The Three E's : Evidence, Evolution, and, um, Eggs (Page 2)

Corwin
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
CoIin
CoIin: A Parable

Imre Lakatos constructs the follows scenario in his "Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge" (1970). I emphasize that what follows is fiction. As with all parables, the purpose is to help the listener grasp a concept.

"The story is about an imaginary case of planetary misbehavior. A physicist of the pre-Einsteinian era takes Newton's mechanics and his law of gravitation, (N), the accepted initial conditions, I, and calculates, with their help, the path of a newly discovered small planet, p. But the planet deviates from the calculated path. Does our Newtonian physicist consider that the deviation was forbidden by Newton's theory and therefore that, once established, it refutes the theory N? No. He suggests that there must be a hitherto unknown planet q which perturbs the path of p. He calculates the mass, orbit, etc., of this hypothetical planet and then asks an experimental astronomer to test his hypothesis. The planet q is so small that even the biggest available telescopes cannot possible observe it: the experimental astronomer applies for a research grant to build yet a bigger one. In three years' time the new telescope is ready. Were the unknown planet q to be discovered, it would be hailed as a new victory of Newtonian science. But it is not. Does our scientist abandon Newton's theory and his idea of the perturbing planet? No. He suggests that a cloud of cosmic dust hides the planet from us. He calculates the location and properties of this cloud and asks for a research grant to send up a satellite to test his calculations. Were the satellite's instruments (possibly new ones, based on a little-tested theory) to record the existence of the conjectural cloud, the result would be hailed as an outstanding victory for Newtonian science. But the cloud is not found. Does our scientist abandon Newton's theory, together with the idea of the perturbing planet and the idea of the cloud, which hides it? No. He suggests that there is some magnetic field in that region of the universe, which disturbed the instruments of the satellite. A new satellite is sent up. Were the magnetic field to be found, Newtonians would celebrate a sensational victory. But it is not. Is this regarded as a refutation of Newtonian science? No. Either yet another ingenious auxiliary hypothesis is proposed or . . . the whole story is buried in the dusty volumes of periodicals and the story never mentioned again."




Well, what's the moral of the story? First consider another typical claim often made of Evolutionary Theory:-

(C2) - "Evolutionary Theory has been rigorously tested for 150 years and never found wanting."

What is the appropriate attitude we should adopt to a claim like this? As always, I invite the reader to survey the evidence and decide for herself.

In the story, the planet p exhibits a peculiar path, an observation which in and of itself does not constitute a falsification of Newtonian physics for, as we established earlier in the thread, NO observation falsifies Newtonian physics! The reason we find its orbit puzzling is that given Newtonian physics, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TOTALITY OF OUR BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE AND ASSUMPTIONS, this particular orbit isn't permitted.

I've been debunking the naive FIT/DOESN'T FIT model of evidence to theory and suggesting a more realistic model of routine scientific work whereby scientists take the evidence and MAKE IT FIT the current orthodoxy, and so if the Newtonian theory is to be protected, our fictional scientist must locate the problem in our background knowledge (i.e. the "initial conditions" ). Our entire corpus of background knowledge and assumptions must be re-examined for erroneous or incomplete information. And this is precisely what we see our protagonist do.

The physicist in our narrative above never for one moment questions the truth of Newtonian mechanics. On the contrary, he tenaciously - one might say "dogmatically" - protects it. He proposes hypothesis after hypothesis, in an unabashedly ad hoc fashion, in an attempt to give an account of planet p's puzzling behavior in Newtonian terms. Being the conscientious scientist that he is, and insofar as pragmatic constraints allow, he puts his various hypotheses to the test. In each instance, his hope to confirm his hypothesis and announce a great triumph for Newtonian mechanics is thwarted.

What we see, then, is testing-a-plenty, but the object of the test in each case is not the overarching Newtonian theoretical framework, but rather the 'auxiliary hypotheses' which are advanced with the aim of making the evidence fit the theory.

If these are 'tests' of Newtonian mechanics, then they are tests that can be passed, BUT CANNOT BE FLUNKED.

Even at the very end when our ingenious physicist exhausts his wellspring of hypotheses, there is still no admission that the Newtonian theory has been falsified/refuted/disproven and is to be abandoned. The intractable evidence, i.e. the puzzling path of planet p, is simply shelved.

