn't have any story about the mechanisms by which God operates in the world. Similarly, it doesn't assign operational/functional properties to God. So while theologians might maintain that God is necessary, for instance, this doesn't tell us anything about how God interacts with other objects. In fact, many of the properties traditionally assigned to God seem to be chosen to make God undetectable (such as God's not being in space or time).
- Theology could have such a model -- all it would have to do is make one up. Watch. "God is an organic being, living physically outside the observable universe, of such massive size that the physical universe is a giant Crystal Ball. He has three hearts, four lungs, and wee, beedy little eyes. He interacts with the universe by sending beings much smaller than he is, called "messengers." He watches events on Earth in a giant flatscreen TV that constantly changes channels to different locations, and is fed by tiny little video cameras put in place by the messengers." Etc. Etc. You can come up with all the models you want, but unless they stem from observation + experiment, they really hold no meaning ... Ungtss 16:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- More importantly, I note a tension between your claims here and your claims below. You write:
- Falsifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a claim being scientific. A claim must be both falsifiable and unfalsified to be science. A claim that is falsifiable and falsified is "false."
- First, false claims can still be scientific claims. The caloric theory of heat is a scientific theory, albeit a false theory, and if we found someone carrying out experiments to test it they'd be doing science (they'd also be wasting their time, but productivity isn't what makes something science). We know that Newtonian physics don't accurately describe the world, but when high school students test the theory in physics class they're doing science. Second, you're criticizing me for offering necessary but insufficient demarcation criteria, while you do just that. So you'll need to either find a new line of criticism or offer responses to my counterexamples below. Note that I've offered responses to your counterexamples. My proposal is intended to give necessary and sufficient conditions for a proposal's being a scientific theory, and as it stands I think your purported counterexamples fail to demonstrate insufficiency.
- There's a big difference between testing a false theory through science and calling a false theory "scientific." Naturally, one does science when one tests ... say ... the ptolemaic system. But who would claim that the ptolemaic system, which has been falsified, is "science?" Or that one is being "scientific" when one espouses it? While conclusions arrived at through the scientific method are not necessarily true, the word "scientific" does carry a connotation to the effect that the idea has not been proven false, don't you agree?
- Two clarificatory notes: 1) the model criterion isn't a revision or expansion of my initial proposal for demarcation. The requirement that scientific theories include a model has been part of the criteria from the beginning, though I probably should have defined "model" explicitly in the initial formulation. 2) The parsimony and not-ad-hoc criteria aren't supposed to be demarcation criteria. They're standards for evaluating proposed explanations, and that's it.TallMan 13:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Is "model" a necessary or sufficient condition? If necessary, what model is there in the scientific observation, "Humans have a four chambered heart." If sufficient, then if I come up with a speculative model of who God is and what God does, would that be science? Ungtss 16:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Theology doesn't have a model for God, since it doesn't have any story about the mechanisms by which God operates in the world. Similarly, it doesn't assign operational/functional properties to God. So while theologians might maintain that God is necessary, for instance, this doesn't tell us anything about how God interacts with other objects. In fact, many of the properties traditionally assigned to God seem to be chosen to make God undetectable (such as God's not being in space or time).
- Now there are some good criteria for science. Much better than "accurate predictions!" The thing about models, parsimony, and "not-ad hoc" criteria are all good criteria for reasoning, and are therefore things to strive for in science. However, while they are all necessary for science, none of them are sufficient conditions for science, and therefore do not make for good demarcation. Regarding the "model" criterion: theology has an extremely complex, detailed, nuanced model of God and theodicy. But none of it's falsifiable, so it's not science. Regarding the "parsimony" criterion -- parsimony is probabilistic, not experimental -- that is to say, it tells us to prefer simpler theories because they're more likely true, but the fact that the doctrine of humors is "simpler" than modern molecular biology does not mean it's "science," because is has been falsified. As to the "not ad hoc" criterion, again, it is necessary for science, but not sufficient. "There is no God" is certainly "not ad hoc." But it isn't science, either. Ungtss 07:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, here's my "theory." What goes up will come down, because little fairies in the sky pee invisible piss on everything you throw, because Pan told them to. Accurate prediction: What goes up does in fact come down. Boom! Accurate prediction! Science! Ungtss 05:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- A fair question, and a hard one. The demarcation problem is a tough nut. My intuition is that science is our best epistemic practices, whatever those turn out to be. That, however, is an uninformative answer. So here's a second approach: science is the practice of making models of the world. Those models that reflect the way the world is are good ones; those that don't are bad. A scientific theory is a model or collection of models that are susceptible to repeatable investigations from multiple disparate sources. Caveat: this doesn't account for the way in which scientific theories build on their predecessors.TallMan 03:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- One other note: I'd recommend looking at the SEP's page on science and pseudo-science. I'm actually fond of Lakatos's more advanced approach to falsification, but I think he ignores the structure of scientific theories.TallMan 03:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, let's go with "model or collection of models that are suspectible to repeatable investigations." There's no criterion here, though, for the type and/or quality of those investigations. I can investigate psychology by bringing in patients and speculating about how their dreams reflect "world-soul" archetypes a la Jung. Is that science? I can investigate the origin of the Earth by asking every dimestore prophet in town what God says happened (multiple lines of repeatable investigation). Is that science? I don't think so -- I think the investigations must be of a particular type or quality in order to be "science." Would you agree? If not, why? If so, what type of investigations would qualify as science?
