|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 01/20/2006 : 17:30:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Ricky:To measure the electrical resistance of a coil, you must use other scientific theories to do so. To gain evidence, you must rely on already existing theories. How did you miss that?
You are being deliberately obtuse.
Your example only works in the context of adding to a theory or testing predictions made by a theory, and that is not what I am talking about.
There is really little else to say if you honestly think that hypothesis precedes observation.
If you have zero data (observations) how then do you form a hypothesis? What is there to hypothesize about? Observation precedes hypothesis.
Perhaps I am just not explaining it well enough.... it seems fairly self evident to me that you cannot formulate a hypothesis unless you have an initial observation.
quote:
Posted by ricky:Well, you at least got one thing right, it is mind boggling. You are saying there is no chance for the world to be 6,000 years old. So if someone came up to you and said that they have evidence showing the world is 6,000 years old, you would just laugh at them and call them an idiot without even looking at their evidence. That is a cynic, not a skeptic.
If you would look at the evidence, then you must agree that there is a chance that the world is 6,000 years old. There is no reason to look otherwise. Unless you were just being delusional irrational
There is no chance that the world is 6000 years old. There is a chance that the current estimate is incorrect, but not by that much.
If that fits your definition of cynicism... I can only refer you to a dictionary to learn the actual definition of the word.
Because the evidence we currently have is mutually exclusive of a very young earth.
Your idea that there is a "chance" the earth is 6K years old means that you think the evidence at hand says the earth is 4.5Billion years old, + or - 4.499999 Billion years. A more absurd position to hold on the age of the earth can only be found in the company of diehard YECs.
I'll be sure to tell my pet IPU about this thread after I drive down to the petstore, in that SUV I crapped out, to get him some IPU food.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 17:46:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude:
There, I just said it AGAIN.
Hmmmm. Since I agreed that you are probably right about my taking you wrong in this thread...
But hey!
Please say it one more time anyway...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 19:38:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I'll be sure to tell my pet IPU about this thread after I drive down to the petstore, in that SUV I crapped out, to get him some IPU food.
Be sure to give your pet IPU a few good whacks with a riding crop while you're at it, you can't let it get away with pissing in your cornflakes like that. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 20:15:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
To measure the electrical resistance of a coil, you must use other scientific theories to do so. To gain evidence, you must rely on already existing theories. How did you miss that?
Dude's right, Ricky. Take it back further. Like a thousand years prior to the concept of electrical resistance. I accidentally discover that rubbing a glass rod with a piece of fur can generate these little bright zaps of light which hurt. What theory do I need to start with to investigate this process? Or do I need to start hypothesis testing without a prior theory?
H1: If I rub a glass rod with anything, I can make... um... "sparks!" Yeah, I'll call them sparks!
T1: Rubbing a glass rod with water does nothing.
H2: If I rub something with a piece of fur, I can make sparks.
T2: Rubbing my wife with fur did something, but those weren't sparks!
Etc. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2006 : 23:30:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Be sure to give your pet IPU a few good whacks with a riding crop while you're at it, you can't let it get away with pissing in your cornflakes like that.
Yeah... I should go to my corner, I know.
I try to be less hostile, but it doesn't always work. Some things I see clearly, then have a difficult time explaining them to others in a way that shares that same clarity, and it gets frustrating. I know others have that same problem, and it makes for some difficult communication. But hey, atleast we aren't down to name-calling yet.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 10:00:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you have zero data (observations) how then do you form a hypothesis? What is there to hypothesize about? Observation precedes hypothesis.
There was no time in human history when there was zero data, let alone when science was around. Even my dog can make the observation "If I sit, I will get a treat." So there is always data. If you want to say that this data comes before a hypothesis, you are welcome to, but I know that isn't what you meant in the first place.
A scientist can simply think of trying something that has never been done before. The scientist can then state what he thinks will happen. These statements come from observations and learning experiences that scientist has had in the past, but he didn't go around observing things just so he could make a hypothesis.
quote:
There is no chance that the world is 6000 years old. There is a chance that the current estimate is incorrect, but not by that much.
If that fits your definition of cynicism... I can only refer you to a dictionary to learn the actual definition of the word.
That if someone approached you with evidence and you would refuse to look at it fits my definition of cynicism quite well.
quote:
Take it back further. Like a thousand years prior to the concept of electrical resistance. I accidentally discover that rubbing a glass rod with a piece of fur can generate these little bright zaps of light which hurt. What theory do I need to start with to investigate this process? Or do I need to start hypothesis testing without a prior theory?
Like Duhem said, you don't need theory to make an observation. You need theory to understand what the observation means. What are the zaps? Where do they come from? Where do they go? How do they travel? What are they made of?
You can make as many observations as you want, but until you go into the world of theory, you will get no such answers.
