Challenging Science - split from The Selfish Gene Theory

[Reg Prescott]

13 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I think that is a matter of interpretation - although it is quite possible my views on this do not align with Swansont's; that does not mean you have shown that significant mistakes are being perpetuated within "science" or are being concealed or go unaddressed when they become known. This a forum, not a science institution; I'm offering my opinions, as is Swansont. You do not win this argument because Swansont and I don't agree - (The Fallacy of the Fallacy).

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").

Edited October 10, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Reg Prescott said:

No, I'm saying that Phi and you don't agree.

You and swansont seem to be in agreement -- with myself, and contra Phi -- that mainstream science is not "always being questioned.

I don't believe you know what you are saying, let alone what anyone else is saying.

You need to consider very carefully your attitude in this thread and its similarity with your attitude in other threads of yours that have been closed.

In essence I have yet seen anyone actually agree with you other then back a bit when some religious bloke claiming god made 50 year old trees in a day! Your agenda, closeted as it is, is probably the reason, and your fanatical disposition in taking philosophical jargon over scientific discipline and facts.

 

[Ken Fabian]

 

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

No, I'm saying that Phi (not swansont) and you don't agree.

My mistake - Phi for All and Swansont can speak for themselves. I would expect most scientists actively seek to avoid reliance on questionable assumptions - and whether it accompanies the process of writing up their work for publication or preceded it (during their education) a lot of questioning goes on, unremarked.

I think the extent of questioning of science's assumptions is sufficient; "always" questioning them can be wasteful of time and resources.

[Reg Prescott]

21 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

 

My mistake - Phi for All and Swansont can speak for themselves. I would expect most scientists actively seek to avoid reliance on questionable assumptions - and whether it accompanies the process of writing up their work for publication or preceded it (during their education) a lot of questioning goes on, unremarked.

I think the extent of questioning of science's assumptions is sufficient; "always" questioning them can be wasteful of time and resources.

 

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.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[beecee]

15 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

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.

You mistake hostility with the scientific methodology and the right, indeed the duty of science to question with utmost vigour the picture you are trying to portray as far as science is concerned.

Quote

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?

In all your threads so far the only claims that are false are yours. You claim calmness, rationality and this being a debate forum, but others have made the observation that you actually appear argumentitive and just contrary, particularly in the face of reputable evidence. Perhaps though if anyone should pass any judgement, they need to research all the threads, and the nature of those threads you have been active in to form an opinion.

 

Quote

All this talk of an "agenda" -- whatever the heck that's supposed to be -- leaves me bewildered.

Well perhaps the amount of obvious ,misinterpretations, the amount of obtuseness, the ignoring of evidence put to invalidate your stance, all add up to people making the observation that you probably have an agenda. Again though, as per my previous comment, perhaps though if anyone should pass any judgement, they need to research all the threads, and the nature of those threads you have been active in to form an opinion. I believe they will come to the same conclusion I have and a commonality in those threads with regards to yourself.

Edited October 10, 2018 by beecee

[studiot]

14 hours ago, studiot said:

Can you tell me what happens to  a new brick, fresh from the kiln?

 

Once again I asked a very simple straightforward question, this time about a scientific investigation I have personal experience of.

Once again the silence from Reg Prescott was deafening or drowned out by specious arguments with others.

Do you have any personal experience of scientific investigation ?

3 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

All this talk of an "agenda" -- whatever the heck that's supposed to be -- and "preaching" leaves me bewildered.

 

[Reg Prescott]

@ 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).
 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

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).

Thank you for this.

 

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

"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."

 

I'm not really very interested in your continued argeuments with others that never seem to get anywhere.

 

Surely the one important point to your thread that you have avoided was that Science is by and large mundane?

 

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

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. 

Thank you for responding to my question.

Yes of course it will cool down unless kept warm.

However the important thing from the point of view of the investigation, which was a ministry programme lasting several of decades, though not for me as I just joined the team between school and university. It was my first introduction to true scientific investigation with a purpose, is that the fresh bricks absorb moisture.

This is significant because they swell as a result.
So the project was all about the effect of this swelling on brickwork built with fresh bricks after cooling.

