Scientific Conclusions

[_marg]

The fact that a large (possibly infinite) number of theories can be equally consistent with a set of data does affect how science operates. How could it not?

Well that's not what on the table.

My slightly tweeked version of Beefcalf's statement is: "a peer reviewed consensus accepted scientific conclusion is holding something to be true because of strongly corroborated evidence which does not allow for an alternate conflicting interpretation."

We aren't talking about theories generally, we are talking about "peer reviewed consensus accepted scientific theories". So it is theories accepted by a scientific community with the expertise in the area under consideration. So creationists are out, they are not recognized scientists by the scientific community. And the scientific community does not accept creationism as science. The community of scientists in a particular area decide which theories have tentative consensus working acceptance. So where do you get we are talking about an infinite number of theories?

Now onto this part of the above sentence " is holding something to be true...for scientists it is holding/accepting theories which offer explanations about the physical world and they offer predictive value or at least potential predictive value. They are temporary explanations.

In science there is a general heuristic rule that the least data required which warrants a theory is usually better than adding more unnecessary data which doesn't improve upon the explanation. So if there are 2 theories which are equivalent in explanatory power the one with the least data is generally preferred..why make an explanation more complex than it needs to be. So in science they don't keep adding on an infinite amount of data before reaching a consensus accepted theory. Now if there are 2 or more conflicting theories which offer different explanations for a phenomenon generally one theory due to its better predictive power will win out. If there are 2 or more theories with evidence with equal explanatory power, then that means no one theory has consensus acceptance. It means they all offer equal predictive power and value.

If we look at this raven paradox...which Stak is arguing to warrant "Any theory you craft can be mirrored to produce 10+ theories of equal evidentiary value." this is not how science operates. Scientists would not Old Testament scour the world examining and eliminating every thing in it, in order to determine with absolute certainty no non-black raven exists. That's absurd. That's simply a philosophical conundrum that philosophy bothers with. Scientists after observations decide if enough data has accumulated to hypothesize only black raven's exist. They aren't going to examine any coke cans, or apples to determine that. And so with enough observations they make a tentative hypothesis..only black raven's exist and in time when that bears out it gains consensus acceptance as a theory.

To the last part of my tweeked Beefcalf 's statement "does not allow for an alternate conflicting interpretation." If there are conflicting theories they don't each have equal evidentiary value..if they did they wouldn't be conflicting..as an explanation.

It's a well known problem that was discussed during my science edcuation in such hotbeds of phil of science as personality psych and microbiology.

What problem? That science can't via inductive reasoning reach absolute certainty? That's a phil of science problem. Science works, it offer predictive value and that's what counts. If philosophers like Stak wants to get bogged down mentally into criticizing science and saying "Any theory you craft can be mirrored to produce 10+ theories of equal evidentiary value"..and then bring up the raven's parodox to warrant this...well he's not appreciating how science work. The observation of non black "coke cans" does not have equal evidentiary value to to the evidentiary value of the positive observations that scientists make observing ravens in the world...despite what Stak asserts.

Scientists just work out amongst themselves what sort of considerations should count when picking particular theories among the myriad options.

Correct. Eventually they decide what theory to explain a phenomenon warrants consensus acceptance. But that doesn't mean there is a problem in the scientific method or that for any consensus accepted theory there are "10+ theories of equal evidentiary value".

People who study scientific methods and the history/sociology of science try to figure out what sorts of considerations they are relying on and try to evaluate whether this is reasonable. This does ultimately filter back into science proper and help steer how scientists go about their jobs. When a scientist talks about how one no one experiment can prove a theory, but one elegantly designed one can disprove it, she's wrong, but she's also importing (outmoded) phil of science into her thinking that probably plays a role in what kind of research decisions she makes.

I have no problem with that assessment.

[_Blixa]

Your guyses criticism of Stak is so laughably hypocritical that... well, I'm at a loss.

Not only do you not fairly describe Stak, but you don't even represent yourselves fairly.

When you attempt to massage Stak's prostate, does he swat your hand out of the way so he can do it himself, or is he more gentle?

Come now, Schmo, you aren't paying attention. Why the board tabloid has it that Stak, EA and I are engaged in an endless threesome....

[_EAllusion]

So where do you get we are talking about an infinite number of theories?

I think you misunderstand. "Alternative conflicting interpretations" are always on the table because any number of alternative theories can be proposed that can equally account for the data in the sense of being consistent with it. This is known as the indeterminacy problem.

