Underdetermination in Science

[Zosimus]

On a forum such as this one, we often hear people claiming that science has proved theory X or Y. Later, the person may partially recant claiming that theory X isn’t completely proven, but it is 99.999999% certain. Because of the evidence, the theory has been so repeatedly confirmed that it would be wrong to withhold provisional assent.

However, philosophers disagree because of the problem of underdetermination. To understand underdetermination, we can simply look at the following graph:

We have three data points, and we are trying to express these data points as a graph. As you can see, a simple straight line adequately expresses the data. Unfortunately, we can also generate other graphs. Two sine-wave-shaped graphs have also been provided, each with a different amplitude. Nor do our choices end there. Even if we just stick to sine waves, we could easily construct an infinite number of graphs to express those data points.

Perhaps you think that the problem is too few data points. After all, three points do not a theory make. What if we had 4, or 5, or 29,842? Actually, it would make no difference at all. We could still construct an infinite number of graphs to describe the points in question. Yes, it is true that some theories will have been eliminated as inconsistent with the data points, but new theories can constantly be constructed that will match the data. Since the theory in question is merely one of an infinite number of theories, it would be wrong to consider it correct, proved, or even favored. We should say that the theory is empirically sufficient and leave it at that.

Still, not everyone agrees. The most pervasive dismissal of underdetermination is the idea that all these different graphs are not really different theories — they are merely different permutations of the same theory. Yes, we may argue about the details of evolution, one may insist, but evolution itself is firmly established as reality. We can argue over punctuated equilibrium, Darwinism vs epigenetic expression, but at the end of the day, science is united: Evolution is a fact.

Kyle Stanford, an expert on underdetermination in science, would bring up the concept of the unconceived alternative. Back in Newton’s day, everyone considered Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation as the best and only explanation simply because quantum gravity and Einstein’s theories had yet to be conceived. Once new explanations were conceived, Newton’s laws had to be consigned to the dustbins of science. This is not because Newton’s laws hadn’t done well for centuries — they had. But an unconceived alternative turned all of science on its head.

At the end of the day, a theory is just a theory. A thousand years from now, even our most cherished theories will have been eliminated. Evolution, quantum mechanics, yes even the laws of thermodynamics will have been eliminated. It is hubris to claim that we know the truth. As Socrates said, we are ahead of the game only if we realize that we truly know nothing.

 

P.S. This topic is about underdetermination in science. Evolution was mentioned merely as an example. I would hate to see this topic devolve into a debate between creationists and Darwinists.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

On a forum such as this one, we often hear people claiming that science has proved theory X or Y.

Generally, the only people who talk about science proving things are people who know littler nothing about science.

7 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

At the end of the day, a theory is just a theory. A thousand years from now, even our most cherished theories will have been eliminated.

How do you know that?

Some may have been and some may remain. The fact that everything is open to challenge and change does not mean that everything will be replaced. There have been very few theories (so far) that have been shown to be completely wrong. 

For example:

10 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Once new explanations were conceived, Newton’s laws had to be consigned to the dustbins of science. This is not because Newton’s laws hadn’t done well for centuries — they had. But an unconceived alternative turned all of science on its head.

Newton's theory has not been consigned to the dustbin. It is still valid and in use every day. It is, in some ways, a better theory than GR for most purposes.

Similarly, there may one day be a "better" theory than GR, but that won't make GR wrong; it won't suddenly start producing results that don't match reality. Whether it continues to be a useful part of science depends, partly, on the nature of the new theory.

[studiot]

Did you have a point to discuss or a question to ask?

I could not find either in what any mediocre mathematician (such as an engineer) would immediately recognise as a kindergarten introduction to curve fitting in your opening post.

[beecee]

33 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

On a forum such as this one, we often hear people claiming that science has proved theory X or Y. Later, the person may partially recant claiming that theory X isn’t completely proven, but it is 99.999999% certain.

 

 Evolution was mentioned merely as an example. I would hate to see this topic devolve into a debate between creationists and Darwinists.

Are you  able to reference anyone saying that science has proved any theory?

Strange has answered well and countered your questionable questions and statements. Theories are the top rung of the ladder and describe what we observe at any particular time....if and when we are able to make new further observations, those theories may change or be extended. Theories also grow in certainty over time, such as SR/GR and may well be as close to certain as we could ever want...the theory of evolution for example. 

Quote

 A thousand years from now, even our most cherished theories will have been eliminated. 

That's a very foolish statement to make...

Edited November 18, 2018 by beecee

[swansont]

25 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

On a forum such as this one, we often hear people claiming that science has proved theory X or Y.

Not from the scientists.

25 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Later, the person may partially recant claiming that theory X isn’t completely proven, but it is 99.999999% certain. Because of the evidence, the theory has been so repeatedly confirmed that it would be wrong to withhold provisional assent.

However, philosophers disagree because of the problem of underdetermination. To understand underdetermination, we can simply look at the following graph:

We have three data points, and we are trying to express these data points as a graph. As you can see, a simple straight line adequately expresses the data. Unfortunately, we can also generate other graphs. Two sine-wave-shaped graphs have also been provided, each with a different amplitude. Nor do our choices end there. Even if we just stick to sine waves, we could easily construct an infinite number of graphs to express those data points.

Perhaps you think that the problem is too few data points. After all, three points do not a theory make. What if we had 4, or 5, or 29,842? Actually, it would make no difference at all.

It makes a great deal of difference, owing to Nyquist's theorem.

The missing argument here is that in many cases, you are not doing an arbitrary fit. Sure, you can fit a sinusoid, or a ploynomial. But why would the curve have those properties? 

25 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

We could still construct an infinite number of graphs to describe the points in question. Yes, it is true that some theories will have been eliminated as inconsistent with the data points, but new theories can constantly be constructed that will match the data.

They can? I think this is much more difficult than you are suggesting. Especially for behavior that is being predicted from theory, rather than a model being developed to explain the data.

25 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Since the theory in question is merely one of an infinite number of theories, it would be wrong to consider it correct, proved, or even favored. We should say that the theory is empirically sufficient and leave it at that.

