SeN Continues Its Love Affair With The Discovery Institute

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: SeN Continues Its Love Affair With The Discovery Institute

Post by drumdude »

malkie wrote:
Sun Mar 19, 2023 5:47 pm
Image
Please don’t post personal photos of Sic et Non commenters.
User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 1478
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: SeN Continues Its Love Affair With The Discovery Institute

Post by malkie »

drumdude wrote:
Sun Mar 19, 2023 6:37 pm
malkie wrote:
Sun Mar 19, 2023 5:47 pm
Image
Please don’t post personal photos of Sic et Non commenters.
Sorry, drumdude - it was meant as a tribute to you.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
drumdude
God
Posts: 5212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: SeN Continues Its Love Affair With The Discovery Institute

Post by drumdude »

:lol:
User avatar
DrStakhanovite
Elder
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:55 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: SeN Continues Its Love Affair With The Discovery Institute

Post by DrStakhanovite »

Physics Guy wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:41 am
Hossenfelder's point about math being mistaken for reality in the thin-air upper reaches of high-energy theory is arguable but not trivial.
But she isn’t having a discussion about the metaphysical relationship between mathematics and reality, she is saying “don’t mistake mathematics for reality” in a popular presentation geared to a general audience that is advancing the position that belief in a multiverse is not a scientific belief, but more of a religious one.

I mean if she was explaining why she isn’t personally persuaded by multiverse theories and had remarked that she wasn’t impressed by mathematical models for already mentioned reasons, then I wouldn’t have an issue. But she is presenting herself as a subject matter expert and giving herself the task of explaining a complicated issue to an audience who can’t otherwise navigate it on their own. Hossenfelder is prescriptively informing people what is explicitly scientific and what is not as an authority.

I just don’t think that is a great move if you are trying to be a science popularizer on a social media platform. It is really reminiscent of previous scientists going this route and eventually becoming obnoxious polemicists instead.
Physics Guy wrote:Concerning Hossenfelder on Popper, are you perhaps misreading her "testable" as "verifiable"? For whatever reason, Popper's idea that testing is about falsifying rather than verifying is pretty well known in physics. "Falsify" sounds weird, so people don't often say it, but it's definitely not right to imagine that when people talk about testing theories they are assuming that testing verifies or justifies.
I think when most people talk about hypotheses as being “testable” what they have in mind includes both verification and falsification. Moreover, I believe most people (scientists included) use these terms in a manner akin to heuristics; conceptual tools to be used to help bring some discipline and methodical rigor when confronting a problem.

There is this tendency to view Popper as someone who was contributing to the philosophy of science by highlighting the important role falsification plays in scientific reasoning, but the fact is that Popper was actually a radical critic of modern scientific practice.

I think the following is just such an example (bolding mine):
Physics Guy wrote:In general I think one can interpret scientific reasoning too narrowly. It seems to me that it can quite easily be both Popperian and inductive at once, in different ways.
Let’s go back to the two paragraphs from Popper I quoted upthread. This is the very first sentence:
Karl Popper wrote:Now in my view there is no such thing as induction.
All modern scientific practices are inductive in nature and Popper is explicitly denying induction. Why? The next sentence reads:
Karl Popper wrote:Thus inference to theories, from singular statements which are ‘verified by experience’ (whatever that may mean), is logically inadmissible.
Let me give an example of what Popper means by this. Back when Dyson and Eddington set up that experiment to measure gravitational deflection of starlight during the 1919 total solar eclipse, the data they obtained was (and still is) largely seen as initially confirming Einstein’s 1915 paper.

What Popper is explicitly saying is that what Dyson and Eddington did was not actually scientific, that it is logically impossible to infer from their observations from Príncipe and Sobral that Einstein’s 1915 paper had any scientific merit.

The next sentence reads:
Karl Popper wrote:Theories are, therefore, never empirically verifiable.
He is reiterating his previous point: no amount of empirical observation ever validates a scientific theory. A single Dyson and Eddington experiment being conducted has the evidential value equivalent to a million Dyson and Eddington experiments being conducted; which is to say no value at all.

