Challenging Science - split from The Selfish Gene Theory

[iNow]

[Reg Prescott]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Could not have appeared as a term? You put an unknown term (e.g. "x") in the equation and then solve for x. Physicists do this all the time.

Well, not quite sure where this will lead, but first consider:

Premise 1: 2x=6

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

Conclusion : x = 3

No new terms have appeared in the conclusion. We still have numbers, "x", and an identity symbol ("="). Our ontology remains precisely as it was before.

Did you have something different in mind?

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Well, not quite sure where this will lead, but first consider:

Premise 1: 2x=6

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

Conclusion : x = 3

No new terms have appeared in the conclusion. We still have numbers, "x", and an identity symbol ("="). Our ontology remains precisely as it was before.

Did you have something different in mind?

I had science in mind, and not just math. You lose something when you try and reduce this to an algebra problem. Science uses math, but it is not just math.

It's all in how you set up the problem. You say nothing has changed in the problem. But this is science _ we do a measurement, and find that x is not 3. It is 2.5. We rewrite the equation 2x + y = 6 and conclude that y is 1. We would then go and do a measurement to confirm that y is indeed 1.

It's still math — we haven't changed that. It's the realization that there are two variables, not one, and writing down 2x = 6 was not encompassing everything.   

You seem to be suggesting that because we had confirmed 7 planets that we were not allowed to write down an equation that had 8 planets to see if that were a better fit for the data. Which is preposterous.

 

4 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

  The existence of neutrinos was not, indeed could not be, derived from the data. Same as the existence of Neptune. And now that you guys have found them (right?), our ontology has expanded by one.

And yet, that's what happened. Your hypothesis does not match with history. Ergo, it is false.

It is amazing that you can say that you can't measure something in a system by measuring everything else involved in the system, and solving for the unknown. Because in my first postdoc, that's exactly what we set out to do. It's hard to measure neutrinos, so we measured the emitted electrons and the recoils of the daughters to deduce the neutrino spectrum.

But you now tell me we could not have done this. 

[Reg Prescott]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

  You seem to be suggesting that because we had confirmed 7 planets that we were not allowed to write down an equation that had 8 planets to see if that were a better fit for the data. Which is preposterous.

Of course you were allowed. The existence of the eighth planet, however, was not derived from the theory, in conjunction with the usual auxiliaries and background assumptions, of course.

The background assumption was that there were seven planets.

An eighth was hypothesized. And hey presto!

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Of course you were allowed. The existence of the eighth planet, however, was not derived from the theory, in conjunction with the usual auxiliaries and background assumptions, of course.

The background assumption was that there were seven planets.

An eighth was hypothesized. And hey presto!

Yes, this is what everyone has been saying. What is the distinction that you are drawing here? It is lost on me.

 

You claimed "could not have appeared in any background assumption or auxiliary hypothesis " and yet here we have this as a background assumption, leading to the prediction and discovery.

 

[Reg Prescott]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

I had science in mind, and not just math. You lose something when you try and reduce this to an algebra problem. Science uses math, but it is not just math.

It's all in how you set up the problem. You say nothing has changed in the problem. But this is science _ we do a measurement, and find that x is not 3. It is 2.5. We rewrite the equation 2x + y = 6 and conclude that y is 1. We would then go and do a measurement to confirm that y is indeed 1.

It's still math — we haven't changed that. It's the realization that there are two variables, not one, and writing down 2x = 6 was not encompassing everything.   

 

But your ontology remains precisely the same as it was to begin with. Deduction is not an "ampliative" mode of inference. It cannot expand your ontology. Neither can induction, in the strict sense of the term.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

But your ontology remains precisely the same as it was to begin with. Deduction is not an "ampliative" mode of inference. It cannot expand your ontology. Neither can induction, in the strict sense of the term.

Ontology is philosophy. We are talking about science. 

[Reg Prescott]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Yes, this is what everyone has been saying. What is the distinction that you are drawing here? It is lost on me.

