|
On January 11 2012 07:40 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2012 22:48 Warfie wrote: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. 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.
One thing that is worth pointing out, I being someone who works in research in the scientific community, is that terms like theory and whatnot are used extremely modestly. The amount of certainty that it takes for something to be a theory, theorem, law, etc are wildly beyond what most non-science people would think. The "theory of evolution" is a testament to how noble and modest the scientific community is. They have extreme certainty, but in accordance with their beliefs on when it is appropriate to say you "know something 100%", it is called a theory. Non-science people see the word theory and assume it is used the same way any every day non-science person would use it. But its not being used in an average person way. It is how scientists use it to describe scientific concepts. Their respect for knowledge and truth goes above and beyond anything else, and its for that reason that, despite them being what any other person would call "definitively certain", scientists still call it a theory.
|
On January 11 2012 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 04:33 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 04:26 Krikkitone wrote:On January 11 2012 04:22 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 03:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On January 11 2012 03:07 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 02:12 mcc wrote:On January 11 2012 01:46 Zorkmid wrote: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).
While i generaly agree with You, it should be noted that even in math and logic there is room for some disagreement. For example there is number of methods (especially in logic) that are not tottaly accepted by every mathemathician. Ie while, for someone proof of say" A" might seem conclusive other mathemathicain might disagree because he finds the method that proof of A is delivered unaccaptable. Its staggering how much such things might depend on social acceptance, for example in early days after publishing of Gödel's incompleteness theorems they were wildly discussed, and many mathemathicain thought the method that Godel used to deliver the proof is unaccaptable (ie. wrong).
Granted its different problem than in science, but still.
//End of offtopic.
Every discussion about evolution (and therfore also politics) eventualy ends here.
Ps.I agree You can't use Tarski's defintion of truth to empirical science.
|
On January 11 2012 04:22 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 03:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On January 11 2012 03:07 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 02:12 mcc wrote:On January 11 2012 01:46 Zorkmid wrote: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.
Math and logic are formal systems that, as he said, use deduction and proofs. There is no such thing as proof in science similarly as with truth. How are you going to define it there ? There is principal difference as formal systems by their design allow you to prove things. Science has no such luxury as there is just nothing to base them on.
|
On January 11 2012 07:47 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 11 2012 04:33 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 04:26 Krikkitone wrote:On January 11 2012 04:22 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 03:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On January 11 2012 03:07 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 02:12 mcc wrote:On January 11 2012 01:46 Zorkmid wrote: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). While i generaly agree with You, it should be noted that even in math and logic there is room for some disagreement. For example there is number of methods (especially in logic) that are not tottaly accepted by every mathemathician. Ie while, for someone proof of say" A" might seem conclusive other mathemathicain might disagree because he finds the method that proof of A is delivered unaccaptable. Its staggering how much such things might depend on social acceptance, for example in early days after publishing of Gödel's incompleteness theorems they were wildly discussed, and many mathemathicain thought the method that Godel used to deliver the proof is unaccaptable (ie. wrong). Granted its different than in science. //End of offtopic. Every discussion about evolution (and therfore also politics) eventualy ends here. Ps.I agree You can use Tarski's defintion of truth to empirical science.
//continue offtopic
You usually say what model you are using when you prove something (and if not you are using ZFC). There is no disagreement like this in mathematics, and certainly not based on "social acceptance." There are simply different models sometimes (although ZFC is the most common). It's really not fuzzy at all.
|
On January 11 2012 07:45 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 03:07 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 02:12 mcc wrote:On January 11 2012 01:46 Zorkmid wrote: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.
How would I apply the definition? What's the difficulty here? The statements of science will be true if the entities postulated exist and fall under the extension of the relevant predicates, using Tarskian machinery to generate truth values for more logically complex sentences. Just like truth works everywhere else.
"Try to attach truth values to Newton's theory." Ok, it's false. It was also false in 1850, even though not everyone knew it back then. What's so strange about this? Newton's theories are a conjunction of claims not all of which are true. Therefore, the theories as a whole are not true.
You can evaluate the goodness of different scientific theories in a more piecemeal fashion, though, and it makes more sense to do that than evaluate them as a whole. How many of the entities postulated by the theories exist? How many of the things we say about those entities are true? Electrons exist and do many, but presumably not all, the things we say they do. Phlogiston does not. Our theory of the electron is better than phlogiston theory.
That's how you reconcile the wrongness of scientific theories (which I don't take to be inherent. Evolution is incomplete but it is also in no clear sense wrong) with assigning positive attributes to them.
