What Science Is .. and Isn't

[Moreno]

@Selrid

I’ll criticise unreflecting sophistry any way I want

Sure feel free to. But if you do it the way you have so far, you will be dismissed and for good reason.

thanks and if that is philosophy of science I’ll eat my hat. Whether you were criticising science or not is of no interest to me or what I said except to say what you say is introducing controversy to a field which already has it by reciprocal

I have never seen that last phrase, and can find no entries anywhere on the internet for it, so I have no idea what you are getting at with it. it does sound again like you think I am critiquing science, which I am not.

; what is though of concern though is your illogical reliance on a non sequitur to make a point that is in itself a non sequitur by virtue of being one to start with.

Is all very well unless the premise is itself not a logical fallacy. Induction by its nature is reliant on making a “guess” and then formulating a proof based on it, it is not however subservient to that guess being true or in any way remotely evidential or supported by anyone let alone a majority.

You are viewing my posts as a criticism of induction. They weren’t. Bad read.

All of the swans we have seen are white. Therefore, all swans are white. Is a fine example of where you are going wrong. It doesn’t matter whether everyone agrees on something or not, or whether it is probably true, it either is or it is not and evidence and experiment etc merely asymptotically approaches the truth.

Your example shows you are confused about the issue I was raising.

Falsification is not some absolute,

I never said it was.

nor is it defined by who does or does not agree, nor is it anything to do with how many swans I have seen that are white.

Great so it has nothing to do with the example you raised, since that is the issue you raised and no me.

The relationship of induction to falsifiability in your example

I did not give an example.

is being mangled. It’s as if you are saying if they can decide what is true, then they can decide x thus falisifiablity runs into problems logically without considering what it is and in what context you are talking about it.

Nope. I said nothing of the kind.

Popper would spin in his grave I think

Telling me what you think Popper’s reaction would be is meaningless.

I think you should go back and read Hume before you re read Popper personally,

Um, I did read Hume before reading Popper.

but I wouldn’t be so gauche as to patronise you with such an assertion, now would I?

Sure, you would. You attibuted motives to me previously, and incorrect ones, and do it again below.

Ultimately science accounts for induction and falsifiability by saying nothing is true only an approximation of it.

yeah, but that’s not exactly what Popper says, so it’s irrevelent or a straw man.

There is no problem with induction, only on those who abuse the term to claim empiricism is making logical claims on truth that it is not.

Which agains shows you do not understand the point I am making since you think I am being critical of induction. I am criticizing Popper’s sense of what the attitude towards scientific results should be, and bringing this in because I see similarities between Popper and what James is saying. And by the way, being critical of Popper’s view of science is hardly controversial. I would be in the mainstream on that one. His sense of how we should view scientific conclusions, including his way of conceiving falsifiability, tend to be seen as problematic. Hell, he even acknowledged the problem I am raising here.

The problem per se is not existent, it is an invention made to try and sway those who dislike empiricism on the basis of a black swan no one has seen.

And here again you make it clear that you are arguing against a position I do not have.

A theory is not true or false, it is merely proven or not.

This point has little to do with what I said, but I will point out that theories are also not proven. Proofs are more the realm of math or deduction. It would be very strange to say that this theory is proven but it may not be true, if you see what I mean. But you will likely take this as me saying science of induction is wrong, missing another point, here one that is tangential.

The problem with fallacy and or induction (if there even is one) is those who use it to induce fallacies which are mere sophistry.

Tell me about it.

I ignore poor readers who in addition to being poor readers claim to know my intentions.
I will not read any more of your posts.

[Selrid]

And I ignore idiots who can not make an argument remotely understood by anyone, which is contradictory and in which you then go onto apologise for whilst simultaneously resorting to some sort of sophistry on the subject, and then to make matters worse go onto self agrandise their monologues that they directly plagiarised from someone else anyway, whilst simultaneoulsy demeaning and arrogantly belittling everyone because they have some odd impression that reading someone else’s work and then abusing it whilst also plagiarising it is big and clever; and what’s more seem to be under the bizarre notion that some people need to be talked to like they are idiots by some fucking cock of the walk half chav, who believes he is important kinda analogous to Keanu Reeves gliding through the fucking matrix.