- Second, I don't think "multiple lines" are necessary. Sometimes one line is all you need -- for instance, "to determine how many chambers a frog's heart has, dissect + observe."
- Short story: I think that "investigation" is not an adequate criterion for science, because it says nothing of the quality of the investigation. I also don't think "multiple" is necessary, because in many cases, one can adequately address the issue. The common thread, of course, is falsifiable experiment. When that quality is present, one line of investigation may be sufficient. When that quality is absent, no amount of investigation constitutes "science." Ungtss 04:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- 1) I've already got restrictions on the sort of investigations in place. I'm not familiar with Jung, but from what I understand his inquiries into psychology aren't repeatable and can't be independently verified and hence isn't science. The same will go for any attempt to use revelations as a source of information. Revelations might be accurate, but if they're not assessible and accessible by anyone (at least in principle) they won't count. It's also worth noting that Jungian psychology could be science; as I said, it's not my speciality. If it is, it isn't good science. Doing science isn't hard; doing good science is the trick.
- Okay, so we've added another qualification -- "accessible to anyone." Agreed. But what needs to be accessible? In the case of Jung and the dimestore prophet, the interview of the subject is accessible to anyone, but the event in question (the dream) cannot be repeated, and is not accessible to anyone. Would you agree that for a claim about a phenomenon to be scientific, the phenomenon itself (and not merely circumstantial evidence which can be interpretted multiple ways) must be repeatable and accessible to anyone? If not, why? If so, how is the phenomenon "Alexander conquered Persia" both repeatable and accessible to anyone? Ungtss 06:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't another qualification. I'm explaining what is meant by "multiple sources of investigation." But that's not central. The claim is not that any given event needs to be repeatable. Events are particulars and thus are necessarily not repeatable. Rather, what needs to be repeatable is the investigation. The prophet's method of investigating the world is revelation; revelations aren't universally accessible. If there was a way to reliably induce revelations and revelations reliably tracked the truth, then prophecy would be a legitimate means of investigating the world. But there isn't, and they don't, so prophecy isn't science. The Jungian psychoanalyst's method of investigation seems to be making shit up, and while anyone can make shit up you're not going to get consistent results from this method. That is, when you present two investigators with the same data (the same patient, in this case), and they perform the investigation using the same methods (the methods of Jungian psychoanalysis, whatever they are), you're not likely to get the same result except by coincidence.TallMan 14:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- So the investigation must be repeatable and yield consistent results. Fair enough, I'll grant that it's necessary -- but not sufficient. Can we agree? Ungtss 16:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't another qualification. I'm explaining what is meant by "multiple sources of investigation." But that's not central. The claim is not that any given event needs to be repeatable. Events are particulars and thus are necessarily not repeatable. Rather, what needs to be repeatable is the investigation. The prophet's method of investigating the world is revelation; revelations aren't universally accessible. If there was a way to reliably induce revelations and revelations reliably tracked the truth, then prophecy would be a legitimate means of investigating the world. But there isn't, and they don't, so prophecy isn't science. The Jungian psychoanalyst's method of investigation seems to be making shit up, and while anyone can make shit up you're not going to get consistent results from this method. That is, when you present two investigators with the same data (the same patient, in this case), and they perform the investigation using the same methods (the methods of Jungian psychoanalysis, whatever they are), you're not likely to get the same result except by coincidence.TallMan 14:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, so we've added another qualification -- "accessible to anyone." Agreed. But what needs to be accessible? In the case of Jung and the dimestore prophet, the interview of the subject is accessible to anyone, but the event in question (the dream) cannot be repeated, and is not accessible to anyone. Would you agree that for a claim about a phenomenon to be scientific, the phenomenon itself (and not merely circumstantial evidence which can be interpretted multiple ways) must be repeatable and accessible to anyone? If not, why? If so, how is the phenomenon "Alexander conquered Persia" both repeatable and accessible to anyone? Ungtss 06:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- 2) I don't know where you're getting "multiple lines" from. My claim is that any investigation needs to a) be repeatable and b) not dependant on a particular observer in a privileged position. When it comes to frog hearts, what matters is that anyone with the proper skills and equipment can cut open a frog and examine the heart.