 

The distinction is between:

(i) making a deductive prediction (in the case of deterministic theories) or inductive prediction (in the case of statistical theories). In both cases your ontology will not -- cannot -- increase. No new entities will be added to your ontology. And

(ii) Bringing a hypothesis to the data. This would be an abductive inference. E.g. hypothezing the existence of unobservable bacteria, say, to explain the prevalence of pregnant mums getting sick. Our ontology, supposing the hypothesis turns out to be true, has now expanded by one type of entity.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Ontology is philosophy. We are talking about science. 

Science has nothing to do with ontology? C'mon now. Scientists routinely tell us what does, and what does not, exist.

[swansont]

29 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

The distinction is between:

(i) making a deductive prediction (in the case of deterministic theories) or inductive prediction (in the case of statistical theories). In both cases your ontology will not -- cannot -- increase. No new entities will be added to your ontology. And

That's not how we do science.

Quote

(ii) Bringing a hypothesis to the data. This would be an abductive inference. E.g. hypothezing the existence of unobservable bacteria, say, to explain the prevalence of pregnant mums getting sick. Our ontology, supposing the hypothesis turns out to be true, has now expanded by one type of entity.

Expanding the number of possibilities is perfectly normal.

Quote

Science has nothing to do with ontology? C'mon now. Scientists routinely tell us what does, and what does not, exist.

Plenty of things in physics are abstractions, and not things that necessarily exist as physical entities. (electron holes being one of them. Phonons. Photons.)

21 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 Yes, that's what I claimed.

No, the eighth planet was not a background assumption. The background assumption was that seven planets existed.

That was subsequently adjusted to eight.

Yes, exactly. You adjust the background hypothesis. But you said we could not do this. That it could not happen.

"could not have appeared in any background assumption or auxiliary hypothesis" (emphasis added)

 

14 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Well, as I requested of Beecee earlier, show me your derivation.

There is no "derivation". This isn't a math problem. It is a fact that neutrinos were predicted before they were experimentally confirmed, and the predictions were based on existing data that had inconsistencies in it, based on what could be observed.

[Reg Prescott]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's not how we do science.[deduction/induction]

Again, not how we do science. [abduction]

Plenty of things in physics are abstractions, and not things that necessarily exist as physical entities. (electron holes being one of them. Phonons. Photons.)

Is it held that (all) copper conducts electricity? How did science arrive at that conclusion if not by induction?

Is it true that Semmelweis postulated the existence of "cadaveric material" or what we would call bacteria? This is an abductive inference.

As for ontology: Are you suggesting that no scientist (we did say science, after all, not physics) holds that molecules exist? Or tectonic plates? Or neurons?

Edited October 12, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[swansont]

Just now, Reg Prescott said:

Is it held that (all) copper conducts electricity? How did science arrive at that conclusion if not by induction?

I did not claim otherwise.

Since you do not appear to have noticed, my objection is to your claim that we can't reformulate an hypothesis. (the ontology can't increase)

Just now, Reg Prescott said:

As for ontology: Are you suggesting that no scientist (we did say science, after all, not physics) holds that molecules exist? Or tectonic plates? Or neurons?

"Plenty of things are abstractions" ≠ "all things are abstractions"

Also, physics is a part of science, but not all science is physics. 

Shall I draw you a Venn diagram? Would that make this clearer?

 

[studiot]

 

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

The distinction is between:

(i) making a deductive prediction (in the case of deterministic theories) or inductive prediction (in the case of statistical theories). In both cases your ontology will not -- cannot -- increase. No new entities will be added to your ontology. And

(ii) Bringing a hypothesis to the data. This would be an abductive inference. E.g. hypothezing the existence of unobservable bacteria, say, to explain the prevalence of pregnant mums getting sick. Our ontology, supposing the hypothesis turns out to be true, has now expanded by one type of entity.

