Scientific testing (split from goal of science)

[Strange]

Who's to say there are not physicists out there who do feel physics, perhaps even if only in certain areas, is attempting to describe reality? (i.e. is attempting to produce theories that are true or approximately so.)

 

I am quite sure there are physicists out there who think that. I'm fairly sure I have made that point myself. People have a rnage of different opinions and beliefs about the work they do.

 

I refuse to believe that biologists regard the germ theory of disease as merely a useful fiction; likewise for geologists and tectonic plates, paleontologists and fossils, evolutionists and natural selection; cosmologists and white dwarves, psychologists and thoughts, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

 

You are the only person claiming that they think that.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Strange

[Reg Prescott]

Well, Strange, after reading your latest paroxysm of backpedaling, I feel obliged to once again remind you of your own claims:

 

 

(i) "Remember, science is not about "truth" but about models that work;" (Strange, post # 5)

(ii) "Science has (almost) nothing to do with "truth", whatever that is. For that you want religion." (Strange, post # 10)

Do you still stand by these claims? Or would you like to amend or withdraw them?

You said these things -- unqualified -- in black and white. Other members may check as they please.

How do you reconcile the following (a) and (b)? :

(a) "I am quite sure there are physicists out there who think that" ...[... they are attempting to produce theories that are true or approximately so] -- you, directly above

with

(b) "Science has (almost) nothing to do with "truth", whatever that is" -- you, post #10

Edited October 9, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[StringJunky]

Looking for Truth is like looking for Absolute Velocity

[Cuba]

Looking for Truth is like looking for Absolute Velocity

 

Yeah, thats what I want... SB give us one compleatly irrufutable truth in our perceived reality. Or better yet explain how you could even go about arguing it?

 

Truth is the domain of religion, as you must have the capacity to beleive in something despite the lack of definitive evidence. At this time, and most likely any time, there is no way to perceive with absolute certainty the nature of the universe. All we can do is give more accurate descriptions of our perceptions.

[StringJunky]

 

Yeah, thats what I want... SB give us one compleatly irrufutable truth in our perceived reality. Or better yet explain how you could even go about arguing it?

 

Truth is the domain of religion, as you must have the capacity to beleive in something despite the lack of definitive evidence. At this time, and most likely any time, there is no way to perceive with absolute certainty the nature of the universe. All we can do is give more accurate descriptions of our perceptions.

Yes. "Truth" is a moving target really.

Edited October 9, 2015 by StringJunky

[Reg Prescott]

For Cuba and StringJunky :

 

"The claim has been thoroughly refuted. Quite obviously, at the very least, some scientists, in some disciplines, in some times and places, feel otherwise. They feel science has a great deal to do with truth. Even if they can't always attain it, or even if they can't know they've attained it, they AIM FOR it; they attempt to afford us with good reasons for believing that our best theories are true, or approximately so."

 

(reproduced from my post # 195)

 

.

.

.

 

According to some accounts (perhaps apocryphal - it doesn't matter) in the 16th century Ponce de León devoted himself to a search for the Fountain of Youth. Needless to say, he never found it. Presumably it does not exist.

 

But do we now want to say "Ponce de León had nothing to do with the (search for the) Fountain of Youth"?

 

 

Or how about this: I believe Einstein in his later years, and many physicists today, engage in a search for a Grand Unified Theory of everything. What if they're all hopelessly mistaken? What if there can be no such theory? Do we really want to say "Einstein had nothing to do with GUT"?

 

(Apologies if my physics is inaccurate. I'm not an expert.)

Edited October 9, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Cuba]

Even if they can't always attain it, or even if they can't know they've attained it, they AIM FOR it; they attempt to afford us with good reasons for believing that our best theories are true, or approximately so.

 

You cant even say that, approximately I mean, without alluding to beleif. There is no way for you to prove a theory about reality is even "approximately" true. Simply for the fact that if you knew you were close you would have some sort of unheard of perception that allows you to gauge your proximity to truth. There is absolutly no evidence supporting this. Even if there was nothing to refute a claim about reality to our knowledge it cannot be a truth nor can it be assumed to be even close! Reality is to scientists like god is to agnostics. I can neither refute nor accept that it is true due to a lack of definitive evidence. I accept the possibility that either may be true or even both.

[Reg Prescott]

 

You cant even say that, approximately I mean, without alluding to beleif. There is no way for you to prove a theory about reality is even "approximately" true. Simply for the fact that if you knew you were close you would have some sort of unheard of perception that allows you to gauge your proximity to truth. There is absolutly no evidence supporting this. Even if there was nothing to refute a claim about reality to our knowledge it cannot be a truth nor can it be assumed to be even close! Reality is to scientists like god is to agnostics. I can neither refute nor accept that it is true due to a lack of definitive evidence. I accept the possibility that either may be true or even both.