- I misunderstood what you meant by "multiple lines." I thought you meant "different ways of answering the same question." My bad. Ungtss 06:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- 3) There are counterexamples to the falsifiability thesis. I've been told that Jungian psychology is one of them; Freudian psychology is another. Freud's views are falsifiable; in fact, they've largely been falsified. His method was unscientific not because it was unfalsifiable but because it wasn't empirically adequate, i.e. it did not accurately model how the mind works. Astrology is arguably another counterexample. The claims of astrologers are falsifiable. Like Freudian psychology, astrology has been falsified. If Popper was right, then astrology would be a science. But it isn't, and one way to see why is to ask several different astrologers to perform a reading. You won't get the same results, which suggests that their investigations can't be repeated in the right way.TallMan 05:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. Falsifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a claim being scientific. A claim must be both falsifiable and unfalsified to be science. A claim that is falsifiable and falsified is "false." A claim that is unfalsifiable and unfalsified is "Not science." Ungtss 06:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Very nicely put, TallMan. ħuman
05:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ungtss, you are confusing your "understanding" of science, limited by Popper - and your interpretation of his work, with "real science", as done by "real scientists" ħuman
08:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ungtss, you are confusing your "understanding" of science, limited by Popper - and your interpretation of his work, with "real science", as done by "real scientists" ħuman
- There's no confusion here. Popper initially offered up falsifiability as providing necessary and sufficient conditions for science. My counterexamples show it's insufficient (and I could add a few more, e.g. phrenology and palmistry). And while they're more controversial, there are counterexamples to be had for the necessity claim as well. If we're willing to make the necessary adjustments in our beliefs, any proposal can be made unfalsifiable. As Lakatos pointed out, any theory is surrounded by a "protective belt" of ancillary hypotheses that can be adjusted to resolve apparent falsifications. There are, I am told, still a few defenders of the aether theory, which was purportedly falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiment. But it turns out you can develop the aether theory in such a way as to be consistent with these experiments by introducing the Lorentz transformation. If you're willing to make significant enough changes in your ancillary hypotheses, aether theory can be made consistent with just about any collection of experimental data. So aether theory is unfalsifiable. But intuitively it's still science—unless, of course, you want to say Poincaré and Lorentz weren't scientists.TallMan 14:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you, empirically, that complex models can be shifted this way and that to get out of an evidentiary problem. However, I'd argue that not all scientific claims suffer from this fault. The gas law, for instance, is falsifiable. So are claims about the rate of acceleration due to gravity. Those are not so buried in ancillary hypotheses as to be totally malleable. My argument is that it is those (and only those) claims that can claim the full credibility of the "scientific method," because they are the only ones that arise from it.
- Other realms of inquiry, such as historical inquiries, are so surrounded by assumptions that they can be revamped at all. In these situations, it's much like a litigated trial. There are a limited number of facts in evidence which can be interpretted any of a number of ways. Each side develops a "theory of the case," in which they try to account for all the facts in a way consistent with their theory. Throw an inconsistent fact on the pile, and a creative attorney can adjust his theory of the case to account for it without admitting his client's guilt. My argument, though, is that this is not science, because it is not experimental or observation. It depends on interpretation, and, as you said, is subject to adjustment to account for inconvenient facts. That's not to say that this method of evaluating the evidence is not relatively reliable (depending on the quality of the evidence). It is only to say that it is not in the same category as the gas law or Chem 1 experiments demonstrating Molarity, because the ultimate issue of the case is not subject to falsification or experiment.
- The evidentiary approach of the court-room and the archaeology pit is reliable, but it's not nearly as reliable as the approach of the laboratory science. Equating the two forms of inquiry and granting them equal status gives undue credibility to the former, I think. Ungtss 16:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Very nicely put, TallMan. ħuman
- You're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. Falsifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a claim being scientific. A claim must be both falsifiable and unfalsified to be science. A claim that is falsifiable and falsified is "false." A claim that is unfalsifiable and unfalsified is "Not science." Ungtss 06:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- 1) I've already got restrictions on the sort of investigations in place. I'm not familiar with Jung, but from what I understand his inquiries into psychology aren't repeatable and can't be independently verified and hence isn't science. The same will go for any attempt to use revelations as a source of information. Revelations might be accurate, but if they're not assessible and accessible by anyone (at least in principle) they won't count. It's also worth noting that Jungian psychology could be science; as I said, it's not my speciality. If it is, it isn't good science. Doing science isn't hard; doing good science is the trick.
- I've been watching this all day. Prediction. A good test of a hypothesis is accurate prediction. ħuman
- The difference is that it is possible, in the logical sense, to disprove the theory of evolution (if, for example, Noah's Ark turned up on an archaeological dig), while a theory like Last Thursdayism is known not to be falsifiable.
Another edit boobie
The goal here is to define "science," because a scientist does a lot of things, some of which are science and some of which are not. I think scientists do science when they directly observe phenomenon, and when they develop experimental ways to test hypotheses. Perhaps you have another, useful definition? Or do you believe that whatever they do or say is "science" just because they do or say it? Ungtss 08:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't "believe", for starts. I also don't think you are the honoree who gets to define "science" for now and for evermore. Especially since you deny some of its results. Why does your religion hate science and why do you think you have to fight it? ħuman
09:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Evading the topic lets everybody know you don't know what you're talking about. If you know what science is, let a poor ignorant fundamentalist rube in on the big secret! Or do you not know? Do you think something's "science" if it uses fancy tools or if somebody in a lab coat tells you it's true? Ungtss 09:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have not evaded the topic. You have decided that your interpretation of Popper's "falsifiability" is the sine qua non of "Science". I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Predictive ability of a hypothesis is my test of a hypothesis. Oh, and, hey, rube, question: what do you consider to be "scientific fields of endeavor" in this modern age? ħuman
09:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I showed how your definition doesn't work, but you didn't respond. Perhaps you'd like to point to a prominent philosopher of science who holds your view that predictive ability alone is the hallmark of a good hypothesis? As to your second question, in my opinion each field makes certain claims that are science, and certain claims that are not. Your question overgeneralizes. Ungtss 09:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Why do we need to point out philosophies of science to show the workings of science? Popper's ideas helped reshape issues of testing and falsifying hypotheses, but his declarations are not established and wholly accepted. To decide that science must follow Popper's methods or be wrong is your opinion; and given that you have no real scientific background that I'm aware, I doubt your opinion matters to anyone in the science field.
- We need philosophy of science to know what science is. Otherwise we're left with nothing but vague, meaningless generalizations and ad hominem arguments like yours. Ungtss 18:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- You do realize that ad hominem means to attack without the substance of an argument. That I provided substance to why Popper-philosophy is not the end-all declaration of what science needs to do to be right, in that his arguments are not wholly accepted, is far from an ad hominem. That I point out your lack of scientific background to showcase that your opinion of what science must do to be right is also not an ad hominem. If you have a science background, provide your credentials; if not, admit it's simply your uneducated opinion. --Irrational Atheist 19:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- The "accepted" or "non-accepted" nature of a philosophy is purely ad hominem, because it relies on the people accepting the philosophy, rather than the merits of the philosophy itself. It's really sad to see, over and over, how many people have stopped thinking for themselves and instead punt to "well everybody believes it!" What an unscientific attitude. Science questions, challenges, and demands. It is never satisfied with "well everybody says so!" That's what makes it such a powerful tool. I can't fathom why those who claim to advocate science are running around taking a poll on what everybody thinks. Sad. Ungtss 05:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- How do you argue that? The accepted or non-accepted nature of a philosophy depends on whether it is accepted. Its merits are a major aspect of whether it is accepted. If it is without or lacking merit, why should people accept it? You don't seem to tie together your arguments too well here.
- Science isn't about beliefs. The scientific attitude is asking questions and seeking answers. But not creationist questions that are setup to be gotcha questions (how very grade school of them, no?), but serious inquiries into the workings of the world. No creationist wants to seek the answers, but just assume the answers from the Bible, etc. I also find your projection of people who have stopped thinking for themselves onto those of us living in reality, when ASK, like CP, is full of people who can't tolerate critical thinking. --Irrational Atheist 21:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- The "accepted" or "non-accepted" nature of a philosophy is purely ad hominem, because it relies on the people accepting the philosophy, rather than the merits of the philosophy itself. It's really sad to see, over and over, how many people have stopped thinking for themselves and instead punt to "well everybody believes it!" What an unscientific attitude. Science questions, challenges, and demands. It is never satisfied with "well everybody says so!" That's what makes it such a powerful tool. I can't fathom why those who claim to advocate science are running around taking a poll on what everybody thinks. Sad. Ungtss 05:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- You do realize that ad hominem means to attack without the substance of an argument. That I provided substance to why Popper-philosophy is not the end-all declaration of what science needs to do to be right, in that his arguments are not wholly accepted, is far from an ad hominem. That I point out your lack of scientific background to showcase that your opinion of what science must do to be right is also not an ad hominem. If you have a science background, provide your credentials; if not, admit it's simply your uneducated opinion. --Irrational Atheist 19:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- We need philosophy of science to know what science is. Otherwise we're left with nothing but vague, meaningless generalizations and ad hominem arguments like yours. Ungtss 18:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- My point still stands. You have shown yourself to be a science hater, because our scientific understanding of the world begins to unravel the infallibility of the Bible. No great flood was possible. The world wasn't made in six days. The earth cannot stand still. It is impossible to turn water into wine by willing it. Need I go on? --Irrational Atheist 17:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps a little philosophy would help you here. In order to support a statement that I've "shown myself to be a science hater," you need to present evidence that supports your conclusion. I haven't said anything about any of those topics. What you're doing is called "irrelevant rambling." That's why you need philosophy. Ungtss 18:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Why do we need to point out philosophies of science to show the workings of science? Popper's ideas helped reshape issues of testing and falsifying hypotheses, but his declarations are not established and wholly accepted. To decide that science must follow Popper's methods or be wrong is your opinion; and given that you have no real scientific background that I'm aware, I doubt your opinion matters to anyone in the science field.
