Reg Prescott

Well, sorry. What the hell is it with this place? Is there a rule against humor? Sigh! Ok, seriously, DrP, you got my point about explanation. Beecee and ZeroZero apparently did not. Probably my fault for not being clear enough. Let me try again... Two issues are being conflated here: one is epistemological (i.e. knowledge and beliefs); the other pertains to explanation, whether of the scientific kind or any other kind. With regards the first, do we have good reasons for -- are we justified in -- believing in the existence of the Tooth Fairy? No. Hopefully we can agree on this much. How about God? I personally don't think the epistemic warrant is sufficient to commit to a belief in the existence in God. Clearly, many others do not feel the same way. Good luck to them. As for the second issue (forget all about our epistemic warrant for now), just suppose that God or the Tooth Fairy or Donald Duck did indeed create the universe. Then what is the explanation for the creation of the universe? Ans: "God/the Tooth Fairy/Donald Duck did it". That's your explanation. Like it or not, scientific or not (and what constitutes a scientific explanation is a vexed issue in itself), that's all you get! (unless God decides .... never mind -- a magician never gives away his secrets). My own personal Big Band theory suggests Glenn Miller created the universe, but that's another story...

The evidence in this case takes the form of testimony -- from Mummy and Daddy.

@ Studiot "Can you tell me what happens to a new brick, fresh from the kiln?" I read your post on the previous page, and took the question to be rhetorical. Turns out it wasn't. Ok. Well, I assume it would cool down, for one thing. I'm not sure what you're getting at. "Once again the silence from Reg Prescott was deafening or drowned out by specious arguments with others." On the first page, back in the good old days when my arguments were still arguments, Phi told me (6th to bottom post), "It makes your arguments look like you're trying to judge the scientific merits by bouncing them in either hand." By the time we'd reached page 2 (third post), Phi admonished, "Haven't you realized it's not an argument but a misunderstanding? It's been explained to you, but you're being (purposely?) obtuse about it, and keep preaching instead of listening." How that which had previously been an argument(s) suddenly ceased to be so, I leave to those less obtuse than myself to figure out. Now you tell me, Studiot, that my arguments are "specious". Rather than simply assert this, why not show us your analysis of the specious nature of the arguments in question? I certainly have no intention of advancing specious arguments, so I'll be indebted if you can set me straight. "Do you have any personal experience of scientific investigation ?" No. I'm not, and never have been, a scientist. Unless cleaning toilets at NASA counts. (That was a joke, I hasten to add before dishonesty gets added to my other apparent sins).

And I think Thomas Kuhn would agree with you. On his account, it's precisely because scientists take the central tenets -- the "hard core" in Imre Lakatos' jargon -- of the paradigm for granted (i.e., by and large, not questioned) that science achieves the success it does. I must say I'm puzzled by the hostility I've seen evinced in this thread. Kuhn, among other things, is offering an account for the success of science; he's no anti-science crusader. As for myself, all I've said in this thread has been descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, I'm hoping we can get a handle on what it is that scientists do; not what they ought to do. What scientists ought to do is none of my business. What I do find fascinating, though, is to try and gain a greater understanding of how the scientific enterprise works through examination of the history and philosophy of science. I felt that a false claim had been made, and presented my reasons -- calmly and rationally -- why I believed it to be false. Isn't that the whole idea of a debate forum? All this talk of an "agenda" -- whatever the heck that's supposed to be -- and "preaching" leaves me bewildered.

No, I'm saying that Phi (not swansont) and you don't agree. You and swansont seem to be in agreement -- with myself, and contra Phi -- that mainstream science is not "being questioned all the time". Swansont told us gravity is not questioned, for example, and you said something quite similar ("there's not a lot to question").

One of the most sophisticated writers on science I've had the pleasure to discover in recent years is John Ziman (according to the cover jacket: "professor of theoretical physics, member of the Royal Society, etc., etc).On the topic of dogmatism (see my opening post), I quote from Prof Ziman's "Real Science", page 311:"The distinction [between science and religion] is surely valid, but very far from absolute. As we have seen, science rarely lives up to its ideals. Scientific paradigms often become socially entrenched, and are presented as if entirely beyond question. The notion that science is never dogmatic is one of its dogmas!"And..."At the same time, not all religious systems are hostile to originality and scepticism. Hinduism and Buddhism are continually open to new wisdom gained by personal enlightenment. Even a 'revealed' religion such as Judeo-Christianity or Islam, where any line of argument can be closed off by reference to a text provided by an omnipotent deity, can never be systematically fundamentalist. Its teachings are reshaped by Prophets and Saints. Its founder texts become the focus of creative heresy, critical debate and doctrinal re-interpretation. For example, vigorous scholastic controversy within medieval Christendom created a fertile intellectual seedbed for new belief systems, such as Reformation theology, Renaissance humanism and scientific naturalism. The notion that 'religion' is always dogmatic is also a scientific dogma!"