 

Once again, metaphysical and epistemic issues are being confused.

 

In order to adopt a realist attitude, scientists don't need to -- indeed cannot -- prove that any given theory is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. This goes for the rest of us riff-raff too; anyone can adopt the realist stance. This is entirely besides the point. What the realist argues is that, at least in some cases, we have good reasons for believing that our best theories are true or approximately so.

 

Even if it turns out that they, and their theories, are hopelessly wrong, it does not negate the fact that they are engaged in an attempt to accurately describe reality; a quest to produce theories that are true or approximately so.

 

In the meantime, why doesn't someone ask a geologist or an evolutionary biologist how she perceives her own research: (i) an attempt to produce models which are of instrumental value but do not purport to describe reality (natural selection is just a useful fiction), or (ii) get the world right.

 

There is no way for you to prove a theory about reality is even "approximately" true.

 

Sorry, this is just your personal opinion -- to which you are eminently entitled -- but not everyone agrees. Many feel we do have sufficient epistemic warrant for believing our best theories approximate the way things really are; that the entities and mechanisms posited within actually do exist.

 

The realist vs antirealist debate continues as we speak...

Edited October 9, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Cuba]

Really thats all I wanted to see, an admission that its a belief. You can have all the opinions you want, it will not give strength to a logical statement however. My stance is that I cannot prove it either way, which is in fact a true logical statement.

 

Edit:

I cannot prove reality exists

Nor can I prove reality does not exist

Therefore reality (truth) may or may not exist

 

Is there a fallacy in that?

Edited October 9, 2015 by Cuba

[Reg Prescott]

 

There is absolutly no evidence supporting this.

 

See my post on Inference to the Best Explanation (post # 182). This is the evidence that the realist might appeal to: (This is the realist speaking now) Why should we believe the Darwinian theory of natural selection is true? Ans: Because it is not only consistent with the data (as other hypotheses may be) but it explains the data better than any rival.

 

The "God-did-it" hypothesis is perfectly consistent with the data too (no contradictions are generated), but I daresay most of you here feel it does not explain the data as well as natural selection, and thus, is less likely to be true.

 

Really thats all I wanted to see, an admission that its a belief. You can have all the opinions you want, it will not give strength to a logical statement however. My stance is that I cannot prove it either way, which is in fact a true logical statement.

 

Dude, it's already universally conceded by all present, I believe, that a general theory cannot be proven, at least not in any logically compelling sense. This has never been the issue.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Cuba]

 

Dude, it's already universally conceded by all present, I believe, that a general theory cannot be proven, at least not in any logically compelling sense. This has never been the issue.

Then why beat a dead horse? The point is we cant prove it so we do the next best thing, observe and describe that which we perceive. Its pointless to chase truth, it will not change actions, nor will it change how we perceive them.

[Reg Prescott]

Then why beat a dead horse? The point is we cant prove it so we do the next best thing, observe and describe that which we perceive. Its pointless to chase truth, it will not change actions, nor will it change how we perceive them.

 

Well, tell that to your children next time they ask, "Daddy, is it true that smoking causes cancer?"

 

Has it been logically demonstrated? Ans: Nope

 

Do we have good reasons for believing it to be a true statement? Ans: I'd say so.

 

How about you?

"Then why beat a dead horse?"

 

But yeah, it's a philosophical question; a question of epistemology; a question of what is the appropriate stance to take vis-à-vis scientific theories.

 

Beat a dead horse? Um, coz it's raining outside.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Cuba]

 

Well, tell that to your children next time they ask, "Daddy, is it true that smoking causes cancer?"

 

 

I would tell them yes, as peceptions have in impact on how we live our lives. That is interaction, which is not defining the truth of reality.

[Reg Prescott]

 

 

I would tell them yes, as peceptions have in impact on how we live our lives. That is interaction, which is not defining the truth of reality.

 

re: smoking causing cancer

 

I'd humbly suggest that many scientists -- as well as the rest of we hooligans -- take that causal relationship (which is, of course, unobserveable) to be very real.

 

I suspect they'd also be happy to explain the causal mechanism to you at some length.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Cuba]

 

re: smoking causing cancer

 

I'd humbly suggest that many scientists -- as well as the rest of we hooligans -- take that causal relationship (which is, of course, unobserveable) to be very real.

 

I suspect they'd also be happy to explain the causal mechanism to you at some length.

 

Are you saying that science can be socially defined as true? I'm confused. I'm a recovering hooligan, spent too much time away from what I love, logical argumentation.