No.

25 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

 

Still, not everyone agrees. The most pervasive dismissal of underdetermination is the idea that all these different graphs are not really different theories — they are merely different permutations of the same theory. Yes, we may argue about the details of evolution, one may insist, but evolution itself is firmly established as reality. We can argue over punctuated equilibrium, Darwinism vs epigenetic expression, but at the end of the day, science is united: Evolution is a fact.

It is incorrect to say they are permutations on the same theory. 

25 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

 

Kyle Stanford, an expert on underdetermination in science, would bring up the concept of the unconceived alternative. Back in Newton’s day, everyone considered Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation as the best and only explanation simply because quantum gravity and Einstein’s theories had yet to be conceived. Once new explanations were conceived, Newton’s laws had to be consigned to the dustbins of science. This is not because Newton’s laws hadn’t done well for centuries — they had. But an unconceived alternative turned all of science on its head.

Newtonian gravity is used quite extensively to this day.

25 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

At the end of the day, a theory is just a theory. A thousand years from now, even our most cherished theories will have been eliminated. Evolution, quantum mechanics, yes even the laws of thermodynamics will have been eliminated. It is hubris to claim that we know the truth. As Socrates said, we are ahead of the game only if we realize that we truly know nothing.

Easy to claim, difficult to demonstrate. There is hubris here, to be sure, but I don't think it's because scientists are claiming to know the truth.

[beecee]

44 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Later, the person may partially recant claiming that theory X isn’t completely proven, but it is 99.999999% certain. Because of the evidence, the theory has been so repeatedly confirmed that it would be wrong to withhold provisional assent.

That's pretty well correct....If our theory is 99.99995 certain, then yes, it would not only be wrong to withhold assent, it would be crazy.

 

Quote

However, philosophers disagree because of the problem of underdetermination.

The practicality of science and scientists, as opposed to the hairy fairy nature of philosophy, logically sees this so called "undetermination" as a quality that sees science in a state of continued progression. Not sure why anyone [including any thinking philosophers] would see it as a point to criticise....well yes I do, but that is pretty obvious anyway. 

[Zosimus]

45 minutes ago, Strange said:

Generally, the only people who talk about science proving things are people who know littler nothing about science.

How do you know that?

It's called pessimistic metainduction. Since successful theories in the past have been found to be untrue, we cannot claim with any certainty that current successful theories are true.

45 minutes ago, Strange said:

Some may have been and some may remain. The fact that everything is open to challenge and change does not mean that everything will be replaced. There have been very few theories (so far) that have been shown to be completely wrong. 

You are begging the question. The issue at hand is whether successful theories can be said to be true. Simply saying that past theories must have been at least partially true because they were successful to a degree does not fundamentally answer the question. 

45 minutes ago, Strange said:

For example:

Newton's theory has not been consigned to the dustbin. It is still valid and in use every day. It is, in some ways, a better theory than GR for most purposes.

Again, pessimistic induction argues that both theories are likely to be wrong. Simply saying that Newton's theories are successful in certain circumstances does not necessarily mean that the theory is correct or even partially correct.

38 minutes ago, studiot said:

Did you have a point to discuss or a question to ask?

I could not find either in what any mediocre mathematician (such as an engineer) would immediately recognise as a kindergarten introduction to curve fitting in your opening post.

I realize that you're unaccustomed to someone presenting a topic in a fair and balanced way that doesn't try to browbeat everyone into agreeing with a preconceived notion. Perhaps you'll get used to it. Perhaps you won't.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Zosimus said:

Again, pessimistic induction argues that both theories are likely to be wrong. Simply saying that Newton's theories are successful in certain circumstances does not necessarily mean that the theory is correct or even partially correct.

But it was you who mistakenly said that Newton's theories had been disposed to the dust bin. So instead of preaching philosophy, your first moral task is to admit and accept that you are wrong.

[Zosimus]

39 minutes ago, beecee said:

Are you  able to reference anyone saying that science has proved any theory?

Strange has answered well and countered your questionable questions and statements. Theories are the top rung of the ladder and describe what we observe at any particular time....if and when we are able to make new further observations, those theories may change or be extended. Theories also grow in certainty over time, such as SR/GR and may well be as close to certain as we could ever want...the theory of evolution for example. 

Your post is amusing. First you dispute the idea that anyone says that theories are true, likely true, or proven. Then you go ahead to claim that theories "grow in certainty over time."

Why should I (or anyone for that matter) believe that theories grow in certainty over time? Maybe you didn't understand the topic. Why don't you go back and read about underdetermination again. Perhaps you could even look it up in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

That's pretty well correct....If our theory is 99.99995 certain, then yes, it would not only be wrong to withhold assent, it would be crazy.

Well, that's the point of underdetermination. It is to point out that the theory you claim is 99.99995% certain is really only one of an infinite number of theories.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

I realize that you're unaccustomed to someone presenting a topic in a fair and balanced way that doesn't try to browbeat everyone into agreeing with a preconceived notion. Perhaps you'll get used to it. Perhaps you won't.

Well you have noticed something important about ScienceForums then that also struck me a while after I joined.

You either have to ask a specific question, followed conventionally by a question mark.

or

Make a single well defined proposition for debate.

 

That the correct procedure here (ask a mod), which is, as you say not what I am used to elsewhere.

In fact I remember watching a friend in court loose his case because there simply because the only option available in a court of law is the first one and he insisted on holding forth and lecturing. (Lecturing is called blogging here).

 

So now you know why I asked for a question or a properly posed proposition.

 

 

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

(Lecturing is called blogging here)

Or soapboxing

22 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Since successful theories in the past have been found to be untrue, we cannot claim with any certainty that current successful theories are true.

Neither can you assert that they are all wrong. After all, only some (very few) past theories have been found to be wrong. I can only think of two in the last 400 years, off the top of my head.

22 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

The issue at hand is whether successful theories can be said to be true.

Science doesn't deal in "truth"; it is not a well-defined or testable concept.