Then again, I must implore: show me your derivation. If you're not up to the task, find someone who can. You'll be wasting your time, though. The existence of Neptune was compatible with Newtonian theory; it was not a prediction derived from theory. (The existence of Donald Duck is also perfectly compatible with Newton's theory, though as with Neptune, it cannot be derived from the theory.)

No. Neptune accounted for the discrepancy in the orbit of Uranus. And as we've seen, the existence of Neptune is not something that can be derived from Newtonian theory. As with my response to swansont (bottom of previous page), if what you say here is true, then Phi's claim that mainstream science is being "questioned all the time" is false.

You don't need to be a mathematician. The simple fact is that what you call a "prediction" -- cannot be derived from Newtonian theory. If you know your history, you'll be aware that Mercury, like Uranus, was misbehaving too. Similarly, an unknown planet was hypothesized (not derived from theory) to account for the anomalous data. They even gave it a name - "Vulcan". It was never found. In neither case did Newtonian theory make these predictions. You might say Le Verrier made the prediction, if you like. It was certainly not a prediction derived from theory. It was a hypothesis which was suggested -- that if true -- would account for the data. An indefinite number of hypotheses could have accounted for the very same data (the existence of unknown forces acting on Uranus, etc). None of them were, or would have been, predictions of the theory. (I couldn't remove that dang video from my post. Sorry!)

I asked you to show us your derivation. You did not. Here's an example of a deductive derivation: Premise 1 : All ravens are black Premise 2 :There is a raven inside the box --------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: The raven inside the box is black And an inductive derivation: Premise 1 : Most ravens are black Premise 2 :There is a raven inside the box --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: It is likely that the raven inside the box is black Now show us how you derive -- either deductively or inductively -- the existence of Neptune from Newtonian mechanics.

No. Newtonian mechanics made no such prediction. If you disagree, show us how this "prediction" is derived from the theory -- in logical form. What we can say is: Given Uranus's misbehavior, the existence of an unknown body would account for the data. This is what would be described as a case of abduction (or hypothesis formation); not a case of a prediction being derived from a theory.

Rather than condescend, why not just refute my argument?

You've no idea how many times I've had to bite my tongue not to say the same of yourself. Once more, you completely miss the point. If the Tooth Fairy did indeed "do it", then that's the explanation. No one is saying it's scientific. No one is endorsing the Tooth Fairy hypothesis, at least not myself. But supposing the Tooth Fairy hypothesis -- wonder of wonders -- is true, then "the Tooth Fairy did it" is the explanation nonetheless.

Again, I have to respectfully disagree. Did you watch (the relevant one minute of) the Dawkins video I posted? Dawkins does not sound at all to me like a man hell bent on challenging natural selection theory. (Does he strike you that way?). Quite the opposite. In fact, if you continue watching, you'll hear him describe it as a "matter of faith" on his part. Now, I'm not here trying to overemphasize his use of the word faith. What I am suggesting, rather, is that the theory is simply taken for granted. There is not the slightest whiff that the theory is being questioned or challenged, contrary to your earlier remark that mainstream theories are "questioned all the time" Not this time apparently. Another example: Let's go back to the 19th century. The planet Uranus is misbehaving. Its movements are at variance with what Newtonian mechanics predicts. Once again, we have a situation where observation clashes with theory. On a naive falsificationist account, we should say that the theory has been falsified and must be jettisoned. On your account, we should say that mainstream Newtonian mechanics was being "questioned all the time". To my knowledge, it was never even suggested that Newtonian mechanics might be in dire straits. It was not "questioned" -- as you claim happens all the time. Rather, it was, once again, simply taken for granted. Instead, the anomalous orbit of Uranus was regarded as a puzzle or an anomaly, something that had to be reconciled with the paradigm -- exactly as Kuhn would have, and Popper would not have, predicted. (In this particular case the scientists were right. Mathematicians did some number-crunching, astronomers pointed their telescopes as directed, and hey presto! -- Neptune was discovered. Chalk up another one for the good guys.) Examples such as these could be adduced pretty much ad infinitum. It is simply not true that mainstream theories are being "questioned all the time", in my opinion. If what you say (in bold) is true, then Phi's claim that mainstream science is being "questioned all the time" is false.

