Scientific testing (split from goal of science)

[Reg Prescott]

Klaynos : "Those complications, such as how you counted them, do brown dwarfs count, what are the limitations if your optical system matter though. Do no I don't think you can say that statement is true or false. Again this is an observation. Testability is fundamental else there's no point."

 

Oh yeah? How about if I were to claim the answer is....um, one?

 

Or how about if I were to claim the Earth is 5000 years old?

C'mon now. You'd say "That's just WRONG, dumbass"

 

Strange - "Congratulations on discovering the Quote button though"

 

Er, obviously still requires a little work. Is there a tutorial or something somewhere?

[swansont]

@ Klaynos

 

Well, no one ever gave me an answer to this (post 52)...

 

"How, then, may I ask would our other members reply to a wayward Creationist, say, who wandered in and expressed his firmly held belief that evolutionary theory was a load of crap? How many among you, in all honesty, would tell him, "Don't worry, pal. Our evolutionary theory has nothing to do with truth. You're better to think of it as a model, or a useful fiction, that we use as a calculating device to .... erm, cure baldness (or whatever). It has nothing at all to do with the way things really are out there." "

 

 

You are confusing the model with the results. There is e.g. a selfish gene model (or interpretation) but that's not real; genes can't actually be selfish. But using that as a calculation/interpretational tool may allow one to predict and explain certain observable results.

 

Also you are contradicting what you said a few posts back about this not being an either/or situation. Waffling back and forth calls into question what the point is you are actually trying to make.

[Reg Prescott]

a question for ajb... you said:

 

"Based on what I have read and listened to, by 'true' he does indeed mean that the idea of evolution matches the observations very well. In that sense evolution is 'true'."

 

If this is what you mean by "true", then if you had two theories that matched the observations equally well, you'd have to say "They're both true". Right?

 

Er, are you truly cool with that, dude?

 

I'm not knocking it; just wondering if you're willing to accept the ...um, potentially unpalatable implications of your own unorthodox definition.

[swansont]

@ swantson -- "According to your stated position these aren't abstractions; they must be real, and that there are many scientists who think so."

 

Utter nonsense. I've never said such a thing.

 

 

Well, you said "Instrumentalism is contrasted with realism; the position that scientific theories purport to describe reality; the way things really are out there - truth! Black holes, quarks, species, fields, forces, genes, etc, etc really do exist. It's true! Einstein was well known as being a realist, at least in his later years. For a person like him, and I would suspect the majority of working scientists too, science is ALL about truth. They are not engaged in fiction. They are in the business of getting the world right, or at least trying to."

 

So your claim was that most scientists do not accept abstractions — it's all about "truth" (as opposed to "fiction"). Meaning you did say such a thing.

 

The problem might be that you have also been equivocating in your use of terminology, which is sloppy.

 

It's pointless to even continue. Apparently you're a physicist. I'm not. If you were to talk heavy duty physics to me, it would probably go right over my head. Unfortunately what's happening here is that we're discussing philosophy of science (something I do know a little about) and the reverse is happening -- you (and others) are consistently failing to understand me. All I can do is post a link and perhaps some readers will take a little time read it.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

 

And yet you are insisting on things despite your lack of knowledge. Isn't it possible that you're wrong, owing to your admitted ignorance?

[Strange]

"Based on what I have read and listened to, by 'true' he does indeed mean that the idea of evolution matches the observations very well. In that sense evolution is 'true'."

 

If this is what you mean by "true", then if you had two theories that matched the observations equally well, you'd have to say "They're both true". Right?

 

Of course. There are many cases where we have multiple theories which are "true" in this sense. For example, Newtonian gravity and GR. Or classical electromagnetism and quantum theory.

 

But these pairs of theories cannot both be "true" in your sense of the word. It is quite possible that neither is true in that sense.

[Reg Prescott]

Swansont - "So your claim was that most scientists do not accept abstractions — it's all about "truth" (as opposed to "fiction"). Meaning you did say such a thing."

 

Yes, I suspect if we surveyed scientists across the board (not just physics - stop being so physics-centric) we'd find that most of them are engaged in trying to portray reality as accurately as possible - whether they know it or not and whether they'll admit or not. The nice folks here are already coming round to my way of thinking. Gimme a lil more time

 

And re : "And yet you are insisting on things despite your lack of knowledge. Isn't it possible that you're wrong, owing to your admitted ignorance?"

 

Is it possible I'm wrong? You betcha, baby.

[Klaynos]

Klaynos : "Those complications, such as how you counted them, do brown dwarfs count, what are the limitations if your optical system matter though. Do no I don't think you can say that statement is true or false. Again this is an observation. Testability is fundamental else there's no point."

