Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on December 12, 2002, 07:10:12 AM
-
Having earlier discussed what a scientific theory/fact is or isn't in this thread: http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=71568 we can now move on to discussing the scientifc process itself. It'll further help to illustrate just why a scientific theory cannot be compared to a JFK assassination theory or faith in religious deities.
The following figure illustrates the flow of events in the methodology of science:
(http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/scimeth.gif)
I'll make use of an example, that things tend to fall, to illustrate and clarify. It's just meant to illustrate so don't blast minor inconsistencies, they're not the heart of this post.
First, there is an observation. "Things fall down when dropped" or alternatively 'things seem not to be able to support themselves in air if they're heavier than air". It's important that the observation can be said to be true and isn't too much in doubt. "Things fall away from the centre of the planet Tellus if dropped on the surface of said planet" would not be adequate for instance. Generally it's just an observation of a fact.
From this, a hypothesis is formed. This is what most people think of as a 'theory'. A hypothesis is simply a possible explanation to an observation. It is of itself NOT evidence, nor is it circular in nature - that is, the hypothesis does not try to prove itself. It's just a possible explanation. In our example, we'll have two: the first is that there is a force that acts upon all things called gravity. The second is that the weight of all the gasses in the atmosphere pushes things down.
Now that we've formed our hypothesis(es), we're gonna test them. We're gonna see if they match up with reality.
This is done by using socalled controlled experiments. Such an experiment is one in which all treatments (that is, that which is investigated) are identical except that some are exposed to the hypothetical cause and some are not. Any differences in the way the treatments behave is then directly related to the presence or absence of the cause. The experiments are to be repeatable so other scientists can validate them and find eventual flaws.
In my example, we can test if air is causing things to fall by letting a rock fall in a container full of air and in a vacuum. To test gravity we can use centrifugal force to see if we can get a rock to 'fall upwards'.
If the results are consistent with the hypothesis, the result can be said to be evidence in support of the hypothesis. When enough evidence accumulate, the hypothesis is said to be a scientific theory. In the case with gravity, it's consistent with the hypothesis - a force causes things to be 'fall'.
If the results are inconsistent with the hypothesis, you revise your hypothesis and do more controlled experiments. This way, one can accumulate evidence that suggest that the hypothesis is NOT consistent with reality.
Therein lies the beauty of science - don't like a theory? Form a hypothesis, do experiments, gather evidence and have it removed/corrected! Science is its own friend in this way - self correcting. Nothing is set in stone (although many scientists are quite unwilling to let go of their pet theories) and ANY theory can, given enough evidence, be declared true or false, or alternatively go from theory to 'merely' a well supported hypothesis.
Why JFK assassination theories ain't scientific
It is true - they start with an observation. JFK was killed by a number of bullets. Also, there's a hypothesis, ranging from one shooter to aliens secretly kidnapping him and faking his death. But there are no controlled experiments (am talking conspiracies here). A person sauying "I think it's likely that there were two shooters because, like, one dude couldn't have done it" is offering his hypothesis and evidence in the same sentence without giving more evidence. There aren't any experiments and thus no results to match against a hypothesis.
Why Creationism isn't science
Will cover this in another thread so as to not dilute this one.
Hope I haven't been too 'low level' or anything or come across as looking down my nose - I just want it laid out plainly so we can agree and with it form the basis for discussions regarding scientific theories - including evolution and alternatives to it.
This is by no means near a description of the whole methodology itself - rather just outlying the basics, which is enough for most discussions (some discussions require detailed criticism of the scientific methodology, but it's usually discussions on levels way above my own).
Any disagreements?
-
Christianity is not science, agreed. Don't make the illogical leap of logic that scientists cannot be Christian.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Any disagreements?
Yes ...
You are ruining the fun of the poster of the other thread :D
Remind me of the university with the good old Karl Popper and Claude Bernard.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Therein lies the beauty of science - don't like a theory? Form a hypothesis, do experiments, gather evidence and have it removed/corrected! Science is its own friend in this way - self correcting. Nothing is set in stone (although many scientists are quite unwilling to let go of their pet theories) and ANY theory can, given enough evidence, be declared true or false, or alternatively go from theory to 'merely' a well supported hypothesis.