I hear this kind of complaint a lot, but it strikes me as confused. For example, the scientist or science fan is commonly heard to complain, "The claim that "God did it"" is no explanation at all". If it is indeed the case that God did it (whatever "it" happens to be) then that's the explanation. And yes, it's bad news for scientists. Might put them out of a job LOL. It may not be the kind of explanation that pleases the more scientifically inclined, but an explanation nonetheless. Explanations must come to an end somewhere (as scientists are won't to say themselves), and this one just did. The buck stops here. That's all the explanation you're getting! What do you want: a science of miracles? Miracles, are pretty much by definition, an intervention into, or a cessation of, the natural (scientific) order. (To repeat, I'm not religious myself. I just think the complaint makes little sense.) I hear this one a lot too. And again it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. According to the Wiki page below: "Evolution has been described as "fact and theory"; "fact, not theory"; "only a theory, not a fact"; "multiple theories, not fact"; and "neither fact, nor theory." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory Even among those who do countenance a "fact" of evolution, there seems to be little agreement on what this "fact" is.

Well, the original quote (from SamCogar), that Phi responded to, pertained to mainstream science, not science per se. Of course, questions are being asked in science all the time. Where I'd object is to the claim that the mainstream, i.e., the overarching theoretical framework, or paradigm, is subject to constant questioning or challenge. Let me post that Dawkins video I mentioned as an illustration... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSU81p8fyhU See around 15 - 16 mins, as Dawkins discusses the evolution of the feather : "If you can't think of one [i.e. an adequate account for the evolution of the feather], that's your problem, not natural selection's problem." Now, supposing it's the case that no one has been able to come up with an adequate account for the evolution of such-and-such a trait, (i.e. observation/data/evidence is at odds with theory), then on a naive falsificationist account, the theory is falsified and must be rejected. The theory has been challenged/questioned and found wanting. Clearly, this does not happen. What we see instead is, it does not even enter Dawkins' mind that ET/natural selection theory might be in peril; the failure, rather, lies with the scientist ("that's your problem"), not the theory. The paradigm is not in doubt. It is not "questioned". Compare with what I said in the opening post (rehearsing Kuhn's ideas): "In normal science, if anything is tested/challenged at all, it's not the reigning paradigm itself, but the scientist. If the scientist fails to make puzzling data/evidence fit the theoretical framework then that's her problem; the theory is just fine, thank you very much." Now, Dawkins is just one man, and this is just one example, but I'd say this is fairly typical. The history of science is replete with similar cases. I'll provide more if you want.

Yes, I've read it. Way back in the day when I was still able to stomach Dawkins LOL.

Not if you've seen my family.

I'd agree that this kind of thing does not sit at all well with the "God did it" hypothesis. What's not clear is which hypothesis do you consider this phenomenon, and others like it, to be evidence for? It won't do to just say "evolutionary theory", I'm afraid. The scope is far too wide. Do you consider this to be evidence for natural selection? Descent with modification? Gradualism? Punctuated equilibrium? All of the above? Or what?

Oh, I have no alternative. My own suspicion is that there can be no (non-trivial) general theory of evolution or natural history, any more than there can be a general theory of human history, much as Hegel had hoped. It was a nineteenth century idea. Darwin was a product of his times.

Let's be clear, Berlinski (and others like him) may well be wrong in their ET critiques. But if he is, I'm fairly sure it will not be down to "schoolboy error". You do an injustice, I humbly submit, to an extremely sophisticated man. As I said, this is what invariably happens to any ET orthodoxy naysayer. Why not read his "The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays" for yourself and make up your own mind?

Up to you, friend. It's always healthy, I think, to see things from another perspective. I've read Dawkins and Berlinski both: in comparison Dawkins is a mental midget (in my useless opinion LOL) I said on the previous page: Of course, any book attacking mainstream Darwinian orthodoxy is gonna get hammered. Let's not be naive. This is a foregone conclusion even before it hits the press. All the usual crap ("The book contains factual errors", "He doesn't understand biology", etc., etc., blah blah) P.S. Berlinski is one of these "first rate thinkers" I mentioned. Dude, you can't seem to get it into your head that I'm not religious. Remember what I said about misrepresentation? Ok, then, for the record, I couldn't give a flying f**k about God. Happy now? Oops. I hear thunder.....

"What is interesting about the scientific world view is that it is true," This comment is so astonishingly stupid and naive that... well, that's Dawkins for you. What exactly is Dawkins claiming: every claim ever made by every scientist in every time and every place is true? Or what? The mind boggles! Enjoy the book. Think I'd rather read Harry Potter.

Oh, I can agree with you that Dawkins is talking bollocks (re the gravity quote). I'm not an admirer at all. But let me remind you of your claim: "Again scientific theories are never meant to find any supposed truth or reality" Dawkins clearly is not of the same mind as yourself on this. And Weinberg. And a thousand others. (Please, oh please, don't make me compose a list, kind sir) Cough splutter!!! Get "The Devil's Delusion" by David Berlinski -- written precisely to combat the absurdities of Dawkins/Harris/Dennett et al. That Berlinski fellah is sharp as a knife, I tell ya. Very funny too, like the aforementioned David Stove.