It seems then we are at an impasse. A career in moderation awaits you or middle management the graveyard of egotisitical pedants. You’re barely a child with some learning, dangerous and limited, with some sort of impression that everyone aught to damn well listen to you because you has read books and shit and has mad skills, init.

something tells me at your tender age of barely or just over 20 that you ignore anyone who dos not immediately agree with your plagiarised word salad. You don’t see me going out of my way to try and belittle you though do you? Oh no wait, that’s actually what I am doing. I wonder what that feels like from the other side.

[Bill_Wiltrack]

.

[size=150]
Wa…wait a minute…[/size]

[size=50]
…[/size]

[size=180]…you sure this is philosophy?[/size]

[size=130]
…OK, now let’s return to the important shit of back-biting and name calling…[/size]

.

[Moreno]

Sorry, james if I am creating tangents, but I want to make one last point. I went back and checked, last night, just to make sure I wasn’t posting out of my ass, and the problem I was pointing out in Popper’s philosophy of science is there, and he did acknowledge it. Also scientists and the philosophy of science have indeed moved away from Popper, though of course like many issues there is still debate. Most of the criticism is aimed at the problem with how he wanted science to be only in the negative - what is not yet falsified - whereas approximation of truth (supported by evidence), reliability and other models are much more common now. That falsification is still considered important by nearly everyone is still the case, but even here, in science there are problems when it comes to predictive theories that lead to statistical conclusions, but that’s another topic.

I am often against or trying to add to the mainstream position, but in this case I was actually coming from a more mainstream position - in the science community - on Popper’s ideas
and oddly found myself being accused of trying to undermine science in some way.

[Atthet]

@James S Saint

And btw, thank you Magjs and Atthet.

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=181975

[Selrid]

@Moreno

Sorry, james if I am creating tangents, but I want to make one last point. I went back and checked, last night, just to make sure I wasn’t posting out of my ass, and the problem I was pointing out in Popper’s philosophy of science is there, and he did acknowledge it. Also scientists and the philosophy of science have indeed moved away from Popper, though of course like many issues there is still debate. Most of the criticism is aimed at the problem with how he wanted science to be only in the negative - what is not yet falsified - whereas approximation of truth (supported by evidence), reliability and other models are much more common now. That falsification is still considered important by nearly everyone is still the case, but even here, in science there are problems when it comes to predictive theories that lead to statistical conclusions, but that’s another topic.

I am often against or trying to add to the mainstream position, but in this case I was actually coming from a more mainstream position - in the science community - on Popper’s ideas
and oddly found myself being accused of trying to undermine science in some way.

You’re a hero, and a martyr, god bless you.

Dude who cares. Just don’t demean people because the argument you expressed was ambivalent and hard to understand.

[skakos]

@James S Saint

It is a common misunderstanding that Science provides truth of some kind. That isn’t what Science does.

Science is specifically a method for observationally verifying that a proposed ontological construct, “a hypothesis”, is not untenable. Science does not ever proclaim that anything is true. It merely proclaims that certain thoughts have not been observationally proven to be false.

In the cases of classical physics and quantum physics, it is the duty of Science to verify that each ontological theory isn’t necessarily false. In so doing, each proposed theory is adjusted such as to avoid such condemnation and thus each theory becomes more observationally true. The limit of such a method for forming a completely true ontology (a proposed conceptual picture of reality) is in its ability to be evaluated by independent and repeatable observation.

A fairly recent concern and issue in Science is that independent observation concerning very expensive experiments has become impossible. In addition, there are military and political concerns involving revealing any truth concerning potentially dangerous details, such as simple means for creating weapons of mass destruction, or political revolution. In the case of the recent Higgs boson experiment, it took 10 years of observing, billions of dollars spent, to merely find evidence lasting for only a microsecond or so of something that resembled the proposed Higgs boson. But the foundation involved became in jeopardy of losing its justification for such extreme expenditures and thus something had to be found immediately. Such doesn’t actually qualify as Science.

