|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Denial of Science
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There can be a number of different competing explanations for the same phenomena...
Of course. Just like they teach you if you study science. Well, biology anyway.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta
Theory is an explanation for what is observed.
True.
But this is not the definition of theory:
The only possible explanation for what is observed.
Sadly that is the way the term is often used in practice.
Not in scientific circles nor in any well taught science class.
quote:
There can be a number of different competing explanations for the same phenomena, and therefore it is absurd to assume that only one explanation is valid (and therefore promoted to the status of 'fact'), in the absence of the falsification of its rival(s).
True, but there are also many possible explanations which are not scientific, meaning subject to testing. And saying that one of these is every bit as valid is clearly false. Similarly, there are hypothesis which have significant evidence disproving them, and these are also not scientific theories. In science, a theory is not simply a possible explanation, but rather an explanation with a sizeable set of data which supports it, and none which disproves it. A theory, in science, will never become a "fact", but it CAN be as close to fact as it is possible to be.
Furthermore, there are certain scientific theories which have no comparably supported "rival" theories, as any that may have previously existed have been disproven. In this case it is reasonable to treat that one theory as fact, although it is still possible for new data to disprove it, or else to allow for an alternative theory to be formulated which can equally, with scientific rigor, explain all the existing data.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There can be a number of different competing explanations for the same phenomena, and therefore it is absurd to assume that only one explanation is valid (and therefore promoted to the status of 'fact'), in the absence of the falsification of its rival(s).
None of the theories may be true.
Falsification of a theory is problematic in that it assumes you can validate the theory of that theory's invalidity.
I think that science progresses in its knowledge, and that the theory you are prepared to work with is the one you treat as true until it becomes hard to hold in the light of the current state of the set of accepted theories.
I like the anecdote that a professor of medicine, in his retiring lecture to his students said
"As I retire I have two confessions to make.
The first is that half of what I have taught you is wrong.
The second is that I don't know which half it is."
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There can be a number of different competing explanations for the same phenomena...
I think the issue is more to do with failure to recognise different but non-competing explanations.
A religious explanation "the rain was an answer to the farmers' prayer" and a scientific explanation "the rain was caused by a low-pressure system moving in from the North Atlantic" can in principle both be true.
Or are the only things you thank God for those which plainly run contrary to the laws of physics ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
When I did my physics degree we were taught that for any given set of experimental data there is always an INFINITE number of possible explanations. This is very easy to demonstrate mathematically - it's possible to fit an infinite number of polynomial equations to any given set of data points.
I think that scientists themselves have to take a lot of the blame for the denial of science. We haven't been good at acknowledging the limitations of what we do. We haven't been entirely honest in making claims for our science when we've been seeking funding. And in academia we've been unacceptably arrogant about the "value" of science compared to other disciplines.
Now our yards are full of cackling chickens coming home to roost. Should we be surprised?
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
I think that scientists themselves have to take a lot of the blame for the denial of science. We haven't been good at acknowledging the limitations of what we do. We haven't been entirely honest in making claims for our science when we've been seeking funding. And in academia we've been unacceptably arrogant about the "value" of science compared to other disciplines.
Now our yards are full of cackling chickens coming home to roost. Should we be surprised?
What we really are (as a group) is very bad at explaining our work to non scientists. As a group, with many notable individual exceptions, we seem unable to clearly and simply describe scientific studies. We either do so in the same way we would present the work in a science journal, or else assume that non scientists are morons, and dumb down to the point where all qualifications an limitations are removed.
The media doesn't help. A study which shows that under a certain set of conditions, a certain thing has been shown to behave differently than expected is reported as "study proves x!" No wonder people are skeptical.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
When I did my physics degree we were taught that for any given set of experimental data there is always an INFINITE number of possible explanations. This is very easy to demonstrate mathematically - it's possible to fit an infinite number of polynomial equations to any given set of data points.
This is true, though as you increase the number of data points significantly the possible solutions, even though still infinite in number, begin to look a lot alike over the range of data points. With enough data, any of the possible solutions probably is a good predictor of behavior over that range, even if they differ in what happens far outside that range.
The classic example is Newtonian Mechanics vs. Einstein's General Relativity: Newton's equations are used by most Engineers to build cars, buildings, and most other things we use every day, even though we know General Relativity is more precise: over the range of velocities we normally work with, the results are identical to within practical accuracies.
When you have two such competing theories, both of which match the known data points (which may number in the millions), the standard scientific approach is to examine them to find a point where they would predict different results and then design an experiment to create that condition and see what happens.
Conflicting theories are actually quite common in Science, because building theories and testing them to see which ones are consistent with the data is an important part of how science works.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Clint Boggis -
I think the content of your post rather confirms the suspicion I expressed in what I wrote. Heavy on special pleading, extremely light on evidence and coherent argument.
Good try, though.
It really is not a lot to ask for people to make a distinction between "evidence" and "interpretation of evidence", and to analyse and validate the presuppositions that influence their interpretation. That is something called "intellectual honesty" - something sorely lacking in certain academic quarters.
This is rich. Substitute biblical inerrancy for "certain academic quarters" and you have a more accurate statement.
Special pleading? Isn't asking the trust in any religious tome special pleading?
Intellectual honesty? Science takes what you can observe with your eyes (Fact), develops the why it happens/ happened (Theory) and presents experiments (Proofs) to corroborate the Theory. If enough proofs agree, the Theory is accepted. In some cases, the Theories do conflict, yes. It is part of the process, some things are not yet sufficiently understood. Science does not deny this. Unfortunately, this is what science deniers glom onto.
Science attempts to describe the physical nature of our universe. Faith attempts to describe the spiritual nature of our universe. The problem occurs when people use one to describe the other.
ETA: partially x-posted with Carex
[ 14. October 2012, 15:55: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Science attempts to describe the physical nature of our universe. Faith attempts to describe the spiritual nature of our universe. The problem occurs when people use one to describe the other.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Well said.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
