Science - It Works, Bitches! - Reply from Richard Dawkins

[woody68]

Fantastic response from Professor Dawkins! I never tire of listening to him!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIKfZHPqXYc

[techhydra]

That is awesome! I'm not very familiar with Richard Dawkins but that comment made me a believer. I'm gonna have to check out his books sometime.

Edited May 15, 2013 by techhydra

[MonDie]

The audience member skewed the question when they said, "How do you justify the scientific method?" Justify what about it? Like any other method, the scientific method is a formal set of guidelines. To justify its use, we only have to point out that it works. However, that doesn't answer the question "What does the success of the scientific method indicate about the nature of reality?"

[krash661]

what i like is ,

he gave an answer that does not need to be said.

unless you have a low level mentality.

[moreinput]

It has become so weird that the very core of science "the scientific method" is like a unicorn to religious people. What don't they get about a consistent system of deductive reasoning being used to explore and unbiasedly answer questions?....Yup, I just answered my own question, nothing to see here move along.

 

Great clip btw =)

Edited May 18, 2013 by moreinput

[swansont]

The audience member skewed the question when they said, "How do you justify the scientific method?" Justify what about it? Like any other method, the scientific method is a formal set of guidelines. To justify its use, we only have to point out that it works. However, that doesn't answer the question "What does the success of the scientific method indicate about the nature of reality?"

 

Science doesn't investigate the nature of reality. It studies the behavior of nature.

[MonDie]

"The nature of reality" may have been a poor choice of words, but my intent was to point out a distinction.  There is a difference between the method being useful and its theories being accurate representations. Put another way, there is a difference between knowing how to manipulate the world and knowing what the world is or does.

 

I admit that there were faulty assumptions underlying the way I posed the question.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[swansont]

"The nature of reality" may have been a poor choice of words, but my intent was to point out a distinction.  There is a difference between the method being useful and its theories being accurate representations. Put another way, there is a difference between knowing how to manipulate the world and knowing what the world is or does.

 

I admit that there were faulty assumptions underlying the way I posed the question.

 

Fair enough, but knowing how it works makes manipulating it a lot easier.

 

The scientific method doesn't tell you a particular theory will work, but does tell you you'll eventually get closer with continued application. But the unspoken point-counterpoint of the video is the contrast with faith, or perhaps guesswork, which does not have the same pattern of success.

[MonDie]

To give a better answer than Dawkins:

The only apparent barrier is between hypothesis and prediction. Someone could get true predictions from a false hypothesis or vice verca. However, the connector between hypothesis and prediction is logic, and arguably, one needs no faith in logic because logic operates on a 'by definition' basis. Ideally, the hypothesis and prediction are simply different ways of stating the same idea, though this won't always be true since the prediction might rely on the validity of other hypotheses/theories as well.

If someone gets true predictions from a false hypothesis, it's because they've made errors in logic. Of course, they might argue that their logic is right and ours is wrong, but this still isn't a matter of faith because logic operates on a 'by definition' basis.

 

At least that is where my own reasoning took me.

 

 

The scientific method doesn't tell you a particular theory will work, but does tell you you'll eventually get closer with continued application. But the unspoken point-counterpoint of the video is the contrast with faith, or perhaps guesswork, which does not have the same pattern of success.

 

Of course. Science doesn't have the answer ≠ Religion does

Edited May 22, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[ACG52]

To give a better answer than Dawkins:

The only apparent barrier is between hypothesis and prediction. Someone could get true predictions from a false hypothesis or vice verca. However, the connector between hypothesis and prediction is logic, and arguably, one needs no faith in logic because logic operates on a 'by definition' basis. Ideally, the hypothesis and prediction are simply different ways of stating the same idea, though this won't always be true since the prediction might rely on the validity of other hypotheses/theories as well.

If someone gets true predictions from a false hypothesis, it's because they've made errors in logic. Of course, they might argue that their logic is right and ours is wrong, but this still isn't a matter of faith because logic operates on a 'by definition' basis.

 

At least that is where my own reasoning took me.

 

 

 

Of course. Science doesn't have the answer ≠ Religion does

If a hypothesis gives correct predictions, the hypothesis is correct.

[MonDie]

If a hypothesis gives correct predictions, the hypothesis is correct.

 

But doesn't that assume (a) no errors in logic and (b) the validity of other theories that connect the hypothesis and prediction?

 

As an example of B, suppose my hypothesis is that a star has neon in its outermost shell, but I have a pseudoscientific belief that neon's emission spectrum is actually helium's emission spectrum. If the star contains helium, my prediction may be fulfilled, but only because I connected hypothesis and prediction with a false belief.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[ACG52]

but I have a pseudoscientific belief that neon's emission spectrum is actually helium's emission spectrum

Then you're wrong, and your hypothesis is wrong. The prediction of your hypothesis was false. It's not YOUR BELIEF that matters, it's what actually is.

 

You're attributing your stupidity to the hypothesis.

 

If your hypothesis was that the star contains helium, and you read the spectrograph and can't tell helium from neon because of your ignorance, that doesn't mean the hypothesis was wrong.