[Reg Prescott]

 

Are you saying that science can be socially defined as true? I'm confused. I'm a recovering hooligan, spent too much time away from what I love, logical argumentation.

 

Erm, I don't even know what that means. What I'm doing right now is defending the scientific realist position; viz., that at least in some cases, we have good reasons for believing that our best theories are true, or approximately so; that they should be interpreted as purporting to describe reality, not interpreted as merely instruments, or calculating devices, or useful fictions, or models that have no bearing on the way things really are out there.

 

To be quite frank, I don't have any strong opinions on these matters, nor do I see any need to adopt any particular position, on the grounds that I'm...um, insignificant. Early in this thread, though, I took up the realist cause to refute the manifestly absurd claim that "science has (almost) nothing to do with truth".

Edited October 9, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Scott Mayers]

Scientists don't need to -- indeed, perhaps cannot -- prove that any given theory is true beyond a shadow of a doubt to adopt a realist attitude. This goes for the rest of us riff-raff too; anyone can adopt the realist stance. This is entirely besides the point. What the realist argues is that, at least in some cases, we have good reasons for believing that our best theories are true or approximately so.

 

"Truth" in context to most scientist are trained to interpret this as "opinion" by how philosophy would defer to it. In contrast, a "fact" to both the scientist and philosopher (most of us) assume it as a contingent reality interpreted locally through our experience. However there are some distinctions I still don't follow with the way language is being purposely isolated in the teaching of science.

 

So if it helps for others lacking an understanding, the philosophical interpretation of "truth" is a value assignment that maps to a similar understanding of reality. I can only guess that the losses in translation may be due to how 'truth' can reference either the value of 'facts' with regards to nature (a perfect or ideal observer) or the relative 'facts' based upon the individual. From what I see, many in the support of the paradigm of practice over philosophical analysis treats "truth" as an over-abused synonym in competition with those extremes in religion who misappropriate the term "truth" as "The Truth " as a reference to their fundamental beliefs. Those of us from the background of self-motivated learning often begin with the historical tradition to learn and so default to learning how the original terms evolved through history. It is easier when you are learning by your own impetus to begin with a foundation and work your way up to understanding how something can be understood.

 

Institutional learning turns the table around by advancing students who can learn quick and maintain memory on a short-term to medium basis with practical result. It is still a 'good' way to learn by some but only in a different way. I'm at least glad to know that I can relate better with the actual historical figures in science or elsewhere who were just as self-motivated up front and resisted authority. It's something that is rarer these days except for those utilizing the internet to such effectiveness to learn on their own internal curiosity.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[Cuba]

Well statements like "smoking can lead to cancer" are considered true. Its the physicists that are going to argue with you when you start applying statements to reality (which is what they define as truth.) I think the source of this whole arguement is a misunderstanding of the definition of truth to different fields.

 

The reason I was confused is when you say casual I automaticly think of it socially.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Cuba

[Scott Mayers]

On the concept of "testing" as an internal function of the method, I do not think applies to the fringe areas of sciences, cosmology nor atomic physics. While they contain a great deal of some of the most costly of experiments, they are still mostly of a "Natural Philosophy" stage. The general scientific method is best for the practices of science in the middle. You cannot 'test' or 'retest' the Cosmic Background Radiation. In the exact opposite, the Atomic nature of method is a statistical one and uses destructive means to try to piece the puzzles together in high uncertainty. So most of the theories of authorities within them are not that far away from speculators as to interpretation.

 

Also the fact that Relativity contrasts with QM is the largest example of how the inconsistencies between the two demonstrate how science as a whole resists the tentative nature they are supposedly claiming to endorse.

 

I read one comment in this thread by one asserting a clear acceptance of a liberally conservative interpretation. That we should "conserve" or resist changes helps science is not true in all divergent areas of science. "Predictability" to me is a renewed interest in Prophecy of religion too. They are supportive but not necessary. Especially if certainty (trying to evade the 'truthiness' word) is disdained anyways. There really are some absolute truths as well as fuzzy ones. Why absolution should be traded for prioritizing 'fuzziness' is even odder to me. It says, "Let's all agree to be hopelessly uncertain. Truth to you is False to me and we are both always right and wrong at the same time." Hmmm, reminds me of "God is love is beauty is you and me and hate and fire and ... X = Y = Z" It comes across as embracing obscurity in contradiction to precision at the same time without being certain when or where to take one meaning serious over another.

Well statements like "smoking can lead to cancer" are considered true. Its the physicists that are going to argue with you when you start applying statements to reality (which is what they define as truth.) I think the source of this whole arguement is a misunderstanding of the definition of truth to different fields.