- I showed how your definition doesn't work, but you didn't respond. Perhaps you'd like to point to a prominent philosopher of science who holds your view that predictive ability alone is the hallmark of a good hypothesis? As to your second question, in my opinion each field makes certain claims that are science, and certain claims that are not. Your question overgeneralizes. Ungtss 09:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have not evaded the topic. You have decided that your interpretation of Popper's "falsifiability" is the sine qua non of "Science". I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Predictive ability of a hypothesis is my test of a hypothesis. Oh, and, hey, rube, question: what do you consider to be "scientific fields of endeavor" in this modern age? ħuman
- Evading the topic lets everybody know you don't know what you're talking about. If you know what science is, let a poor ignorant fundamentalist rube in on the big secret! Or do you not know? Do you think something's "science" if it uses fancy tools or if somebody in a lab coat tells you it's true? Ungtss 09:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Science - mankind's understanding and knowledge of the workings, history and existence of the natural world. Would anyone disagree? --Irrational Atheist 17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, but your definition says nothing of the means of discovering that knowledge, and the criteria we use to differentiate that knowledge from speculations. Ungtss 18:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- You didn't ask for that. You wanted a definition of science. Now when you're done moving goalposts, we can return to the current discussion. --Irrational Atheist 18:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Those are all part of the definition of science. Science is not only a scope of inquiry, but also a method and a set of assertions about the world. Unless you can define the method and define what differentiates "scientific assertions" from "non-scientific assertions," you haven't defined the term. Ungtss 19:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- A definition of a term or idea does not require its etymology to be correct; a definition of science does not require the encompassing field of studies that comprise science to be correct. You said we needed to define science. I gave a definition. You agreed with the definition then switched to an argument that what is also necessary is how to obtain everything. Thus, moving the goalpost. If you want a discussion of how man understands the world, that's different than saying we need to define science. Is this not sinking in? --Irrational Atheist 19:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm looking for a definition of science that can differentiate between "science" and "non-science." You haven't provided that, despite repeated requests. So I'm not wasting any more time with you. Ungtss 05:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Evolution = Science
- Creation = Non-Science
- Do I win? Ace McWickedTK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK ad infinitum 05:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Depends what game you're playing. If you're playing the "make myself laugh" game, I'm guessing you won. If you're playing the "actually address the issue" game, not so much. Ungtss 05:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I gave you the definition of science. You agreed with it. What's non-science? That which isn't science.
- But what you have so much trouble with is the English language. You keep saying you want definitions, and when you get them, argue that they don't explain how science works. That's not what a definition is. That's what an explanation does. That's what a discussion uncovers.
- When you keep looking for definitions and find a lack of explanations, that would be your own fault for not saying what you mean. --Irrational Atheist 21:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Evolution = Science
- I'm looking for a definition of science that can differentiate between "science" and "non-science." You haven't provided that, despite repeated requests. So I'm not wasting any more time with you. Ungtss 05:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- A definition of a term or idea does not require its etymology to be correct; a definition of science does not require the encompassing field of studies that comprise science to be correct. You said we needed to define science. I gave a definition. You agreed with the definition then switched to an argument that what is also necessary is how to obtain everything. Thus, moving the goalpost. If you want a discussion of how man understands the world, that's different than saying we need to define science. Is this not sinking in? --Irrational Atheist 19:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Those are all part of the definition of science. Science is not only a scope of inquiry, but also a method and a set of assertions about the world. Unless you can define the method and define what differentiates "scientific assertions" from "non-scientific assertions," you haven't defined the term. Ungtss 19:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- You didn't ask for that. You wanted a definition of science. Now when you're done moving goalposts, we can return to the current discussion. --Irrational Atheist 18:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, but your definition says nothing of the means of discovering that knowledge, and the criteria we use to differentiate that knowledge from speculations. Ungtss 18:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me?
