Reg Prescott Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 (edited) *hose among us -- namely, an eli*e group consis*ing only of myself -- who are prohibi*ed from using a par*icular word beginning with the *wen*ie*h le**er of the alphabe* and rhyming with Irish s*ew, face the unenviable *ask of explica*ing *he *hrea* *ha* underde*ermina*ion poses withou* u**ering *he dreaded *e*ragramma*on and offending anyone's *ar*uffe sensibili*ies. *he problem can be s*a*ed *hus: If i* is *he case *ha* more *han one *heory is compa*ible with a given body of da*a or evidence, *hen on purely epis*emic grounds, we have no reason to prefer one over *he o*her. *o illus*ra*e, i*'s unnecessary to make *he stronger claim -- *hus a claim far harder to defend -- *hat an infini*e number of *heories are compa*ible with every body of da*a or evidence. Le*'s jus* suppose for *he sake of argumen*, far more modes*ly than my es*eemed colleague, Zosimus, has been sugges*ing, *ha* for any given body of da*a, *here exis* precisely *hree -- perhaps no* ye* conceived -- empirically indis*inguishable rivals; *hat is, *hree *heories which are consis*en* wit*, or even en*ail, precisely the same observa*ional consequences. Call *hem A, B, and C. A, B, and C, *hough empirically indis*inguishable, are logically inconsis*en* wi*h one ano*her : if one is Irish s*ew, *he o*hers are Blue Danube Wal*z. For *hose of a more pragma*ic or an*irealis* persuasion, *he co-exis*ence of a *rio of Siamese rivals can be viewed as an embarrassmen* of riches. Choose any one you like! *ake your pick! *hey all make exac*ly the same predic*ions. *hey're all equally good, in the sense *hat *hey work equally well. *he problem for *he scien*ific *ealist or epis*emologis*, however, is that we have no good reason for believing any one among A, B and C is Irish s*ew. By hypo*hesis, *here are only *hree candida*es. Each candida*e, *hen, has an objec*ive 33.333% probability of being Irish s*ew. Now, when presen*ed wi*h a proposi*ion enjoying a mere 1/3 chance of being Irish s*ew, the ra*ional response is no* *o believe i*. The ra*ional response would be to believe i*s nega*ion, or a* *he very leas*, wi*hhold judgemen*. "So wha*?" I hear you groan, "Who gives a shi* about Irish s*ew anyway, excep* for hairy-fairy philosophers!!!???" Well, concerned paren*s, for one, migh* be disturbed *o learn *ha* wha* *heir children are being *augh* in school science class is no* wor*hy of belief. Indeed, *o believe wha* is being *augh* would be an irra*ional ac*. Edited November 20, 2018 by Reg Prescott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reg Prescott Posted November 20, 2018 Author Share Posted November 20, 2018 Just now, swansont said: And by ignoring, I must assume you mean acknowledge, since that's precisely what I did in my post. I was contrasting what your recommended source says with what you say with regard to the magnitude. Not the issue of other possible theories. At some level it doesn't matter. Whatever data we have, any new theory is going to have to predict precisely that. GR supplanting Newtonian gravity does not invalidate the results that Newtonian gravity gives under the conditions where it works, because they are identical (to reasonable precision) to GR. Our orbit about the sun did not change when people started accepting GR. At such time that a theory of quantum gravity succeeds, it will not change the results of GR (and by extension, Newton). These turtles go all the way down. And this is precisely why it's completely absurd to discuss underdetermination of theories by data without mentioning Babe Ruth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reg Prescott Posted November 20, 2018 Author Share Posted November 20, 2018 Just now, DrP said: There is something wrong with your format here - all the T's and some of the R's are replaced with a '*'. It makes it harder to read fluently. *ake i* up wi*h *he mods. I'm no* allowed *o say a par*icular word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, DrP said: There is something wrong with your format here - all the T's and some of the R's are replaced with a '*'. It makes it harder to read fluently. He's just stamping his foot because no one is taking him seriously any more. (and thanks for the spelling correction in an earlier post) Edited November 20, 2018 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Just now, Reg Prescott said: *ake i* up wi*h *he mods. I'm no* allowed *o say a par*icular word. ah, I see - childish dummy spitting then. I nearly thought better of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reg Prescott Posted November 20, 2018 Author Share Posted November 20, 2018 51 minutes ago, Eise said: Reg clearly stated a few times that he does not question the results of science. What is discussed here, as far as I can see, is the self-understanding of science, not science itself. And that is a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one. But of course, one has to know what the daily praxis of science is. If one wants to reflect on 'how science works', or the even more philosophical question 'why science works' one needs to know when scientists accept new theories, why other theories are rejected, why and how scientists err, etc etc. Until now, I did not see that Reg is principally wrong in his philosophical musings. What I see is a lot of misunderstandings. Exactly right, my good Grolsch supplier. Something I scribbled the other day... One example of the double standards that obtain here is that whenever some stranger wanders into a serious thread on biology, say, who is clearly not only ignorant of, but hostile and abusive to, the subject matter, said stranger is dealt with swiftly. And rightly so. Alas, the very same situation, as you may or may not have noticed, happens routinely in the philosophy section -- with no disciplinary action whatsoever. The consensus seems to be that philosophy is just empty semantics and mindless rhetoric. So all and sundry saunter in to join the navel-gazing -- after all, any fool could do it -- unaware that without the requisite background and training they are ill equipped to appraise the discourse. My most recent thread was dominated by one particular senior member (#$@^%* - my own personal stalker) who, if I may be frank, is not only clueless of the relevant material, but apparently lacks the wherewithal to grasp what is being explained. The result is an incessant stream of slogans, spam, and quotations tantamount to nothing more than "science is super" and "philosophers are a bunch of w*nkers", utterly devoid of analysis or autonomous thought. Add to this his insatiable contempt and penchant for besmirching the character of those members who are actually competent to participate. And at the end of the day (or hour) the suspect held in custody for "hijacking" is yours truly. C'mon now! To be clear, what I'm fulminating against here is not disagreement to any views I'm advancing -- stimulating and thoughtful opposition is most welcome -- but just the hypocrisy and the failure to administer discipline, when necessary, in an egalitarian manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts