On January 10 2012 23:22 mcc wrote: Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:
In everyday life:
Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact!
In Science:
Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory.
Well it is slightly more complex and that is probably why there is this dissonance between casual use of the word theory and scientific meaning of it.
It should be : Science:
Facts - observations Model - if not supported by enough evidence(facts) -> Hypothesis - if supported by reasonable amount of evidence -> Theory - in special cases of very well supported models that are not expected to ever be found wrong -> Law
Notes - model has to be falsifiable - there is really no such thing as truth (in the mathematical/logical sense) in science, just predictive models supported by evidence and testing
There is no distinction between truth in math and logic and truth in science. Tarski's semantic conception of truth works well enough for both. The fields do have different methods for justifying truths, but that's a different thing entirely.
Most of scientific "truth" is reliant on inductive reasoning, which never guarantees absolute certainty. Confirmation after confirmation of a certain law just gives an increasingly stronger probability of it's truth. There isn't much deductive reasoning in science, aside from making directly observable facts* (using Carnap's definition of facts), which makes it a different ball game from math and logic (in the deductive sense).
That is largely just a restatement of what I said. It is the same thing for a scientific theory and a mathematical theorem to be true, but there are different methods for discovering those truths. Your citation of Carnap maybe indicates that you disagree with even this (maybe you think mathematical truths are based on meaning alone [are analytic] whereas as scientific truths are not). I don't agree with that, but yes that is a different view.
In any case, although the methods are different I don't think it amounts to very much when it comes to certainty. People make mistakes in math and logic all the time, just as they do in empirical matters. I know quite a lot of math and logic, but if certainty is something that absolutely and necessarily eludes all of science, then I am also not certain about any math and logic.
To summarize my view:
A) Truth is the same thing in math/logic and science.
B) Science typically uses different methods than math/logic to get at the truths in its domain.
C) There is no in principal difference in the certainty with which we can know the truths that follow from the different methods.
A "True" scientific theory can be false (newton's theories, the separate theories of the conservation of matter and energy, etc.). a "True" mathematical theorem cannot.
Ah, you've clarified your view in parentheses. This largely confirms my diagnosis of what you were saying. Newton's theories were once considered true, but it turns out that they are false.
Do you honestly think this doesn't and couldn't happen in math/logic? Do you want me to tell you what Euler thought the sum from n=0 to infinity of (-1)^n was? People get stuff wrong in every discipline. This is not unique to science.
On January 10 2012 23:22 mcc wrote: Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:
In everyday life:
Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact!
In Science:
Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory.
Well it is slightly more complex and that is probably why there is this dissonance between casual use of the word theory and scientific meaning of it.
It should be : Science:
Facts - observations Model - if not supported by enough evidence(facts) -> Hypothesis - if supported by reasonable amount of evidence -> Theory - in special cases of very well supported models that are not expected to ever be found wrong -> Law
Notes - model has to be falsifiable - there is really no such thing as truth (in the mathematical/logical sense) in science, just predictive models supported by evidence and testing
There is no distinction between truth in math and logic and truth in science. Tarski's semantic conception of truth works well enough for both. The fields do have different methods for justifying truths, but that's a different thing entirely.
Most of scientific "truth" is reliant on inductive reasoning, which never guarantees absolute certainty. Confirmation after confirmation of a certain law just gives an increasingly stronger probability of it's truth. There isn't much deductive reasoning in science, aside from making directly observable facts* (using Carnap's definition of facts), which makes it a different ball game from math and logic (in the deductive sense).
That is largely just a restatement of what I said. It is the same thing for a scientific theory and a mathematical theorem to be true, but there are different methods for discovering those truths. Your citation of Carnap maybe indicates that you disagree with even this (maybe you think mathematical truths are based on meaning alone [are analytic] whereas as scientific truths are not). I don't agree with that, but yes that is a different view.
In any case, although the methods are different I don't think it amounts to very much when it comes to certainty. People make mistakes in math and logic all the time, just as they do in empirical matters. I know quite a lot of math and logic, but if certainty is something that absolutely and necessarily eludes all of science, then I am also not certain about any math and logic.
To summarize my view:
A) Truth is the same thing in math/logic and science.
B) Science typically uses different methods than math/logic to get at the truths in its domain.
C) There is no in principal difference in the certainty with which we can know the truths that follow from the different methods.
I wouldn't say I'm a staunch follower of Carnap, I've only read a little of his work but I do like his distinction between empircal facts, empirical laws, and theoretical laws and the correspondence that bridges the first two from the third.
I agree with you on A and B though. Can't say the same for C, correct deductive reasoning is generally accepted as "easily" defined whereas defining correct inductive reasoning can be a much more complicated task, or so I've been taught. You might be right that people mess up in math/logic just like they do in science, but the two methods are not "separate but equal", I would definitely say deductive reasoning is much more reliable when applied correctly (but at the same time, much less can be gained from deductive reasoning, which is why we resort to the next best thing, inductive reasoning).