In science there is a general heuristic rule that the least data required which warrants a theory is usually better than adding more unnecessary data which doesn't improve upon the explanation.

I think what you want to say is that a theory that requires the least amount of explanatory steps that sufficiently accounts for the data is to be preferred. In other words, parsimony. Yes, parsimony is one proposed "other consideration" I was talking about in my post. It's one of the more controversial and difficult to understand ones. It's more complicated than you seem to think, especially given that you misused the word "data," but I recommend this paper for further reading:

philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/pars.PDF

But that you even bring this up is missing the point. Yes, there are other considerations that scientists employ to weigh between theories. That was Stak's point. He was attacking a naïve definition of what goes on in science in order to prod his interlocutor into humility and further study.

What problem? That science can't via inductive reasoning reach absolute certainty?

No, that's the problem of induction - sorta. This is the problem of indeterminacy. Which was described right before the quote you are responding to, so weird.

That's a phil of science problem.

And therefore a problem for people doing science. Science at its base has to be warranted marg.

Science works, it offer predictive value and that's what counts.

Maybe you and mfb can have a pragmatist off. But hey, now you are doing phil of science and telling scientists what they should consider when evaluating theories is their predictive utility. A respectable position, but a hypocritical thing to argue in a paragraph arguing against the utility of phil of science for science.

[_marg]

I think you misunderstand. "Alternative conflicting interpretations" are always on the table because any number of alternative theories can be proposed that can equally account for the data in the sense of being consistent with it. This is known as the indeterminacy problem.

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. Since I was talking about consensus accepted theories...then I'm not talking about alternative theories with their own data and evidence..which might be somewhat consistent yet not have the as much explanatory power as the accepted theories.

I think what you want to say is that a theory that requires the least amount of explanatory steps that sufficiently accounts for the data is to be preferred. In other words, parsimony. Yes, parsimony is one proposed "other consideration" I was talking about in my post. It's one of the more controversial and difficult to understand ones. It's more complicated than you seem to think, especially given that you misused the word "data," but I recommend this paper for further reading:

philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/pars.PDF

No EA, I did not want to say explanatory steps. I was talking about parsimony. If you wish to discuss it go ahead..but there's a reason I didn't say that parsimony is always scientifically used or preferred. I do realize it's not necesssarily the case that the least amount of data with equal explanatory power is preferred.

But that you even bring this up is missing the point. Yes, there are other considerations that scientists employ to weigh between theories. That was Stak's point. He was attacking a naïve definition of what goes on in science in order to prod his interlocutor into humility and further study.

Stak may have been trying to attack what he thought was a naïve definition..but when Beefcake wrote what he did, he did so not appreciating it would later be nit picked in order to personally attack him. Stak was not trying to "prod his interlocutor into humility and further study" he was attacking Beefcalf ..but not following through on whether he was making a legitimate warranted argument. Just because Beefcalf didn't follow his symbolic logic which
Stak uncreatively used from C. Hempel does not mean Beefcalf doesn't understand how science works. Nor did Stak indicate he knows squat how science operates by his use of the raven paradox.

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. In that raven parodox in which evidence of the entire world is necessary to determine if there are non black ravens sure in that philosophical example the coke cans would have equal evidentiary value, but it is incorrect to make that argument for science, since in science those coke cans would not offer equal evidentiary value to positive evidence of ravens.

No, that's the problem of induction - sorta. This is the problem of indeterminacy. Which was described right before the quote you are responding to, so weird.

Well you haven't identified a problem in my opinion. What you've essentially argued so far ..is that stak was trying to illustrate that Beefcalf's understanding of how science works is naïve and that he was simply prodding him to study and investigate further. But I don't really think that's what is going on here. It's rather arrogant of Stak to take the position he has, express it in such a disrespectful manner when he's not shown he understands how science functions himself and in my opinion has shown that he doesn't. Now it seems you are trying to defend him...despite his arrogant disrespectful behavior. He simply is not in a position to be so critical of others.

And therefore a problem for people doing science. Science at its base has to be warranted marg.

Science is warranted EA. The raven paradox brought up by Stak..did not illustrate any problems with science or that there are a myriad of competing theories with equal evidentiary value for every consensus accepted scientific theory.