That (what you claim) is not what 'truth' means in science. Many contradictory theories have equal claims to truth according to that definition.
|
On January 11 2012 04:29 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 04:26 Krikkitone wrote:On January 11 2012 04:22 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 03:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On January 11 2012 03:07 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 02:12 mcc wrote:On January 11 2012 01:46 Zorkmid wrote: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. a "True" mathematical theorem cannot. What? You can't possibly actually think that. If your scare quotes are superfluous, then both statements are contradictions to equal degrees. Nothing true can also be false ( pace Graham Priest). If your scare quotes are not superfluous then it sounds like you're saying that things that are called true in science can be false. Pardon my language, but no shit. I fail to see how the case differs with math and logic, in which many false things have been and can be called true. Either way you have failed to draw a distinction between truth in these fields that accomplishes what you claim.
What he means I think is that in math such a situation is just a matter of oversight and error. There is a way to determine if the proof is correct or not with 100% certainty and once and for all. No such thing is possible in science. There you can either limit your definition of truth to facts and even then it is quite a problematic and limited definition. You cannot extend your definition to theories and not make it useless at the same time.
Ah, I sorry that my response is spread in 3 posts, should have just moved them to 1.
|
On January 11 2012 04:49 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +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 gold standard would not achieve that.
|
On January 11 2012 07:53 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 04:22 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 03:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On January 11 2012 03:07 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 02:12 mcc wrote:On January 11 2012 01:46 Zorkmid wrote: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. Math and logic are formal systems that, as he said, use deduction and proofs. There is no such thing as proof in science similarly as with truth. How are you going to define it there ? There is principal difference as formal systems by their design allow you to prove things. Science has no such luxury as there is just nothing to base them on.
No such thing as mathematical/logical proof in science ≠ no such thing as truth in science (or, radically different such thing as truth in science). That's what I've been claiming.
|
On January 11 2012 07:57 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 04:29 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 04:26 Krikkitone wrote:On January 11 2012 04:22 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 03:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On January 11 2012 03:07 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 02:12 mcc wrote:On January 11 2012 01:46 Zorkmid wrote: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. a "True" mathematical theorem cannot. What? You can't possibly actually think that. If your scare quotes are superfluous, then both statements are contradictions to equal degrees. Nothing true can also be false ( pace Graham Priest). If your scare quotes are not superfluous then it sounds like you're saying that things that are called true in science can be false. Pardon my language, but no shit. I fail to see how the case differs with math and logic, in which many false things have been and can be called true. Either way you have failed to draw a distinction between truth in these fields that accomplishes what you claim. What he means I think is that in math such a situation is just a matter of oversight and error. There is a way to determine if the proof is correct or not with 100% certainty and once and for all. No such thing is possible in science. There you can either limit your definition of truth to facts and even then it is quite a problematic and limited definition. You cannot extend your definition to theories and not make it useless at the same time. Ah, I sorry that my response is spread in 3 posts, should have just moved them to 1.
Well, of course if you remove all possibility of error there's 100% certainty in math, and for that matter in everything. If you don't, then what my posts have been attempting to show is that certainty is not possible here either because we use fallible faculties to evaluate both axioms and what results from them. Same as in science. Proof does not equal certainty if you cannot be certain of the premises, or certain of your not having erred in the deductions.
|
On January 11 2012 07:40 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2012 22:48 Warfie wrote: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.
As long as you're aware that when you call it a "scientific fact", you're comfortable saying that we don't have 100% certainty of it's truth and that it may end up being a "false fact".
On January 11 2012 07:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 07:40 DoubleReed wrote:On January 10 2012 22:48 Warfie wrote: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. 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. One thing that is worth pointing out, I being someone who works in research in the scientific community, is that terms like theory and whatnot are used extremely modestly. The amount of certainty that it takes for something to be a theory, theorem, law, etc are wildly beyond what most non-science people would think. The "theory of evolution" is a testament to how noble and modest the scientific community is. They have extreme certainty, but in accordance with their beliefs on when it is appropriate to say you "know something 100%", it is called a theory. Non-science people see the word theory and assume it is used the same way any every day non-science person would use it. But its not being used in an average person way. It is how scientists use it to describe scientific concepts. Their respect for knowledge and truth goes above and beyond anything else, and its for that reason that, despite them being what any other person would call "definitively certain", scientists still call it a theory.