Or is this all starting to sound like trolling with a better vocabulary? I'm learning a lot from the responses though, so it's not exactly a waste of time. --Kels 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Perchance we are seeing how much people do not understand about scientific thinking and clarifying our own ideas. Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Or maybe none of us understand science as well as we think we do, but instead of developing and articulating clear answers, you're attacking the person who's asking the questions. Ungtss 05:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Argumentative Guy, I skimmed through this debate and caught a whiff of: "Common descent isn't science because it isn't observable." While I generally agree with your speculation, I hope you don't take that as any support for Creationism. Essentially, if you accept natural selection as the process by which evolution occurs, then what possible hypothesis could explain the origin of life? At this juncture I would invoke Occam's Razor and simply assert that common descent is the simplest explanation for the origin of life on Earth. If you have a hypothesis that better explains the origin of life I would love to hear it. Jorge 05:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's that "whiff" that keeps people from discussing the issue I actually want to discuss. I started this because I was accused of "redefining science" when I said that science must be subject to repeatable, falsifiable experiment. That's it. Never said I was a creationist, or that creationism was science, or that "Y'all need to be SAVED now y'hear?" I never said creationism was science. I'm only arguing that (under any meaningful definition of science), common descent isn't either. Ungtss 05:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, are you arguing "science must be subject to repeatable, falsifiable experiment" or "common descent isn't [science]"? I do note a tendency on your part to float back and forth between what you have to say that is relatively intelligent and your end goal, which is to argue for ID. ħuman
08:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm primarily interested in the first. The other is a corrollary. As to my "end goal," why not assume a scientific attitude and refrain from making conclusions until you have evidence to support them? I don't give a fuck what you think about the begining of the world. That's your business. I'm just tired of the smart people (and y'all are the smart people) being intellectually lazy regarding the definition of science, and sitting around like the two old dudes in the muppets, making fun of the ignorant. Get off your asses and think scientifically. Thanks. Ungtss 09:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not assuming anything. The one part of science you always come back to, while you attempt to impose your definitions on it, is common descent. Strange how that is. Science pretty simple: Observe. Hypothesize. Predict based on hypothesis. Test prediction via more observation or experiment. Reject or refine hypothesis. Lather, rinse, repeat. ħuman
09:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm using common descent as an example, not an agenda. Pick anything historical. Who wrote the Gospels is another good, controversial one. Same problem. Science is powerless to help, so everybody speculates in the name of science. Ungtss 09:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not assuming anything. The one part of science you always come back to, while you attempt to impose your definitions on it, is common descent. Strange how that is. Science pretty simple: Observe. Hypothesize. Predict based on hypothesis. Test prediction via more observation or experiment. Reject or refine hypothesis. Lather, rinse, repeat. ħuman
- I'm primarily interested in the first. The other is a corrollary. As to my "end goal," why not assume a scientific attitude and refrain from making conclusions until you have evidence to support them? I don't give a fuck what you think about the begining of the world. That's your business. I'm just tired of the smart people (and y'all are the smart people) being intellectually lazy regarding the definition of science, and sitting around like the two old dudes in the muppets, making fun of the ignorant. Get off your asses and think scientifically. Thanks. Ungtss 09:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, are you arguing "science must be subject to repeatable, falsifiable experiment" or "common descent isn't [science]"? I do note a tendency on your part to float back and forth between what you have to say that is relatively intelligent and your end goal, which is to argue for ID. ħuman
- Perhaps it's that "whiff" that keeps people from discussing the issue I actually want to discuss. I started this because I was accused of "redefining science" when I said that science must be subject to repeatable, falsifiable experiment. That's it. Never said I was a creationist, or that creationism was science, or that "Y'all need to be SAVED now y'hear?" I never said creationism was science. I'm only arguing that (under any meaningful definition of science), common descent isn't either. Ungtss 05:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Jorge
At this juncture I would invoke Occam's Razor and simply assert that common descent is the simplest explanation for the origin of life on Earth. If you have a hypothesis that better explains the origin of life I would love to hear it.
- First, let's point out that we're outside the realm of "falsifiable science" and in the realm of "interpretation of evidence," like in the courtroom. Each player has a "theory of the case," and interpret the facts in light of their theory.
- Now let's go on to "which answer is correct?" An answer is not correct simply because it is simple. In fact, the correct answer is usually quite complicated. Occam's razor only says that an answer should not be more complicated than necessary to adequately account for the facts. But in order to be legitimate, an answer must explain the facts.
- RNA world hasn't been demonstrated. Metabolism world hasn't been demonstrated. The huge changes required to go from animal to plant, bacteria to fungi, etc, have not been demonstrated. Those are speculations that have not been demonstrated or comprehensively explained, and therefore do not explain the facts. Occam's razor doesn't apply.
- Personally, I'm open to all potential explanations. But I'm a pretty conservative guy -- I go with the explanation that's closest to being demonstrated. I've seen genetic engineering. I know scientists have built viruses from scratch. I see no reason not to consider the possibility that life originated via genetic engineering. Not only does it seem plausible, it seems like the most plausible alternative at the moment. Does that mean it's true? Certainly not. But the best guess we have, I reckon. Ungtss 05:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- So you do you have a plausible alternate hypothesis? Jorge 06:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Again, we're not looking at "hypothesis" here -- we're looking at "theory of the case." The best, most reasonable, most parsimonious way to interpret the evidence. And in every trial, there's disagreement among the jurors, because interpretation depends on what the individual thinks is most "reasonable." So what happened? I don't know! But I'm interested in finding out. Problem is, battle lines are drawn so tightly that nobody will consider the valuable clues raised by the other side. Everybody's so focused on the theory of the case that they're first reaction to a new fact is not "What does this mean?" but "How can I reconcile this with my theory?" I think evolutionists make excellent points against the self-contradictory supernaturalism of the creationists. I think creationists make excellent points against common descent. Based on the evidence I've heard so far, I'm inclined toward a naturalistic intelligent design. Ungtss 08:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Occam's razor applies immediately when you put a "genetic engineer" into this theory.
