Pet theory rant (split from Underdetermination in Science)

[Reg Prescott]

51 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.

Congratulations on a thought provoking thread idea, Zosimus.

One standard response, I find, from those less familiar with the philosophical issues involved, is to protest, "Newton's theory (or laws) still works very well. It got us to the Moon", and continue, "the theory remains true in its own domain of applicability".

That Newton's theory is still of instrumental value is not disputed, at least not by me. But two problems present themselves.

First: Whether a theory works or not is a very different question from whether that theory is true. This is what is always most difficult for me to communicate, no doubt due in part to the rather weighty baggage that has to be dragged in from the philosophy of language.

For a statement to be true, at the very least, the terms of that statement must refer. Consider:

(a) Frank Sinatra was born in New Jersey
(b) Frank Sinatra was born in New Zealand
(c) Hercules was born in  [insert any place you like]

In both (a) and (b) the name "Frank Sinatra" is a referring term. It picks out a person in the real world. Both statements, then, are at least candidates for being true. And, as the world turned out, (a) is true and (b) is false.

In (c), however, assuming for argument's sake that the name "Hercules" does not refer, then (c) cannot be true, no matter what is inserted in the square brackets. Nothing true can be said of a non-referring name or term. Granting reference failure of the subject term, (c) is not even a candidate for being true.

Moving to science, supposing the term "atom" as used by Rutherford, say, fails to refer, then likewise, no true statement can be made about Rutherford's atoms (with the exception "They don't exist"). The same applies to Newton's use of the term "gravity": failure to refer (if indeed it does) entails that nothing true can be predicated of it -- instrumental value notwithstanding.

 

The second problem is captured in this passage from Nicholas Rescher:
 

"It may seem tempting to say that later theories simply provide localized readjustments and that the old theories continue to hold good provided only that we suitably restrict their domains of purported validity. On such a view, it is tempting to say: "Einstein's theory does not replace Newton's; it does not actually disagree with Newton's at all but simply sets limits to the the region of phenomena (large-scale, slow-moving objects) where Newton's theory works perfectly well". Such temptations must be resisted. To yield to them is like saying that "All swans are white" is true all right; we just have to be cautious about its domain limitation and take care not to apply it to Australia. This sort of position comes down, in the final analysis, to the unhelpful truism that a theory works where a theory works."
 

[Reg Prescott]

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

You either have to ask a specific question, followed conventionally by a question mark. Or make a single well defined proposition for debate.

(Lecturing is called blogging here) - Studiot

 

Or soapboxing - Strange

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?

Edited November 19, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[studiot]

14 minutes 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:

 

 

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

Gosh what section of the forum was that In?

Have you read the rules specific to that section?

Do questions belong in Science News?

I have been admonished in the past for posting similar links without sufficient explanation or summary of what it and why I was posting.

But you haven't shown the entire op and thereby do beecee a disservice.

Looking at it properly (for the first time) I see a summary by the OP plus a formal abstract that starts "There is no consensus"

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)

But yes, If you had said there are plenty of threads which have degenerated on account of a poor opening post for one reason or another, I would agree.

Perhaps this is why the mods here like the rules the way they are.

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by studiot

[beecee]

18 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

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

Because the author of that thread and many other threads in that section, are posted as "news items", science news items to be exact. So again we have another poor philosopher making another error in judgement, but will we expect any moral aligning retraction? Don't hold your breath people!

7 minutes 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.

[Reg Prescott]

2 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.

This is confused. Certainty is (presumably) a psychological state, not a property of statements or theories. Theories, lacking psychological states, do not entertain doubts, express confidence in their own truth, or enjoy certainty. We do.

Certainty might be described as maximal confidence (that a person has) in a given proposition's truth.

Thus your claims that "if theories were proven then they would have 100% certainty", and "the fact that they can't be proven shows that they have less than 100% certainty" make no sense. You might enjoy or express certainty of a particular proposition's truth. A tribal warrior in New Guinea, on the other hand, who had never heard of the theory or proposition, would have no degree of confidence, belief, or certainty to speak of at all.

 

2 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 (*).  

This is the right thing to say: "Our confidence", "We are pretty certain", etc. Of course, your own subjective degree of belief in these matters (sunrises, trains, and natural selection) may not be universally shared.

Just to take the last one as an example, my own confidence that "evolution can be explained by natural selection" has dwindled steadily over the past few years. It has not "grown with experience"; quite the reverse.

If you can pin an objective probability on this, as opposed to a subjective degree of belief, be sure to tell the world.

 

Finally, and slightly tangentially, the kind of holistic concerns raised by Quine and others give us some reason to be skeptical that there are any propositions that can be known with certainty. All of them, "proven" or not, on Quine's account, are potentially susceptible to revision.

 

3 hours ago, Strange said:

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.

If we construe a theory as a set of propositions, then a failure of reference of GR's central terms (spacetime, etc) entails that the theory is untrue.