To repeat once more, Lakatos' parable is pure fiction. But does it bear any resemblance to real world science? Tune in again tomorrow.
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
1
Corwin
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
CoIin
CoIin: After that fictional scerario above, here now are four real world examples (All quotes are from Wiki)

Case (1) - The discovery of the planet Neptune
"By 1846 the planet Uranus had completed nearly one full orbit since its discovery by William Herschel in 1781, and astronomers had detected a series of irregularities in its path which could not be entirely explained by Newton's law of gravitation. These irregularities could, however, be resolved if the gravity of a farther, unknown planet were disturbing its path around the Sun. In 1845 astronomers Urbain Le Verrier in Paris and John Couch Adams in Cambridge separately began calculations to determine the nature and position of such a planet." (... and Neptune was discovered )

Case (2) - The planet Vulcan (no, not Spock's home )
"Vulcan was a small planet proposed to exist in an orbit between Mercury and the Sun. Attempting to explain peculiarities of Mercury's orbit, the 19th-century French mathematician Urbain Le Verrier hypothesized that they were the result of another planet, which he named "Vulcan". A number of reputable investigators became involved in the search for Vulcan, but no such planet was ever found, and the peculiarities in Mercury's orbit have now been explained by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity."

Case (3) - Dark Matter
"Astrophysicists hypothesized dark matter because of discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects and the mass calculated from the "luminous matter" they contain: stars, gas, and dust. It was first postulated by Jan Oort in 1932 to account for the orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way and by Fritz Zwicky in 1933 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. Subsequently, many other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe, including the rotational speeds of galaxies by Vera Rubin in the 1960s–1970s, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and more recently the pattern of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. According to consensus among cosmologists, dark matter is composed primarily of a not yet characterized type of subatomic particle. The search for this particle, by a variety of means, is one of the major efforts in particle physics today."

Case (4) - Dark Energy
"In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate."




Summary :-
In case (1), the behavior of Uranus constituted an embarrassment to the prevailing theory. Scientists did not abandon their theory. Instead, they posited a new planet - Neptune. And found it!

In case (2), the behavior of Mercury constituted an embarrassment to the prevailing theory. Scientists did not abandon their theory. Instead, they posited a new planet - Vulcan. And never found it.

In cases (3) and (4), the behavior of the entire heavens constituted an embarrassment to the prevailing theory. Scientists did not abandon their theory. Instead, they posited dark matter and dark energy which remain hypothetical to this day.

Now, we've already seen that observational evidence can NEVER falsify a theory in any definitive way. Having said that, there's no doubt that certain evidence may sit more easily with a theory than other, what we might call, 'puzzling' or 'awkward' or 'embarrassing' evidence. Puzzling evidence, then, is the worst a theory ever need fear.

In the four cases examined here, established theory is confronted with puzzling evidence. In no case is the theory abandoned. What happens, rather, is that scientists try to fit the awkward evidence into the theoretical framework. In the first instance they succeed spectacularly; in the second they fail (yes, THEY fail - the scientists fail, not the theory); the third and fourth remain open questions.

Now, four swallows do not a summer make. Are the four cases above representative of routine scientific procedure? Is this the norm? Or am I guilty of cherry-picking?

That's for you to decide, dear reader.


P. S. - I keep hearing about theories being 'rigorously tested'. Well, what exactly would it take for a theory to fail a test? Consider Case (1) again: What if the posited planet, Neptune, hadn't been found? Rather than celebrating a spectacular victory, would this have constituted a spectacular failure, sounding the death knell of Newtonian physics? If you're not sure, read Case (2) again
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
Corwin
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
CoIin
CoIin: Intermission : More on that pesky pre-Cambrian rabbit...


"Precambrian rabbits" or "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" are reported to have been among responses given by the biologist J.B.S. Haldane when asked what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory of evolution and the field of study." - Wiki


That scientists and science fans routinely and without embarrassment, nay, even with a certain PRIDE, invoke that famed Precambrian rabbit as proof of the falsifiability, and therefore "scientificness", of evolutionary theory, quite frankly, beggars belief. Let me explain.

Karl Popper proposed the criterion of falsifiability as a necessary condition for scientific claims. On his account, any non-falsifiable claim falls into the realm of metaphysics. A falsifiable claim, on the other hand, may or may not be scientific; falsifiability is a NECESSARY but not sufficient condition. For example, the perennial doomsday prophesies of religious nuts are quite eminently falsifiable, but surely not the kind of beast we'd want to call scientific.