That's really the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning, correct deductive reasoning results in certainty, inductive reasoning can only hope to asymptotically approach it if you will. Basing a law that will cover an infinite number of situations on a finite number of empirical observations will never give absolute certainty (from Carnap again)
I'm rather glad I don't have to choose between these types of people. Certainly some of them are putting up a show for the american people but the fact that they're willing to say these things just for votes is even frightening.
On January 10 2012 23:22 mcc wrote: Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:
In everyday life:
Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact!
In Science:
Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory.
Well it is slightly more complex and that is probably why there is this dissonance between casual use of the word theory and scientific meaning of it.
It should be : Science:
Facts - observations Model - if not supported by enough evidence(facts) -> Hypothesis - if supported by reasonable amount of evidence -> Theory - in special cases of very well supported models that are not expected to ever be found wrong -> Law
Notes - model has to be falsifiable - there is really no such thing as truth (in the mathematical/logical sense) in science, just predictive models supported by evidence and testing
There is no distinction between truth in math and logic and truth in science. Tarski's semantic conception of truth works well enough for both. The fields do have different methods for justifying truths, but that's a different thing entirely.
Most of scientific "truth" is reliant on inductive reasoning, which never guarantees absolute certainty. Confirmation after confirmation of a certain law just gives an increasingly stronger probability of it's truth. There isn't much deductive reasoning in science, aside from making directly observable facts* (using Carnap's definition of facts), which makes it a different ball game from math and logic (in the deductive sense).
That is largely just a restatement of what I said. It is the same thing for a scientific theory and a mathematical theorem to be true, but there are different methods for discovering those truths. Your citation of Carnap maybe indicates that you disagree with even this (maybe you think mathematical truths are based on meaning alone [are analytic] whereas as scientific truths are not). I don't agree with that, but yes that is a different view.
In any case, although the methods are different I don't think it amounts to very much when it comes to certainty. People make mistakes in math and logic all the time, just as they do in empirical matters. I know quite a lot of math and logic, but if certainty is something that absolutely and necessarily eludes all of science, then I am also not certain about any math and logic.
To summarize my view:
A) Truth is the same thing in math/logic and science.
B) Science typically uses different methods than math/logic to get at the truths in its domain.
C) There is no in principal difference in the certainty with which we can know the truths that follow from the different methods.
I wouldn't say I'm a staunch follower of Carnap, I've only read a little of his work but I do like his distinction between empircal facts, empirical laws, and theoretical laws and the correspondence that bridges the first two from the third.
I agree with you on A and B though. Can't say the same for C, correct deductive reasoning is generally accepted as "easily" defined whereas defining correct inductive reasoning can be a much more complicated task, or so I've been taught.
Once again, I think we are largely in agreement. I'm with you in saying that it is much easier to describe what valid deductive reasoning is than to do so for inductive reasoning (which wouldn't quite be "valid" anyways, but you get my point). But I don't think this difference matters for certainty. Maybe we did something wrong in our definition. The current canons of what deductive validity consist in took thousands of years to get right. Maybe we are erring just like those that brought us here.
I don't think that we are wrong about deduction. In fact, it's one of the things I'm most confident about. But I wouldn't call myself certain, and I'm also pretty damn confident about evolution and other scientific facts about which I'm not certain.
Also his ideas about freedom, as simplistic as they may be, are appealing to youth.
Simplistic is "my boot, your face." You may be familiar with that style of government.
A constitutional republic based on the theory of natural rights of the individual is not simple, which is why it took about 5,000 years of statism for it to ever hit the table.
What took 5000 years is for humanity to get some kind of social organisation where even someone who doesn't have money can get taken care off without relying on the hypothetical generosity of some rich philanthropist if he breaks a leg or gets cancer.
Let's be clear: Ron Paul is nothing modern. He is a classical liberal, and he supports the type of society we had 150 years ago. I read an interview about him by a French economist the other day and he was saying that hearing Ron Paul debating was like travelling in time, and that his view on the economics was partially outdated since the end of the XVIIIth century.
Now I've stated earlier why his idea are simplistic. They don't resist any forward thinking.
You are a kid, your parents are poor. You get ill. In RonPaulland, you don't get anybody to help you unless you are lucky enough that some rich people gives you charity. Your parents can't pay? Gtfo. RonPaulclusion? If you had had a healthcare, you would live under tyranny. Feel happy to be free and die.
You are a kid, your parents are poor. In RonPaulland, you don't get an education unless you are lucky and someone gives you charity to pay it (lol). Your parents can't pay for it? Gtfo. RonPaulclusion? If you had public education, you would live under tyranny. Feel happy to be free and stay ignorant in your ghetto.
etc etc etc etc etc etc
So yeah. Simplistic, because you are not free if you stay ignorant, you are not free if you are under the threat of dying if you break a leg etc... unless you have such a simplistic concept of freedom that we should envy the flies for being more free than us.
tl;dr? In RonPaulland, you fucking better not be poor. Nobody will give a damn about you, ever, because egoism is a virtue, as libertarian favorite mad philosopher, Ayn Rand, said in the title of her main book.
Outddated = bad?
If we ignore the political discussion which ppl can kinda never agree on, why is his economic policies bad? We are having a terrible financial crises due to unstable currencies. Why the hell would we not make gold our currency and void speculation and arifiical low interest rates?