Next sentence (bolding mine):
Karl Popper wrote:If we wish to avoid the positivist mistake of eliminating, by our criterion of demarcation, the theoretical systems of natural science, then we must choose a criterion which allows us to admit to the domain of empirical science even statements which cannot be verified.
The first fragment of the sentence is referencing a philosophical strategy of trying to narrowly equate scientific practice with the empirical only and the second fragment of the sentence (bolded portion) is the admission of the non-empirical to scientific practice.

This sets us up to deal with the second paragraph and allows me to address this:
Physics Guy wrote:Popper doesn't say, "if", here. He says, "only if". This seems to be identical to Hossenfelder's summary.
I think it is incredibly far from it.

First sentence of the second paragraph reads:
Karl Popper wrote:But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience.
This is a misleading sentence if taken in isolation, but we know from the preceding paragraph that Popper doesn’t think empirical observation validates (i.e. verify) a scientific theory. So how can it be tested by experience?
Karl Popper wrote:These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of demarcation.
Notice that “verifiability” is excluded and only “falsifiability” remains as an acceptable criterion? In light of the previous paragraph this makes sense, because if inductive reasoning isn’t logically possible and empirically verifying hypotheses and theories is pointless, it needs to be discarded as a criterion.
Karl Popper wrote:In other words: I shall not require of a scientific system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense: it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.
So when Popper writes “I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience.” He means it in the strict negative sense described above and explicitly excludes the positive sense.

Hossenfelder most definitely doesn’t believe anything remotely like what Popper articulated above, almost no one today does.
Image
drumdude
God
Posts: 5212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: SeN Continues Its Love Affair With The Discovery Institute

Post by drumdude »

“DP” wrote: Philosopher John Leslie expands on this need for explanation in his famous “firing squad” analogy. Suppose fifty trained sharp-shooters are lined up to take your life, and they all miss. You could hardly dismiss this occurrence by saying, “If they hadn’t all missed me, then I shouldn’t be contemplating the matter so I mustn’t be surprised that they missed.” You should still be surprised that you are alive given the enormous unlikelihood of all the sharpshooters missing their mark. Your survival demands an explanation. And so does the fine-tuning of the laws of the universe.
The problem with DP’s fine tuning obsession is it assumes the creation of the universe is in any way analogous to a firing squad, or any number of other metaphors for an improbable event.

DP has no idea what the likelihood of the universe being this way was. And neither does anyone else. It could be incredibly improbable, or it could only have been one way. Or anything in between.

DP is quite literally arguing from ignorance.
User avatar
bill4long
2nd Counselor
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:56 am

Re: SeN Continues Its Love Affair With The Discovery Institute

Post by bill4long »

drumdude wrote:
Sat Apr 29, 2023 10:33 pm
DP is quite literally arguing from ignorance.
I would agree. But so does anyone who gets away from empirical validation of models and hypotheses.

Too often science populizers go beyond actual science. Speculation, "educated opinion" and wishful thinking isn't science. It doesn't matter how many PhDs they have. And the "consensus" has been wrong a significant number of times. Humility is in order. And should be the First Principle of Science, if history has any bearing. Check your assumptions. Check your motives.

Image
FBO
The views and opinions expressed by Bill4Long could be wrong and are subject to change at any time. Viewer discretion is advised.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: SeN Continues Its Love Affair With The Discovery Institute

Post by drumdude »

bill4long wrote:
Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:11 am
drumdude wrote:
Sat Apr 29, 2023 10:33 pm
DP is quite literally arguing from ignorance.
I would agree. But so does anyone who gets away from empirical validation of models and hypotheses.

Too often science populizers go beyond actual science. Speculation, "educated opinion" and wishful thinking isn't science. It doesn't matter how many PhDs they have. And the "consensus" has been wrong a significant number of times. Humility is in order. And should be the First Principle of Science, if history has any bearing. Check your assumptions. Check your motives.

Image
FBO
Agreed, but it’s not a free pass to just insert your own pet theories into, as DP always does.

Facts, as the famous saying goes, don’t care about your feelings. Or your testimony.
Post Reply