Maybe you and mfb can have a pragmatist off. But hey, now you are doing phil of science and telling scientists what they should consider when evaluating theories is their predictive utility. A respectable position, but a hypocritical thing to argue in a paragraph arguing against the utility of phil of science for science.

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 I'm arguing that Stak has misused philosophy. He is so keen on attacking others because he states it annoys him when they "talk out their asses" his words, yet it appears he's done just that. You may understand how science operates but Stak hasn't shown that in this thread.

My overall impression of most people on the Net using philosophy is that they do so as linguistic word games...quite often trying to impress others hoping it will indicate they think well. But when they regurgitate what they've learned and misapply it as Stak has done, then philosophy appears to be doing a disservice to their critical thinking.

I'm not accusing you of that.

[_Some Schmo]

Come now, Schmo, you aren't paying attention. Why the board tabloid has it that Stak, EA and I are engaged in an endless threesome....

Pfffft... tabloids. Ya can't trust those things.

Pictures or it ain't true.

[_EAllusion]

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. 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

[_Some Schmo]

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

Nobody cares about impractical philosophy unless they're a philosofag. (You can thank me for this hilarious and pinpoint characterization after you've recovered from your gales of laughter).

[_Yoda]

Come now, Schmo, you aren't paying attention. Why the board tabloid has it that Stak, EA and I are engaged in an endless threesome....

Pfffft... tabloids. Ya can't trust those things.

Pictures or it ain't true.

LOL! I have posters available for sale in the Goddess Suite! :-)

[_Chap]

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?

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

I would however say that it would be reasonable to have doubts about any idea that all philosophers of science agree that their discipline is in a position to be in any way prescriptive so far as scientific practice is concerned. That is not, of course, to deny that the philosophical problems studied by such scholars are often extremely interesting in themselves, or that the people who study them are doing something worthwhile. But exactly what that worthwhileness consists of may be open to discussion.

I have deliberately put that in the most modest and eirenic terms I can. In return, even though I am an anonymous coward, I would appreciate not being answered (if answer there is) as if it can be assumed that I am talking about a topic with which I am wholly unfamiliar.

But hey - if it works for you, OK. I don't really mind.

[_marg]

Before addressing your post I want to recap the situation here. Beefcalf never claimed to be an expert in how science operates, nor claimed to write a definite statement on it, nor have I. I’m not aware of Beefcalf going into a barrage of insults because of anyone questioning his understanding of science. He’s not claimed to have lost patience with others for not being as knowledgable as him. Contrast this with Stak who you are defending.

Stak claims directly or indirectly to be so well read, knowledgeable and intelligent when he posts, that it annoys the hell of it him to read posts by non knowledgeable atheists and consequently he feels he’s entitled to shift to disrespectful attack mode instead of discussion. He does this despite ever showing via argumentation he knows what he’s criticizing. His use of the raven’s paradox to warrant attacking Beefcalf’s statement ..only entailed copying some philosophy he has read. That was no criticism of science, it didn’t show he understood how or why that could or should be applied to science. And in fact in numerous posts Stak indicated he doesn’t understand science. When he said coke cans have as much evidentiary value as ravens in the context of the discussion in which he’s criticizing evidence used in science…he has a misunderstanding ..because in science with that issue …no coke cans would ever be used, they would not be considered equal evidentiary value to postive evidence of ravens. When Zee wrote a post discussing the scientific method and gave a personal example of how he applied it, he said he prayed to determine if the Book of Mormon was historical with the result that his feelings affirmed that, and Stak responded he had no problem with that. This again indicating Stak’s naïve understanding of scientific methodology. But no one has been hurling insults at Stak. People have responded with an interest to discuss..while Stak has continued on with this attitude of superiority in intellect..and that he just doesn’t have enough patience to bother treating others not up to his perceived level of knowledge... respectfully.

I don’t claim to be an expert in philosophy of science, that’s not the point in my posts. To be critical of Stak’s application of it as applied to Beefcalf’s statement of it, is not a claim I think I’m an expert. And I’m not insulting others and saying they have no justification for posting, unless they are experts. And the same applies to Beefcalf, he’s not claiming to be an expert. Again contrast this with Stak, he’s claiming to be the expert and that others shouldn’t post their comments because of their naïveté..well he’s simply not in the position to do so without having demonstrated knowledge and competence himself…at a minimum.

I was going to continue on addressing your post, but I think this is enough for now and I'll look at it later. I'm off the computer for the afternoon, I might respond tonight.