The construction of ontologies to be proposed is actually the business of actual philosophers and metaphysicists. Scientists are the technicians that carry out proposed falsifiable tests on such proposed hypotheses. When the technicians begin making their own proposals, very many irrational proposals get into the picture. This is literally no different than electronic technicians proposing the theories that electronic engineers are supposed to be the experts at understanding. The techs are not necessarily wrong merely because they are techs, but a great many technician misunderstandings get into the picture very quickly.

Science is merely a means for verification of ontological proposals. The only truth that Science proposes is that a submitted ontological hypothesis (and there can be very many independent yet true ontologies) has been independently and repeatably demonstrated to not conform the hypothesized observation.

In other words, “What you predicted to be seen, wasn’t what was seen”.
And that is ALL that can be called Science.

I too believe science just creates prediction models. Indeed nothing to do with the “truth” (if such thing even exists).
Scientists today have forgotten that and they more or less behave like priests: “Accept the Higgs boson” they cry. But this particle which creates mass, was discovered based on its… mass (!?) and even though the theory did not predict its mass (!!). So there is certainly something weird here.

However I do not believe it is correct to use the word “ontology” here. Ontology has to do with the “being” (“ον” in Greek) and this is something even philosophy has not “solved” yet (let alone science).

PS. I would think that it is good to clarify that you speak of the “exact sciences” here.

[James_S_Saint]

@skakos

However I do not believe it is correct to use the word “ontology” here. Ontology has to do with the “being” (“ον” in Greek) and this is something even philosophy has not “solved” yet (let alone science).

???
Could you explain that bit a little more.
I am not aware of any question concerning “being” nor ontology in philosophy.

@skakos

PS. I would think that it is good to clarify that you speak of the “exact sciences” here.

Yeah, good point.

[skakos]

@James S Saint

@skakos

However I do not believe it is correct to use the word “ontology” here. Ontology has to do with the “being” (“ον” in Greek) and this is something even philosophy has not “solved” yet (let alone science).

???
Could you explain that bit a little more.
I am not aware of any question concerning “being” nor ontology in philosophy.

I mentioned this only because you mentioned “ontological statements” in your post. Philosophy deals with questions concerning the Ον (being), as Heidegger did. Meaning questions about “what is Is”, “what being means” et cetera. Science for me is not in any place to answer such fundamental questions. A prediction model may work, but the scientists using it could know absolutely nothing about the “ex-istence” of the items it has as components.

And it is important to note that in Philosophy the examination of Being (Ον => οντολογία / ontology) is conducted in contrast to the examination of Phenomena (φαινόμενα) which belong in the realm of Science.

[James_S_Saint]

@skakos

@James S Saint

@skakos

However I do not believe it is correct to use the word “ontology” here. Ontology has to do with the “being” (“ον” in Greek) and this is something even philosophy has not “solved” yet (let alone science).

???
Could you explain that bit a little more.
I am not aware of any question concerning “being” nor ontology in philosophy.

I mentioned this only because you mentioned “ontological statements” in your post. Philosophy deals with questions concerning the Ον (being), as Heidegger did. Meaning questions about “what is Is”, “what being means” et cetera. Science for me is not in any place to answer such fundamental questions. A prediction model may work, but the scientists using it could know absolutely nothing about the “ex-istence” of the items it has as components.

And it is important to note that in Philosophy the examination of Being (Ον => οντολογία / ontology) is conducted in contrast to the examination of Phenomena (φαινόμενα) which belong in the realm of Science.

I see. You have been missing some philosophy… Existence meaningfully Defined (and welcome to the world of true metaphysics).

[Helandhighwater]

@skakos

@James S Saint

It is a common misunderstanding that Science provides truth of some kind. That isn’t what Science does.