Edit:
quote:
I try to be less hostile, but it doesn't always work.
Dude, I know you tend to get hostile. And I really don't care. I just ignore those lines. Besides, the IPU comment was pretty funny.
quote:
Your idea that there is a "chance" the earth is 6K years old means that you think the evidence at hand says the earth is 4.5Billion years old, + or - 4.499999 Billion years. A more absurd position to hold on the age of the earth can only be found in the company of diehard YECs.
No, my idea is that science is never final. There is always a chance for things to change. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 01/22/2006 10:08:16 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 13:10:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Ricky:
There was no time in human history when there was zero data, let alone when science was around. Even my dog can make the observation "If I sit, I will get a treat." So there is always data. If you want to say that this data comes before a hypothesis, you are welcome to, but I know that isn't what you meant in the first place.
A scientist can simply think of trying something that has never been done before. The scientist can then state what he thinks will happen. These statements come from observations and learning experiences that scientist has had in the past, but he didn't go around observing things just so he could make a hypothesis.
No, but observations are what led to the hypothesis.
The theoretical framework in which you (now) analyze data is based upon some original observation. You must have data in order to form a hypothesis.
Here is a thought experiment for you:
Form a hypothesis.
Then explain how you formed it.
quote:
That if someone approached you with evidence and you would refuse to look at it fits my definition of cynicism quite well.
Now you are making assumptions. Please point out where I said I would refuse to look at new evidence. If you can't find such a remark, then a retraction of your accusation might be in order.
quote:
Like Duhem said, you don't need theory to make an observation. You need theory to understand what the observation means. What are the zaps? Where do they come from? Where do they go? How do they travel? What are they made of?
You can make as many observations as you want, but until you go into the world of theory, you will get no such answers.
Correct, but you absolutely, incontrovertibly NEED observation in order to make a theory.
A hypothesis or theory without observation is not possible.
Hypothesis and theory are, indeed, our attempts to explain observations.
quote:
No, my idea is that science is never final. There is always a chance for things to change.
A statement that, in general, I agree with.
I absolutely agree that the estimated age of earth is bound to change with new evidence and observations. Probably by millions of years.
In the light of the evidence we currently have, however, it is impossible for the earth to be only 6K years old. The evidence is mutually exclusive of such a young age. Cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, archeology, biology, and a host of other -ology's would need to be shown to be intrinsically flawed (to the point of them being entirely useless to make predictions) in order for earth to actually be 6K years old.
quote:
Dude, I know you tend to get hostile. And I really don't care. I just ignore those lines. Besides, the IPU comment was pretty funny.
It isn't really hostility (as hostility implies some kind of anger on my part), it just comes across that way in writing. Its really more of a deep sarcasm, and that is best communicated by tone, inflection, expression, etc... doesn't work so well in writing.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 01/22/2006 13:16:09 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 14:24:04 [Permalink]
|
This topic is getting quite far off from where we started. I wish to go back to the original argument, that is, are facts (observations, evidence) theory laden or not. A direct result, if they are, is that facts are fallible, just as the theories that they rely on are.
This section is by Chalmers, What is this thing called Science?, pg 11. He will actually be coming to Virginia Tech to debate with my philosophy of science professor, Dr. Mayo (and she just so happened to like puns, it was a good thing too...) in June, although that will be about Bay's theory, something completely different.
"For even if we set aside the difficulties highlighted in the previous section [optical illusions and the like], and assume that perceptions are straightforwardly given in the act of seeing, it is clearly not the case that statements describing observable states of affairs (I will call them observation statements) are given observers via the senses. It is absurd to think that statements of fact enter the brain by way of the senses.
Before an observer can formulate and assent to an observation statement, he or she must be in possession of the appropriate conceptual framework and a knowledge of how to appropriately apply it. That this is so becomes clear when we contemplate the way in which a child learns to describe (that is, make factual statements about) the world. Think of a parent teaching a child to recognize and describe apples. The parent shows the child an apple, points to it, and utters the word "apple". The child soon learns to repeat the word "apple" in imitation. Having mastered this particular accomplishment, perhaps on a later day the child encounters its sibling's tennis ball, points and says "apple". At this point the parent intervenes to explain that the ball is not an apple, demonstrating, for example, that one cannot bite it like an apple. Further mistakes by the child, such as the identification of a choko as an apple, will require somewhat more elaborate explanations from the parent. By the time the child can successfully say there is an apple present when there is one, it has learnt quite a lot about apples. So it would seem that it is a mistake to presume that we must first observe the facts about apples before deriving knowledge about them from those facts, because the appropriate facts, formulated as statements, presuppose quite a lot of knowledge about apples.