According to Popper, what distinguishes science from pseudoscience is the "boldness" of her claims. Pseudoscience insulates itself with vague claims, unsurprising, humdrum predictions, and refusal to concede refutation even while its claims appear to fail miserably, whereas genuine science makes BOLD claims that actively court refutation. Scientists put their money where their mouth is and their theories on the chopping block.

The Freudians and the Marxists - Popper's favorite targets - would fudge furiously to protect their theoretical systems; systems they themselves labelled scientific, but which Popper took a dim view of. Sir Karl was particulary impressed by the prediction implied by Einstein's new theory of relativity that light is bent by massive objects such as a star, a prediction which attained stunning confirmation in a 1919 solar eclipse expedition to Africa.

A bold claim, then, is the prediction of an event or observation that runs contrary to all our (pre-theoretical) expectations. In other words, a bold claim predicts the occurrence of something no one expects to occur, or conversely, it predicts the non-occurence of something everyone expects to occur. The antithesis of a bold claim is what I will call a cowardly claim.

Einstein's light-bending prediction was bold in the extreme.

The Precambrian rabbit prediction, I submit, is cowardly in the extreme, relegating its advocates to the fog of psuedoscience they condemn with such gusto in others.

No matter what form of evolutionary theory you advocate, or even if you advocate none at all, NO ONE expects a Precambrian rabbit to appear in any unsuspecting paleontologist's basket any more than we expect to see elephants flying, and this expectation has nothing to do with zoological theories! Haldane, Dawkins et al, therefore, are effectively reassuring us that a certain event NO ONE EXPECTS TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE will not happen. But if it DOES happen... well, what? The theory is false? (we've already seen this is incoherent). They'll renounce their theory? (don't hold your breath )

Just for fun, here are my examples of some bold and cowardly claims, or even worse, cowardly claims MASQUERADING as bold claims. Feel free to make up your own.

BOLD
--------
B1 : My meteorological theory predicts it will snow in Bangkok this week. But if it DOESN'T snow, I'll renounce my theory.

B2 : My meteorological theory predicts there will be no snow in Iceland this winter. But if there IS snow, I'll renounce my theory.

B3 : My faith in God is such that I believe allowing myself to be bitten by a rattlesnake will cause me no harm. But if I DO get sick, I'll renounce my faith.


COWARDLY
-----------------
C1 : My meteorological theory predicts there will be no snow in Bangkok this week. But if there IS snow, I'll renounce my theory.

C2 : My meteorological theory predicts it will snow in Iceland this winter. But if it DOESN'T snow, I'll renounce my theory.

C3 : My faith in God is such that He'd never allow unnecessary harm to befall me. But if, say, a tortoise were to fall from a great height onto my head, I'd renounce my faith.

C4 : My astrological calculations convince me that something will happen today. If by any chance I'm wrong, I'll renounce astrology.

C5 : My scientific theory rules out the possibility of a Precambrian rabbit being discovered. But if they do find one, I'll eat it.


I do wonder about that Dawkins chap, you know. What's up, doc?
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
Corwin
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
CoIin
CoIin: .
Idols of the Marketplace (An essay by Francis Eggs)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Why Opium produces sleep: ... Because there is in it a dormitive power.
- Molliere, "Le Malade Imaginere" (1673)

For two or three years...I was a Hegelian. I remember the exact moment during my fourth year [in 1894] when I became one. I had gone out to buy a tin of tobacco, and was going back with it along Trinity Lane, when I suddenly threw it up in the air and exclaimed: "Great God in Boots! – the ontological argument is sound!"
—Bertrand Russell




And then there's Thomas Henry Huxley's famous remark which I've seen adduced on Wireclub in support of Darwinism:-

"My reflection when I first made myself master of the central idea of the Origin [i.e., The Origin Of Species] was, "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that." "



At first blush, Huxley's eureka-like realization of the "rightness" of Darwin's theory appears to provide further testimony to the brilliance of a man and his brainchild. And this may indeed be the case.

But I'd like to suggest for your consideration that Huxley's reaction, instead of adding weight to the Darwinian case, on the contrary may in fact offer us an extremely telling insight into the nature of the Darwinian schema, an insight that gives us good reason to feel suspicious rather than complacent.

