Scientific Conclusions

[_MrStakhanovite]

And your whole 'You guys are being mean to the theists, so I'm gonna be mean to you' thing seems kinda... immature.

Yeah, my complaint isn't that you're mean, it's that you're a shallow dip. The above quote is my case in point.

[_Chap]

And your whole 'You guys are being mean to the theists, so I'm gonna be mean to you' thing seems kinda... immature.

Yeah, my complaint isn't that you're mean, it's that you're a shallow dip. The above quote is my case in point.

???

[_EAllusion]

I don't know what marg meant by pragmatic in this context.

Marg said that science is all about predictive utility and philosophy of science is only relevant if it enhances that. The irony here is that asserting the worth of scientific theories is in their predictive utility is a very particular kind of phil of science assertion. That's pragmatism in a formal sense. The effect is that marg was saying that philosophy of science is only relevant when it presumes a position that she asserted even though it is an area of legitimate dispute within the field.

It would be like me saying that normative theory is only worth a damn if it can tell us how to make judgements about happiness and suffering. Kantians would be tearing their hair out.

Schmo, latching onto the word pragmatic, misses the point. Philosophy of science that isn't about predictive utility could have practical applications for how people do science. Reading about Bayesian probability can help me think about how to explain things without pragmatism having to be endorsed.

[_EAllusion]

I don’t claim to be an expert in philosophy of science,

Then stop trying to condescend people about what science is about until you have a better grasp of what science is about. I'm no expert either, but I'm fairly certain I know more than you, so don't you find it odd that I'm more cautious in my assertions? You know, you can say things like, "It's difficult to know exactly what science is, but one feature that appears to be vital is comparing alternative theories in light of observational evidence that weighs on the probability of those theories."

saying they have no justification for posting, unless they are experts.

No one said that.

[_EAllusion]

I reject (tentatively) your apparent notion that logic is a tool for obtaining useful truths, because I have run across just enough examples of logical paradoxes which don't square with reality. I can outrun a tortoise with ease. Yet a logic argument was put forward to tell me that I cannot. And that logical paradox which attempts to tell me that I cannot outrun a tortoise seems not to have ever been disproven rigorously. Not for 2500 years. Why should I place my absolute trust in logic as a system for obtaining knowledge when i can clearly see that it fails in at least some instances?

You really can't make a logical argument against valuing logical argument. It's self-defeating.

[_brade]

I reject (tentatively) your apparent notion that logic is a tool for obtaining useful truths, because I have run across just enough examples of logical paradoxes which don't square with reality. I can outrun a tortoise with ease. Yet a logic argument was put forward to tell me that I cannot. And that logical paradox which attempts to tell me that I cannot outrun a tortoise seems not to have ever been disproven rigorously. Not for 2500 years. Why should I place my absolute trust in logic as a system for obtaining knowledge when i can clearly see that it fails in at least some instances?

You really can't make a logical argument against valuing logical argument. It's self-defeating.

beefcalf, I don't think anyone was seriously trying to argue that you cannot outrun a tortoise, or not move at all, or whatever. The point was to say, "Look, here's a set of commonly held assumptions, and here's the absurd conclusion we arrive at when we apply the rules of logic to them. The conclusion is apparently false and so something must be wrong with one or more assumption, one or more rule of logic, or an application of one or more rule of logic." Paradoxes like the one of motion aren't meant to prove that motion is impossible. Rather, they're in invitation to examine assumptions we hold, and even our understanding of logic itself.

I don't even know how one could get on at the grocery store, have non-nonsensical conversation, or properly dress oneself if one sincerely didn't trust logic. And as EA points out, the essence of your little rant against logic is itself an argument - a use of logic.

[_marg]

But these "Alternative conflicting interpretations" proposed which can equally account for the data, does not mean..they have consensus acceptance. So that's not what I was talking about and I only tweeked Beefcalf's statement.

Something is not science only if it achieves consensus. If that were the case, current consensus could never be overturned or added to.

I didn't say something is science only if it achieves consensus. Please go back to my whole tweeked sentence and nit-pick that.

Further, peer reviewed consensus isn't only achieved through the definition of science beefcalf offered. We're talking about a statement about what science is. Here's what beefcalf should've known: There is something in phil of science known as the demarcation problem. This problem is essentially that no one has come up with a foolproof list of things that make an idea or process science or not. That's not to say that there aren't better and worse ideas for what sorts of things should count as scientific, but that the problem is so difficult that you can't have a one sentence definition of what scientific conclusions are without someone having the ability to poke holes in it.