[...]
Any disagreements?
Yup. The above quoted paragraph is wrong.
If I dont like a theory, I dont have to form a hypothesis of my own unless I want to. It is enough that I can point to observations that are in conflict with the hypothesis. Should I find any such observation, it will give that the hypothesis is wrong.
This becomes apparent when we are talking about scientific theories that are not based on any observations OR experiments (such as the theory on the origin of life for example).
With your "model" anyone wanting to dispute the current theorem (primordeal soup + lighting = life) would have to come up with some theory of his own and prove that theory before the current theory would be discarded. That is not science.
-
You're wrong Hort.
If you have an observation proving that the hypothesis is wrong it's not your job to formulate another hypothesis.
But you have to give a scientific observation not just saying you don't "like" the hypothesis.
And a contrario to you I see some observations concerning "théorie of life" hypothesis
-
Originally posted by straffo
You're wrong Hort.
If you have an observation proving that the hypothesis is wrong it's not your job to formulate another hypothesis.
But you have to give a scientific observation not just saying you don't "like" the hypothesis.
And a contrario to you I see some observations concerning "théorie of life" hypothesis
Lets just skip the theory of life part for now.
If you read my post again, maybe you will notice this passage:
It is enough that I can point to observations that are in conflict with the hypothesis. Should I find any such observation, it will give that the hypothesis is wrong.
-
I didn't discuted this part :)
I just say :
1- provide a valuable observation
2- your conclusion saying that it's up to you to provide another theory is wrong
it apply on this sentence of your post :
With your "model" anyone wanting to dispute the current theorem (primordeal soup + lighting = life) would have to come up with some theory of his own and prove that theory before the current theory would be discarded. That is not science.
Is that clearer now ?
-
Kieran wrote:
Christianity is not science, agreed. Don't make the illogical leap of logic that scientists cannot be Christian.
I wouldn't do this, and aren't suggesting it. In fact, I've said in previous threads that several well known scientists are Christians.
Will dig for it.
Hortlund:
You're partly right - I should have been clearer there. You do not need to make a new hypothesis - all you need is to construct experiments that then are shown to disagree with the theory or hypothesis. It is in of itself not enough to point to other observations - one must also find the reasons of why that observation is true. An example: I claim gravity pulls down thing to earth. You make an observation that not all things are fall - helium balloons rise. Therefore you conclude that my theory is wrong. This isn't enough; an investigation about what makes the helium balloon rise must take place.
It is worth noting however that the experiment must be linked to the hypothesis. And unless there's more than just one, the existing experiment must be really clear with no other possibilities. It's akin to accumulating evidence. Further, one can discuss say a piece of evidence within a theory and debate whether it is correct or not. If new experiments prove it to be false, it doesn't necessarily tip over the whole theory - it can merely make one piece of supporting evidence invalid.
-
and this experience must be reproducible ....
-
St. Santa-
Don't look; I know you didn't say that, it was a cautionary remark (as you were being very careful in setting up your argument). I know there is more to come, so I am closing that loop before we get there (it won't be you that tries to make that leap, btw).
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Hortlund:
You're partly right - I should have been clearer there. You do not need to make a new hypothesis - all you need is to construct experiments that then are shown to disagree with the theory or hypothesis. It is in of itself not enough to point to other observations - one must also find the reasons of why that observation is true. An example: I claim gravity pulls down thing to earth. You make an observation that not all things are fall - helium balloons rise. Therefore you conclude that my theory is wrong. This isn't enough; an investigation about what makes the helium balloon rise must take place.
It is worth noting however that the experiment must be linked to the hypothesis. And unless there's more than just one, the existing experiment must be really clear with no other possibilities. It's akin to accumulating evidence. Further, one can discuss say a piece of evidence within a theory and debate whether it is correct or not. If new experiments prove it to be false, it doesn't necessarily tip over the whole theory - it can merely make one piece of supporting evidence invalid.
Well, actually I dont have to construct experiments either. There are more than one way to skin a cat. Same is true for ways to gun down theories.