22 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Simply saying that Newton's theories are successful in certain circumstances does not necessarily mean that the theory is correct or even partially correct.

The fact that it is successful (in certain circumstances) is all science requires of a theory. That is pretty much what "correct" means. Within its domain of applicability, Newtonian gravity is correct. The same is true of GR and every other theory.

Perhaps you need to define what you mean by "correct" and "wrong" because nothing you have said seems very relevant to science.

[beecee]

9 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Your post is amusing. First you dispute the idea that anyone says that theories are true, likely true, or proven. Then you go ahead to claim that theories "grow in certainty over time."

Amusing perhaps to a poor philosopher....I mean if you really are unable to see any difference, albeit small, then I dare say you are being obtuse. Or do you have some argument re theories gaining in certainty over time? If so the have the intestinal fortitude to open a thread in the sciences, to debate whatever theory you have a problem with. Now that would be amusing!

Quote

Why should I (or anyone for that matter) believe that theories grow in certainty over time? Maybe you didn't understand the topic. Why don't you go back and read about underdetermination again. Perhaps you could even look it up in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I don't expect you to believe anything with regards to science for reasons mentioned previously, but again, as far as practical scientists and science is concerned, then what you call underdetermination is why science, and the scientific method holds pride of place and always will.

Quote

Well, that's the point of underdetermination. It is to point out that the theory you claim is 99.99995% certain is really only one of an infinite number of theories.

It's one of many theories that are held in great esteem and continues to align with new observations every day. They are facts.

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Perhaps you need to define what you mean by "correct" and "wrong" because nothing you have said seems very relevant to science.

Oh ain't that the truth! 

[Strange]

So it seems that, once again, we have a couple of first year philosophy students trying to prove that science is ... well, I'm not sure: Wrong? Not finding The Truth? Not working? I'm really not sure what the point is (as studiot said: the OP hasn't made a clear point, just thrown some philosophical buzzwords at the wall).

Which is all rather odd, as we can see that science works because they are using tools developed using some of the most advanced science we have in order to communicate their ideas to the forum. The fact that we have useful products and services based on applied science (technology) but not applied philosophy (or applied theology) says about all we need to know about whether science works or not.

 

52 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Your post is amusing. First you dispute the idea that anyone says that theories are true, likely true, or proven. Then you go ahead to claim that theories "grow in certainty over time."

Your amusement implies you see those as contradictory statements. Which is odd, because if theories were proven then they would have 100% certainty. The fact that they can't be proven shows that they have less than 100% certainty. Which means that the certainty can change (increase or decrease) based on what we learn.

And our confidence in many things does grow over time as we accumulate more experience or evidence. We are pretty certain that the Sun will rise tomorrow, that our commuter train will be late and that evolution can be explained by natural selection. And that confidence has grown with experience (*). There are other things we have less confidence about. I'm fairly sure that new guy at work is going to be late again tomorrow, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for anther week or so. Maybe after more evidence I will confirm my hypothesis or refute it. Importantly, we also know that our expectations can be confounded at any time (eg the discovery of black swans). 

(*) Actually, I wonder if we are born with an innate expectation that things will repeat (the sun rose today so it will do the same tomorrow) or that we have to learn it (the sun came up the last couple of days, but I wonder about tomorrow).

Quote

Why should I (or anyone for that matter) believe that theories grow in certainty over time? 

So you really are saying that we cannot learn from experience? If something happens repeatedly (banging your head on a low beam, the sun rising each morning) we can't say anything about how likely it is to happen again? 

 

[Zosimus]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Well you have noticed something important about ScienceForums then that also struck me a while after I joined.

You either have to ask a specific question, followed conventionally by a question mark.

or

Make a single well defined proposition for debate.

 

That the correct procedure here (ask a mod), which is, as you say not what I am used to elsewhere.

In fact I remember watching a friend in court loose his case because there simply because the only option available in a court of law is the first one and he insisted on holding forth and lecturing. (Lecturing is called blogging here).

I hate loose cases.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

So now you know why I asked for a question or a properly posed proposition.

 

I was given to understand that a key portion of discussing here is an open mindedness to both sides of the issue. Perhaps I am not as open minded as I should be. Not all of us can be beecee, you know. But I strive to be open minded.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Or soapboxing

Neither can you assert that they are all wrong. After all, only some (very few) past theories have been found to be wrong. I can only think of two in the last 400 years, off the top of my head.

Yes, I can. In fact, I think I have argued that all scientific theories are wrong. 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Science doesn't deal in "truth"; it is not a well-defined or testable concept.

Truth is well defined. It exists quite comfortably in logic and mathematics. I don't dispute that science has a problem with finding, defining, and testing for truth. That sounds like a pretty solid criticism of science.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

The fact that it is successful (in certain circumstances) is all science requires of a theory. That is pretty much what "correct" means. Within its domain of applicability, Newtonian gravity is correct. The same is true of GR and every other theory.

It sounds suspiciously like you're agreeing with me.

[Sensei]

5 hours ago, Zosimus said:

This topic is about underdetermination in science.

The proper word for what you described is uncertainty in measurements rather than underdetermination..

If someone measures rest-mass of electron (proton, or other quantum particle), there is uncertainty in measurement of rest-mass of electron (etc.), not questioning of existence of electron (proton, or other quantum particle).

(simulation vs non-simulation, and sub-structure of currently known elementary particles, are completely different subjects IMHO, as they are simply unknown deeper unreachable impenetrable levels of the Universe)

5 hours ago, Zosimus said:

As Socrates said, we are ahead of the game only if we realize that we truly know nothing.

The more proper phrase is "I know that I know nothing". Which means nothing can be sure with 100% certainity.

Classical example of argument from authority fallacy...

You believe so that Socrates was smart, intelligent, and worth mentioning on scientific forum.. but if he would have a chance to read threads on this forum, he would think the all members of this forum are some kind of gods, knowing everything he never even dream about..