I'm not sure you or stak have actually made any effort to find out what Beefcalf understands. And once again it's not Beefcalf claiming to be an expert. I appreciate your attempt at educating but this thread is about Stak's giving an example to show Beefcalf is so unknowledgable in this case about how science operates..that he shouldn't have made the statement he did. Did Stak succeed? The issue is not that Beefcalf or I are claiming to be experts.

It would be nice if we could say the scientific method is X where X is some naïve thing you learned in the 4th grade, but unfortunately science doesn't work that way. Science really is just sound empirical methodology (reasoning with observations to draw conclusions about the world) and what constitutes sound empirical methodology isn't always obvious.

Again I'm glad you are educating. However I did not argue that science is perfect, that there is a foolproof method of what constitutes science..but I did say on consensus accepted scientific theories ...scientists in that area of expertise are the ones deciding which theory best explains phenomenon..not philosophers. I also didn't get into methodology except a little with Zee. Apparently Stak thinks prayers and resultant feelings are okay..as part of scientific methodology.

Finally, you shouldn't consider creationism not science because it doesn't get published in non-incestual journals. That's a really good sign it isn't science, but the reason creationism isn't science has more to do with it using arguments from ignorance/"the designer did it" not being a testable theory.

The theory doesn't offer predictive value. I wasn't suggesting that only because it's not recognized as science that it therefore isn't science. I appreciate there are reasons.

No EA, I did not want to say explanatory steps.

Well, if you actually wanted to say "data" then what you are saying is wrong and nonsensical. Why is less data to justify a theory ever preferred over more?

I've looked into and discussed this sort of thing during the Spalding thread in Celestial, which at that time we discussed Occam's Razor and ad hoc assumptions. Perhaps you could go there and nit pick what I said, where I was actually much more involved with this sort of thing, citing ..reviewing etc. I'll look into which post and you can review that and nit pick to your heart's content. But in this thread, my focus is an entirely different matter. It is that stak didn't succeed in demonstrating by Beefcalf's statement that he's such an ignorant fool he shouldn't have posted it. In addition that Stak has himself demonstrated naïvété of science.

I noticed you've ignored my comment that Stak was incorrect to argue that the coke cans have equal evidentiary value to observation of black ravens

.
"Evidentiary value" has a slippery meaning here and you are talking about it in a way Stak wasn't. I'm trying to have some economy in my posts here.

How was I talking about it in a way Stak wasn't?

I'm not arguing against the utility of phil of science..as long as it's pragmatic or not used by individuals such as Stak in illegitmate ways.

So philosophy of science is only should be argued if it endorses your pragmatist views on philosophy of science?

Again you are nit picking. I knew as I was quickly writing it you'd pounce on it but I didn't really care. You see EA I'm not really interested in getting into an in depth discussion of phil of science. My interest currently is listening to Hitchen's read his book.

What my argument in this thread is ..is that Stak who set out to illustrate that Beefcalf is so utterly naïve about science that he should have never made the comment he did...did not succeed. And that in addition that Stak himself has demonstrated being naïve about science. I don't have to be an expert in ALL philosophy of science to make that observation and comment. If I had argued I'm an expert in philosophy of science...then you could set about arguing against that.

Now I made my pragmatic remark, because I do think much of philosophy is not very useful and is much about word games. In this case Stak illustrated its use as a word game ..by the way he argued against Beefcalfs statement.

I'll look for my posts on Occam's Razor, and ad hoc assumptions and like I said you can nit pick that to death is you wish.

ETA: Here's one on ad hoc assumptions. viewtopic.php?p=456922#p456922

Here's another post in which I use the word "data", let me know if I'm using the word incorrectly

viewtopic.php?p=449439#p449439

Let me just show you one example where an assumption in your use of logic leads you astray. You use Occam's Razor or the principal of parsimony and conclude the S/R theory is complex, therefore the Smith alone explains the data is simpler and on that basis is the better theory.

You have an assumption that you understand Occam's Razor and therefore can use it effectively and appropriately in support of the Smith alone theory over the S/R theory. Unfortunately you do not understand Occam's Razor. Where Occams' Razor is applicable is where there are 2 or more explanatory theories and they reach the same conclusion. In such cases, obviously it's not necessary to use the explanatory theory with the greatest amount of data supporting the same conclusion if the simpler (less data) theory adequately warrants that conclusion.

The situation with the S/R and Smith alone theories is that they are explanations with different conclusions. They are competing theories but they are not equal explanatory theories for the same conclusion.

Let's take an example..Out of Africa theory versus Multiregional Continuity theory.