In your picture you have shown a very basic model over the scientific method, or an ideal situation if you will. In reality that picture is a lot more complex. For example, it is very rare that two scientists will draw the same conclusion from the same experiment. This is not true when we are talking about "easy" situations or theories, such as gravity for example, but it is very true when we are talking about complex theories, such as...for example, the theory of evolution, or the origins of life.
To say that I have to construct experiments of my own in order for me to "be allowed" to critizize that theory is wrong. I can aim at other parts of the theory in question.
For example, maybe I can show that the person defending the theory made an error when he interpreted the results from various experiments, and that the results he claims to be in support of his theory actually inconsistent with the theory.
Or maybe I can show that experiments or made are not consistent with the theory, or they are irrelevant. An example of such an irrelevant experiment would be the helium baloon you were talking about earlier. An experiment showing that helium baloons can fly is not really related to the theory of gravity at all.
In my opinion, you are oversimplifying the issue (and I suspect you are doing it to prove a point that will come in a later post of yours).
I disagree with this quote of yours:
If new experiments prove it to be false, it doesn't necessarily tip over the whole theory - it can merely make one piece of supporting evidence invalid.
Here you are talking about apples and oranges. If a new experiment proves the original theory to be wrong, the original theory falls. That is the simple answer to the simplified model you presented in your picture. However, many theories have lots of supporting evidence, and if a new experiment disproves one of those supporting evidences, it doesnt neccesarily follow that the original theory falls, it all depends on how much support that theory has left after we remove the false evidence.
-
So basically Hortlund you are telling us you don't believe in science.... Thats stupid of you, and makes you no better than primitive tribesman dancing for rain to stop.. Do you think the earth is flat too?
-
@GRUN
earth is not flat ... but there is life inside :p
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, actually I dont have to construct experiments either. There are more than one way to skin a cat. Same is true for ways to gun down theories.
WRONG
Your opinon don't count.
You have to make an reproducible experiment to "gun" a theory.
In your picture you have shown a very basic model over the scientific method, or an ideal situation if you will.
No need for complexity here KISS theory apply.
In reality that picture is a lot more complex. For example, it is very rare that two scientists will draw the same conclusion from the same experiment. This is not true when we are talking about "easy" situations or theories, such as gravity for example, but it is very true when we are talking about complex theories, such as...for example, the theory of evolution, or the origins of life.
and so ?
To say that I have to construct experiments of my own in order for me to "be allowed" to critizize that theory is wrong. I can aim at other parts of the theory in question.
Let picture you scientific approach :
you open the door scream "you're all wrong" and slam it ...
value = 0 (ZERO)
For example, maybe I can show that the person defending the theory made an error when he interpreted the results from various experiments, and that the results he claims to be in support of his theory actually inconsistent with the theory.
You have to prove he is wrong not just say "your wrong" if not you've not provided a valuable counter-point.
Or maybe I can show that experiments or made are not consistent with the theory, or they are irrelevant. An example of such an irrelevant experiment would be the helium baloon you were talking about earlier. An experiment showing that helium baloons can fly is not really related to the theory of gravity at all.
so gravity don't apply on helium baloon ?
In my opinion, you are oversimplifying the issue (and I suspect you are doing it to prove a point that will come in a later post of yours).
Complexity never helped having an agreement :
(http://leocat.free.fr/shadok/shadok10.jpg)
EDIT for non-french speaker
Caption : why making it simple when you can do it complex ?
(http://leocat.free.fr/shadok/shadok2.jpg)
EDIT for non-french speaker
Caption : Trying several time may work... so the more it fail the more it will be succefull
I disagree with this quote of yours:
If new experiments prove it to be false, it doesn't necessarily tip over the whole theory - it can merely make one piece of supporting evidence invalid.
ouch ... you've never done any Epistemoloy I guess ?
Here you are talking about apples and oranges. If a new experiment proves the original theory to be wrong, the original theory falls. That is the simple answer to the simplified model you presented in your picture. However, many theories have lots of supporting evidence, and if a new experiment disproves one of those supporting evidences, it doesnt neccesarily follow that the original theory falls, it all depends on how much support that theory has left after we remove the false evidence.
not affraid of contradiction I see ...