Science is specifically a method for observationally verifying that a proposed ontological construct, “a hypothesis”, is not untenable. Science does not ever proclaim that anything is true. It merely proclaims that certain thoughts have not been observationally proven to be false.

In the cases of classical physics and quantum physics, it is the duty of Science to verify that each ontological theory isn’t necessarily false. In so doing, each proposed theory is adjusted such as to avoid such condemnation and thus each theory becomes more observationally true. The limit of such a method for forming a completely true ontology (a proposed conceptual picture of reality) is in its ability to be evaluated by independent and repeatable observation.

A fairly recent concern and issue in Science is that independent observation concerning very expensive experiments has become impossible. In addition, there are military and political concerns involving revealing any truth concerning potentially dangerous details, such as simple means for creating weapons of mass destruction, or political revolution. In the case of the recent Higgs boson experiment, it took 10 years of observing, billions of dollars spent, to merely find evidence lasting for only a microsecond or so of something that resembled the proposed Higgs boson. But the foundation involved became in jeopardy of losing its justification for such extreme expenditures and thus something had to be found immediately. Such doesn’t actually qualify as Science.

The construction of ontologies to be proposed is actually the business of actual philosophers and metaphysicists. Scientists are the technicians that carry out proposed falsifiable tests on such proposed hypotheses. When the technicians begin making their own proposals, very many irrational proposals get into the picture. This is literally no different than electronic technicians proposing the theories that electronic engineers are supposed to be the experts at understanding. The techs are not necessarily wrong merely because they are techs, but a great many technician misunderstandings get into the picture very quickly.

Science is merely a means for verification of ontological proposals. The only truth that Science proposes is that a submitted ontological hypothesis (and there can be very many independent yet true ontologies) has been independently and repeatably demonstrated to not conform the hypothesized observation.

In other words, “What you predicted to be seen, wasn’t what was seen”.
And that is ALL that can be called Science.

I too believe science just creates prediction models. Indeed nothing to do with the “truth” (if such thing even exists).
Scientists today have forgotten that and they more or less behave like priests: “Accept the Higgs boson” they cry. But this particle which creates mass, was discovered based on its… mass (!?) and even though the theory did not predict its mass (!!). So there is certainly something weird here.

However I do not believe it is correct to use the word “ontology” here. Ontology has to do with the “being” (“ον” in Greek) and this is something even philosophy has not “solved” yet (let alone science).

PS. I would think that it is good to clarify that you speak of the “exact sciences” here.

No it was’nt predicted based on its mass, and no it would not be predicted to give objects mass based on a mass, I would prefer if people would actually make arguments that did not start from non sequiturs, it was predicted because it seems all the forces have mediators, not a single particle has ever been predicted precisely because of its mass, in fact this is an open question in science, no one knows or has the first clue what relation any masses of fundamental particles or otherwise have. What was indeed predicted was that certain particles would possibly fall between certain mass parameters or be unstable given the force and thus unable to mediate that particular force. Such parameters were very widely spread, for very good reasons.

Exact sciences: it would be nice if half the people on this forum had the first clue about the subject, but then we live in hope.

No one accepts the Higgs Boson yet, it is still a tentative theory at best, which you would know if you actually had any sort of learning about this subject. It has been proven that a particle fitting the mass that we suspected a Higgs might appear in has now been found, whether it is the holy lost grail of a mediator for gravity has yet to be established.

Stop reading popular media that makes grandiose claims about science and start reading things in journals which are actually more likely to be true. If you do not stop reading the Daily Mail or whatever as your source on science, you will most likely run a foul of science. Now don’t get me wrong what they report is often seeded in truth, and what they report is often grounded in some form of experiment, but it is not a theory as yet that any sort of gravitational explanation has been made, any particle that has been found explains it, or has been experimentally shown to do so; and what’s more no scientist has claimed it has in any reputable journal, although everyone has opinions, just like everyone has an arsehole.

[Drusuz]

@James S Saint

@Moreno

@Helandhighwater

Oh no wait don’t bother James is just on another one of his word wank fests about how science is all wrong

Um, he’s never said that. And it’s not what he believes.

