Scientific Conclusions

[_MrStakhanovite]

The real argument is a little more nuanced than this, and as we all know, asserting nuance is the key to spinning gold out of b***s***. The real argument goes something like this, as I recall:

Yeah you really didn't describe it well, and there is a bunch of different ontological arguments using different methods. Why do you insist on calling something BS when you know so little about it?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Yet, for all of us uneducated lay-folk, we find it extraordinarily simple to walk right past that tortoise; and in so doing, instantly form unflattering opinions about the utility of logic in our daily lives.

You keep bringing education up, why?

[Guest]

It's about evidence.

True. I'm guessing my highly cogent initial comment threw everyone off.

To be exact, Stak is using the paradox of the ravens first put forward by Carl Hempel to tease out problems in the instantial model of what constitutes evidence.

ref link for the explanation by Carl Hempel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_Hempel and the raven paradox : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox


Well Aristotle, Carl Hempel was pointing out the problem with using statements which are logically equivalent to a given evidence based hypothesis ..in the raven paradox. And the point being that the more logical equivalent statements which are also observable in the real world ..would not serve to strengthen that hypothesis.

But this is not how science works. No scientist would use as evidence any observation just because it had a linguistic equivalence logically. Of course to come up with the hypothesis that all ravens in the world are black, scientists would not use a logical equivalence statement backed by evidence such as "(4) This green (and thus not black) thing is an apple (and thus not a raven)." as evidence to establish the hypothesis all ravens are black.

The problem is with the philosophizing not with the way science works or anything Beefcalf said in regards to how it works. No wonder Peter Atkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins) in a youtube uploaded talk I heard by him..said that philosophy is such a ball and chain on mankind's enlightenment and progress. Here is Stak getting bogged down with this supposed induction problem for science because his reading of philosophy tells him it is. Yet in the real world it's not a problem scientists have to deal with at all. And to make matters worse he's trying to use this argument derived from philosophy to argue Beefcalf doesn't know what he's talking about in his statement with regards to how science works...when that was irrelevant to what Beefcalf said and did no such thing in showing any problems with his statement.

(Edited to correct for Beefcalf's moniker)

[_zeezrom]

The problem is with the philosophizing not with the way science works or anything Beefcake said in regards to how it works. No wonder Peter Atkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins) in a youtube uploaded talk I heard by him..said that philosophy is such a ball and chain on mankind's enlightenment and progress. Here is Stak getting bogged down with this supposed induction problem for science because his reading of philosophy tells him it is. Yet in the real world it's not a problem scientists have to deal with at all. And to make matters worse he's trying to use this argument derived from philosophy to argue Beefcake doesn't know what he's talking about in his statement with regards to how science works...when that was irrelevant to what Beefcake said and did no such thing in showing any problems with his statement.

My daughter will be doing her first science project this year. We plan to lay out the steps I mentioned in my first post of this thread to help us make a scientific conclusion. These simple steps are enough for me. If I start to go outside of that, I get confused. I guess I need things boiled down when it comes to this stuff. What I'm saying is that I find enough in the elementary version of things. Maybe later, I will get into all this raven/coke bottle mumbo jumbo.

[Guest]

although I do not agree that P5 is absurd.

Really? It's totally cool that a Coca Cola can is an important piece of evidence concerning the color of ravens? You don't see a problem with that?

There is no indication that it has to be an important piece of evidence. I think the best solution is the Baysian one. It is evidence concerning the color of ravens, but the amount of confirmation provided is very small due to the large discrepancy between the number of ravens and the number of non-black objects. (See the Raven Paradox entry on Wikipedia).

[_Chap]

... Maybe later, I will get into all this raven/coke bottle mumbo jumbo.

If you never get that far, you will not be in the worst of company.

One well known physicist compared the usefulness of philosophy of science to scientists to the usefulness of ornithology to birds. That was of course a joke, but it was not entirely baseless.

And you may find, like me, that some philosophers of science do have a fairly modest view of the importance of their discipline to the actual practice of science. Others, of course, may not, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that some people in any field may find it hard to take a modest view of anything that concerns them personally.

I hope your daughter's project goes well, and that she enjoys doing it. Some science educators have success with introducing kids to the notion of giving an idea a 'fair test', and asking what kind of test would be a fair one to use. That builds on kids' common notions of fairness to lead them into the direction of designing appropriate experiments to test theories. Has she met that idea at school yet?

[_beefcalf]

Yet, for all of us uneducated lay-folk, we find it extraordinarily simple to walk right past that tortoise; and in so doing, instantly form unflattering opinions about the utility of logic in our daily lives.

You keep bringing education up, why?

I keep bringing it up because you keep bringing it up:

Why do you insist on calling something b***s*** when you know so little about it?

Shall I not conclude that knowing little = uneducated?

[_beefcalf]

Stak:

So, when all is said and done, is this really all about the imprecision of the wording of my assertion, as marg has suggested?

If I modified my statement to read...

"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."

...does this reduce or eliminate your disagreement?

Were you arguing against the general conclusions of my assertion or simply against the sloppy manner in which I presented it?

In this discussion, which I thank you for pursuing, I have learned a few things:

From Aristotle Smith, I learned that there are some percentage of Bible-believing Christians who do not hold to the Bible literalism so prevalent in LDS theology. His post here was particularly helpful in me seeing his position, and helped me to understand why he seems to take the stances he often takes on this board.

What I have yet to learn, what I had hoped to learn, from you, is how the practice of formal logical argumentation contributes to your worldview, your philosophy of life. I've played around with a number of these logical paradoxes and came to appreciate the way they can tickle my intellect with their counter-intuitive conclusions, but there seems to be, at least for me, a deep disconnect between those paradoxes, and the logical methods used to examine them, and any truly meaningful aspect of my life. I brought up Zeno's tortoise as an example of how logic seems to occasionally make these definitive predictions which do not square with reality. They seem to me to be like a video game which some hyper-dedicated people play extremely well, but in the end, of what benefit are they other than to create an enjoyable, entertaining diversion?

So, the efficacy of using logic to 'prove' something to me is somewhat blunted by the fact that logic has also 'proven' that I cannot outrun any tortoise with a head-start.

[_zeezrom]

Has she met that idea at school yet?

She has not.

Regarding the science project, she really wants to do something with her Guinea pig but hasn't narrowed it down to something practical yet.

[_Jhall118]

I think Staks issue is with the word TRUE.

Science never thinks it has ever proven something as true. This is impossible. It always works in probabilities. Ever read a scientific paper? Skim to the results section and look for the P value. I think he meant "very likely" rather than true.

Then again, logic and philosophy only find truth if you assume the axioms of logic to be correct. They have their assumptions just like science does. If you want to get super technical- there isn't a way to be 100% sure we are ever correct about much of anything. That's just the world we live in.