-
just one more pict :)
(http://leocat.free.fr/shadok/shadok3.jpg)
EDIT for non-french speaker
Caption : If there is no solution it's because there is no problem
shadok are great animals when speaking of science :D
-
"earth is not flat ... "
Shhh!! Be careful or Hortlund will burn you on the stake! :D
-
Straffo, I understand that your first language is not english. But I have to ask you why you draw all these faulty conclusions from my post? Did you read it? Did you understand it? If you did, why are you making arguments "for me" that I never said myself?
Example:
Let picture you scientific approach :
you open the door scream "you're all wrong" and slam it ...
value = 0 (ZERO)
[/b]
In this thread we are discussing scientific method...yes?
Please show me where I have posted anything resembling that argument.
While I agree that the value of someone screaming "you are wrong" is zero, I would like to know why you are directing that comment at me.
Another example:
You have to prove he is wrong not just say "your wrong" if not you've not provided a valuable counter-point.
[/b]
Where have I said that the only thing needed to prove a theory is wrong is to say "you are wrong"?
Frankly it seems as if you have not understood one word of my post.
Another example:
not affraid of contradiction I see ...
[/b]
Where is the contradiction?
so gravity don't apply on helium baloon ?
[/b]
Yes it does, but the helium baloon is not a good example to disprove the theory of gravity since it actually enforces the theory by proving that objects weighing less than air float.
No need for complexity here KISS theory apply.
[/b]
No, KISS doesnt apply to all situations. Especially not when you are talking about complex scientific theories. The idea is rediculous.
I suggest that instead of posting silly pictures with french text that barely a handful can understand, maybe you should focus on reading and understanding the posts you reply to?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So basically Hortlund you are telling us you don't believe in science.... Thats stupid of you, and makes you no better than primitive tribesman dancing for rain to stop.. Do you think the earth is flat too?
Ive never said that I dont believe in science.
What you are doing here is making up an argument, and then attibuting the argument to me. That is called the "straw man" argument.
The Straw man argument is not really a form of argument at all, it is a form of masturbation. Like all forms of masturbation, it should be done in private.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Straffo, I understand that your first language is not english. But I have to ask you why you draw all these faulty conclusions from my post? Did you read it? Did you understand it? If you did, why are you making arguments "for me" that I never said myself?
You said it see below.
In this thread we are discussing scientific method...yes?
Please show me where I have posted anything resembling that argument.
While I agree that the value of someone screaming "you are wrong" is zero, I would like to know why you are directing that comment at me.
Where have I said that the only thing needed to prove a theory is wrong is to say "you are wrong"?
Frankly it seems as if you have not understood one word of my post.
So explain me how I should undertand this :
To say that I have to construct experiments of my own in order for me to "be allowed" to critizize that theory is wrong. I can aim at other parts of the theory in question.
No, KISS doesnt apply to all situations. Especially not when you are talking about complex scientific theories. The idea is rediculous.
dohhhh ....
KISS alway apply !
Otherwise the complexity will deform the message.
I suggest that instead of posting silly pictures with french text that barely a handful can understand, maybe you should focus on reading and understanding the posts you reply to?
Humour impared this morning Steve ?
btw questionning my english is a bad move ...
if you don't undertand something ask me to reformulate instead of making fun of me.
-
I dont need a lecture on fallacies from you...
Anyway your views are strange to me. I am shocked that a well educated European lawyer living in 2002 has ideas like you do.
And I do take your opposition to the scientific method to be an opposition to science, as science is merely the process of applying the scientific method in search of explainations fo various phenomena be they they physical, mathematical etc. That is a logical extension of your stated argument.
-
You said it :)
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I dont need a lecture on fallacies from you...
Anyway your views are strange to me. I am shocked that a well educated European lawyer living in 2002 has ideas like you do.
And I do take your opposition to the scientific method to be an opposition to science, as science is merely the process of applying the scientific method in search of explainations fo various phenomena be they they physical, mathematical etc. That is a logical extension of your stated argument.
-
Originally posted by straffo
btw questionning my english is a bad move ...
if you don't undertand something ask me to reformulate instead of making fun of me.
I'm making fun of you?
Anyway, over to this question:
So explain me how I should undertand this :
[/b]
I dont have to conduct experiments of my own in order to gun down a theory. Nor do I have to present a theory of my own.