Huxley appears to be saying, "My God, it's true! It HAS TO be true!"

In case you haven't sussed the problem yet, if my last supposition is on the mark, this is not good news for Darwinism. It's bad - VERY bad. Anyone sympathic to Darwin wants him to be right, but you most definitely don't want him to be right because he MUST BE right.

Scientific (or empirical) truths are what philosophers call "contingent" truths, which stand in contraposition to "necessary" truths, i.e. propositions that are not only true but HAVE TO BE TRUE.

Examples of necessary truths include:-

2+2=4
All bachelors are unmarried men
A triangle has three sides
People who drink coffee drink coffee.
Those organisms most likely to survive and reproduce are most likely to survive and reproduce.

Necessary truths CANNOT be otherwise. The negation of a necessary truth generates a contradiction, e.g. "People who drink coffee don't drink coffee".


Examples of contingent truths may include:-

Mary has three children
Norman isn't married
The Earth is round
Nothing travels faster than light

Contingent truths CAN be otherwise. It may be the case in our world that Mary has three children and the speed of light constitutes the cosmic speed limit, but it could conceivably have been otherwise. The negation of a contingent truth generates a false proposition, e.g., "The Earth is not round", but no contradiction.

In order to verify a contingent fact or hypothesis, we need to get out there and look. Just thinking about it won't get you there. All scientific theories are supposed to be empirical in this way - they need to be tested against observation. A necessary truth, on the other hand, can be apprehended through reflection alone. There's no need to leave your armchair.

If Thomas Huxley was able to perceive the truth of Darwinian natural selection PURELY BY THINKING ABOUT IT (what happened to testing? ), as his comment above seems to imply, then natural selection is in dire straits.

Consider the following conversation, deliberately exaggerated for effect:-

Fred : Some people say the universe is expanding. Consequently, the universe was denser and hotter in the past. In particular, they suggest that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.82 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei formed within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, thousands of years passed before the first electrically neutral atoms formed.

Sarah : (listens, remains deep in thought for a few minutes, then... )
Great God in boots! They're right!





FAQ : If what you say is right, does that mean natural selection is wrong?

ANS : No. If my speculations are right, then the theory of natural selection is true. It's NECESSARILY true. It's true in the same way that "circles are round" is true. And if this is the case, it tells us absolutely nothing about how the world is!
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
cowpoker
cowpoker: Sorry to back-track here (I realise I'm about a week late coming to the party) but I have a question about something in the very first post. Philosophers get PAID?
9 years ago Report
0
duncan124
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
Corwin
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
duncan124
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
CoIin
CoIin: Cowpoker

Q : How do you get a philosopher off your porch?
Ans : Pay for the pizza.
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: I've had my fair share of disagreements with Wiki over the years, but I can heartily add my imprimatur to the following passage, apparently written by an uncommonly enlightened individual:-



What About A Precambrian Rabbit?
---------------------------------------------

J.B.S. Haldane famously stated that "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" would disprove evolution - and this has been a talking point in philosophy of science for some time. This phrase is reported to be a rebuttal to the accusations that evolution is not falsifiable. However, the reality of disproving evolution in this manner is quite complicated. As science is based on an interplay between theory and evidence a single point of data is not enough to completely destroy a theory - just as much as an excellent theory can't win out against overwhelming data. Such a thing as finding fossilised rabbits wouldn't cause scientists to throw the theory of evolution out completely and immediately, so a little more explanation is needed.

First of all it must be remembered that the fossil record is supporting evidence for evolution. This is contrary to the ideas put forward by creationists that state the gaps in the fossil record prove evolution to be false. If the fossil record simply did not exist it would make no difference to the validity of the theory of evolution - indeed, natural selection was initially formulated without the aid of fossil record, and subsequent DNA evidence can stand completely without it. THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT A SINGLE STRANGE FOSSIL WOULD PROBABLY NOT MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE. In practice, the evidence in the fossil record which supports evolution is so overwhelming that a single fossil would be regarded as curious certainly, but compared to the mountain of evidence in favor of evolution it would probably be regarded as an anomaly while more data was awaited. Imagining the fossil rabbit in the Precambrian as disproving all of natural selection would confuse the specifics of an individual evolutionary pathway with the falsification of the whole theory itself, as mentioned above.