- Not unless there is another theory that can fully account for the facts There is no such theory at the moment. Metabolism world and RNA world are just speculation. We don't even know how they would work fully, much less can we demonstrate how they might have happened. Unless there's a fully explanatory alternative, Occam has nothing to say. Ungtss 08:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are absolutely right that we can't say that common descent is a fact, until science won't have other (more direct) means to test it, although I would argue that it cannot be falsified. If we accept evolution as a fact (and I believe you do) then the best plausible explanation is, by our knowledge, common descent. This won't make it true, but all the evidence suggests that it is. Falsifiability in this case means that it is possible to either prove it could not have happened that way, or science would gather other evidence contradicting this theory (or reevaluate the present evidence). The theory of common descent allows both to be possible, and if it's false, both of them should happen sooner or later. In our present however, I can only repeat myself, the best plausible explanation is common descent.
- Again, falsifiability doesn't work in this context, because we are dealing with "Theories of the case," not lab science. A creative lawyer can always interpret the evidence to support his client's case -- but that doesn't mean he's following a scientific approach. It means he's defending the theory he's being paid to defend. As many have pointed out, common descent is such an all-encompassing theory that virtually any evidence can be interpretted within its framework. The only question is whether the interpretation is reasonable -- but reasonableness is a matter of perception. Is common descent the most reasonable explanation? Depends on how you see the world. Ungtss 08:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Common descent is like Russel's teapot, but in the opposite way. We can't say for sure that there is no teapot orbiting... whatever, as we can't say that it is a 100% that common descent is true. Yet again, it would be stupid of us pretending that there is a teapot nebula somewhere so far, we can't directly test it. Of course the probability of the two is "slightly" different, but I think it proves my point that the lack of direct testing shouldn't mean it can't be considered true.
- That's where history comes in. In order to claim that there's no evidence of incredibly powerful beings in early human history that created us, ruled us, and interbred with us, you have to ignore virtually every history of the world written in any culture in the world. Timaeus, Critias, Homer, Genesis, the Annals, Herodotus, virtually anything by the Chinese, basically anything ever written before Europe in the 1850s or so. You name it -- virtually every ancient history records direct interaction between us and our corporeal creators. Are we to give those histories any credibility? That's a question of individual interpretation. You might think they were written by ignorant savages living in caves. Another might be less willing to ignore virtually every single piece of ancient history ever written.
- On the topic of what is considered scientific or not, I tend to agree that falsifiability is a criteria of a scientific theory, but I certainly need more reading on that topic before going into further conjectures. --Kangaxx 08:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- "The courtroom" is a very poor analogy for how science works. Court sessions end, formally and declare judgment based on available evidence and arguments. Science is always open to - and looking for - new evidence, and new arguments. ħuman
08:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- You missed the point, Human. The point is that courts, and the historical "sciences," are so dependant on and surrounded by ancillary assumptions, biases, and interpretations that they are not nearly as reliable as the repeatable, falsifiable laboratory science that has given us the modern world. The airplane is built on a hundred thousand mistakes that could be observed, analyzed, and corrected. We don't have that luxury with abiogenesis, because we can't watch it happen. All we can do is make a guess and stick with it. Abiogenesis is the "simplest" answer to the question of origins -- we observe that we are here, and we observe no God, therefore we came to be on our own. Now let's make up some way that it might have happened, and call it science. Ungtss 08:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- What does abiognesis have to do with the courtroom analogy? Or airplanes to do with anything? ħuman
09:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, let me make this simple. If I'm wrong about aerodynamics, what do I do? I build an airplane and see if it works. If it doesn't work, I watch what happened, study it, analyze it, come up with another guess, and test it. That's why airplanes improve. But we can't do that with abiogenesis. You can't build "abiogenesis," see if it works, and if it doesn't work, try another guess. We can't test it, because we're not there to see it. That's why it's shitty "science." Because we can't DO what science does best -- learn from our mistakes. We can just make the mistake of our choice and then stick with it. Ungtss 09:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Your agenda is getting rather naked despite your protests. And your analogies are getting sillier. Your conclusion, however, is tiresomely consistent. ħuman
09:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I made the mistake of thinking you were sincerely interested in discussing this topic, and I let you draw me back in to your trolling. Lather, rinse, repeat. I'm done with you now. Ungtss 09:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Your agenda is getting rather naked despite your protests. And your analogies are getting sillier. Your conclusion, however, is tiresomely consistent. ħuman
- Okay, let me make this simple. If I'm wrong about aerodynamics, what do I do? I build an airplane and see if it works. If it doesn't work, I watch what happened, study it, analyze it, come up with another guess, and test it. That's why airplanes improve. But we can't do that with abiogenesis. You can't build "abiogenesis," see if it works, and if it doesn't work, try another guess. We can't test it, because we're not there to see it. That's why it's shitty "science." Because we can't DO what science does best -- learn from our mistakes. We can just make the mistake of our choice and then stick with it. Ungtss 09:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- What does abiognesis have to do with the courtroom analogy? Or airplanes to do with anything? ħuman
- You missed the point, Human. The point is that courts, and the historical "sciences," are so dependant on and surrounded by ancillary assumptions, biases, and interpretations that they are not nearly as reliable as the repeatable, falsifiable laboratory science that has given us the modern world. The airplane is built on a hundred thousand mistakes that could be observed, analyzed, and corrected. We don't have that luxury with abiogenesis, because we can't watch it happen. All we can do is make a guess and stick with it. Abiogenesis is the "simplest" answer to the question of origins -- we observe that we are here, and we observe no God, therefore we came to be on our own. Now let's make up some way that it might have happened, and call it science. Ungtss 08:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- "The courtroom" is a very poor analogy for how science works. Court sessions end, formally and declare judgment based on available evidence and arguments. Science is always open to - and looking for - new evidence, and new arguments. ħuman
So no alternative hypothesis? That's what I thought. It seems that you would reject common descent/ambiogenesis because there is no direct, testable evidence to support it. However, if you hold this belief my question is: What do you replace it with? Did life come from nothing?