Thank you Moreno.
When I disagree with something concerning Science (usually a “theory”), it is usually because something is being reported as “Science” when it clearly is not.

Science is empirically demonstrable.

How is a theory emperically demonstrateable?

[Ed3]

Hi Drusus,

It is nice to see that someone understands the point you made.

I am curious to see if anyone understands that one can not falsify a theory.

Ed

[James_S_Saint]

@Ed3

Hi Drusus,

It is nice to see that someone understands the point you made.

I am curious to see if anyone understands that one can not falsify a theory.

Ed

What do you mean that someone cannot falsify a theory?
If anything can be falsified, it seems a theory would be it.

[Drusuz]

@Ed3

Hi Drusus,

It is nice to see that someone understands the point you made.

I am curious to see if anyone understands that one can not falsify a theory.

Are you by chance trying to be amuseing?

[Ed3]

Hi to All,

I am sort of hoping that Flannel Jesus will come to my rescue. If not, then anyone who has actually read Popper can jump in.

If no one rescues me then I will try to put forth a reasonable response.

I am never funny on purpose

Ed

[Flannel_Jesus]

“It’s impossible to falsify a theory”
Is this the statement that it’s hoped I will defend?

If so, I’m not sure I agree, maybe you can talk about your thought process when you made it.

The only justification I can see for this statement is the following:
If, by ‘falsify’ we mean ‘show that the probability of the theory being true is 0’ then I suppose I technically agree, in that most-strict use of the term ‘falsify’.
I don’t personally use the term ‘falsify’ to mean ‘shown to have a probability of 0’, I’m a bit looser with the term. If by ‘falsify’ we merely mean ‘shown to be almost certainly not the case’, then I would disagree with the statement at the top of this post.

But yes, operating on Bayesian approaches to probabilities regarding theories and how they relate to experiments that pertain to them, it’s strictly true that no logically possible theory can ever be shown to have a probability of 0 given any experiment, I think.

I could be wrong about that. I don’t think so though.

[James_S_Saint]

A falsifiable theory is a theory that could be shown to be false if in fact it were false as opposed to theory that couldn’t be shown to be false even if it were false.

Just for an obvious example;
A theory is proposed that “2+2 = 3”.

By definition, 3 = 1+1+1.
By definition, 2 = 1+1.
By Logic; 2+2 = (1+1) + (1+1)
By mere count (“definition”), (1+1) + (1+1) = 4
By Logic, 3 [size=150]≠[/size] 4.
Thus theory was false - 100% certainty.

Now as far as an empirical experiment, just image a falsifiable theory wherein it is proposed that if one were to add 2 of X (stuff) to another 2 of X, one would always end up with only 3 of X.

The experiment is carefully done many times and it is seen that there are actually 4 of X.
The theory would have been proven false (even if only failing once).
Thus a falsifiable theory can in fact be proven false if it is in fact false.

Ed3, I knew that I would eventually get you back for catching one of my all too common math mistakes and then disappearing for 6 months without ever addressing the real issue (Stopped Clock Paradox).

[Flannel_Jesus]

@James S Saint

By definition, 3 = 1+1+1.
By definition, 2 = 1+1.
By Logic; 2+2 = (1+1) + (1+1)
By mere count (“definition”), (1+1) + (1+1) = 4
By Logic, 3 [size=150]≠[/size] 4.
Thus theory was false - 100% certainty.

@Flannel Jesus

it’s strictly true that no logically possible theory can ever be shown to have a probability of 0 given any experiment, I think.

I did try to limit it to stuff that’s not a priori showable to be true/false, as you can see above.
Even then, I’m not quite sure I need that limit really.
But I don’t want to argue the specifics of why that limit might not be necessary, so for the time being I’ll leave it there.

[James_S_Saint]

Science requires that any proposed theory must be falsifiable to even be considered.
That means that at some point, there must be a “true/false” situation proposed.
Else one could just stick with “God works in mysterious ways”.