However, the existence of entire groups of anomalous fossils would be a different thing - Haldane did say rabbits after all. Again, IN PRACTICE AN EFFORT WOULD INITIALLY BE MADE TO FIT THE NEW DATA INTO THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK - this is not cheating but SIMPLY THE WAY THAT SCIENCE WORKS. But still, in principle some quite major revisions to the theory may be needed to explain them. Such a situation would not immediately and conclusively prove a special creation over a naturalistic evolution, however, a key point that creation proponents tend to overlook. Eventually, a new theory would develop to include these oddities, but this isn't necessarily a special young Earth creation as this assertion would also require supporting evidence. Perhaps this anomalous group was due to a now extinct second genesis, which would be a remarkable find, but unlikely to disprove evolution outright. Regardless of what it was, this new theory would explain both the evidence we have now and the hypothetical rabbit fossils and would indeed be science fully supported by evidence.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Disproving_evolution
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: In what follows the current body of evolutionary theory will be referred to as the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, or NDS, and in this post I'll put another commonly made claim under the spotlight and torture it. Consider:-


(C3) : NDS is far and away the most explanatorily powerful theory of evolution. No other theory examined comes close.


This claim is customarily followed by a challenge and a poke : "If you've got a better explanation, let's hear it . If not, please STFU."

Back to work then, chaps! Is what C3 claims true? I'd say without a doubt, yes. I'd also add that it's grossly misleading, and I'll try to explain why below.

Mr and Mrs Green have five children. They decided years ago, even before the children were born, that one of their children would be primed for showbiz. For whatever reasons -- manifest natural talent at a young age perhaps -- Tracy was the one selected. Beginning from the age of five, then, the entire resources of the family were channelled into the development of Tracy's performing skills. The finest instructors in the land were hired to provide singing, dancing, acting, music, and even yodelling lessons.

Meanwhile, Tracy's hapless siblings were more or less left to their own devices. They spent their time listening to crap music, destroying public property, and all the things normal youngsters do.

Consider the following claim:-

"Tracy is far and away the most versatile entertainer in the family. None of her siblings comes close to being able to do what Tracy can."

Hold that thought.

As I've been stressing throughout the thread so far, the principal task of what is sometimes called "normal science" consists of fitting or squeezing evidence into a theoretical framework which is taken for granted by the entire community. We've put paid to the myth of evidence falsifying a theory - there is no such thing in any definitive sense. I would venture that ANY observational evidence is consistent with ANY theory, but of course some efforts at reconciliation will be more plausible than others.

When a new theoretical paradigm is established, as NDS was many decades ago, it's likely that a great deal of evidence will naturally sit quite comfortably with the theory -- the theory would never have been adopted in the first place if this were not the case (cf. Tracy's natural talent) -- and little or no "fitting" is required. Well behaved evidence of this type does not demand the scientist's attention.

On the other hand, other evidence is bound to be more "awkward" or "puzzling", at least on first examination. This is the kind of thing that will make an ambitious young scientist excited: the challenge of finding some plausible way of reconciling awkward evidence with the theory. The challenge of "solving a puzzle". The word puzzle is well chosen, as it implies that a solution is there to be found. If you can't finish the Times crossword, that's your problem, pal . Likewise, any failure to reconcile evidence with theory is likely to be regarded as a failure of the scientist and not the theory.

Examples of this kind of "awkward" or "puzzling" evidence for Darwinian evolution are well known and were even recognized by Darwin himself. They include the existence of complex organs like the eye which have to be accounted for in terms of a gradualistic, incremental development, every stage of which is selectively advantageous for the organism; and the presence of so-called "altruistic" behavior in certain organisms. Altruistic behavior by its very definition is that which DECREASES the fitness of an organism and would thus would appear to stand in stark contradiction with Darwin's theory of natural selection. Prima facie, altruism should not exist at all, or else should be eradicated as soon as it does appear through the ruthless winnowing out of natural selection.

Altruism comes about as close as evidence ever can to flat out contradicting a theory!

Scientists have spent many decades exploring ways to reconcile evidence like this with the theory. The plausibility of the explanations thereby advanced is something each of us must judge for ourselves; the point to note here, rather, is that Darwin's theory did not arrive with all of its current explanatory apparatus in tow. These things take decades or longer to unpack. Successful scientific theories like NDS are wonderfully fertile in giving birth to countless research programs of the type described, which in turn lead inevitably to new discoveries and breakthroughs - discoveries which would quite likely be made no matter what theory was top dog, I venture to suggest. Theories DEVELOP. They flourish and grow with time.