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Sensei

[Zosimus]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Amusing perhaps to a poor philosopher....I mean if you really are unable to see any difference, albeit small, then I dare say you are being obtuse. Or do you have some argument re theories gaining in certainty over time? If so the have the intestinal fortitude to open a thread in the sciences, to debate whatever theory you have a problem with. Now that would be amusing!

We certainly realize that you are unable to grasp philosophical arguments and that you think there is nothing to grasp. Except for the opportunity to call everyone who disagrees with you obtuse, I wonder exactly why you frequent the philosophical section of the site. Might I be so bold as to suggest that you leave the philosophical section to those who find philosophy interesting. Perhaps you can find a more interesting place to play. Are there no sandboxes where you live?

3 hours ago, beecee said:

I don't expect you to believe anything with regards to science for reasons mentioned previously, but again, as far as practical scientists and science is concerned, then what you call underdetermination is why science, and the scientific method holds pride of place and always will.

So your argument is that science has multiple, serious logical fallacies (such as underdetermination) and that makes you proud?

3 hours ago, Strange said:

So it seems that, once again, we have a couple of first year philosophy students trying to prove that science is ... well, I'm not sure: Wrong? Not finding The Truth? Not working? I'm really not sure what the point is (as studiot said: the OP hasn't made a clear point, just thrown some philosophical buzzwords at the wall).

All right — here's how these things work:

It's common to have an introductory paragraph that sets the stage. For example one might write: "It is commonly believed that...x, y, and z"

The second paragraph will start with the word HOWEVER, which is a key word to let you know that what has gone before that (the first paragraph) is nonsense.

With this insight in mind, let's go back to the Original Post.

It is common to say that theory (insert theory here) has been highly corroborated, is 99.99999% true, etc., etc.

HOWEVER, underdetermination makes fools of people who think such a thing.

P3: Objection 1 is presented and demolished.

P4: Objection 2 revealed.

P5: Objection 2 demolished.

Was that too subtle for you?

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Which is all rather odd, as we can see that science works because they are using tools developed using some of the most advanced science we have in order to communicate their ideas to the forum. The fact that we have useful products and services based on applied science (technology) but not applied philosophy (or applied theology) says about all we need to know about whether science works or not.

This is a pretty common logical fallacy. "Science works because you have a computer." The assumption (never stated much less proved) is that all technology is the result of science. Perhaps I should say, "Thor exists otherwise your computer wouldn't have electricity to work." Or perhaps we should say, "It's ironic that someone is using the fingers that JHWH provided for him to type in this forum in such a way to deny His very existence."

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Your amusement implies you see those as contradictory statements. Which is odd, because if theories were proven then they would have 100% certainty. The fact that they can't be proven shows that they have less than 100% certainty. Which means that the certainty can change (increase or decrease) based on what we learn.

Let me see whether  get your argument. It appears to be: Since science cannot prove any of its theories true, the certainty of theories must surely increase (or decrease) based on what we learn.

There's a problem with that argument. When the conclusion of an argument contains words that are not contained in the premises of the argument, there is a logical gap.

Here's a proper argument: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (You see how that works? The words Socrates and mortal are both contained in the premises).

Here's an improper argument: John is tall. Therefore, he must be good at basketball. (You see how that works? The word basketball isn't mentioned anywhere in the argument. There's a missing premise).

3 hours ago, Strange said:

And our confidence in many things does grow over time as we accumulate more experience or evidence. We are pretty certain that the Sun will rise tomorrow, that our commuter train will be late and that evolution can be explained by natural selection. And that confidence has grown with experience (*). There are other things we have less confidence about. I'm fairly sure that new guy at work is going to be late again tomorrow, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for anther week or so. Maybe after more evidence I will confirm my hypothesis or refute it. Importantly, we also know that our expectations can be confounded at any time (eg the discovery of black swans). 

Yes, I certainly concede that there is a tendency towards a subjective confidence in certain ideas. I think we can all see that subjective confidence in the New York stock exchange right now. No one seems to be willing to admit that stock markets can plunge. They are, of course, wrong. Confidence is no proof of rightness. If it were, Jehovah's Witnesses would be the rightest people in the world.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

(*) Actually, I wonder if we are born with an innate expectation that things will repeat (the sun rose today so it will do the same tomorrow) or that we have to learn it (the sun came up the last couple of days, but I wonder about tomorrow).

Well, if science is right, then we have a feedback loop in our brain that delivers dopamine thus encouraging us to repeat certain apparently successful past experiences. This infallible feedback loop is, of course, the reason people get addicted to gambling and drugs.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

So you really are saying that we cannot learn from experience? If something happens repeatedly (banging your head on a low beam, the sun rising each morning) we can't say anything about how likely it is to happen again? 

Do you really do so? For example, if you come to a red light do you think back and reason, "I've never seen a police officer at this intersection, so I can safely run the red light as soon as the traffic thins out?" or do you simply do the safe thing and wait till the light is green? Perhaps you might even engage in other safe activities such as having a smoke detector, a fire extinguisher, and fire insurance, even though your house has never caught fire. Perhaps you also take an umbrella with you even though it was sunny yesterday. After all, it might rain. Heck — maybe we should have earthquake drills from time to time. Maybe we should stockpile drinking water, even though the water has been working just fine uninterruptedly for years. After all, there might be some sort of disaster.

Or is all of this too radical of an idea for you?

34 minutes ago, Sensei said:

The proper word for what you described is uncertainty in measurements rather than underdetermination..

If you think so, then you just don't understand the topic at hand.

34 minutes ago, Sensei said:

If someone measures rest-mass of electron (proton, or other quantum particle), there is uncertainty in measurement of rest-mass of electron (etc.), not questioning of existence of electron (proton, or other quantum particle).

(simulation vs non-simulation, and sub-structure of currently known elementary particles, are completely different subjects IMHO, as they are simply unknown deeper unreachable impenetrable levels of the Universe)

The more proper phrase is "I know that I know nothing". Which means nothing can be sure with 100% certainly.

Classical example of argument from authority fallacy...

No it's not.