 

Oh yeah? How about if I were to claim the answer is....um, one?

 

Or how about if I were to claim the Earth is 5000 years old?

 

C'mon now. You'd say "That's just WRONG, dumbass"

 

 

Strange - "Congratulations on discovering the Quote button though"

 

Er, obviously still requires a little work. Is there a tutorial or something somewhere?

Inconsistent with the observations and therefore false ...

 

If this is what you mean by "true", then if you had two theories that matched the observations equally well, you'd have to say "They're both true". Right?

 

If they make equally accurate predictions when compared to the observations you have no choice but to consider then equally good theories. The challenge then is to devise a test that can distinguish them from one another and perform that experiment.

[Reg Prescott]

Strange: "Of course. There are many cases where we have multiple theories which are "true" in this sense. For example, Newtonian gravity and GR. Or classical electromagnetism and quantum theory."

 

The calculations both theories yield may be similar. But surely the theory is more than just the calculations it yields? The stories Newton and Einstein tell us vis-a-vis the nature of space, time, gravity, mass, etc are very different, aren't they?

 

Given that, would you still hold that both theories are true?

@ Klaynos : "If they make equally accurate predictions when compared to the observations you have no choice but to consider then equally good theories."

 

But that wasn't what I asked, naughty boy. Tsk Tsk. I asked do you consider them to be both true?

Anyway, it's bedtime here. It's been fun, guys. And I don't feel quite so hated today

 

Peace and love!

 

Oh and lotsa truth too

[swansont]

@ Klaynos

 

I'm simply using the term "true" in what I take to be its everyday usage (what philosophers refer to as "the correspondence theory of truth")

 

A statement is true if it corresponds to actual states of affairs in the world. E.g.

 

The statement "The dog is drinking water" is true if and only if the dog is drinking water.

 

The statement "All copper conducts electricity" is true if and only if it is indeed the case that all copper conducts electricity.

 

The statement "Humans evolved from apes (or apelike creatures or whatever)" is true if and only if this statement corresponds with what is the case in reality.

 

It's not the only theory of truth out there, but I assume it's the one we all use on a daily basis. Or do you have another in mind?

So do you believe science should AIM TO produce statements/hypotheses/theories of that type?

 

Or AIM TO produce statements that are false?

 

 

 

Lets use a simple example. Is a hole real? i.e. is it a physical entity? Or is it just a convenient description about a lack of solid material. You can't hand me a hole, all by itself.

 

If I have a description involving a hole: "I dug a hole in the ground" (and I indeed moved some dirt as one does while digging), is that a true statement? Does it remain true even if one thinks that holes are an abstraction? It seems to me that this implies two different meanings for "true" and the problem here is that you keep hopping back and forth between them, whenever it's convenient for you.

[Reg Prescott]

Great question about the hole, swansont. Lemme think about that. Dang, no sleep tonight then

 

@ - "It seems to me that this implies two different meanings for "true" and the problem here is that you keep hopping back and forth between them, whenever it's convenient for you." (blue font to match your lovely suit)

 

Au contraire, old chap. That, I must dispute. It's PRECISELY the risk the others run though -- with their bizarre dichotomy between "scientific truth" and, er, good ole fashioned regular truth.

[Strange]

Strange: "Of course. There are many cases where we have multiple theories which are "true" in this sense. For example, Newtonian gravity and GR. Or classical electromagnetism and quantum theory."

 

The calculations both theories yield may be similar. But surely the theory is more than just the calculations it yields? The stories Newton and Einstein tell us vis-a-vis the nature of space, time, gravity, mass, etc are very different, aren't they?

 

Given that, would you still hold that both theories are true?

 

Remember what I said originally about science not being concerned with truth ... ?

 

That is the problem when you try and say that a scientific theory is "more than just the calculations it yields". You have no way of testing whether either of these theories are "true" by your definition (the everyday definition) of the word. Which is precisely why the idea of science as a search for truth fell out of favour.

Au contraire, old chap. That, I must dispute. It's PRECISELY the risk the others run though -- with their bizarre dichotomy between "scientific truth" and, er, good ole fashioned regular truth.

 

I only introduced the idea of "scientific truth" to try and explain the difference between the way science really works and the way you think it works (or think it should work or think scientists think it works or think it should work or ... whatever).

 

As I say, scientists may use words like "prove" or "truth" in informal conversation but they know they don't really mean anything (or, at least, that they imply a complex set of meanings that will be understood by the other party - unless the other party doesn't know how science works ...)