 

You brought in Mathematics and also determinism and statistics

You further made another distinction between determinism and statistics additional to the one presented as (i) and (ii), where they were lumped together.

Since they are your creatures can you tell me if a probability of 1 (statistics) implies certainty (determinism) and if you still draw this distinction?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I have just finished splitting 59 posts from this thread (to here). A few notes: 

1. Reg Prescott, it is abundantly clear that you have several bees in your bonnets regarding certain scientific hypotheses / theories / whatevers. This is fine, and you are welcome to discuss them in a constructive and genuine manner in the appropriate place. This thread is not such a place, however. Do not hijack other threads with your ranting. If you wish to discuss something, make a thread and keep it there. If that thread gets closed, you've had your chance and the conversation is over.

2. To the other members who have been here longer should be more than able to identify when conversations start veering off track. You do not have a licence to continue to go off-topic until 59 off-topic posts later, someone is able to step in. There aren't very many staff around at the moment and some us (me) have a PhD thesis that needs writing. It would be very much appreciated if you could not add to the workload. 

3. I did my best with the posts that got removed. If I missed something or you think something shouldn't have been taken out, PM me. 

4. Cut out the hostility. Some of the attitudes in the posts I removed were not acceptable. 

 

[beecee]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

 This isn't a math problem. It is a fact that neutrinos were predicted before they were experimentally confirmed, and the predictions were based on existing data that had inconsistencies in it, based on what could be observed.

Bingo! and obviously the same applies to the prediction of Neptune.

[Reg Prescott]

Nobel prize-winning physicist, Max Born, adds his voice to the list of those who, like myself, do not think it is true that mainstream science is being "questioned all the time".

Quote

When a scientific theory is firmly established and confirmed it changes its character and becomes a part of the metaphysical background of the age: a doctrine is transformed into a dogma

 

[beecee]

22 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Nobel prize-winning physicist, Max Born, adds his voice to the list of those who, like myself, do not think it is true that mainstream science is being "questioned all the time".

 

You have made many claims in more then one thread so far.....some have proven to be wrong or false. Please can you link to Born's statement so the forum can determine if once again you are taking something out of context. Either way even if correct, the overwhelming evidence in the greater scheme of things, says you are certainly wrong. eg: Theories that are well supported such as SR, GR, the BB, and the theory of the evolution of life, are tested and confirmed every day.

[Reg Prescott]

30 minutes ago, beecee said:

You have made many claims in more then one thread so far.....some have proven to be wrong or false. Please can you link to Born's statement so the forum can determine if once again you are taking something out of context. Either way even if correct, the overwhelming evidence in the greater scheme of things, says you are certainly wrong. eg: Theories that are well supported such as SR, GR, the BB, and the theory of the evolution of life, are tested and confirmed every day.

The source is "Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance" (1949), p47 -- M. Born

"[Even] if correct", then the claim that mainstream science is being questioned all the time is false, granting that dogma, almost by definition, refers to those doctrines that are not to be questioned.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Reg Prescott
corrected publication date

[beecee]

29 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

The source is "Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance" (1949), p47 -- M. Born

"[Even] if correct", then the claim that mainstream science is being questioned all the time is false, granting that dogma, almost by definition, refers to those doctrines that are not to be questioned.

Your continued rhetoric and denial will not change what is patently observed, every day of the week, every week of the year. Please don't though mistake this as my aversion to new ideas....I don't mind entertaining new ideas as I believe most scientists have also shown....It's just that most new ideas are not sufficient enough to overturn the incumbent model, after all, something you continually seem to miss....the incumbent science theories and models, were also just ideas and hypothetical, and needed to run the gauntlet so to speak, to gain theory stage of consideration. You seem to want us all to have any and all ideas to take a dump within our brains. That's not science, that's not the scientific method.

[studiot]

Gosh Reg, the Internet has provided a big boost for the challenging of Science.

What do you think of this?