On January 11 2012 04:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 11 2012 04:02 xDaunt wrote: I wonder how many times that the evolution debate has shit up this thread since it was started? I'll put the over/under at 4.5 times.
Seeing Newt's new ads and lines of attack against Romney is rather disheartening. I don't think that a socialist democrat could have done a better job.
Maybe you got used to it, for for a European, the simple idea that someone who believes in fairy tales and claims it can run for the presidency of a major super power is really something extraordinary. Someone who would say he believes the Genesis is to be taken literally would be laughed at by 12 years old in my country. So imagine the president.
Well, yeah ... of course Europeans are going to have a difference perspective on religion given that their extensive history of butchering each other over religion. America has just a slightly different historical experience -- being founded as a refuge from the religious wars and intolerance in Europe.
Lets not pretend that the North Americans did not often force their religions upon the indigenous people of the continent, nor that they did not inherit the violence between the Protesants and the Catholics, and various other Christian sects. North America was never removed from the intolerance. They only brought it to a new world.
There is absolutely zero comparison between what happened in the New World and what happened in Europe in terms of religious experience. Complete apples and oranges -- particularly with regards to the United States.
On January 11 2012 02:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 11 2012 02:39 Voros wrote:
Also his ideas about freedom, as simplistic as they may be, are appealing to youth.
Simplistic is "my boot, your face." You may be familiar with that style of government.
A constitutional republic based on the theory of natural rights of the individual is not simple, which is why it took about 5,000 years of statism for it to ever hit the table.
What took 5000 years is for humanity to get some kind of social organisation where even someone who doesn't have money can get taken care off without relying on the hypothetical generosity of some rich philanthropist if he breaks a leg or gets cancer.
Let's be clear: Ron Paul is nothing modern. He is a classical liberal, and he supports the type of society we had 150 years ago. I read an interview about him by a French economist the other day and he was saying that hearing Ron Paul debating was like travelling in time, and that his view on the economics was partially outdated since the end of the XVIIIth century.
Now I've stated earlier why his idea are simplistic. They don't resist any forward thinking.
You are a kid, your parents are poor. You get ill. In RonPaulland, you don't get anybody to help you unless you are lucky enough that some rich people gives you charity. Your parents can't pay? Gtfo. RonPaulclusion? If you had had a healthcare, you would live under tyranny. Feel happy to be free and die.
You are a kid, your parents are poor. In RonPaulland, you don't get an education unless you are lucky and someone gives you charity to pay it (lol). Your parents can't pay for it? Gtfo. RonPaulclusion? If you had public education, you would live under tyranny. Feel happy to be free and stay ignorant in your ghetto.
etc etc etc etc etc etc
So yeah. Simplistic, because you are not free if you stay ignorant, you are not free if you are under the threat of dying if you break a leg etc... unless you have such a simplistic concept of freedom that we should envy the flies for being more free than us.
tl;dr? In RonPaulland, you fucking better not be poor. Nobody will give a damn about you, ever, because egoism is a virtue, as libertarian favorite mad philosopher, Ayn Rand, said in the title of her main book.
Outddated = bad?
If we ignore the political discussion which ppl can kinda never agree on, why is his economic policies bad? We are having a terrible financial crises due to unstable currencies. Why the hell would we not make gold our currency and void speculation and arifiical low interest rates?
Because we know that raw material value is extraordinarily unstable and that the dollar is right now one of the most stable currency in the world?
On January 11 2012 02:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 11 2012 02:39 Voros wrote:
Also his ideas about freedom, as simplistic as they may be, are appealing to youth.
Simplistic is "my boot, your face." You may be familiar with that style of government.
A constitutional republic based on the theory of natural rights of the individual is not simple, which is why it took about 5,000 years of statism for it to ever hit the table.
What took 5000 years is for humanity to get some kind of social organisation where even someone who doesn't have money can get taken care off without relying on the hypothetical generosity of some rich philanthropist if he breaks a leg or gets cancer.
Let's be clear: Ron Paul is nothing modern. He is a classical liberal, and he supports the type of society we had 150 years ago. I read an interview about him by a French economist the other day and he was saying that hearing Ron Paul debating was like travelling in time, and that his view on the economics was partially outdated since the end of the XVIIIth century.
Now I've stated earlier why his idea are simplistic. They don't resist any forward thinking.
You are a kid, your parents are poor. You get ill. In RonPaulland, you don't get anybody to help you unless you are lucky enough that some rich people gives you charity. Your parents can't pay? Gtfo. RonPaulclusion? If you had had a healthcare, you would live under tyranny. Feel happy to be free and die.
You are a kid, your parents are poor. In RonPaulland, you don't get an education unless you are lucky and someone gives you charity to pay it (lol). Your parents can't pay for it? Gtfo. RonPaulclusion? If you had public education, you would live under tyranny. Feel happy to be free and stay ignorant in your ghetto.
etc etc etc etc etc etc
So yeah. Simplistic, because you are not free if you stay ignorant, you are not free if you are under the threat of dying if you break a leg etc... unless you have such a simplistic concept of freedom that we should envy the flies for being more free than us.
tl;dr? In RonPaulland, you fucking better not be poor. Nobody will give a damn about you, ever, because egoism is a virtue, as libertarian favorite mad philosopher, Ayn Rand, said in the title of her main book.