If we are certain of something, then any evidence to the contrary must be either false or misleading and should be ignored. Yet, if we ignore any evidence that goes against our belief, we are behaving irrationally. Therefore, it is irrational to be certain of anything.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

We certainly realize that you are unable to grasp philosophical arguments and that you think there is nothing to grasp. Except for the opportunity to call everyone who disagrees with you obtuse, I wonder exactly why you frequent the philosophical section of the site. Might I be so bold as to suggest that you leave the philosophical section to those who find philosophy interesting. Perhaps you can find a more interesting place to play. Are there no sandboxes where you live?

I don't actually frequent the Philosophy forum, only when I see ignorance in regards to science being perpetrated. And of course I don't believe I'm the first to notice your obtuseness, nor your ignorance in science and the errors you also perpetrate, yet never having the intestinal fortitude to act morally and accept such errors. Thirdly I have nothing really against philosophy, only poor philosophers with obvious agendas. Your use of "WE" is also amusing, as other then yourself, and Reggy, all others have seen through your little crusade.

Quote

So your argument is that science has multiple, serious logical fallacies (such as underdetermination) and that makes you proud?

My argument is here for all to see...Your's is hidden behind your philosophical claptrap as an excuse.

Quote

All right — here's how these things work:

Rather ironic that you attempt to show even an amateur like myself anything, after the many basic scientific errors you have made here and elsewhere.

Quote

This is a pretty common logical fallacy. "Science works because you have a computer." The assumption (never stated much less proved) is that all technology is the result of science. 

Are you suggesting it is the result of philosophy? I mean really, how obtuse can you be! Of course your computer and near all technology, if not all, is a result of science. 

Quote

Since science cannot prove any of its theories true, the certainty of theories must surely increase (or decrease) based on what we learn.

The object of science with regards to theories and models,  is not proof, no matter how many times you or any other poor philosopher likes to imagine. Science is in eternal progress, based on the further observations that the technology which it is responsible for, allows....Logically and sensibly, theories change, are modified accordingly. But some theories are near certain.eg: The theory of evolution,  other then perhaps modification and understanding on small scales, will probably never be surpassed...as indeed will others also like SR.

I

Quote

f you think so, then you just don't understand the topic at hand

Rather ironic since it is you that have made countless, errors of the most basic nature with regards to science...that which you are attempting to disparage.

https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Beowulf/axioms/axioms/node4.html

"Philosophy is Bullshit: David Hume"

"Much of the prose so colorfully presented above is not terribly idea-original. The perceptive reader will observe that I've read and been influenced by many philosophers and thinkers of years past. Yes, I've digested my Plato, barfed up my Aristotle, danced with Descartes, listened to falling trees in the forest with Berkeley and God together, been smacked by Johnson, laughed hysterically at the Germans, nodded thoughtfully at the Vedas and some aspects of Bhuddism, Taoism, and Zen, and wept quietly as Philosophy attempted to pretend that the greatest philopher, the seal of the philosophers as Mohammed is supposedly the seal of the prophets, never wrote the essays that destroyed the fundamental basis of philosophy as it was known up to that time.

I refer, of course, to David Hume.

Now, if you've studied philosophy, you'll know who Hume is and what he did. If you are a professional philosopher who (like Harlie) relies on having a few fundamentally unanswerable pseudoquestions around to work on for a meager living (in which case, my dear fellow snake-oil salesman, you have my deepest sympathies, based on my own long, pecuniarily impoverished experience working a crowd) then you'll know what he did and you'll be secretly hoping that nobody else does, especially your employers.

The rest of you, listen up now. Hmmm, historical context and punch line, or punch line and then historical context. Let's try the latter:

David Hume is the philosopher best known for proving, beyond any possible doubt, that Philosophy is Bullshit".

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

I hate loose cases.

Like you hate Hawkins? 

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by beecee

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Was that too subtle for you?

Did you miss the class where they said you should have a conclusion? If your argument were sustainable then what? Science is wrong? It doesn't work? It's a futile exercise? It needs a new way of working? What?

4 hours ago, Zosimus said:

This is a pretty common logical fallacy. "Science works because you have a computer." The assumption (never stated much less proved) is that all technology is the result of science.

No it isn't. 

The "assumption" (not really an assumption) is that some technology is based on science. And, specifically, the technology behind the computer you are using.

You need to brush-up on your fallacies before your next exam (you wrongly identified something as "begging the question" earlier, as well) and not make fallacies when pointing them out.

4 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Perhaps I should say, "Thor exists otherwise your computer wouldn't have electricity to work."

That appears to be a non-sequitur.

4 hours ago, Zosimus said:

There's a problem with that argument. When the conclusion of an argument contains words that are not contained in the premises of the argument, there is a logical gap.

It wasn't a formal logical argument, therefore this is irrelevant.

*shakes head sadly*

4 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Yes, I certainly concede that there is a tendency towards a subjective confidence in certain ideas. I think we can all see that subjective confidence in the New York stock exchange right now. No one seems to be willing to admit that stock markets can plunge. They are, of course, wrong. Confidence is no proof of rightness.

"They are of course wrong" is statement we can make with confidence because we have seen it happen.

So misplaced confidence (unsupported by evidence) is no proof of "rightness". But because we have seen (we have evidence) that shares can go down as well as up, we know their confidence is misplaced.

Thanks for a good counter-example to your argument.

4 hours ago, Zosimus said:

For example, if you come to a red light do you think back and reason, "I've never seen a police officer at this intersection, so I can safely run the red light as soon as the traffic thins out?" or do you simply do the safe thing and wait till the light is green?

That might be a good example if the only reason for not running red lights is because of the police; but, as you say, for most people it is an issue of safety. 

(Amusingly, I used to live in a country where it is routine for people to run red lights. And most drivers will slow at a green light in case there is a car coming the other way.

4 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Perhaps you might even engage in other safe activities such as having a smoke detector, a fire extinguisher, and fire insurance, even though your house has never caught fire. Perhaps you also take an umbrella with you even though it was sunny yesterday. After all, it might rain. Heck — maybe we should have earthquake drills from time to time. Maybe we should stockpile drinking water, even though the water has been working just fine uninterruptedly for years. After all, there might be some sort of disaster.