Actually, scientists (and anyone) who say that the "scientific theory of x is known with 100% certainty" are not being very scientific in that statement. Yes, a Scientific Theory does have a large degree of certainty and evidence that supports it, but it will not reach 100%.
|
On January 11 2012 07:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 07:40 DoubleReed wrote:On January 10 2012 22:48 Warfie wrote: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. 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. One thing that is worth pointing out, I being someone who works in research in the scientific community, is that terms like theory and whatnot are used extremely modestly. The amount of certainty that it takes for something to be a theory, theorem, law, etc are wildly beyond what most non-science people would think. The "theory of evolution" is a testament to how noble and modest the scientific community is. They have extreme certainty, but in accordance with their beliefs on when it is appropriate to say you "know something 100%", it is called a theory. Non-science people see the word theory and assume it is used the same way any every day non-science person would use it. But its not being used in an average person way. It is how scientists use it to describe scientific concepts. Their respect for knowledge and truth goes above and beyond anything else, and its for that reason that, despite them being what any other person would call "definitively certain", scientists still call it a theory.
QFT. The only way it will lose that theory tag is when and if we develop a time machine and found our 1st hand if evolution is real. Otherwise theres no way to be 100% sure. I of course believe in evolution 100% lol.
|
On January 11 2012 06:13 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 06:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 11 2012 05:40 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 11 2012 04:33 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 04:26 Krikkitone wrote:On January 11 2012 04:22 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 03:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On January 11 2012 03:07 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 02:12 mcc wrote:
[quote]
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 does it mean true axiom ? Axioms are true by definition  Picking axioms is arbitrary (except when you make the system inconsistent by contradiction) and then what follows follows. You can pick specific axioms because they create a formal system that is useful in describing real world, but that is also arbitrary. There is no necessary correspondence between math/logic and reality. As there is no such correspondence between a novel and reality.
In science no axioms are actually necessary as no proofs are done. And just to clarify I am in no way saying that this fact makes science in any way less useful and not worthy of trusting. The design of scientific method is still the best way to gain knowledge about physical reality and science in this day and age is so accurate (note that I do not use true) that denying its results on any base other than existing evidence is folly.
The difference between the math and scientific theorems being false is in principle. Yes our mental faculties make it so that we can mess up math proofs, but in principle math proofs are absolute. Scientific "truths" are not and cannot even in principle be absolute, they are always just accurate to some degree and that is all you can say.
|
On January 11 2012 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 07:40 DoubleReed wrote:On January 10 2012 22:48 Warfie wrote: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. As long as you're aware that when you call it a "scientific fact", you're comfortable saying that we don't have 100% certainty of it's truth and that it may end up being a "false fact". Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 07:45 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2012 07:40 DoubleReed wrote:On January 10 2012 22:48 Warfie wrote: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. 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. One thing that is worth pointing out, I being someone who works in research in the scientific community, is that terms like theory and whatnot are used extremely modestly. The amount of certainty that it takes for something to be a theory, theorem, law, etc are wildly beyond what most non-science people would think. The "theory of evolution" is a testament to how noble and modest the scientific community is. They have extreme certainty, but in accordance with their beliefs on when it is appropriate to say you "know something 100%", it is called a theory. Non-science people see the word theory and assume it is used the same way any every day non-science person would use it. But its not being used in an average person way. It is how scientists use it to describe scientific concepts. Their respect for knowledge and truth goes above and beyond anything else, and its for that reason that, despite them being what any other person would call "definitively certain", scientists still call it a theory. Actually, scientists (and anyone) who say that the "scientific theory of x is known with 100% certainty" are not being very scientific in that statement. Yes, a Scientific Theory does have a large degree of certainty and evidence that supports it, but it will not reach 100%.
I can't tell if you are refuting what I was saying or agreeing. I believe that what I said agrees with what you said. It is "a scientific thing to do", to never have 100% certainty, because scientists believe so much in accuracy. Whereas other people are a lot more lenient and don't have the same admiration for accuracy. As a result, less educated people tend to think scientists have less solid of evidence than they do.
|
On January 11 2012 08:00 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 04:49 Hider wrote: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 gold standard would not achieve that.
Interest rates that are based on demand and suply = NATURAL.
Interest based on printing money = ARTIFICAL.
GOLD causes nautral itnerest rates.