 

 

Great question about the hole, swansont.

 

And that may be an even better example than you think. In semiconductor physics we use the concept of holes (an absence of an electron where you would expect one to be) as real objects: they are charge carriers with measurable mass and velocity. They are an important part of [our models of] how transistors work. But it seems that they don't exist.

Strange - "Congratulations on discovering the Quote button though"

 

Er, obviously still requires a little work. Is there a tutorial or something somewhere?

 

There is: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/

Edited October 2, 2015 by Strange

[Klaynos]

Strange: "Of course. There are many cases where we have multiple theories which are "true" in this sense. For example, Newtonian gravity and GR. Or classical electromagnetism and quantum theory."

 

The calculations both theories yield may be similar. But surely the theory is more than just the calculations it yields? The stories Newton and Einstein tell us vis-a-vis the nature of space, time, gravity, mass, etc are very different, aren't they?

 

Given that, would you still hold that both theories are true?

 

@ Klaynos : "If they make equally accurate predictions when compared to the observations you have no choice but to consider then equally good theories."

 

But that wasn't what I asked, naughty boy. Tsk Tsk. I asked do you consider them to be both true?

 

Anyway, it's bedtime here. It's been fun, guys. And I don't feel quite so hated today

 

Peace and love!

 

Oh and lotsa truth too

But I can't answer that question, trueness is not measurable, all you can do is comment on their comparison to observations.

 

You ask if all a theory is is the equations above. The answer is yes, the stories are just to make people, normally not the scientists, feel a bit better about it. The maths is where the real stuff is. Physics is the mathematical modeling of the universe and the testing of those models.

[swansont]

Strange: "Of course. There are many cases where we have multiple theories which are "true" in this sense. For example, Newtonian gravity and GR. Or classical electromagnetism and quantum theory."

 

The calculations both theories yield may be similar. But surely the theory is more than just the calculations it yields? The stories Newton and Einstein tell us vis-a-vis the nature of space, time, gravity, mass, etc are very different, aren't they?

 

Given that, would you still hold that both theories are true?

@ Klaynos : "If they make equally accurate predictions when compared to the observations you have no choice but to consider then equally good theories."

 

But that wasn't what I asked, naughty boy. Tsk Tsk. I asked do you consider them to be both true?

Anyway, it's bedtime here. It's been fun, guys. And I don't feel quite so hated today

 

Peace and love!

 

Oh and lotsa truth too

 

 

If I have a model and it gives correct results, I might consider it true. As opposed to a model that gives incorrect results. But that's not how you are using the word — that truth means it reflects reality. Further, you are quoting other people, and assuming they are using the word in the way you mean, without investigating the context of its use.

 

Do YOU consider Newtonian gravity to be true? (using your definition)

[billiards]

For me science is about getting to the truth. That does not mean that (the currently favoured) theory is truth.

 

Rather like a map, the map helps us to navigate the complex world and answer specific questions

(how do you get from A to B?) but the map itself is not the complex world.

 

Theory is a bit like a map. Sometimes maps can be plain wrong, but usually they're good for something, even though an objectively better (more accurate map) is possible / exists.

[studiot]

 

Great question about the hole, swansont. Lemme think about that. Dang, no sleep tonight then

 

 

Except that 'the hole question' is my original, though not in this thread.

 

Oh , I forgot, You don't reply to my questions since they are too difficult.

 

Oh and did you give him +1 since it is such a good question?

 

I know I did.

 

Edited October 2, 2015 by studiot

[Reg Prescott]

Mornin' all. It's a brand new day and time to do some more thunkin...

 

Now, first of all, let's be quite honest; as if we didn't have enough ghouls here already, but this new spook - "scientific truth" - was introduced to the party as a rather desperate attempt by Strange to escape from a corner he'd painted himself into (see posts 78 and 80).

 

(I say this not to be mean to Strange or anyone else; I say it because it's TRUE )

 

Now, here's the problem: if, as you claim (incorrectly, if I may be so impertinent), that you regard your theories as nothing more than models, or calculating devices, or instruments, then the term "truth" is misapplied. An instrument or a tool is surely not the kind of beast that can be true or false. We might describe one screwdriver as better than another, or we might append the epithet useful to a power drill, or say that my Samsung Galaxy works better than your hunk of trash, but normal people (dunno 'bout you guys though ) do not go around calling these things true or more truth-like.

 

It struck me later that the concept you've been calling "scientific truth" is that which certain philosophers of science refer to as "empirical adequacy". (note: adequacy is quite a different beast from truth; "adequate" is more akin to good enough). Might we all, please, switch to using the term empirical adequacy instead of scientific truth from now on to avoid confusion between the two "truth"s? Thanks if that's cool.