Or is all of this too radical of an idea for you?

You've lost me. You seem to have gone completely off the rails here.

People have smoke detectors because experience (evidence) shows that they can save lives. But I thought your argument (*) was that however many times people's lives have been saved by a smoke detector, we cannot form a valid theory about their effectiveness so there is no point having one.

If the weather forecast say it is likely to rain, then it may be sensible to carry an umbrella. But, again, I was assuming your argument (*) was that there is no point carrying an umbrella because we cannot have a reliable evidence-based theory of weather.

I have lived in countries with earthquake drills (and where we had to keep a supply of water) because the repeated occurrence of earthquakes told us this was a good idea. But again, I thought you were saying (*) there was no point doing that because the repeated evidence of being in an earthquake zone did not allow us to formulate a theory that they would continue to be common in future.

(*) As noted, you haven't made an argument, so I am having to guess from your general anti-science rantiness what your point is. Feel free to interject, at any time, to let us know what your point is.

 

 

5 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Yes, I can. In fact, I think I have argued that all scientific theories are wrong. 

Depending what you mean by "wrong" that may be uncontroversial. 

But as you seem to think that Newtonian gravity has been discarded, I don't think I can trust your concept of "wrong". 

5 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Truth is well defined. It exists quite comfortably in logic and mathematics.

It is well defined in those fields but not in the real world. It is something that philosophers have been arguing about for millennia. 

5 hours ago, Zosimus said:

It sounds suspiciously like you're agreeing with me.

As you haven't said what your point is, it is impossible to know. 

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Zosimus said:

I hate loose cases.

Good spelling catch.

Now how about a sensible response to my request for OP guidance?

I apologise for my depracatory remarks directed at your opening paragraph showing a plot and some mathematical explanation.

But what do you expect when you offer fundamentally incorrect mathematics to a bunch of mathematicians as the basis for a thread?

The wiggly lines you have shown could never be the graph of f(x) = Asin(bx+c) + d ..............This is the most general possible sine graph.

Do you actually know what function you have plotted?

10 hours ago, beecee said:

10 hours ago, studiot said:

So no, I see no soapboxing, just compliance with forum rules for making an announcement (which I was not interested in so I haven't read before)

I see plenty of soapboxing by at least three that have frequented this forum over the last few weeks......all lacking science content...and what limited science is raised, is more than likely incorrect [see claim by Zosimus about Newton] and as usual, intestinal fortitude required in admitting to such errors of judgement is non existant. Yes, soapboxing 100% and 99% preaching

Hey, Man I was referring to your opening post. (as non soapboxing)

Edited November 19, 2018 by studiot

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

It's called pessimistic metainduction. Since successful theories in the past have been found to be untrue, we cannot claim with any certainty that current successful theories are true.

If you think this is so, then we can't claim with any certainty that you are right, since you have been wrong in the past. So what's the point of discussing it? I mean, it seems like you are claiming that there is no way to determine if you are right.

 

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

You are begging the question. The issue at hand is whether successful theories can be said to be true. Simply saying that past theories must have been at least partially true because they were successful to a degree does not fundamentally answer the question. 

I don't think that "true" was the issue. That wasn't discussed until Reg brought it into the thread. Nothing in Strange's response touched on this.

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Again, pessimistic induction argues that both theories are likely to be wrong. Simply saying that Newton's theories are successful in certain circumstances does not necessarily mean that the theory is correct or even partially correct.

You need to define what "wrong" means in this context. 

 

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Your post is amusing. First you dispute the idea that anyone says that theories are true, likely true, or proven. Then you go ahead to claim that theories "grow in certainty over time."

Did beecee mention theories being true? I can't find where that was said.

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Why should I (or anyone for that matter) believe that theories grow in certainty over time? Maybe you didn't understand the topic. Why don't you go back and read about underdetermination again. Perhaps you could even look it up in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

You might believe it by looking at the history of science. 

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Well, that's the point of underdetermination. It is to point out that the theory you claim is 99.99995% certain is really only one of an infinite number of theories.

repeating this claim about an infinite number of theories does not make it true.

10 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

It wouldn't be hard to compose a list of "respectable" threads where no question is asked by the OP. Here's just one example (There is no invitation to debate as far as I can see):

 

 

Was the author of this thread admonished for lecturing or soapboxing? If not, why the double standard?

Perhaps you should learn the protocols of the board before you critique them. Science News is for posting articles of, well, science news. The discussion is implied to be about the article that is linked.

7 hours ago, Zosimus said:

 So your argument is that science has multiple, serious logical fallacies (such as underdetermination) and that makes you proud?

Since when is underdetermination a logical fallacy?

 

7 hours ago, Zosimus said:

 

Let me see whether  get your argument. It appears to be: Since science cannot prove any of its theories true, the certainty of theories must surely increase (or decrease) based on what we learn.

There's a problem with that argument. When the conclusion of an argument contains words that are not contained in the premises of the argument, there is a logical gap.

Here's a proper argument: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (You see how that works? The words Socrates and mortal are both contained in the premises).

The problem here is that science is not syllogistic logic, and you can't treat it like philosophy. It has its own niche for a reason.

(the failure in logic in formulating Zosimus's argument is left as an exercise to the diligent reader)

 

 

[Carrock]

12 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Kyle Stanford, an expert on underdetermination in science, would bring up the concept of the unconceived alternative. Back in Newton’s day, everyone considered Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation as the best and only explanation simply because quantum gravity and Einstein’s theories had yet to be conceived.

One person in Newton’s day who was aware of conceived but unstated alternatives.

Quote

I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

 

[Zosimus]

6 hours ago, beecee said:

I don't actually frequent the Philosophy forum, only when I see ignorance in regards to science being perpetrated. And of course I don't believe I'm the first to notice your obtuseness, nor your ignorance in science and the errors you also perpetrate, yet never having the intestinal fortitude to act morally and accept such errors. Thirdly I have nothing really against philosophy, only poor philosophers with obvious agendas. Your use of "WE" is also amusing, as other then yourself, and Reggy, all others have seen through your little crusade.