Outddated = bad?
If we ignore the political discussion which ppl can kinda never agree on, why is his economic policies bad? We are having a terrible financial crises due to unstable currencies. Why the hell would we not make gold our currency and void speculation and arifiical low interest rates?
Because we know that raw material value is extraordinarily unstable and that the dollar is right now one of the most stable currency in the world?
Yes dollar is stable compared to other fiat currencies. But its not stable long-term, like any other fiat currency.
Value of gold isn't unstable. The value measured in buying power will be very constant.
Putting it like America might have a different perspective on religion as some kind of promised land where people took refuge from religious intolerance is disingenuous at best. It is not as if the Americans suddenly became separated from the European motherland and were not contextualized by it. If anything it's this kind of story weaving that makes America's dialogue so complacent and solipsistic.
On January 10 2012 23:22 mcc wrote: Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:
In everyday life:
Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact!
In Science:
Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory.
Well it is slightly more complex and that is probably why there is this dissonance between casual use of the word theory and scientific meaning of it.
It should be : Science:
Facts - observations Model - if not supported by enough evidence(facts) -> Hypothesis - if supported by reasonable amount of evidence -> Theory - in special cases of very well supported models that are not expected to ever be found wrong -> Law
Notes - model has to be falsifiable - there is really no such thing as truth (in the mathematical/logical sense) in science, just predictive models supported by evidence and testing
There is no distinction between truth in math and logic and truth in science. Tarski's semantic conception of truth works well enough for both. The fields do have different methods for justifying truths, but that's a different thing entirely.
Most of scientific "truth" is reliant on inductive reasoning, which never guarantees absolute certainty. Confirmation after confirmation of a certain law just gives an increasingly stronger probability of it's truth. There isn't much deductive reasoning in science, aside from making directly observable facts* (using Carnap's definition of facts), which makes it a different ball game from math and logic (in the deductive sense).
That is largely just a restatement of what I said. It is the same thing for a scientific theory and a mathematical theorem to be true, but there are different methods for discovering those truths. Your citation of Carnap maybe indicates that you disagree with even this (maybe you think mathematical truths are based on meaning alone [are analytic] whereas as scientific truths are not). I don't agree with that, but yes that is a different view.
In any case, although the methods are different I don't think it amounts to very much when it comes to certainty. People make mistakes in math and logic all the time, just as they do in empirical matters. I know quite a lot of math and logic, but if certainty is something that absolutely and necessarily eludes all of science, then I am also not certain about any math and logic.
To summarize my view:
A) Truth is the same thing in math/logic and science.
B) Science typically uses different methods than math/logic to get at the truths in its domain.
C) There is no in principal difference in the certainty with which we can know the truths that follow from the different methods.
A "True" scientific theory can be false (newton's theories, the separate theories of the conservation of matter and energy, etc.). a "True" mathematical theorem cannot.
Ah, you've clarified your view in parentheses. This largely confirms my diagnosis of what you were saying. Newton's theories were once considered true, but it turns out that they are false.
Do you honestly think this doesn't and couldn't happen in math/logic? Do you want me to tell you what Euler thought the sum from n=0 to infinity of (-1)^n was? People get stuff wrong in every discipline. This is not unique to science.
There is a huge difference between math/ logic and science. You can prove things with absolute certainty in math and logic, because you use formal abstract proofs. Science uses empirical evidence, and the theories remain falsifiable. Mathematicians could certainly make conjectures (in the same way that scientists make initial hypotheses) and get them wrong, but once a formal proof is established, you can go to sleep at night and not have to worry about a fossil or atom or planet being discovered that will shatter the theorem. It's airtight and proven, in all forms of the word "proof".
Science's validity and level of proof is "mountains of observable data", which should be enough for most people to accept with no problem, although the theories remain falsifiable. They're never 100% proven, but it's enough for the common man to trust, once they've done the proper research. Math and science are both trustworthy, and the experts can certainly guess things wrong, but the levels of proof are not equivalent (nor do they have to be).
On January 10 2012 23:22 mcc wrote: Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:
In everyday life:
Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact!
In Science:
Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory.
Well it is slightly more complex and that is probably why there is this dissonance between casual use of the word theory and scientific meaning of it.
It should be : Science:
Facts - observations Model - if not supported by enough evidence(facts) -> Hypothesis - if supported by reasonable amount of evidence -> Theory - in special cases of very well supported models that are not expected to ever be found wrong -> Law
Notes - model has to be falsifiable - there is really no such thing as truth (in the mathematical/logical sense) in science, just predictive models supported by evidence and testing
There is no distinction between truth in math and logic and truth in science. Tarski's semantic conception of truth works well enough for both. The fields do have different methods for justifying truths, but that's a different thing entirely.
Most of scientific "truth" is reliant on inductive reasoning, which never guarantees absolute certainty. Confirmation after confirmation of a certain law just gives an increasingly stronger probability of it's truth. There isn't much deductive reasoning in science, aside from making directly observable facts* (using Carnap's definition of facts), which makes it a different ball game from math and logic (in the deductive sense).