I can aim at pretty much any part of that picture santa posted. Take a look at those arrows, that is where it is easiest to argue against a theory. Especially the arrows going from the "Results" box to the "supports" or "inconsistent" boxes. Nowhere is this more apparent than when you argue about the theory of evolution. People tend to interpret the same experiment results differently depending on their view of the theory.
Suppose a scientist has made experiments with moths. He has been able to show that moths under certain circumstances are showing signs of evolution, or micro evolution to be exact, because they have changed colour over time. He uses these results to say that this is evidence for the theory of macro evolution.
Now, assume that another scientist is saying "no, you are interpreting your results wrong. This is not evidence of the theory of macro evolution, this is evidence of the theory of micro evolution."
Are you seriously saying that scientist #2 has to either come up with his own theory on how life evolved, OR he has to make his own experiments to prove his point in order for him to be allowed to critizize scientist #1s theory? Of cource not. What he is doing is he is questioning the conclusions drawn from #1's results. By doing that, he is in fact using the same experiment as #1 but he disagrees on what the results show.
The same way it is possible to critizize any theory, at every single level. There is nothing strange with that. In fact, that is the whole foundation of the scientific method, that it is open to critique, and that it is possible to show that a theory is wrong.
Apply KISS on the theory of quantum physics please. How do you "keep that simple"?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And I do take your opposition to the scientific method to be an opposition to science, as science is merely the process of applying the scientific method in search of explainations fo various phenomena be they they physical, mathematical etc. That is a logical extension of your stated argument.
I am not opposing the scientific method. What ever gave you that idea? Why are you not reading my posts? ALL my posts in this thread are IN SUPPORT of the scientific method.
If you dont understand that, then I seriously dont understand why you are all over my back in this thread.
What Santa and Straffo have been saying is basically this: You are not allowed to question certain aspects of scientific theories, unless you first fulfill certain qualifications. That view is incorrect. It depends on how you critizize the theory, and on what grounds.
What straffo is doing is oversimplifying my arguments in an attempt to ridicule them. "It is not enough to open the door and scream you are wrong" etc.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I'm making fun of you?
That's my perception .
I dont have to conduct experiments of my own in order to gun down a theory. Nor do I have to present a theory of my own.
But depending on the theory you will have to make an experiment prooving that the original experiment is wrong.
I agree you don't have to present a NEW theory.
I can aim at pretty much any part of that picture santa posted. Take a look at those arrows, that is where it is easiest to argue against a theory. Especially the arrows going from the "Results" box to the "supports" or "inconsistent" boxes. Nowhere is this more apparent than when you argue about the theory of evolution. People tend to interpret the same experiment results differently depending on their view of the theory.
And why should it be wrong ?
That's why there is lot of theories until a complete agreement emerge on one (and like you pointed it there is a lot of theory concerning evolution and none provided the conclusive terminal agreement)
Suppose a scientist has made experiments with moths. He has been able to show that moths under certain circumstances are showing signs of evolution, or micro evolution to be exact, because they have changed colour over time. He uses these results to say that this is evidence for the theory of macro evolution.
Now, assume that another scientist is saying "no, you are interpreting your results wrong. This is not evidence of the theory of macro evolution, this is evidence of the theory of micro evolution."
Are you seriously saying that scientist #2 has to either come up with his own theory on how life evolved, OR he has to make his own experiments to prove his point in order for him to be allowed to critizize scientist #1s theory? Of cource not. What he is doing is he is questioning the conclusions drawn from #1's results. By doing that, he is in fact using the same experiment as #1 but he disagrees on what the results show.
But here it's an terminology problem
I's a more a problem of taxonomy than anything
The same way it is possible to critizize any theory, at every single level. There is nothing strange with that. In fact, that is the whole foundation of the scientific method, that it is open to critique, and that it is possible to show that a theory is wrong.
Taxonomy I said :p
Apply KISS on the theory of quantum physics please. How do you "keep that simple"?
The whole picture is complex but like any theory the underlaying bricks are simple.
The simplicity don't apply on the whole but more on the constitutives element of the theroy.
Don't you agree ?