Artifical low interest rates creates malinvestments and speculations --> bubbles --> crises.
|
On January 11 2012 08:12 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 06:13 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 06:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 11 2012 05:40 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 05:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 11 2012 04:33 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 04:26 Krikkitone wrote:On January 11 2012 04:22 frogrubdown wrote:On January 11 2012 03:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On January 11 2012 03:07 frogrubdown wrote:
[quote]
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 does it mean true axiom ? Axioms are true by definition Picking axioms is arbitrary (except when you make the system inconsistent by contradiction) and then what follows follows. You can pick specific axioms because they create a formal system that is useful in describing real world, but that is also arbitrary. There is no necessary correspondence between math/logic and reality. As there is no such correspondence between a novel and reality. In science no axioms are actually necessary as no proofs are done. And just to clarify I am in no way saying that this fact makes science in any way less useful and not worthy of trusting. The design of scientific method is still the best way to gain knowledge about physical reality and science in this day and age is so accurate (note that I do not use true) that denying its results on any base other than existing evidence is folly. The difference between the math and scientific theorems being false is in principle. Yes our mental faculties make it so that we can mess up math proofs, but in principle math proofs are absolute. Scientific "truths" are not and cannot even in principle be absolute, they are always just accurate to some degree and that is all you can say.
Well, I'm not a fictionalist about math (and certainly don't think axioms are true by definition), but that's not really relevant. As long as you acknowledge a way in which axioms can go wrong (which you do in the form of inconsistency), you have already acknowledged what matters for my point.
I have throughout this thread agreed that there is an in principle difference between truths that follow from deduction and truths that follow from induction. What I have been disagreeing with is the claim that this makes the mathematical truths certain in a way that empirical truths are not. Since you've already acknowledged that our faculties for knowing mathematical truths are fallible, we should be on the same page here.
Scientific "truths" are absolute in the sense that if we luck on to the right scientific theory, it is true regardless of what anyone says. We evolved from apes regardless of what anyone says. Sometimes the degree to which they are accurate is 100%. We haven't gotten there in most places, and maybe never will. But that difference is not a principled one.
|
What happened to this thread 
Come on guys get back on topic. For us foreigners, how is the NH primary looking?
|
On January 11 2012 08:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 08:05 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On January 11 2012 07:40 DoubleReed wrote:On January 10 2012 22:48 Warfie wrote: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. As long as you're aware that when you call it a "scientific fact", you're comfortable saying that we don't have 100% certainty of it's truth and that it may end up being a "false fact". On January 11 2012 07:45 Mohdoo wrote:On January 11 2012 07:40 DoubleReed wrote:On January 10 2012 22:48 Warfie wrote: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. 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. One thing that is worth pointing out, I being someone who works in research in the scientific community, is that terms like theory and whatnot are used extremely modestly. The amount of certainty that it takes for something to be a theory, theorem, law, etc are wildly beyond what most non-science people would think. The "theory of evolution" is a testament to how noble and modest the scientific community is. They have extreme certainty, but in accordance with their beliefs on when it is appropriate to say you "know something 100%", it is called a theory. Non-science people see the word theory and assume it is used the same way any every day non-science person would use it. But its not being used in an average person way. It is how scientists use it to describe scientific concepts. Their respect for knowledge and truth goes above and beyond anything else, and its for that reason that, despite them being what any other person would call "definitively certain", scientists still call it a theory. Actually, scientists (and anyone) who say that the "scientific theory of x is known with 100% certainty" are not being very scientific in that statement. Yes, a Scientific Theory does have a large degree of certainty and evidence that supports it, but it will not reach 100%. I can't tell if you are refuting what I was saying or agreeing. I believe that what I said agrees with what you said. It is "a scientific thing to do", to never have 100% certainty, because scientists believe so much in accuracy. Whereas other people are a lot more lenient and don't have the same admiration for accuracy. As a result, less educated people tend to think scientists have less solid of evidence than they do.
Well when you said
"but in accordance with their beliefs on when it is appropriate to say you "know something 100%", it is called a theory"
it sounded like you were trying to say 100% certainty was present in scientific theories, which I disagree with.
|
You guys do realize that evolution basically has about a much evidence supporting it as does gravity?
I mean errr.... Hell and satan are keeping us bound to the earth so that we cannot just float off into heavenPo
|
On January 11 2012 08:26 1Eris1 wrote:
You guys do realize that evolution basically has about a much evidence supporting it as does gravity?
I mean errr.... Hell and satan are keeping us bound to the earth so that we cannot just float off into heavenPo
I don't think anyone here is arguing that there isn't a lot of evidence for evolution.
|
On January 11 2012 08:26 Probulous wrote:What happened to this thread Come on guys get back on topic. For us foreigners, how is the NH primary looking?
Won't be anything coming in for a few more hours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