That is largely just a restatement of what I said. It is the same thing for a scientific theory and a mathematical theorem to be true, but there are different methods for discovering those truths. Your citation of Carnap maybe indicates that you disagree with even this (maybe you think mathematical truths are based on meaning alone [are analytic] whereas as scientific truths are not). I don't agree with that, but yes that is a different view.
In any case, although the methods are different I don't think it amounts to very much when it comes to certainty. People make mistakes in math and logic all the time, just as they do in empirical matters. I know quite a lot of math and logic, but if certainty is something that absolutely and necessarily eludes all of science, then I am also not certain about any math and logic.
To summarize my view:
A) Truth is the same thing in math/logic and science.
B) Science typically uses different methods than math/logic to get at the truths in its domain.
C) There is no in principal difference in the certainty with which we can know the truths that follow from the different methods.
A "True" scientific theory can be false (newton's theories, the separate theories of the conservation of matter and energy, etc.). a "True" mathematical theorem cannot.
Ah, you've clarified your view in parentheses. This largely confirms my diagnosis of what you were saying. Newton's theories were once considered true, but it turns out that they are false.
Do you honestly think this doesn't and couldn't happen in math/logic? Do you want me to tell you what Euler thought the sum from n=0 to infinity of (-1)^n was? People get stuff wrong in every discipline. This is not unique to science.
There is a huge difference between math/ logic and science. You can prove things with absolute certainty in math and logic, because you use formal abstract proofs. Science uses empirical evidence, and the theories remain falsifiable. Mathematicians could certainly make conjectures (in the same way that scientists make initial hypotheses) and get them wrong, but once a formal proof is established, you can go to sleep at night and not have to worry about a fossil or atom or planet being discovered that will shatter the theorem. It's airtight and proven, in all forms of the word "proof".
Science's validity and level of proof is "mountains of observable data", which should be enough for most people to accept with no problem, although the theories remain falsifiable. They're never 100% proven, but it's enough for the common man to trust, once they've done the proper research. Math and science are both trustworthy, and the experts can certainly guess things wrong, but the levels of proof are not equivalent (nor do they have to be).
I realize that if there is a proof that P, then P. This is just because 'proved that' is factive. But we have to trust our own judgments about whether or not a supposed proof succeeds, and these judgments are clearly fallible as has been shown many times throughout history. Because of this fallibility, math does not offer certainty. So much the worse for certainty, I'm inclined to say.
On January 10 2012 23:22 mcc wrote: Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:
In everyday life:
Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact!
In Science:
Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory.
Well it is slightly more complex and that is probably why there is this dissonance between casual use of the word theory and scientific meaning of it.
It should be : Science:
Facts - observations Model - if not supported by enough evidence(facts) -> Hypothesis - if supported by reasonable amount of evidence -> Theory - in special cases of very well supported models that are not expected to ever be found wrong -> Law
Notes - model has to be falsifiable - there is really no such thing as truth (in the mathematical/logical sense) in science, just predictive models supported by evidence and testing
There is no distinction between truth in math and logic and truth in science. Tarski's semantic conception of truth works well enough for both. The fields do have different methods for justifying truths, but that's a different thing entirely.
Most of scientific "truth" is reliant on inductive reasoning, which never guarantees absolute certainty. Confirmation after confirmation of a certain law just gives an increasingly stronger probability of it's truth. There isn't much deductive reasoning in science, aside from making directly observable facts* (using Carnap's definition of facts), which makes it a different ball game from math and logic (in the deductive sense).
That is largely just a restatement of what I said. It is the same thing for a scientific theory and a mathematical theorem to be true, but there are different methods for discovering those truths. Your citation of Carnap maybe indicates that you disagree with even this (maybe you think mathematical truths are based on meaning alone [are analytic] whereas as scientific truths are not). I don't agree with that, but yes that is a different view.
In any case, although the methods are different I don't think it amounts to very much when it comes to certainty. People make mistakes in math and logic all the time, just as they do in empirical matters. I know quite a lot of math and logic, but if certainty is something that absolutely and necessarily eludes all of science, then I am also not certain about any math and logic.
To summarize my view:
A) Truth is the same thing in math/logic and science.
B) Science typically uses different methods than math/logic to get at the truths in its domain.
C) There is no in principal difference in the certainty with which we can know the truths that follow from the different methods.
A "True" scientific theory can be false (newton's theories, the separate theories of the conservation of matter and energy, etc.). a "True" mathematical theorem cannot.
Ah, you've clarified your view in parentheses. This largely confirms my diagnosis of what you were saying. Newton's theories were once considered true, but it turns out that they are false.
Do you honestly think this doesn't and couldn't happen in math/logic? Do you want me to tell you what Euler thought the sum from n=0 to infinity of (-1)^n was? People get stuff wrong in every discipline. This is not unique to science.