 

 

[Strange]

6 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

The source is "Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance" (1949), p47 -- M. Born

1949. LOL

6 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

[Even] if correct", then the claim that mainstream science is being questioned all the time is false, granting that dogma, almost by definition, refers to those doctrines that are not to be questioned.

What an execrable piece of logic. 

"Science isn't questioned because it is dogma and dogma means it is not to be questioned"  A prime example of the fallacy of begging the question. 

Do you have any examples of scientific "doctrines that are not to be questioned"?

Fundamental things that have been, and are, questioned (some leading to changes, others being repeatedly confirmed):

• the sun going round the Earth
• universal and immutable time and space
• the infinite and eternal universe
• conservation of energy
• the presence of a medium for light
• the fixed continents on the surface of the Earth
• nothing can move faster than light
• Lorentz invariance / Galilean relativity

And, as swansont points out, every single experiment tests a whole swathe of other "dogma" because it is based on them and if any of them were wrong then the results would be different.

Scientists don't do their work just hoping to confirm what they already know they also hope to prove some fundamental thing wrong and discover new science. That is where the rewards (personal and literal) and accolades are.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Strange

[Reg Prescott]

48 minutes ago, Strange said:

What an execrable piece of logic. 

"Science isn't questioned because it is dogma and dogma means it is not to be questioned"  A prime example of the fallacy of begging the question. 

There are several errors in your "logic" here.

You distort what Born said -- in more ways than one! First of all, he did not -- contra your own misrepresentation -- say "science" simpliciter; what he said was "a scientific theory [that has become] firmly established and confirmed".

Second of all, he did not say, as per own your distortion, that "[it] isn't questioned because it is dogma"; what he said was "it becomes dogma".

 

Now, whether or not Born's assertion poses a threat to Phi for All's claim (see OP) that science is "questioned all the time" hinges on the meaning of the word dogma. If dogma connotes that which is constantly questioned, then Phi's claim needn't fear anything, from Max Born at least.

I'm suggesting that on any standard usage of the term, dogma implies that which is, by and large, not to be questioned. If this connotation of the term is granted, and Max Born's claim is true, then it follows immediately that Phi's claim is false.

 

Either way, there is no begging of the question. The execrable logic is your own.
 

Edited October 16, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[studiot]

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

SamCogar mentioned above...

Quote

... and that is that “mainstream science” is not to be “questioned”, …….. but only to be “queried” by those such as undergraduates who are “prepping” themselves for “testing” in/of their enrolled subject matter.

... to which Phi for All responded...

Quote

IT'S QUESTIONED ALL THE TIME. 

 

I'll probably not win any friends by saying this, but I'd say Sam is, on this point at least, largely right, and Phi largely wrong -- with no disrespect intended to any of our members.

 

On 09/10/2018 at 2:43 PM, Reg Prescott said:

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.

 

Before you can build an argument based on these quotes you have to agree the meaning of the word mainstream in this context.

By your own admission, another member introduced the word.

So clearly according to the rules of proper debate and argument the onus is upon you to demonstrate that your definition coincides with that of Sam Cogar.

 

That there is more than one possible interpretation of Sam's utterance is demonstrated by the fact that I have a different definition (and therefore understanding of what he said) for yourself.

 

Equally I have a different understanding of PhisforAll's utterance from the one you are portraying.

 

In both cases I may be right or wrong as to my understanding, as may you.

So over to you to demonstrate that you have chosen the correct interpretations of the words.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

There are several errors in your "logic" here.

You distort what Born said -- in more ways than one! First of all, he did not -- contra your own misrepresentation -- say "science" simpliciter; what he said was "a scientific theory [that has become] firmly established and confirmed".

Second of all, he did not say, as per own your distortion, that "[it] isn't questioned because it is dogma"; what he said was "it becomes dogma".

 

Now, whether or not Born's assertion poses a threat to Phi for All's claim (see OP) that science is "questioned all the time" hinges on the meaning of the word dogma. If dogma connotes that which is constantly questioned, then Phi's claim needn't fear anything, from Max Born at least.