My argument is here for all to see...Your's is hidden behind your philosophical claptrap as an excuse.

Rather ironic that you attempt to show even an amateur like myself anything, after the many basic scientific errors you have made here and elsewhere.

Are you suggesting it is the result of philosophy? I mean really, how obtuse can you be! Of course your computer and near all technology, if not all, is a result of science.

Look — the topic is underdetermination in science. You have made one giant post, and you haven't talked about the topic at hand even once. You're going to get the topic off into an area that it's not supposed to be in, and then some self-righteous mod is going to come in and close the thread. Why do you want to screw this up for me? I'm interested in what people have to say. Since you're not interested in philosophy, go somewhere else and let people who are interested in it talk about it. As for why I have a computer and some guy in Venezuela doesn't, I'll tell you why — capitalism.

3 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

I'd never heard of Kyle Stanford before, and would be very interested to read his book "Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives" that I see available on Amazon. It's just a wee bit expensive. Er, you got a spare?

I must admit that I haven't read his book. However, I do know that he wrote the Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on underdetermination. Till we get his book, that will have to do.

3 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Stanford isn't the only one to point out the worry raised by "unconceived alternatives"... (hold that thought)

The scientific realist, in the face of antirealist broadsides, will often appeal to the form of inference known as "Inference to the Best Explanation" (IBE). By coincidence I wrote the following in another thread last night:

IBE is familiar to us all. The scientific realist is no exception, holding that given a set of candidate hypotheses, which may all be consistent with the data, the deadlock (cf. underdetermination) can be broken by appeal to explanatory goodness. We are licensed, or so the IBE proponent asserts, to infer to the truth (or probable truth, or suchlike) of that hypothesis among the set of rival candidates that best explains the data.

One problem with this approach is pointed out by antirealist Bas van Fraassen who objects:

"... to take it that the best of set X will be more likely to be true than not, requires a prior belief that the truth is already more likely to be found in X than not".

 

In other words, making the inference to the truth of "the best of a bad lot" of rival explanatory hypotheses/theories fails to take account of unconceived alternatives.
 

Fundamentally, this usually boils down to the argument from ignorance logical fallacy. People will say: You don't believe in theory X? Well, what's your theory then? Because if you don't have another theory, then you have to believe in my theory. Well, if history teaches us anything it is this: In 20-30 years some really smart guy is going to come up with a new theory, and 10-20 years after that it will be the latest fad. The only sad thing is that the vocalist critics will probably be dead by then, and we won't get to rub their noses in it.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

That is nothing but first year philosophical avoidance of the issue and like the rest of your posts, is irrelevant as far as practical science is concerned. Alternatives of any brand, are alternative for one reason.....because they lack the empirical observational evidence to support that concept and because an incumbent model is supported by the required evidence. 

In essence its as silly as Zosimus claiming modern day technology is not due to or driven by science. Science works, scientific theories such as GR, stand as totally verified within its zone of applicability, and is further enhanced by the incredible discovery of gravitational radiation 100 years after they were predicted. 

I found the following and believe it aptly describes a couple of philosophers on this forum...

https://againstprofphil.org/2018/09/24/the-self-defeating-silliness-of-professional-philosophy/

extracts: 

By “real philosophy” I mean authentic, serious philosophy, as opposed to inauthentic, superficial philosophy.

Authentic philosophy is committed, wholehearted philosophy pursued as a calling or vocation, and as a way of life; and inauthentic philosophy is professionalized, Scholastic, half-hearted philosophy treated as a mere job or a mere “glass bead game.”

Serious philosophy is philosophy with critical, deep, and synoptic or wide-scope content; and superficial philosophy is philosophy with dogmatic, shallow, and narrow or trivial content.

Now Wittgenstein was a real philosopher, hence an authentic, serious philosopher–so his inability to laugh at himself was merely a character flaw.

But nothing is more self-defeatingly silly than inauthentic, superficial professional academic philosophy that self-deceivingly believes its own bullshit and takes itself too seriously by half".

The word "underdetermination" did not occur in your post anywhere. You are off topic.

[Strange]

51 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Well, what's your theory then? Because if you don't have another theory, then you have to believe in my theory.

That is, not surprisingly, a misrepresentation of how science works.

Science uses the best theory (or theories) available. That may be flawed but it will be used (perhaps with caveats) be used until a better theory is found. 

Even Newton was unhappy with his theory of gravitation because it couldn't say why the force existed. GR answers that question but raises others. 

51 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Well, if history teaches us anything it is this: In 20-30 years some really smart guy is going to come up with a new theory, and 10-20 years after that it will be the latest fad.

In some cases yes. But you say that as if it is a bad thing rather than the strength that allows science to progress (But then I guess (*) you don't think science does make any progress). 

However many theories don't get replaced. 

(*) still having to guess what your point is 

51 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

The only sad thing is that the vocalist critics will probably be dead by then, and we won't get to rub their noses in it.

As this is well understood to be the way science works I'm not sure whose noses you want to rub. 

I have seen several paradigm shifts in my lifetime so the scientists involved have seen the old theories replaced as well. So you can consider their noses rubbed, if that makes you happy 

[Zosimus]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Did you miss the class where they said you should have a conclusion? If your argument were sustainable then what? Science is wrong? It doesn't work? It's a futile exercise? It needs a new way of working? What?

All right, you big baby. I tried to go back to edit the original post to put something like: Underdetermination is a serious and underestimated problem for science in general and scientific realism in particular. Unfortunately, the system won't let me.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

No it isn't. 

The "assumption" (not really an assumption) is that some technology is based on science. And, specifically, the technology behind the computer you are using.

An assumption is any unstated premise. Since your argument did not contain the sentence "Some technology is based on science" you assumed that it was, but didn't explicitly say so.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

You need to brush-up on your fallacies before your next exam (you wrongly identified something as "begging the question" earlier, as well) and not make fallacies when pointing them out.

That appears to be a non-sequitur.