There is a huge difference between math/ logic and science. You can prove things with absolute certainty in math and logic, because you use formal abstract proofs. Science uses empirical evidence, and the theories remain falsifiable. Mathematicians could certainly make conjectures (in the same way that scientists make initial hypotheses) and get them wrong, but once a formal proof is established, you can go to sleep at night and not have to worry about a fossil or atom or planet being discovered that will shatter the theorem. It's airtight and proven, in all forms of the word "proof".
Science's validity and level of proof is "mountains of observable data", which should be enough for most people to accept with no problem, although the theories remain falsifiable. They're never 100% proven, but it's enough for the common man to trust, once they've done the proper research. Math and science are both trustworthy, and the experts can certainly guess things wrong, but the levels of proof are not equivalent (nor do they have to be).
I realize that if there is a proof that P, then P. This is just because 'proved that' is factive. But we have to trust our own judgments about whether or not a supposed proof succeeds, and these judgments are clearly fallible as has been shown many times throughout history. Because of this fallibility, math does not offer certainty. So much the worse for certainty, I'm inclined to say.
If you're arguing the difference between simple tautological claims and proofs that require axioms, I have no problem with that. All non-tautological knowledge, empirical or abstract, require axioms. That's not really what I'm arguing, or what you're arguing either. Math is still different than science in the exact same respect that I explained above- they're both dependent on axioms, but math still creates proofs that- assuming you accept the given axioms- prove things with absolute certainty (and then refer back to everything else I wrote beforehand regarding math and science). And of course, there's no reason why you shouldn't accept mathematical axioms either >.>
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:
In everyday life:
Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact!
In Science:
Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory.
Well it is slightly more complex and that is probably why there is this dissonance between casual use of the word theory and scientific meaning of it.
It should be : Science:
Facts - observations Model - if not supported by enough evidence(facts) -> Hypothesis - if supported by reasonable amount of evidence -> Theory - in special cases of very well supported models that are not expected to ever be found wrong -> Law
Notes - model has to be falsifiable - there is really no such thing as truth (in the mathematical/logical sense) in science, just predictive models supported by evidence and testing
There is no distinction between truth in math and logic and truth in science. Tarski's semantic conception of truth works well enough for both. The fields do have different methods for justifying truths, but that's a different thing entirely.
Most of scientific "truth" is reliant on inductive reasoning, which never guarantees absolute certainty. Confirmation after confirmation of a certain law just gives an increasingly stronger probability of it's truth. There isn't much deductive reasoning in science, aside from making directly observable facts* (using Carnap's definition of facts), which makes it a different ball game from math and logic (in the deductive sense).
That is largely just a restatement of what I said. It is the same thing for a scientific theory and a mathematical theorem to be true, but there are different methods for discovering those truths. Your citation of Carnap maybe indicates that you disagree with even this (maybe you think mathematical truths are based on meaning alone [are analytic] whereas as scientific truths are not). I don't agree with that, but yes that is a different view.
In any case, although the methods are different I don't think it amounts to very much when it comes to certainty. People make mistakes in math and logic all the time, just as they do in empirical matters. I know quite a lot of math and logic, but if certainty is something that absolutely and necessarily eludes all of science, then I am also not certain about any math and logic.
To summarize my view:
A) Truth is the same thing in math/logic and science.
B) Science typically uses different methods than math/logic to get at the truths in its domain.
C) There is no in principal difference in the certainty with which we can know the truths that follow from the different methods.
A "True" scientific theory can be false (newton's theories, the separate theories of the conservation of matter and energy, etc.). a "True" mathematical theorem cannot.
Ah, you've clarified your view in parentheses. This largely confirms my diagnosis of what you were saying. Newton's theories were once considered true, but it turns out that they are false.
Do you honestly think this doesn't and couldn't happen in math/logic? Do you want me to tell you what Euler thought the sum from n=0 to infinity of (-1)^n was? People get stuff wrong in every discipline. This is not unique to science.
There is a huge difference between math/ logic and science. You can prove things with absolute certainty in math and logic, because you use formal abstract proofs. Science uses empirical evidence, and the theories remain falsifiable. Mathematicians could certainly make conjectures (in the same way that scientists make initial hypotheses) and get them wrong, but once a formal proof is established, you can go to sleep at night and not have to worry about a fossil or atom or planet being discovered that will shatter the theorem. It's airtight and proven, in all forms of the word "proof".
Science's validity and level of proof is "mountains of observable data", which should be enough for most people to accept with no problem, although the theories remain falsifiable. They're never 100% proven, but it's enough for the common man to trust, once they've done the proper research. Math and science are both trustworthy, and the experts can certainly guess things wrong, but the levels of proof are not equivalent (nor do they have to be).
I realize that if there is a proof that P, then P. This is just because 'proved that' is factive. But we have to trust our own judgments about whether or not a supposed proof succeeds, and these judgments are clearly fallible as has been shown many times throughout history. Because of this fallibility, math does not offer certainty. So much the worse for certainty, I'm inclined to say.