The following rhetorical questions, though I will supply details if you wish.

How much did the bricks expand?
How long does this process go on for?
What does that mean for brick walls and expansion joints?

A subject (though boring to most) of great importance to mankind around the world.
 

[Reg Prescott]

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

Surely the one important point to your thread that you have avoided was that Science is by and large mundane?

Avoided? This has been a main theme of my arguments/non-arguments/specious arguments since Post #1.

Didn't you see the bits about "normal science"?

[studiot]

Quote

REg Prescott

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

Surely the one important point to your thread that you have avoided was that Science is by and large mundane?

Avoided? This has been a main theme of my arguments/non-arguments/specious arguments since Post #1.

 

Well it was the principal point of my one and only post (at that time) in your thread and you made no reference to it.

 

I'm glad to hear that you do appreciate it and would be pleased to learn why you only consider the very very few examples that lie outside this category?

[Reg Prescott]

By the way, there is one specious argument on page two, where I make an inductive derivation. What I should have typed was:

 

And an inductive derivation:

Premise 1 : Most ravens are black

Premise 2 :There is a raven inside the box

---------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion: The raven inside the box is black

 

(A double line standardly indicates an inductive argument). The way I originally formulated the argument was inadvertently deductive. With this brand new shiny formulation the argument is now safely inductive, i.e. the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

What a relief! No one noticed. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Strange said:

Some people seem to think it is a house of cards (“if I can just prove this one detail wrong, the whole thing collapses”) whereas it is more like a complex structure of mutually supporting pillars and beams. Change one thing and a few other bits might need to be adjusted, but the whole structure is stable. 

To some extent that's true. Show that relativity is wrong and a whole lot of stuff comes crashing down. But it has to be wrong for that to hold, otherwise it's adjustments, as you say. Merely showing limitations of the theory, much like the limitations of Newtonian physics, failing at large speeds, or GR not being compatible with QM at very small scales, does not make the model wrong.

[Reg Prescott]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

I'm glad to hear that you do appreciate it and would be pleased to learn why you only consider the very very few examples that lie outside this category?

Because the point of the thread (split from another place) was to debate one particular dubious (in my opinion) claim made by Phi for All.

Beecee and I got slightly sidetracked this afternoon. But hey, I'm not averse to a little meandering if the mods have no objection.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

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.

Testing a theory and someone being hell-bent on changing it are two very different scenarios.

10 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

 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".

The only one pushing this naive falsification model is you. It's a strawman.

10 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

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.

You seem to be using "questioned" in a different way than everyone else. Your "naive falsification" would have us dropping every theory with a single anomalous result, as I discussed earlier. What actually happens is science checks to see if there is an explanation consistent with the mainstream theory first. Otherwise we would be dropping basic concepts every so often, only to reinstate them later. It would be a mess. 

 

10 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

 If what you say (in bold) is true, then Phi's claim that mainstream science is being "questioned all the time" is false.

Sorry, I should have written "questioned" so as not to confuse you. It's being used in at least two different senses in these conversations. I had thought the context of the paragraph in which that statement appeared would suffice to make clear how I meant it. But I was wrong.

[Reg Prescott]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

The only one pushing this naive falsification model is you. It's a strawman.

You seem to be using "questioned" in a different way than everyone else. Your "naive falsification" would have us dropping every theory with a single anomalous result, as I discussed earlier. What actually happens is science checks to see if there is an explanation consistent with the mainstream theory first. Otherwise we would be dropping basic concepts every so often, only to reinstate them later. It would be a mess. 

 You're quite right that " "naive falsification" would have us dropping every theory with a single anomalous result".

As a model for science, whether descriptive or prescriptive, it's clearly hopelessly inadequate. It's not what scientists do, and as you say yourself, it certainly does not appear to be a very sensible precept to guide inquiry.

What you're not right about is my "pushing" it.

I'm not pushing anything. As I tried to make clear earlier, what interests me is not what scientists ought to do, but what they do do. 

If you disagree, please point me to where I have endorsed a program of naive falsificationism.