It's not a non-sequitur but rather an illustration why your argument is ridiculous. It should be obvious from the context that I do not agree that science is a necessary condition for having a computer. I am more inclined to think that I have this computer because of six-sigma quality controls, double-entry bookkeeping, or capital investment. Now, perhaps the computer wouldn't be as advanced as it is now. Maybe my computer would run on vacuum tubes rather than MOSFETs. Who knows?

3 hours ago, Strange said:

It wasn't a formal logical argument, therefore this is irrelevant.

*shakes head sadly*

"They are of course wrong" is statement we can make with confidence because we have seen it happen.

So misplaced confidence (unsupported by evidence) is no proof of "rightness". But because we have seen (we have evidence) that shares can go down as well as up, we know their confidence is misplaced.

Evidence cannot support anything because of the problem of underdetermination. The evidence that you think supports the theory can, in reality, support an untold number of alternate theories equally well. Clearly, you have misplaced convince in the value of evidence.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Thanks for a good counter-example to your argument.

That might be a good example if the only reason for not running red lights is because of the police; but, as you say, for most people it is an issue of safety. 

(Amusingly, I used to live in a country where it is routine for people to run red lights. And most drivers will slow at a green light in case there is a car coming the other way.

And I am from a country where people do not stop at stop signs. Similarly, people who are coming to a stop-sign controlled intersection will slow even though they have the right of way.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

You've lost me. You seem to have gone completely off the rails here.

People have smoke detectors because experience (evidence) shows that they can save lives. But I thought your argument (*) was that however many times people's lives have been saved by a smoke detector, we cannot form a valid theory about their effectiveness so there is no point having one.

I seriously doubt that you have done any kind of a study to determine that smoke detectors do or do not save lives. You have heard from others that smoke detectors save lives, and you have taken it on faith. I took the time to google the matter and found (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/well/family/a-mothers-voice-is-the-most-effective-smoke-alarm.html  )
 that smoke detectors only wake children 50 percent of the time and even then they are unlikely to leave their room in a timely fashion, even if they have been trained to do so. Yet, most people still buy smoke detectors because they figure that it's better than nothing. That is game theory at work not induction.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

If the weather forecast say it is likely to rain, then it may be sensible to carry an umbrella. But, again, I was assuming your argument (*) was that there is no point carrying an umbrella because we cannot have a reliable evidence-based theory of weather.

Wrong. You carry an umbrella because the cost of carrying an umbrella if it's sunny is small whereas the cost of not carrying an umbrella if it rains is large. You do not stop to calculate the likelihood of rain. You just always carry an umbrella with you for the same reason you always carry a spare tire and a jack in the trunk. 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Depending what you mean by "wrong" that may be uncontroversial. 

But as you seem to think that Newtonian gravity has been discarded, I don't think I can trust your concept of "wrong". 

Can Newtonian gravity explain the precession of Mercury? No? Then it's wrong.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Good spelling catch.

Thanks. I'm glad you caught it. My subtlety is lost on many people here. 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Now how about a sensible response to my request for OP guidance?

I apologise for my depracatory remarks directed at your opening paragraph showing a plot and some mathematical explanation.

But what do you expect when you offer fundamentally incorrect mathematics to a bunch of mathematicians as the basis for a thread?

There was no math. It was an illustration. If you'd like a better illustration, I can easily come up with one.

As a child, I was often given the task of completing a series of numbers. For example, we would see:

1, 2, 3... ___   What comes next? Well, the credited response is 4. If you put 10 or 2 you don't get credit. Yet, is it impossible that the next number is 10? Hardly. We could easily be working in base-4 counting. Another possibility is 2 (the largest prime factor of n). The point is that you have been told and trained since a child to believe that the data set indicates one answer. If you refuse to believe this, you are punished. If you believe it, you are rewarded. Yet, simple carrot-and-stick games do not make a false statement true. There are always alternate explanations for any data set.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If you think this is so, then we can't claim with any certainty that you are right, since you have been wrong in the past. So what's the point of discussing it? I mean, it seems like you are claiming that there is no way to determine if you are right.

 

I don't think that "true" was the issue. That wasn't discussed until Reg brought it into the thread. Nothing in Strange's response touched on this.

You need to define what "wrong" means in this context. 

If theory T is correct, we will observe O.

We do not observe O.

Therefore, theory T is not correct.

Modus Tollens.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Did beecee mention theories being true? I can't find where that was said.

You might believe it by looking at the history of science. 

repeating this claim about an infinite number of theories does not make it true.

Regardless of whether you agree, there are an infinite number of graphs that could be used to connect the points in a data sequence.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Since when is underdetermination a logical fallacy?

If our theory is true, then it will fit the data.

Our theory fits the data.

Therefore, it must be true.  (Affirming the consequent — a formal logical fallacy)

In reality, there are a large number of theories (conceived and yet to be conceived) that will explain the data.

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

 If theory T is correct, we will observe O.

We do not observe O.

Therefore, theory T is not correct.

Modus Tollens.

Unfortunately we are talking about science and not logic. That's not how it is approached in science, since such a simplistic approach would leave us with zero theories which are correct.

That might be appealing from a bookkeeping aspect, since there would be no entries of which one must keep track, but hardly useful.

19 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Regardless of whether you agree, there are an infinite number of graphs that could be used to connect the points in a data sequence.

Ah, but you went a step further. You said "new theories can constantly be constructed that will match the data" (emphasis added) not just new graphs, and that's what I am objecting to. 

If you want to make a plot of x vs t for an object in freefall (and where air resistance can be neglected), yes, you can fit an infinite number of curves to it. But why on earth would you want to do that?

19 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

If our theory is true, then it will fit the data.

Our theory fits the data.

Therefore, it must be true.  (Affirming the consequent — a formal logical fallacy)

In reality, there are a large number of theories (conceived and yet to be conceived) that will explain the data.

As this is not the scientific approach, what does that have to do with science? (you are, in effect, attacking a caricature of science. A straw man argument. Several of them, in fact, in the course of this thread))