They are competing theories but with different conclusions. Scientists don't say ...well this theory should be accepted because it has the fewest amount of data. That would be ludicrous. The fewest amount of data has nothing to do with deciding which theory has the best explanatory power.

Currently the Out of Africa theory is the one accepted because it's warranted with the strong DNA evidence, which I'm sure is very extensive but it's strong credible evidence. Deciding which theory is best with these competing theories has nothing to do with which one has the fewest data. I would bet if one looks at the data, that the multiregional theory has the fewest.

Now if there were some theories within the "out of africa" theory that reach the same conclusion that all homo sapiens evolved from a common ancestry out of Africa..let's just say we add God into the mix for argument sake. Same theory as the naturalistic one but with the added notion God started mankind in Africa and God led mankind around the world. Well god isn't necessary to the theory. It doesn't add any more explanatory power to the naturalistic out of africa theory/conclusion. In addition God is complex data, because we would have to get into all the ramifications and explanations on what God is first in order to add that data. So adding God wouldn't help reach the conclusion, it would only add increased complexity and that's where applying parsimony makes sense. That is to cut away excessive unnecessary explanatory data.

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo, latching onto the word pragmatic, misses the point. Philosophy of science that isn't about predictive utility could have practical applications for how people do science. Reading about Bayesian probability can help me think about how to explain things without pragmatism having to be endorsed.

Actually, I think you missed the point.

But it's not that important (and I'm not disputing your comment here). I guess I'm only moved to post on this because of how seriously people seem to take these conversations. That's what I find most interesting about the message board dynamic.

Anyway, carry on.

[_marg]

I don’t claim to be an expert in philosophy of science,

Then stop trying to condescend people about what science is about until you have a better grasp of what science is about. I'm no expert either, but I'm fairly certain I know more than you, so don't you find it odd that I'm more cautious in my assertions? You know, you can say things like, "It's difficult to know exactly what science is, but one feature that appears to be vital is comparing alternative theories in light of observational evidence that weighs on the probability of those theories."

Look EA I entered this thread to discuss the O.P not to carry on a discussion of a definitive explanation of what science entails. You may want to get into a detailed discussion about of phil of science so you can nit pick to death anything I say, but I'm not interested. I've responded to you when you've brought up points about phil of science, and if you consider responding condescension then you've set up a no win situation for me with apparent intent to attack. If I had claimed to be an expert, or had said that someone had no right to comment because they weren't knowledgeable enough..you'd have a legitimate point regarding condescension. As far as you being cautious in your assertions, I have no idea what you are talking about, this thread, other threads? You certainly are arrogant though...because your style is not the only acceptable style.

And I only tweeked Beefcalf's statement. I didn't get into an in depth discussion of what science entails, nor did I ever intend to. If I did had I would have reviewed and given it more thought.

saying they have no justification for posting, unless they are experts.

No one said that.

That is the perception whether those are the exact words or not, which you guys give.

Since you are into attack mode ..by saying that I'm being condescending..I'll let you really get into this and you can pile on all you like. You never did answer my question in the thread in which you called me a "village idiot atheist, a walking talking strawman, that I'm frequently mean to people, that I don't know what I'm talking about when I post..to name some of your comments. I'll link to it below. The thing is you throw out these attacks but don't back up with examples. I wish I could say nasty things about you or Stak, given the complete extreme disrespect you've both shown, but I can't muster the feelings to do so. I can't come out with a pile of attacks like you do because I'm interested in discussion, in what someone's argument and reasoning is, not in attacking them. I don't have a vengeful desire to go after anyone, no one on this board means enough to me to do that.

So if I've been so terrible to people, who do you have in mind? I know there have been a few times I've been mean,..though 2 of those times I was trying to provoke the individuals into thinking ..and did not have malicious intent. Only one person was I truly mean to that I can recall and that was because they entered the thread not having a clue what it was about to give their opinion and it annoyed me to no end. It had nothing to do with religion though. If I have entered a thread to discuss and I don't know what I'm talking about what thread or issue do you have in mind? I can't help but feel given what you've expressed in the past that you hold animosity towards me and that that's your purpose for entering this thread. So to continue when sincere discussion isn't your interest would be time wasting.

here's the link..viewtopic.php?p=538361#p538361

[_marg]

But it's not that important (and I'm not disputing your comment here). I guess I'm only moved to post on this because of how seriously people seem to take these conversations. That's what I find most interesting about the message board dynamic.

Anyway, carry on.

Good point. I really need to shift my focus from here.