Seems to me the one attacking a strawman is yourself.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Reg Prescott
typo

[studiot]

On 09/10/2018 at 1:09 AM, Reg Prescott said:

Popper's view goes something like this: Science can be described as a process of "critical rationalism" or "conjectures and refutations". Scientists are highly critical of their own theories, constantly subjecting them to "severe tests", and as soon as observation conflicts with theory, the theory is deemed falsified and must be rejected.

Well I have no idea who Popper is or was but I am not drawn to bother from your summary.

On 09/10/2018 at 1:09 AM, Reg Prescott said:

Thomas Kuhn, for example, proposes a highly influential model, far more accurate than Popper's, in my view at least, under which science is bifurcated into "normal science" -- the vast majority of scientific work, and "revolutionary science" -- which, though rare, does indeed resemble the Popperian landscape.

In times of normal science, in any given discipline, the overarching theoretical framework -- the "paradigm" in Kuhn's jargon -- is, by and large, not challenged (or "questioned") at all. Rather than being subjected to severe testing, it is simply taken for granted. Normal science is extremely conservative, dogmatic even.

Again I have no idea who Kuhn is or was but I find his views no real improvement.

 

But enough quoting others who are not here. This is a live debate forum so here (appears to me) the view according to Reg Prescott.

On 09/10/2018 at 1:09 AM, Reg Prescott said:

Scientists go to extreme lengths to protect their best theories from falsification. Examples illustrating this in the history of science are plentiful. What usually happens, as history attests, when observation/data/evidence appears to be at odds with theory is not abandonment of the theory (good theories are hard to come by, after all), as Popper insisted, but rather the theory is tweaked, blame is put somewhere else -- on background assumptions and so-called auxiliary hypotheses -- or else the intractable evidence is just left on the back burner as an "anomaly".

Yes indeed this happened many times, but how often was this for the reasons you give?

I can think of one instance, that of Berzelius, who held up the development of chemistry by half a century for reasons of personal aggrandisement.

Another major reason for obstructing progress came in the late 18th and early 19 centuries when many clergymen became avid geologists with the intention of providing a scientific underpinning of Noye's Fludde.

Nor are many scientists themselves very good at history (many are too busy with Science itself).

Some who can manage cogent works are

John Buckingham in Chemistry

G I Brown in Chemistry (His book the Big Bang - a history of explosives is good)

Ian Stewart in Mathematics

Jon Butterworth in particle Physics

Fred Hoyle in cosmology

Michael Benton Geology

Donal Oshea Relativity Mathematics

Non Scientists of note include

Brenda Maddox in Geoscience

William Berkson Philosophy of Physics

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

Show that relativity is wrong and a whole lot of stuff comes crashing down.

True. But showing that relativity is wrong would, itself, require more than showing one thing to be wrong (in part because so much else is consistent with / dependent on it). 

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Again I have no idea who Kuhn is or was but I find his views no real improvement.

I haven’t read any Philosophy of Science for a long time but I think “Reg” may be misrepresenting him. 

For example:

“the "paradigm" in Kuhn's jargon -- is, by and large, not challenged (or "questioned") at all. Rather than being subjected to severe testing, it is simply taken for granted. Normal science is extremely conservative, dogmatic even.”

This is not dogmatism, it is pragmatism. When you want add two numbers, you don’t go back to set theoretical definitions of arithmetic. When writing software, one doesn’t worry about the quantum theory underlying the transistors in the processor, or even the correctness of the compiler. 

One takes the underlying mechanisms for granted. Until thing go wrong. Then you might have to consider all possibilities? Is it my code? Is the compiler buggy? Is there a bug in the processor caused by a transistor misbehaving?

Similarly, most paradigm changing advances in science arise from “normal” science when people notice something odd (insert Asimov(*) quote here). And at that point all possibilities are open. For example, when the energy deficit that led to the discovery of neutrinos was spotted, one serious suggestion was that maybe energy was not conserved. That is the exact opposite of dogmatism.

(*) Attributed to Asimov (by the Unix ‘fortune cookie’ program) but probably based on something said by Fleming. 

[studiot]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

True. But showing that relativity is wrong would, itself, require more than showing one thing to be wrong (in part because so much else is consistent with / dependent on it). 