I'm suggesting that on any standard usage of the term, dogma implies that which is, by and large, not to be questioned. If this connotation of the term is granted, and Max Born's claim is true, then it follows immediately that Phi's claim is false.

 

Either way, there is no begging of the question. The execrable logic is your own.
 

I pointed out before that there are two different ways that "questioned" is being used. By mixing the two, you are engaging the fallacy of equivocation.

Also the fallacy of argument from authority: just because Max Born said it does not make it correct. In the sense that Phi used, Born is not correct. Even in the other sense of the word, I would argue that he is not correct. Trivially so.

[beecee]

10 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Now, whether or not Born's assertion poses a threat to Phi for All's claim (see OP) that science is "questioned all the time" hinges on the meaning of the word dogma. If dogma connotes that which is constantly questioned, then Phi's claim needn't fear anything, from Max Born at least.
 

Born's assertion and the way "you" interpret it, your own assertions and anyone else's assertions on a public forum will certainly not change the facts of what a science theory/model is, nor of the reality and use of the scientific methodology, which as I pointed out to you and which others have also shown you, is evident everyday, every week of every year. In other words, the general adverse claims made against science so often made on forums such as this just don't cut it. 

 

Quote

Either way, there is no begging of the question. The execrable logic is your own.

I agree with the original claim of where the "begging the question"  and "execrable logic" actually lay.

Edited October 16, 2018 by beecee

[Reg Prescott]

Ah, so we're back to the old "logical fallacy" game, are we? 

Forty years ago or so, when John Searle first published his celebrated (or notorious) "Chinese Room" argument demonstrating that computation is insufficient for cognition, i.e., if a machine thinks it won't be in virtue of performing computation alone, the howls of protest from the A.I. community were predictable and vociferous. The argument was wrong -- fallacious -- they screamed. It had to be wrong. After all, their own research program would be jeopardized if it were right.

While everybody agreed the argument was specious, curiously enough though, the critics seemed unable to agree on precisely what was wrong with it.

 

Recent posts assert that my arguments commit the fallacy of (i) begging the question, (ii) polysemy, (iii) equivocation, and (iv) appeal to authority. Well, did you evah!

 

(i) has already been refuted.

(ii) Perhaps SamCogar does not mean by "mainstream" what I, and presumably everyone else, means by the term, this complaint asserts.

Well, it's possible. It's also possible that when SamCogar says "undergraduate" he has in mind "Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves". In this kind of debate, though, we presume that our interlocutors are competent speakers of English who use words more or less the same way as every other competent speaker, and if a word is being used in a deviant, technical, or unorthodox manner, we expect this to be indicated. Otherwise the rules break down.

(iii) Now we're told that a mixing of two uses of the verb "to question" leads to fallacy and the end of the world as we know it. Well, as with (ii) above, lacking direct access to other contributors' inner mental states and concepts, I have only my own concept of "question" to work with, which I take to be fairly standard. If it weren't, it's hard to see how we'd be communicating successfully at all.

(iv) Were we to consult Max Born on poetry of the late Tang dynasty, say, his authority might indeed be suspect. I see nothing whatsoever fallacious, however, in appealing to an authority on matters that he is indeed authoritative about. Judicial courts call it an "expert witness". 

Does being an expert entail that he's right? Of course not, but neither can he simply be dismissed with a wave of the hand, and a "Buzz! Fallacy #37! Next!". Born is an expert and his testimony has to be taken seriously.

Born's testimony constitutes only a small part of a case I've been building which includes theoretical and historical evidence, as well as expert opinion from various sources, amounting to good reasons for thinking that mainstream science is not "questioned all the time".

 

Now, is the plan of attack really to go through the entire book of logical fallacies? Who knows, if you throw enough of them out there, some members less able to appraise these matters for themselves may even be persuaded.