It would be untrue in the same way that "Pegasus can fly" and "Phlogiston has a mass of [whatever]" is untrue. The term "phlogiston", we're now told, is a non-referring term. Thus anything predicated of it cannot be true. If 23rd century scientists decide spacetime, say, does not exist (i.e. the term "spacetime" does not refer) then any statement about spacetime is untrue -- useful or not.

Whether we should assign such statements a value of "false" or "neither true nor false" is a matter of debate.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[Reg Prescott]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

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

Clearly not all scientists share your opinion:

 

"All this [i.e. Kuhn's ideas] is wormwood to scientists like myself, who think the task of science is to bring us closer and closer to objective truth."-- Steven Weinberg 

"Thus a true theory is not a theory which gives an explanation of physical appearances in conformity with reality; it is a theory which represents in a satisfactory manner a group of experimental laws. A false theory is not an attempt at an explanation based on assumptions contrary to reality; it is a group of propositions which do not agree with the experimental laws. Agreement with experiment is the sole criterion of truth for a physical theory." - Pierre Duhem 

"In science, truth once discovered always remains truth"- Robert A. Millikan

 

It seems no matter how many times I warn of the dangers of making blanket statements about science, the message doesn't sink in. Scientists hold all kinds of divergent views, and say all kinds of things, about science and its aims and goals.

Duhem, above, expresses a typically antirealist position; Weinberg, as ever, the staunch realist. Diametrically opposed positions notwithstanding, neither affirms, however, that science "doesn't deal in truth".

[Reg Prescott]

9 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. 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.

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?

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:

Quote

"Alternatively, rather than invoking deduction, the original argument (BIV) might be recast as an inference to the best explanation (IBE). In other words, it might be argued that of all the candidate explanations for the undisputed fact "Black arrests for violent crime are disproportionately high", the best explanation is that "Blacks are inordinately violent", thus we can infer -- depending on how IBE is construed -- to the truth, or the likely truth, or similar, of the proposition "Blacks are inordinately violent"."

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.
 

[beecee]

40 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

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.

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".

Edited November 19, 2018 by beecee

[Reg Prescott]

Strange tells us in his second post on page 1: "Science doesn't deal in "truth"; it is not a well-defined or testable concept."

 

In my response, also on page 1, the veracity of this bizarre claim is belied by quotes from three scientists (among untold others) who clearly do not share the opinion that science has no dealings with truth.

But supposing it were the case, as Strange insists, that science and truth mind their respective businesses, some very puzzling questions would need to be addressed...

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

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. 

We're told GR "answers" the question. Is the answer that GR provides true? Or, at the very least, is there any reason to suppose the answer is true? If not, it's hard to see any virtue of a question being given an untrue answer. 

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Theories are not true or false. Maybe this basic misunderstanding is where you have gone wrong with your attempt to analyse science.

Could it be that the misunderstanding is your own? The briefest of searches revealed the following (all posted by Strange himself):

"String theory is capable of being tested (not by any technology we have now) and so it can be falsified, and so it is scientific."  {And if it were to be falsified then presumably it would be false - Reg}

"Well, there was the Lamarckian theory, which was scientific because it was falsifiable by looking at the evidence. And, in the end, it was falsified."  {How else is falsified to be understood if not "shown to be false"? - Reg}

"Some theories are falsified, but very few. Phlogiston is one of the few examples I can think of. Oh, and the steady state universe (that's quite a big one, I guess)"

 

I stopped my search after the first three.

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

A theory is considered "better" if it either explains things that the the previous one couldn't or provides more accurate results. (Or, because you are being pedantic about logic, possibly both.)

Same old. Do we have any reason to believe these explanations are true? Or is explanation a good thing in and of itself irregardless of truth? Any old explanation, true or false, is a scientific virtue?
 

 

59 minutes ago, swansont said:

I will tell you what I have told others. Philosophers have insisted that I need to incorporate more philosophy in my science, but they have yet to describe to me a philosophy that helps me align a laser into an optical fiber.

Have you tried asking a farmer to help you align your laser into an optical fiber?

Oh wait, that would be silly. Farmers aren't in that line of work.

How expensive is straw these days?

Edited November 19, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

Strange tells us in his second post on page 1: "Science doesn't deal in "truth"; it is not a well-defined or testable concept."

Which was after your post, bringing the topic up. Just so we're clear.

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

 Have you tried asking a farmer to help you align your laser into an optical fiber?

It had not occurred to me, as they might be only slightly more helpful than philosophers.

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

Oh wait, that would be silly. Farmers aren't in that line of work.

And neither are philosophers.

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

How expensive is straw these days?

How would I know? I'm not the one making straw man arguments.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Reg Prescott said:

We're told GR "answers" the question. Is the answer that GR provides true? Or, at the very least, is there any reason to suppose the answer is true?

 

 

 

It works... 

Edited November 19, 2018 by dimreepr