That is why so much else would come crashing down if relativity was disproved.

But what does disproved mean?

It means showing that Einstein's formulae and equations generally and consistently give the 'wrong ' answers ie inconsistent with observation.

Indeed SR does this, but has theory been disproved?

No it was recognised from the outset that SR does not include gravity.

So we have GR, with SR as a special case.

 

There are very few hypotheses (theories) that have been disproved and discredited Noye's Fludde come to mind here.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

 You're quite right that " "naive falsification" would have us dropping every theory with a single anomalous result".

As a model for science, whether descriptive or prescriptive, it's clearly hopelessly inadequate. It's not what scientists do, and as you say yourself, it certainly does not appear to be a very sensible precept to guide inquiry.

What you're not right about is my "pushing" it.

I'm not pushing anything. As I tried to make clear earlier, what interests me is not what scientists ought to do, but what they do do. 

Then why bring it up?

Quote

If you disagree, please point me to where I have endorsed a program of naive falsificationism.

Seems to me the one attacking a strawman is yourself.

What other reason do you have for mentioning it, if you are interested in what scientists do? (and this is somthing you agree they ought not do , and don't do)

2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Because the point of the thread (split from another place) was to debate one particular dubious (in my opinion) claim made by Phi for All.

And you then proceeded to argue a different point.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

True. But showing that relativity is wrong would, itself, require more than showing one thing to be wrong (in part because so much else is consistent with / dependent on it). 

Right. And this is what Reg is missing. If relativity were wrong, odds are very, very good we would have already noticed it. So we can proceed under the provisional thinking that it's correct, but also knowing that if there were a problem, then it will manifest itself in experiments that rely on it being correct.

Making every experiment that relies on a theory an implicit test of that theory (i.e. questioning it) even if the purpose of the experiment is not an explicit test to see if the theory is valid, because we assume it's good (i.e. not questioning it)

 

[Reg Prescott]

First of all, a request to the mods. Several of the last few posts have been largely irrelevant to the thread topic, indeed irrelevant to anything remotely related to science or the philosophy thereof. Now, as I made clear earlier, I'm by no means averse to a little meandering so long as the discourse remains civil and pertinent to this site's proclaimed intellectual aims.

That said, subjects broached recently include my alleged idiocy and other personality failings (Strange, Studiot, and Beecee), as well as my putative corruption of the site's youth (Beecee). Socrates, eat your heart out!

One can't help wondering what the consequences would have been if I had said of my detractors that which they said of me. The double standards which not only obtain here, but judging by the "votes", positively condoned, are quite deplorable.

Might I suggest another thread split -- perhaps entitled "Reg is a Jerk" -- so that those so inclined may discuss my foibles till their hearts are content?

 

Now, back to business...

Swansont and I have agreed that naive falsificationism is hopelessly inadequate as a model -- whether descriptive or prescriptive -- for science. In his most recent post, Swansont asked (of naive falsificationism): "Then why bring it up?"

Several reasons. Firstly, it's commonly invoked for illustrative purposes in introductory texts in the philosophy of science, not only for its intrinsic heuristic value -- a first (inaccurate) approximation to how science works, if you like -- and also in order to expose its failings.

Secondly, inadequate though it may be, it is clearly believed and espoused by a great many people both within and without science. Surely we've all seen something like the following on forums like this one and elsewhere -- and I paraphrase : "General relativity (or name your own fave theory) has never once been shown to be at variance with observation/experiment. All it would take is one piece of contradictory evidence and the entire edifice would topple".

A strawman, you say? Well, remember I mentioned a Richard Feynman video in my first post? Here it is...

 

At 0:40 mins, Feynman asserts, "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it".

Now, Feynman uses the word "law". I'd suggest, though, it would make little difference were we to substitute "law" with "theory" or "hypothesis". Feynman, as I said, might as well be reciting directly from an early Karl Popper text; this is an endorsement of naive falsificationism. And as we've agreed, naive falsificationism is simply not tenable as a model for what scientists actually do. With all due respect to the brilliant Prof Feynman, clearly that is not all there is to it.