If you're arguing the difference between simple tautological claims and proofs that require axioms, I have no problem with that. All non-tautological knowledge, empirical or abstract, require axioms. That's not really what I'm arguing, or what you're arguing either. Math is still different than science in the exact same respect that I explained above- they're both dependent on axioms, but math still creates proofs that- assuming you accept the given axioms- prove things with absolute certainty (and then refer back to everything else I wrote beforehand regarding math and science). And of course, there's no reason why you shouldn't accept mathematical axioms either >.>
We should accept mathematical axioms, but our faculty for picking out the true ones is fallible. See, for instance, the appeal of the naive comprehension axiom. Quite frankly, this now-known-to-be-false axiom is at least as appealing to my and most other's axiom judging faculties as any of the current axioms we accept. Because of all this, our knowledge of the truth of the axioms is fallible, i.e., not certain.
Further, I agree that if the axioms are true, whatever follows from them is true. This doesn't have much to do with the certainty of what follows from them. For one thing, as I've already said, knowledge of the axioms themselves is not certain. For another, our faculties for deriving logical conclusions from axioms are imperfect (fallible). See any undergrad's math homework; I've graded plenty. So even though the truth of the axioms guarantee something, we don't have any certain access to what it is they guarantee.
Once again, I'm not being skeptical here. I think we have all kinds of knowledge of both math and science. I just don't think that there is any principled difference in terms of certainty between the kinds of knowledge.
What took 5000 years is for humanity to get some kind of social organisation where even someone who doesn't have money can get taken care off without relying on the hypothetical generosity of some rich philanthropist if he breaks a leg or gets cancer.
Let's be clear: Ron Paul is nothing modern. He is a classical liberal, and he supports the type of society we had 150 years ago. I read an interview about him by a French economist the other day and he was saying that hearing Ron Paul debating was like travelling in time, and that his view on the economics was partially outdated since the end of the XVIIIth century.
Now I've stated earlier why his idea are simplistic. They don't resist any forward thinking.
You are a kid, your parents are poor. You get ill. In RonPaulland, you don't get anybody to help you unless you are lucky enough that some rich people gives you charity. Your parents can't pay? Gtfo. RonPaulclusion? If you had had a healthcare, you would live under tyranny. Feel happy to be free and die.
You are a kid, your parents are poor. In RonPaulland, you don't get an education unless you are lucky and someone gives you charity to pay it (lol). Your parents can't pay for it? Gtfo. RonPaulclusion? If you had public education, you would live under tyranny. Feel happy to be free and stay ignorant in your ghetto.
etc etc etc etc etc etc
So yeah. Simplistic, because you are not free if you stay ignorant, you are not free if you are under the threat of dying if you break a leg etc... unless you have such a simplistic concept of freedom that we should envy the flies for being more free than us.
tl;dr? In RonPaulland, you fucking better not be poor. Nobody will give a damn about you, ever, because egoism is a virtue, as libertarian favorite mad philosopher, Ayn Rand, said in the title of her main book.
We keep having this same argument in this thread, but you need to get it through your head that just because the government doesn't do something doesn't mean that no one will do it. Believe it or not, charity hospitals did (and miraculously, in this age of horrific government interference and subsidy in healthcare, still do) exist. There are tens of thousands of med students, MDs, and nurses who donate their time to these charities pro bono, which is not even considering the role of charitable donations in financing expensive surgeries. Now, this all exists within a heavily socialized and artificial/predatory pricing framework in which the government pays more than fifty cents on every dollar spent on medicine in this country, a government that inflates the price of care via absurd mandates on hospitals and widespread abuse and corruption. Why would anyone, whether out of poor judgment or nihilistic cynicism, think that charitable medicine would disappear when left to the private sector? Who the hell would think that the government has not only done a good job with medicine, but deserves even more control over it?
And since you apparently don't understand the American education system or Ron Paul's stance on education, let me give you the short of it: the federal government has inflated the funding of education nearly twofold in inflation-adjusted dollars without increasing its effectiveness one iota. Rather than leaving local schools to be run by those who know the most about local education (namely the school districts and states), the Dept of Education has given us brilliance like No Child Left Behind, which has been nothing short of a disaster for disadvantaged children or those suffering from learning disabilities. More bureacracy, more central planning, more idiocy. And it's unfortunate that you don't even seem to understand that Paul supports states' rights to provide public education in whatever means they desire (vouchers, universal education, etc)--that's about as far from an ancap perspective as anyone versed in libertarian thought could imagine.
And finally, Paul isn't a classical liberal (few of whom were around 150 years ago, as by that time people like Lincoln were already firmly entrenched in the federal government), he's a paleoconservative with a few libertarian (mostly states-rights) leanings. Jefferson and Madison were classical liberals; Paul is a paleoconservative; Gary Johnson is a Libertarian; Ayn Rand was an Objectivist. You may not understand why these distinctions matter, but they do, and once you do some digging you'll learn all sorts of interesting things, including tidbits like the fact that Ayn Rand and her Collective disdained libertarians for refusing to reject ethical altruism and that many libertarians and ancaps dislike Paul's apparent disregard for the 14th Amendment and his insistence that states have the power to do basically whatever they'd like.
If we ignore the political discussion which ppl can kinda never agree on, why is his economic policies bad? We are having a terrible financial crises due to unstable currencies. Why the hell would we not make gold our currency and void speculation and arifiical low interest rates?