So, referring back to our initial claim, (C3), at the top of the post, I trust the fallacy is now obvious.

Yes, it's true what you say that poor, neglected Sally, Tommy, Billy, and Margaret can't do the tango, or project their voice, or play a flawless tremolo on classical guitar, or even yodel, like their sister Tracy can.

But one is tempted to ask : And your point is?
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Science fans keep dangling floating rocks in front of my face . Or, in some versions, the familiar behavior of billiard balls is invoked.

The implication seems to be something like - "Yes, as long as rocks continue to fall to Earth, you know that you can trust science"

Or : "Well, Mr Smarty Pants, if you have any doubts about science, just take a look at billiard balls. We have science to thank for that."

Or : "Anyone who questions the theory of evolution is as delusional as the fellow who expects to see rocks floating up into the sky."


Once again, my confused interlocutor has put the cart before the horse. Now, we surely have many things to thank these nice scientists for, but our knowledge that rocks generally fall to Earth and that billiard balls do what they do is surely not two of them. The phenomenon of rocks falling to Earth is a pre-scientific observation; the kind of already-known fact that scientists ACCOMMODATE in their theories of gravity; i.e. they build their theories around such facts.

We don't need science to tell us that rocks fall to Earth. We all know this without science, thank you very much. Caesar knew this. So did Confucius and Jesus and Buddha. Thag the Neanderthal knew this.

The science fan has no more right to co-opt rocks or billiard balls as a vindication of some theory than does the Creationist:-

"Yes, as long as rocks continue to fall to Earth, you can be sure that Creationism is in good shape"

(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: It is most likely that rocks will keep falling to the centre of the earth but one day, maybe, they will surprise us all and float up beyond the sky. Everything we know is only provisional, waiting to be disproved by a contrary experience. That is what I was told at school.
9 years ago Report
0
thetrollishere
thetrollishere: I see your causing trouble in the forums Colin ...carry on (I shall post an extensive response tomorrow, my beauty sleep awaits).
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Trouble? I think not. I stand here waiting to be refuted. Bring evidence and logic
Or I suppose we could live with a flat Earth
9 years ago Report
0
thetrollishere
thetrollishere: no I wasn't going to refute it, but I was going to add some points and comment. LOL@ flat earth Colin don't kill me
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Never. You're a brilliant lady and I welcome any insights you have.
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: It seems Wireclub members are forever at each other's throats over what constitutes "evidence". The religious poster may claim the evidence for God is all around; the UFO fan will adduce abundant eye-witness testimony as evidence for extraterrestrial visitation; meanwhile the science fan is liable to dismiss both -- and none too graciously either -- while trumpeting the superior virtues of "scientific evidence".

You're not likely to hear him or her explain precisely what that means though.

Well, why all this discord, chaps? Could it be that there's more than one concept of evidence in play? Could it be that this is the case even within the domain of science, which is primarily our concern here? After all, scientists themselves are by no means univocal regarding precisely what counts as evidence. Consider, for example, those entities such as the luminiferous ether, endorsed by the entire scientific community throughout the 19th century, and even hailed by J. C. Maxwell as "the most highly confirmed entity in all science", much as we're often told today of the "overwhelming evidence" for evolutionary theory.

(Although once again, how the rest of us are to know what constitutes "overwhelming evidence" is left unexplained. )

If the ether turns out to be illusory, as is now apparently the case, what are we to say of all that overwhelming evidence? Did these sombre, costive, bearded Victorians have evidence or not? Should we say:-

a). There is good evidence that the ether exists
b). Between 1800 and 1900 (to simplify) there was good evidence that the ether exists. After 1900 there was not.
c). There never was good evidence that the ether exists

Philosopher of science, Peter Achinstein, endeavors to add some clarity to the evidentiary imbroglio. In his highly recommended, if rather dry , "The Book of Evidence", Achinstein reviews and rejects as inadequate previous philosophical explications of evidence (raven paradox ) and identifies the following four concepts of evidence, all of which, he claims, are used by scientists, and more than one of which may be applicable simultaneously.