[SamBridge]

The scientific method IS observations, if you say science is wrong, then in effect there is no basis to believe any particular thing to be true, therefore assumptions like god have no logical reason to be regarded over any one else's beliefs.

[swansont]

To give a better answer than Dawkins:

The only apparent barrier is between hypothesis and prediction. Someone could get true predictions from a false hypothesis or vice verca. However, the connector between hypothesis and prediction is logic, and arguably, one needs no faith in logic because logic operates on a 'by definition' basis. Ideally, the hypothesis and prediction are simply different ways of stating the same idea, though this won't always be true since the prediction might rely on the validity of other hypotheses/theories as well.

If someone gets true predictions from a false hypothesis, it's because they've made errors in logic. Of course, they might argue that their logic is right and ours is wrong, but this still isn't a matter of faith because logic operates on a 'by definition' basis.

 

At least that is where my own reasoning took me.

 

In the long run, a false hypothesis will give false predictions.

[ajb]

The scientific method, like any other philosophical position, can at best be supported by the production of evidence to show that the position is useful. I would therefore like to point to all engineering and medicine!

I rest my case.

[MonDie]

Then you're wrong, and your hypothesis is wrong. The prediction of your hypothesis was false. It's not YOUR BELIEF that matters, it's what actually is.

 

You're attributing your stupidity to the hypothesis.

 

Semantics.

 

If your hypothesis was that the star contains helium, and you read the spectrograph and can't tell helium from neon because of your ignorance, that doesn't mean the hypothesis was wrong.

 

Agreed.

 

 

If you read my status, thanks. It worked.

 

---

 

 

In the long run, a false hypothesis will give false predictions.

 

This would certainly be true if you equate the hypothesis's truth with its successful application. But without philosophical tools like Occam's razor, might we find that there are contradicting hypotheses that are all equally useful? As someone who wants more than utility, I would be on the lookout for benign errors (e.g. metaphysical assumptions).

Edited May 23, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[swansont]

This would certainly be true if you equate the hypothesis's truth with its successful application. But without philosophical tools like Occam's razor, might we find that there are contradicting hypotheses that are all equally useful? As someone who wants more than utility, I would be on the lookout for benign errors (e.g. metaphysical assumptions).

 

Contradicting? That can't be in their result, it has to be for some other reason. Contradicting results are a way of differentiating, since only one answer can be right.

 

An example I can think of is gravity vs epicycles. Both give the correct answer. You can appeal to Occam, but you don't have to. Gravity has a mechanism of sorts: masses attract each other. Epicycles don't. There is a reason to prefer one over the other. But even this isn't a perfect example. Epicycles work for closed, periodic orbits, but gravity explains more. Again, a reason to prefer one over the other.

 

Hypothetically, two hypotheses that gave the same result but were based on incompatible models? Can you have two math models that give the same answer, over all of the parameter space, but are not the same? (Other than expanding in a series, which is basically what epicycles were, even if they didn't know it at the time) I wonder if there is a uniqueness theorem that applies here.

[MonDie]

ACG52, forgive me if I failed in my attempt at being nice. I ran out of coffee beans.

 

 

Contradicting? That can't be in their result, it has to be for some other reason. Contradicting results are a way of differentiating, since only one answer can be right.

Hypothetically, two hypotheses that gave the same result but were based on incompatible models? Can you have two math models that give the same answer, over all of the parameter space, but are not the same?

You're right, I was speaking of different hypotheses with identical predictions.

Another thought occurred to me. If different hypothesis statements lead to identical predictions, maybe their untestable portions consist of meaningless language, i.e. maybe science is the sole source of functional language, of words that can mean the same thing to different people.
Alternatively, there really is no difference, it's just different words for the same thing. Of course, mathematics is a language superior to Enlgish; that's what the equals sign is for, no dictionaries needed.

(Other than expanding in a series, which is basically what epicycles were, even if they didn't know it at the time) I wonder if there is a uniqueness theorem that applies here.

You're going beyond me. I mostly take science courses because the necessary mathematics courses fill up so quickly.

An example I can think of is gravity vs epicycles. Both give the correct answer. You can appeal to Occam, but you don't have to. Gravity has a mechanism of sorts: masses attract each other. Epicycles don't. There is a reason to prefer one over the other. But even this isn't a perfect example. Epicycles work for closed, periodic orbits, but gravity explains more. Again, a reason to prefer one over the other.

Ptolemy's model was not identical to Kepler's. Kepler's model is accepted because its predictions are more accurate than those of the Ptolemaic Earth-centered model. Newton came later. (Johannes Kepler 1571-1630; Isaac Newton 1642-1727).

Edited May 24, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[swansont]

Ptolemy's model was not identical to Kepler's. Kepler's model is accepted because its predictions are more accurate than those of the Ptolemaic Earth-centered model. Newton came later. (Johannes Kepler 1571-1630; Isaac Newton 1642-1727).

 

Given enough computing power, the accuracy of the predictions would be identical.