It's also possible to institute a system in which the value of the dollar is pegged to gold. There's more than one way to implement a gold standard.
On January 11 2012 07:07 Mohdoo wrote: This thread has gotten so wildly off-topic Totally unrelated to the Republican nominations right now ._.
I was just about to post this--I check in on the last page of most recent threads once a day and today I came into a discussion about theoretical proofs, axioms and Newtons laws....I had to recheck that I was in the thread I thought I was...
On topic even though not fully recent--I was (pleasantly) surprised that palin never jumped into the race and as shes now thinking about which other candidate to support it sounds like she really won't join the race.
On January 11 2012 07:07 Mohdoo wrote: This thread has gotten so wildly off-topic Totally unrelated to the Republican nominations right now ._.
I really don't understand this concern. It's not like we won't be talking about the primary when there's actually something to talk about tonight, as the results pour in from New Hampshire.
In any case, the comparative degree of certainty in science is relevant to the rationality of doubting science which is relevant to the degree to which it makes sense to poorly judge candidates that doubt it. Since there are plenty of these in the primary, we really haven't gone that far afield.
On January 10 2012 22:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 10 2012 21:59 DetriusXii wrote: Evolution also has the plausibility of being testable. If given enough resources, 100,000 years, and an area of land the size of Germany, I'm fairly certain that I would be able to apply selective pressures to force dogs to branch to a new species that would be unable to reproduce with the original dog. Other theories are intelligent design and that's just inserting mystery thing X that we could never hope to identify. I have the chance to experiment with evolution as a framework. That's what makes it scientific and other theories not.
Evolution is a scientific fact. Someone denying evolution does the same than someone denying that the earth is spheric. There is no evidence against evolution, we know perfectly the biological mechanisms that allow it, such as genetic mutations, and we don't have the slightest hypothesis of an alternative model except for the ridiculous superstition of some religious nuts who live in middle age.
If you're advocating "the scientific way", then don't call evolution a scientific fact and compare it to the earth being spherical.
Evolution is a theory, just like physics theories explaining gravity, electro magnetic waves etc. are theories. We observe different phenomena, like the force that works between objects with a mass which we call gravity, or in this instance: That animals and life forms are not the same in the present, compared to what we can gather of information on how they were like in the past. The only thing that is a fact is the observation - we then make a theory to try to explain our observations.
A theory is flawed, or 'wrong', if we can find evidence that does not fit into its model, but conversely we can never 'prove' that it is correct in every instance because we cannot observe every instance. I don't really see the big fuzz about politicians saying evolution is a theory - because it is, and currently we don't have any observation that it cannot explain.
I wish people would look a bit beyond this matter in these elections though, it's not like someone who doesn't accept evolution as the leading theory is automatically unfit to be president, because believe it or not, it seems the US has more pressing issues right now.
The spherical nature of the Earth is also a Scientific Theory. It is also a fact. Evolution is a Theory and it is also a fact.
A Theory just means it explains something and has tons of details and complications with it. As opposed to Laws (like the Law of Conservation of Energy) which just assert something without any explanation. There's no explanation why you can't create or destroy matter. We just say it doesn't happen.
It has nothing to do with the factual nature of the thing. The Plum Pudding Model of the Atom is also a Theory and it's wrong. It's not true.
On January 10 2012 23:22 mcc wrote: Actually evolution is theory and the fact. Theory of evolution is obviously a theory, it is that model that explains how all that stuff happens. But evolution is also a fact as process of organisms evolving was observed. So it depends what you are actually talking about, but in some contexts saying evolution is a fact is correct.
The stupidest thing that science has ever done is this:
In everyday life:
Theory - Idea you want to test Fact - Hmm theory was correct, that's a fact!
In Science:
Hypothesis - Idea you want to test Theory - Ah ha! It's true! Now we have a solid theory.
Well it is slightly more complex and that is probably why there is this dissonance between casual use of the word theory and scientific meaning of it.
It should be : Science:
Facts - observations Model - if not supported by enough evidence(facts) -> Hypothesis - if supported by reasonable amount of evidence -> Theory - in special cases of very well supported models that are not expected to ever be found wrong -> Law
Notes - model has to be falsifiable - there is really no such thing as truth (in the mathematical/logical sense) in science, just predictive models supported by evidence and testing
There is no distinction between truth in math and logic and truth in science. Tarski's semantic conception of truth works well enough for both. The fields do have different methods for justifying truths, but that's a different thing entirely.
No it does not, how would you even apply formal definition of Tarski to empirical phenomena. You can apply it to facts somewhat, but you cannot do so with theories. So there is no way to attach truth value to theories. Try to attach truth value to Newton's theory. Was it true in 1850 ? Is it true now ? If the same predicate can change truth value what use is such a definition. And if it does not in this case, the same question arises. The problem is how do you reconcile inherent "wrongness" of all scientific theories with assigning some of them value true and some false. Scientific theories differ only in predictive abilities and accuracy. That is why you will never see any mention of truth in description of scientific method as some tangible concept. "Truth" in science simply means accuracy of prediction and non-existence as of yet of contrary evidence.
EPT
Totally unrelated to the Republican nominations right now ._.