 

Now, your question for today, boys and girls, is : imagine a case where you have two theories which postulate completely different entities and mechanisms, yet both are perfectly consistent with all available evidence; nay, let's go further and suppose they're consistent with all possible evidence. No observation or experiment can ever tell between them.

 

We can all agree that both theories are empirically adequate to the same degree (i.e. they both work equally well), but how many of you would be willing to bite the bullet and concede that both theories are true? (in the normal sense of true - i.e. corresponds with what is the case in reality)

 

And who among you would prefer to say "We have two theories that are empirically indistinguishable but logically incompatible. One may be true and the other false. Or both may be false. But as a matter of pure logic, both cannot possibly be true."

 

 

P.S. And all idealists are kindly invited to leave. The room's getting cold.

.

.

.

P.P.S. @ - "Oh , I forgot, You don't reply to my questions since they are too difficult." -Studiot

 

Yeah, ask some easier questions, dammit

Edited October 2, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[moth]

Are the complementary states of True and False not a model?
or is Boolean algebra Real?

Edited October 3, 2015 by moth

[Reg Prescott]

is the binary state of True and False not a model?

or is Boolean algebra Real?

 

Sorry, friend, I don't know enough about these things to comment. It would be nice if I had a little back-up here. It feels like me against the world

 

The good news is, though, this seems to be my first successful foray into the quote function. It's not rocket science, after all, eh?

[moth]

We cross posted there, with my edit and your reply to the original post.

It sounds like you are saying models should be classifiable as true or false, but true and fase are models, so which classification does boolean algebra belong to?

[Reg Prescott]

We cross posted there, with my edit and your reply to the original post.

It sounds like you are saying models should be classifiable as true or false, but true and fase are models, so which classification does boolean algebra belong to?

 

Once again, all I can say is I'm not competent to answer that. Bas van Fraassen (and others) write a lot about models -- the so-called semantic view of theories, I believe -- but quite frankly, it gets pretty technical and goes over my head.

 

I don't know if a model can be true or false, I don't even know if scientific theories, or some of them, are best regarded as models. As always. several posters have simply asserted this, but like everything else in the philosophy of science, it's hotly contested.

 

But what we can all agree on, I presume, is that whatever we take our theories to be, we hope that they will generate true observational consequences or predictions. A perfect theory would generate only true predictions, given the proper background assumptions.

 

Therefore, the claim that science has nothing to do with truth seems misguided to say the least.

 

Re : true and false are models - sorry, don't understand that

As for the classification of Boolean algebra : sorry again, pal, ain't got the foggiest.

 

Is there a logician in the house?

Edited October 3, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[moth]

I think all our senses are an instrumentality that collect data, and help us make hopefully accurate models of reality (whatever that is).
Scientific models seem like an extension to our senses that have given us access to places beyond our awareness so we can't say if the models are reality, only that they work to some degree of accuracy.
It is an interesting question but mainstream Physics seems to have decided to shut up and calculate.

[Reg Prescott]

Scientific models seem like an extension to our senses that have given us access to places beyond our awareness so we can't say if the models are reality, only that they work to some degree of accuracy.

 

They work to the extent that they generate (more or less) true predictions. Would you accept that characterization?

 

For example, a theory that generated the (presumably wildly) false prediction that the Earth is 5000 years old would appear not to be working very well.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[moth]

 

They work to the extent that they generate (more or less) true predictions. Would you accept that characterization?

 

For example, a theory that generated the (presumably wildly) false prediction that the Earth is 5000 years old would appear not to be working very well.

 

No, I would say they generate predictions that are more or less accurate.

A model of the Earth popping into existence 5000 years ago is less accurate than a model that says the geological processes on Earth have been going on for billions of years.

Edited October 3, 2015 by moth

[Reg Prescott]

"More accurate" as in...um, closer to the target?

 

What target?

 

Dare I say.... the right answer? ... the true value?

 

* panic breaks out *

 

 

 

Well, I'll be in the lab testing my hypothesis that "all scientists are stubborn as a mule" if you need me.

 

It seems much more accurate than my previous and now largely discredited "most scientists are stubborn as a mule" hypothesis.

 

Edited October 3, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[moth]

is this an "axiom of choice" kind of thing?
if you want to calculate the trajectory to hit Pluto with a rock, a certain degree of accuracy is required. To predict the landing spot on the surface to the nearest millimeter, a different degree of accuracy is required. They are both the right answer.