1. Subjective evidence - If e is believed to constitute evidence for hypothesis h, then it does.

On this construal of evidence, neither h nor even e need be true. All that matters is that e is BELIEVED by some individual or group to be evidence for h. If you think it's evidence, dahlin', then it is. Insofar as scientists believed there was evidence supporting the existence of the ether, between the years 1800 and 1900 there was.

And if e is YOUR evidence, then you believe e constitutes veridical evidence (see below)


2. ES evidence - Given all that is known in a particular context or "epistemic situation", e provides ample justification for a belief in h. Such an interpretation of evidence is objective in the sense that it represents a relationship between evidence and hypothesis based on a given epistemic context, irrespective of whether anyone actually believes e, h, or that e constitutes evidence for h.

Thus, relativized to certain epistemic situations such as that which may have obtained in the 19th century, there is good evidence that the ether exists.


3. Veridical evidence - The real McCoy.

Veridical evidence provides, in Achinstein's terms, "a good reason to believe", to be contrasted with a good justification for belief in the case of ES evidence. Even though both are objective and neither depends on what anyone actually believes, veridical evidence differs importantly from ES evidence in that while 19th century scientists may have been perfectly justified in believing in the ether given all that was known at the time, their ES evidence nonetheless does NOT in fact constitute a good reason to believe. There can be no veridical evidence for the ether hypothesis inasmuch as h is false.

Veridical evidence is analogous to the signs or symptoms of a disease. The presence of a particular rash may provide good reason to believe that the patient has a certain disease, regardless of what anyone knows or doesn't know about such things. Veridical evidence need not be conclusive though. To use Achenstein's own example, evidence that Jones bought 999 tickets in a 1000-ticket (fair) lottery provides a very good, although not conclusive, reason to believe the hypothesis that Jones was the winner. If Jones was not the winner, though, there was no veridical evidence to be had; veridical evidence requires that h be true. Which brings us to...


4. Potential evidence

More modest than veridical evidence. All veridical evidence is potential evidence, but the reverse does not necessarily hold. Like veridical evidence, potential evidence requires that e be true, but unlike veridical evidence, it does not presuppose the truth of h. That rash can constitute potential evidence for the patient having that particular disease, even if it turns out that the patient does not, in fact, have the disease.

While veridical evidence demands that e be the kind of thing that IS a good reason to believe h, potential evidence demands only the e be the kind of thing that CAN BE a good reason to believe h. (If I'm understanding Achinstein correctly)



Hope that's clear. If not, buy the book, dammit, and support Prof Achinstein's upcoming weekend break in Asbury Park, a rare splurge thanks to double-figured book sales.

Talking of the real McCoy... ladies and gentlemen, for you edification, I give you the ineffable voice of Mr Frank Sinatra with the incomparable lyrics of Mr Cole Porter

Is it the good turtle soup? Or merely the mock?

(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: In another thread on evolution in this fine website, posters beat the out of each other over what is, and what is not, "good science" or "true science".

Well, what IS science anyway, and how do we distinguish it from non-science, or metaphysics, or pseudoscience? Is it possible to do this at all? This is the age-old "demarcation problem".

Larry Laudan offers a history of the demarcation problem in his brilliant essay entitled "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem". Anyone interested should be able to read most of it using the link below if I can make it work... (pages 111 - 127)

http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=AEvprSJzv2MC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=laudan+we+live+in+a+society+that+sets+great+store+by+science&source=bl&ots=4z7LS-N8E4&sig=O14J5AHeYYF
9 years ago Report
1
thetrollishere
thetrollishere: Colin:
1)my apologies for the late response: duty calls sir (clients,classes, training etc)-Life got the best of me!
2)you make some very interesting points about society that I would like to comment on.

Ok so to paraphrase the gargantuan text I had prepared, but failed to post ...I do see a trend in the science community and just in general. People have the tendency to pick sides, which I personally don't understand. Life is not black and white. I also think people forget that science is in fact intuitive. That aspect is often overlooked which is fabricated with rigidity. I think real scientists are humble enough to accept their ideas can be refuted and are in fact wrong. Real scientists are open to an evolving theory, an evolving experiment and thus evolution (pun intended ). Science has changed so much over the years,and will continue to do so with the help of reality.
9 years ago Report
1
thetrollishere
thetrollishere: I shall keep posting, I have other things I would like to critique on actually. eg The Precambrian rabbit
9 years ago Report
0