- My point was not that there is no alternative to CD. My point was that there is no alternative hypothesis, because a hypothesis must be experimentally testable, and none of the alternative origin speculations are testable. "God exists," for example, is not a valid hypothesis, because there's no way to test it. There are plenty of alternative possibilities for the origin of life tho -- the strongest one, I think, is genetic engineering by intelligent, corporeal beings. It's supported by history, consistent with the evidence, and conceptually sound. Not a hypothesis though. Just a theory of the case. Ungtss 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me draw an analogy from everyday experience. You come home one day and there is a cake sitting on your coffee table. In the kitchen there is an empty box of cake mix. In the trash there are some eggshells. The oven is still warm. What logical explanation could there be? A rational person might hypothesize that their roommate made the cake (for arguments sake you have a roommate). There is some evidence for this, but since you cannot go back in time and directly observe this you cannot know for sure. However, you chose to reject this hypothesis based on the lack of rigorous scientific proof.
- I choose the possibility that my roommate cooked the cake (rather than it materializing out of the air), but not on the basis of the scientific method. I choose it based on common sense. I cannot test any hypothesis. Therefore I cannot perform the scientific method. I am outside science, and well inside the realm of "how do things normally work in the world?" Unless I can experiment, I can't do science. But that doesn't mean I have no means to weed out stupid ideas. When my brother lies to me, I can tell he's lying based on all sorts of things, including what I know about how he normally behaves, the look in his eyes, and what seems most reasonable to me. But I can't use science. So it is with the origin of life. We cannot test a hypothesis, therefore we cannot do "science." We can only use our common sense of how the world works. But unfortunately, views diverge much more sharply on the issues of origins than they do on the issue of cakes baking themselves. Ungtss 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Now, Ungtss, perhaps you believe that magical elves came into your house and made the cake? Perhaps you would prefer to believe that the cake and the accessories materialized out of thin air (there is, after all, a non-zero probability of this occurring). But regardless of your willingness to believe in any particular explanation, the most logical one remains.
- Again, that's based on my reason, not science. Science has nothing to say about whether the cake baked itself. It doesn't have the tools, because you can't experiment. Ungtss 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You can reject common descent all day long, but it still remains the best hypothesis based on the available evidence; and until you offer a reasonable alternative hypothesis, your argument will remain unpersuasive. Jorge 18:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Now that we're out of the realm of science and into the realm of "reason" and "interpretation of evidence," your opinion that "common descent is the best hypothesis based on the available evidence" is only your opinion. Your opinion may well be right or wrong, because it is not science. Every jury member sees the evidence differently. Dammit, they have a right to. All you need is one year in law school to realize that perfectly reasonable people can interpret the exact same evidence in completely opposite ways. Our persistent failure to recognize this fact is one of the tragedies of human history. Ungtss 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please indulge me, how do you interpret the evidence? Jorge 19:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- My interpretation of the evidence is not really significant. It changes daily, as I learn and grow. The real important point is that we agree on the rules of the game -- what science is and isn't, what it can and can't do. And how we should proceed in learning about the topic. Do we agree on the rules of the game? If not, further discussion is just as useless as playing chess with two different sets of rules. If so, I'd love to discuss the topic with your further, as I find it fascinating. Ungtss 19:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- For purposes of this debate your interpretation is indeed significant. Anyone can plead ignorance to a philosophical postulate. Just as it is impossible to convince someone they are not living in a Cartesian dream world, it is impossible to debate with someone who is not willing to share their opinion on the topic being debated. To use your analogy, this is akin to playing chess with someone who refuses to make a move. Jorge 20:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- My interpretation of the evidence is not really significant. It changes daily, as I learn and grow. The real important point is that we agree on the rules of the game -- what science is and isn't, what it can and can't do. And how we should proceed in learning about the topic. Do we agree on the rules of the game? If not, further discussion is just as useless as playing chess with two different sets of rules. If so, I'd love to discuss the topic with your further, as I find it fascinating. Ungtss 19:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please indulge me, how do you interpret the evidence? Jorge 19:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)