But that was 1964, you might say. No one still believes that! No one really believes that a mismatch between observation and theory/hypothesis entails a falsification thereof, do they?

Well, a search for the word "falsified" on your site reveals (this is just a small sample):

"Science looks for the best supported explanations, always. Ideas aren't "right" or "correct", they're either falsified or unfalsified, and the unfalsified ideas are constantly being attacked to see if they hold up under harsh scrutiny. These ideas MUST match what we observe in nature, as free from our human cognitive biases as possible." - Phi for All, "What is Faith?", page 18

"So if this is a testable prediction of your hypothesis then it is falsified. We don't see expansion between galaxies, even though there is a lower gravitational potential." - Strange, "An Observer's Local Clock", page 6

"As this is different from the measured value, your hypothesis/guess is falsified." - Strange, "Gravitation Constant or Not", page 1

"Again though it will take observational and experimental evidence to over throw GR and/or having it falsified" - Beecee, "When to use Special versus General Relativity?", page 2

"Special Relativity came later and was (largely) based on different evidence than that which falsified aether theory." - Strange, "Maths vs Belief", page 1

"The luminiferous aether theory was falsified by the Michelson Morley experiment because it was not Lorenz invariant." - Beecee, "Maths vs Belief", page 1

"Not only is there no evidence for it, but it is flat out falsified by the CMB." - Strange, "Religions influence on Science", page 1

"Some theories are falsified , but very few. Phlogiston is one of the few examples I can think of." - Strange, "Why is life after death really not possible?", page 2

 

 

My search yielded 37 pages containing the word "falsified". The selective sample above is taken only from the first four pages. Clearly, the naive falsificationist school of thought still holds sway in many quarters.

Now, there are both historical and technical reasons for thinking falsificationism is something of a myth. In the former case, what we see time and time again when one paradigm replaces another is not that a so-called crucial experiment or a particular observation immediately reveals to all that such-and-such a theory is false. The widespread belief in such things, I would suggest, is due to those disturbingly common "Whig" histories of science; history written by the victors from the victors' perspective. Richard Feynman, to his credit, was quite aware of this phenomenon:

Quote

This inadequacy is now sometimes recognized within the sciences themselves. Thus we find physicist Richard Feynman referring, in 1985, to " 'Physicists' history of physics,' which is never correct." This history is a "sort of conventionalized myth-story that the physicists tell to their students, and those students tell to their students, and is not necessarily related to the actual historical development." -- Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions, Paul Hoyningen-Huene, p16

 

Those who insist on crucial experiments and instant falsification must address the awkward question of why it is that proponents of the phlogiston theory and aether theories, for example, went to their graves unconvinced of their falsity. What was their problem? Too dense to see that falsification had occurred? Max Planck had this to say on the matter:

 

Quote

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Furthermore, as history makes clear, a major paradigm is never rejected (cf. falsified) until a replacement is available. There are no precedents, that I'm aware of anyway, where scientists performed such-and-such an experiment, or made such-and-such an observation, only to conclude, "Dang! Our overarching theoretical framework has been falsified. Looks like we're out of a theory, boys".

Approaching the issue from the technical side, meanwhile, those familiar with the work of Pierre Duhem, later built upon by W. V. O. Quine, will be aware that scientific statements/ hypotheses/theories/laws are never tested in isolation. What is tested, instead, is more like a holistic package containing the hypothesis/theory supposedly under test, as well as an indefinite number of auxiliary hypotheses and background assumptions.

When observation/experiment fails to comport with theory, all that can be said logically is "something is wrong somewhere" (in the package). Logic alone cannot tell the scientist how to distribute praise and blame throughout the package. (see the "Duhem/Quine thesis" for details). There is, therefore, no such thing as falsification in empirical science in any logical sense at least.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Reg Prescott
typos

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

At 0:40 mins, Feynman asserts, "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it".

But that's not naive falsification.  