 

The reason I was confused is when you say casual I automaticly think of it socially.

 

 

Long exposure to a life addicted to Dihydrogen Monoxide also leads to certain death...... In fact, I'd say more that smoking victims!

Edited October 9, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[Klaynos]

Good to see that this thread hasn't moved forward. We're still discussing the fact you can never tell how true a theory is and SB is still confusing concepts such as communication of science with non scientists and what scientist are actually doing. The kids asking, or non scientists, saying it's the most consistent with the evidence is the best we can do but unless you work in science or gave a good science education you might not understand why this us the best and start harping on about truth. Which it then turns out after pages of discussion you can't measure truth anyway.

[Cuba]

Good to see that this thread hasn't moved forward. We're still discussing the fact you can never tell how true a theory is and SB is still confusing concepts such as communication of science with non scientists and what scientist are actually doing. The kids asking, or non scientists, saying it's the most consistent with the evidence is the best we can do but unless you work in science or gave a good science education you might not understand why this us the best and start harping on about truth. Which it then turns out after pages of discussion you can't measure truth anyway.

Good to know someone else sees the circular patturn of this argument. I guess its time to leave at that...mic drop.

[Scott Mayers]

Good to see that this thread hasn't moved forward. We're still discussing the fact you can never tell how true a theory is and SB is still confusing concepts such as communication of science with non scientists and what scientist are actually doing. The kids asking, or non scientists, saying it's the most consistent with the evidence is the best we can do but unless you work in science or gave a good science education you might not understand why this us the best and start harping on about truth. Which it then turns out after pages of discussion you can't measure truth anyway.

You don't think the investment in the cost and time expended in a degree or more contributes to how much one gets biased to conform to any standards taught if they get that far. It certainly happens to us all. But do you think one who goes through such an institute has more to risk that might lead to potential abuses?

 

Are ALL 'scientists' equivalent in particular quality of education? to respect to whether they are a 59% average student or a 99% one? to the nature of their undergraduate degrees? to the particular mastery, to their internal motives, or to their actual contributions in a PhD? etc, etc, etc...

 

Wouldn't one 'educated' in such an extensive education require the capacity to have the training to adapt such that they could also use such skills to communicate effectively to the lay person or even a child with respect?

 

Do politics play a role in how one succeeds or not? The quality of education or the money one has to afford such an education?

 

To move forward means trying to understand the meaning of 'truth' as it relates to different people among other terms or concepts. So take this post as adding new other ideas to question if you like. If you read what I wrote on the terms, does this add value to the conversation? Do you agree or can you propose some other terms to include all of the different meanings (without exclusion of the other's suggested meanings)?

[Reg Prescott]

Good to see that this thread hasn't moved forward. We're still discussing the fact you can never tell how true a theory is and SB is still confusing concepts such as communication of science with non scientists and what scientist are actually doing. The kids asking, or non scientists, saying it's the most consistent with the evidence is the best we can do but unless you work in science or gave a good science education you might not understand why this us the best and start harping on about truth. Which it then turns out after pages of discussion you can't measure truth anyway.

 

With no disrespect intended, your post above makes very clear you have utterly failed to grasp the issues.

 

That goes for certain other posters too, and THAT is why the thread hasn't moved forward, if indeed it hasn't (although I'm inclined to agree with you).

 

This is very frustrating. Basic issues in philosophy, such as the distinction between semantics (questions of truth), metaphysics (questions of reality), and epistemology (questions of knowledge) continue to be conflated with disastrous consequences.

 

I said earlier in the thread: if you spoke hard-core physics to me, it would doubtless go over my head. The reverse is happening here: those trained in science repeatedly fall into the same philosophical muddles.

 

The only difference is, I can easily imagine being in a state where I'm unable to comprehend, or even worse, think I comprehend but don't. Certain other posters evidently cannot. A little intellectual humility might go a long way.

 

Please don't lay your own failure to understand at my doorstep. Thank you!

 

My only suggestion is for you to do a little reading in the relevant areas. Judging by your posts, I gather you've done none whatsoever. Right?

Edited October 9, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Klaynos]

By science education I do not necessarily mean undergraduate studies in this context. I think this should be something taught through general education. It doesn't seen to be though.

 

Communicating effectively requires you to know how the audience will interoperate your words, you cannot provide ask if the information required to understand since concepts in second that's why people study then for their entire lives.

 

I do think in this thread what's leaving is a good definition of truth and how you can test against it. I agree.

[Reg Prescott]

I do think in this thread what's leaving is a good definition of truth and how you can test against it. I agree.

 

No, sorry. We've covered this already -- more than once. See earlier in the thread, or do your own research on the correspondence theory of truth. Or propose one of your own.