Let us move from talk of children to some examples that are more relevant to our task of understanding science. Imagine a skilled botanist accompanied by someone like myself who is largely ignorant of botany taking part in a field trip into the Australian bush, with the objective of collecting observable facts about the native flora. It is undoubtedly the case that the botanist will be capable of collecting facts that are far more numerous and discerning than those I am able to observe and formulate, and the reason is clear. The botanist has a more elaborate conceptual scheme to exploit than myself, and that is because he or she knows more botany than I do. A knowledge of botany is a prerequisite for the formulation of the observation statements that might constitute its factual basis."
More from this chapter: http://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/Chalmers2.pdf
Now an example to further illustrate the point that facts are, in fact, fallible. Take the Solar Eclipse Experiment which Eddington did to test Relativity. It is a well known fact that light bends when traveling past bodies of mass. But what if light moved in a way that we didn't know about? What if there was some phenomena which made it just look like this? The fact that light bends would then be false. Can you say that no phenomena exists?
It can also be said that Eddington's experiment directly depended on our current knowledge, or lack of it, of the way that light travels. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 01/22/2006 14:25:52 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2006 : 22:33:27 [Permalink]
|
Ricky, I give up. Apparently I am talking past you.
I don't particularly disagree with anything from the Chalmers quote.
I absolutely agree that you need a conceptual framework, preexisting or newly built, before you can understand an observation.
But it is also not relevent to the point I am trying to make.
I don't know how to explain it any better than I have already.
Let me ask you a question:
If, as you assert, you can't MAKE an observation unless you have a hypothesis/theory first... how did anyone ever learn anything to begin with?
I think you are not understanding what Chalmers is saying.
quote:
Now an example to further illustrate the point that facts are, in fact, fallible.
Who ever said facts are infallable?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 01:22:33 [Permalink]
|
Ok... one more try....
quote:
I never said you can't make an observation. But it sure would be pointless for people to go writing down every observation they make. Your diary would be full of things like, "My shoes are dirty" and the like. Observations can only be meaningful if there is a purpose to them.
This is what I mean when I say that you are being deliberately obtuse. Because that paragraph contains an absolutely ridiculous straw-man. Of course no one goes around writing down everything they observe... but you sure as hell make those observations.
It is FROM observations that the initial conceptual framework is constructed, and then built upon.
Even Chalmers (from your quote of him), with his child-learning analogy, makes that point.
When you initially make an observation that doesn't fit into your pre-existing conceptual framework what do you do? You seem to be saying that such an observation has no value.
quote:
Me: "When is there ever indisputable evidence?"
Dude: "All the time."
Put your bare, dry, and unprotected hand into a wood fire burning at sea level in open air on planet earth.
Depending on the time you leave your hand in the fire, you will experience something between a sharp pain and 3rd degree burns.
It is indisputable that exposure of your bare skin to 451F temp will cause some degree of damage that is a function of the time of exposure.
I could go on and on and on..... for weeks, laying indisputable evidence down before you.
quote:
And that conceptual framework is a theory? And that theory can be false? And so your understanding of the evidence can be wrong?
Yes to all. But again, not relevent at all.
Without that initial observation you have nothing to base a conceptual framework on, nothing to construct a theory about.
I can't explain it any better than that. And, as this is becomming incredibly repetative.... I'm probably not going to try to explain it again.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 15:55:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So someone can have a different understanding of the evidence, even if that understanding it irrational, it is not delusional. And because they have a different understanding of the evidence, their understanding would not support your theory or fact.
To an extent, yes, I agree with your statement here.
However, if you have a different understanding of (for example) fire than I do.... it does not change the fact that fire will burn your ass. If your "understanding" of fire is such that you don't think fire will burn you, even after fire has burned you... you are delusional. Your "understanding" of fire is obviously in disagreement with direct evidence to the contrary.
quote:
That they disagree with a theory or fact then does not make them delusional if they don't agree with your understanding of the evidence.
Unless, of course, the evidence is insisputable.
Go ahead... please post that you think somebody's "understanding" of fire that doesn't include fire = hot, after they have been burned, is normal and not a delusion.
quote:
Side note: this forum spell checker doesn't recognize the word "delusional"?
Get the google toolbar. It has a great spellchecker. Been using it for about a year now.... it rocks.
http://toolbar.google.com/
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2006 : 19:36:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Show me an example when science is that simple.
That IS an example of when science is that simple. It is a basic test of an assumption. You observe that fire burns wood, you wonder if it can burn your hand, you test your hypothesis by sticking your hand in it... and you confirm that it does indeed burn you.
Just because many fields of inquiry gain in complexity as new knowledge is added does not mean that all science is that complex.
And it also does not mean that the conclusions you reach, in those complex fields, are necessarily less certain because of their complexity.
It is a mistake to make that assumption.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