6 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Now, Feynman uses the word "law". I'd suggest, though, it would make little difference were we to substitute "law" with "theory" or "hypothesis". Feynman, as I said, might as well be reciting directly from an early Karl Popper text; this is an endorsement of naive falsificationism. And as we've agreed, naive falsificationism is simply not tenable as a model for what scientists actually do. With all due respect to the brilliant Prof Feynman, clearly that is not all there is to it.

But that was 1964, you might say. No one still believes that! No one really believes that a mismatch between observation and theory/hypothesis entails a falsification thereof, do they?

Well, a search for the word "falsified" on your site reveals (this is just a small sample):

"Science looks for the best supported explanations, always. Ideas aren't "right" or "correct", they're either falsified or unfalsified, and the unfalsified ideas are constantly being attacked to see if they hold up under harsh scrutiny. These ideas MUST match what we observe in nature, as free from our human cognitive biases as possible." - Phi for All, "What is Faith?", page 18

"So if this is a testable prediction of your hypothesis then it is falsified. We don't see expansion between galaxies, even though there is a lower gravitational potential." - Strange, "An Observer's Local Clock", page 6

"As this is different from the measured value, your hypothesis/guess is falsified." - Strange, "Gravitation Constant or Not", page 1

"Again though it will take observational and experimental evidence to over throw GR and/or having it falsified" - Beecee, "When to use Special versus General Relativity?", page 2

"Special Relativity came later and was (largely) based on different evidence than that which falsified aether theory." - Strange, "Maths vs Belief", page 1

"The luminiferous aether theory was falsified by the Michelson Morley experiment because it was not Lorenz invariant." - Beecee, "Maths vs Belief", page 1

"Not only is there no evidence for it, but it is flat out falsified by the CMB." - Strange, "Religions influence on Science", page 1

"Some theories are falsified , but very few. Phlogiston is one of the few examples I can think of." - Strange, "Why is life after death really not possible?", page 2

 

 

My search yielded 37 pages containing the word "falsified". The selective sample above is taken only from the first four pages. Clearly, the naive falsificationist school of thought still holds sway in many quarters.

NONE of the example given above are examples of naive falsification, as you have described it.

6 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Now, there are both historical and technical reasons for thinking falsificationism is something of a myth. In the former case, what we see time and time again when one paradigm replaces another is not that a so-called crucial experiment or a particular observation immediately reveals to all that such-and-such a theory is false. The widespread belief in such things, I would suggest, is due to those disturbingly common "Whig" histories of science; history written by the victors from the victors' perspective. Richard Feynman, to his credit, was quite aware of this phenomenon:

And so here you argue that naive falsification is in effect, when I thought we agreed that it wasn't.

Which position are you arguing?

6 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Those who insist on crucial experiments and instant falsification must address the awkward question of why it is that proponents of the phlogiston theory and aether theories, for example, went to their graves unconvinced of their falsity. What was their problem? Too dense to see that falsification had occurred? Max Planck had this to say on the matter:

Who are the people who are insisting this? Are they perhaps made of straw?

6 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Furthermore, as history makes clear, a major paradigm is never rejected (cf. falsified) until a replacement is available. There are no precedents, that I'm aware of anyway, where scientists performed such-and-such an experiment, or made such-and-such an observation, only to conclude, "Dang! Our overarching theoretical framework has been falsified. Looks like we're out of a theory, boys".

Major paradigms perhaps, but for lesser ideas it happens regularly. One has to consider that to become a major paradigm, there must be considerable evidence that supports it. For hypotheses without that support, experiments that fail to corroborate will relegate it to the trash heap much faster. Chances are few people hear about it, because such work is rarely published.

6 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Approaching the issue from the technical side, meanwhile, those familiar with the work of Pierre Duhem, later built upon by W. V. O. Quine, will be aware that scientific statements/ hypotheses/theories/laws are never tested in isolation. What is tested, instead, is more like a holistic package containing the hypothesis/theory supposedly under test, as well as an indefinite number of auxiliary hypotheses and background assumptions.

When observation/experiment fails to comport with theory, all that can be said logically is "something is wrong somewhere" (in the package). Logic alone cannot tell the scientist how to distribute praise and blame throughout the package. (see the "Duhem/Quine thesis" for details). There is, therefore, no such thing as falsification in empirical science in any logical sense at least.