-
What Santa and Straffo have been saying is basically this: You are not allowed to question certain aspects of scientific theories, unless you first fulfill certain qualifications. That view is incorrect. It depends on how you critizize the theory, and on what grounds.
You mis-interpret again.
I say : you have to provide a reproducible evidence that the theory is wrong.
Again disagreeing with a theory without any evidence is not scientific
nothing more nothing less ...
-
Hortlund wrote the stuff in bold
In your picture you have shown a very basic model over the scientific method, or an ideal situation if you will. In reality that picture is a lot more complex. For example, it is very rare that two scientists will draw the same conclusion from the same experiment. This is not true when we are talking about "easy" situations or theories, such as gravity for example, but it is very true when we are talking about complex theories, such as...for example, the theory of evolution, or the origins of life.
If scientists conduct experiments and disagree, they do MORE experiments to see who is closer to reality. It's not unusual for scientists to disagree with another scientist hypothesis. It's more unusual for a scientists to disagree with theories in his field of work. Not unheard of though and it sometimes leads to the theory either being modified or altered (modern nuclear physics being a prime example).
You say it is 'very rare' for two scientists to draw the same conclusions from the same experiments. This isn't exactly true. Usually, controlled experiments are set up in such a strict way that the result can be shown to be caused by either presence of something (that which is to be tested for instance) or absence of it. Poorly set up experiments or areas where experiments are difficult to conduct is another thing, though. Incidentally, the theory of evolution isn't more complicated than, say, physics. It's different in nature though.
For example, maybe I can show that the person defending the theory made an error when he interpreted the results from various experiments, and that the results he claims to be in support of his theory actually inconsistent with the theory.
Very true. I tried to keep it short and omitted this. Thanks for bringing it up - it is an important point.
Or maybe I can show that experiments or made are not consistent with the theory, or they are irrelevant. An example of such an irrelevant experiment would be the helium baloon you were talking about earlier. An experiment showing that helium baloons can fly is not really related to the theory of gravity at all.
Perhaps you can. In the case of the helium balloon it would not be related to gravity, which is a hypothesis, but to the observation that 'things fall, usually'. But let's not argue over an example that is there just to illustrate a principle.
In my opinion, you are oversimplifying the issue (and I suspect you are doing it to prove a point that will come in a later post of yours).
You read ulterior motives where there are none. A detailed discussion of the scientific methodology would span a book or more. I'm trying to keep it simple, yet have enough to build a common ground on. This thread is as much about what science is not as it is about what it is. I've posted because there are major misconceptions about what science is and because people are quick to dismiss scientists who come to conclusions that are not acceptable to them - i.e "you're hiding behind a scientists big words, who's he, it's just his opinion anyway". We've seen that (or similar) claim in almost all discussion where scinetific theories that some people object to are being discussed.
You are right if you think I'll use this as a basis for discussing evolution. All the more important we agree, no?
Here you are talking about apples and oranges. If a new experiment proves the original theory to be wrong, the original theory falls. That is the simple answer to the simplified model you presented in your picture.
Err, no. In my last post I was rather direct and explained that even if a piece of evidence was shown to be false, the entire theory doesn't fall - unless it's a crucial piece of evidence. I'll quote myself:
It is worth noting however that the experiment must be linked to the hypothesis. And unless there's more than just one, the existing experiment must be really clear with no other possibilities. It's akin to accumulating evidence. Further, one can discuss say a piece of evidence within a theory and debate whether it is correct or not. If new experiments prove it to be false, it doesn't necessarily tip over the whole theory - it can merely make one piece of supporting evidence invalid.
Let's stay away from specific theories at this point - we'll get to them.
Btw Hortlund, din svenskjävel :D. Jag hoppas att vi kan ha en civiliserad diskussion. Du har ingen grund för att misstänka mina motiv. Det här forumet har några personer som bara är ute efter att agitera/irritera, men jag är inte en av dem. Av en eller annan grund känner jag, om inte hostilitet så en viss misstänksamhet till/av mig. Vi kanske inte kan nå enighet innanför vissa områden, men det betyder inte att vi skall stå och skrika till varandra :D.
That translation says a lot about my mastering of the English language, eh? :D