Nothing surprising here for anyone familiar with science, and some of this has already been noted in this discussion.

[beecee]

50 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

That said, subjects broached recently include my alleged idiocy and other personality failings (Strange, Studiot, and Beecee), as well as my putative corruption of the site's youth (Beecee). Socrates, eat your heart out!

"Again though it will take observational and experimental evidence to over throw GR and/or having it falsified" - Beecee, "When to use Special versus General Relativity?", page 

It is your claims and the contents of your posts that are idiocy. You have made many hairy fairy philosophical claims, that at best are confusing and worst certainly reflects an agenda of sorts. Here is another favourite Feynman video of mine that I have posted a few times now and only 7.5 minutes long, but he makes some excellent points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

 

In essence I believe I have shown you in error at least three times now, the last being your claim that Newtonian mathematics was not used to predict Neptune. Think about it carefully...It was Newtonian maths that explained all the planetary orbits, and found an error with Uranus......After some thinking, rather then throw out Newtonian as wrong, they surmised an outer planet that maybe having gravitational effects. That planet, Neptune was pin pointed before it was ever observed by Newtonian maths. Then you made another claim about not knowing what gravity was and needed to have that explained to you particularly the scientific methodology that any supposed truth or reality that you think is the goal of science theories is just not so. Now without going back checking over everything, you did not concede on any of those points, nor any other I can think of, simply as per your confusing style, skipped over them and started on something else. 

Quote

Might I suggest another thread split -- perhaps entitled "Reg is a Jerk" -- so that those so inclined may discuss my foibles till their hearts are content?

And now its playing the victim card and pointing the finger at those that are doing no more then trying to straighten you out and falsifying near all you have claimed because you are simply wrong. No one is out to get you...no one is out to simply be contrary to your views...that appears to be exactly what you are doing. Forget me...while I have done plenty of reputable reading, I am only an amateur lay person, but I believe I am able in general to sort the wheat from the chaff, and in your case, that is mighty easy.

Edited October 11, 2018 by beecee

[studiot]

23 hours ago, studiot said:

Which is my way of noting that he often states plausible, even sensible lines many of which I can agree with.

But then he uses them to argue ex extremum.

He seems to either think he is or wishes to be the only person with anything worthwhile to say on a given subject.
Several times I have picked out a particular line of his to agree with and give hime credit for.

I have never noticed a reciprocal action.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

That said, subjects broached recently include my alleged idiocy and other personality failings (xxx, Studiot, and yyy ), as well as my putative corruption of the site's youth (zzz). Socrates, eat your heart out!

 

I take it this is your reply to my attempts to engage in discussion with you.

Where exactly did I do any of these alleged things?

In particular where have I described you as an idiot? The quote above shows that I try to pick out statements from you that I agree with, but It's the (mis)use you put these statements to I don't.

My main complaint is that you repeatedly fail to respond or show contempt as perfectly exemplified by our brief unfinished discussion about my brick experiment.

I note that yet again in your latest post you have not made any reference to my posts, answered any of my questions or attempted to move any of aour discussions on, whilst pontificating at great length about the posts of others.

 

As to your presentation of Feynman,

43 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

At 0:40 mins, Feynman asserts, "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it".

Yes, absolutely, but you entirely miss the point.

Interestingly my brick experiment, that you steadfastly refuse to discuss, if a prime example of a guess.
And the story of the experiment a prime example of Science in action.

His remark is predicated upon the experiment actually measuring the subject of the guess and not something else.

If you actually measure something else, either by accident, or by failure to take account of some intervening factor or for some other reason, then your experiment offers little or nothing about the validity of the guess.

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

I once came upon a quote and for the life of me I can't find the bloody thing now...it goes like this, "I don't refuse to eat and drink, just because I don't know the process of digestion"

Oliver Heaviside at a Royal Society Dinner, when the famous mathematicians of the day refused to accept his operational calculus because his proofs were not up to their standards.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Oliver Heaviside at a Royal Society Dinner, when the famous mathematicians of the day refused to accept his operational calculus because his proofs were not up to their standards.

Thanks studiot, appreciated.