There Are No Quarks : Can You Prove Me Wrong? (Page 4)

xxxWesxxx
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: ...and as far as hypothesis/theory, would you Colin, say that flight is true?
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Hi Wes,

I wrote a little about the observable/unobservable distinction on page 1 - my post beginning "Bourbaki. Glad to have you aboard", paragraph beginning "Well spotted, Bourbaki!"

With regards your video, well, there's no doubt we see SOMETHING. But what exactly is it? I don't deny it might be an electron. Coming from the other side, prudence militates against affirming that it IS an electron.

I read your post in the "Big Bang" thread. I'm afraid you're falling afoul here of the same logical fallacy. Let me try to explain:-

Suppose you have a hypothesis/theory, let's call it H.

In order to test H, you use deduction to derive (in conjunction with various auxiliary assumptions and hypotheses which we'll ignore here for simplicity) certain observational consequences. Call them X, Y and Z.

In other words, we establish the conditional relationship : If H is true then X, Y and Z will be observed. (X, Y, Z might be a streak in a cloud chamber, or detection of cosmic background radiation or whatever)

Subsequently X, Y and Z ARE observed.

At this point we have to be very careful. Some might claim now that your theory has been "confirmed" (this does not mean proven), i.e. it has received a certain degree of inductive support from the evidence. Even this is controversial.

Much worse would be, at this juncture, to declare that your theory is TRUE. This is to commit the fallacy of "affirming the consequent", viz.,

1. If P then Q
2. P
3. therefore Q (this inference is as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar )

But...

1. If P then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P (this inference is fallacious. This is what you're doing.)



Yes, we see something in the video. There is something we can point at and say "Look! It's a... It's a..." Well, what is it?

Similarly, there were people who pointed at old women and said "Look! It's a witch! How can you doubt now?"

Well, did these people see something? Of course they did. Did they see a witch? Apparently not. "Witch", like electron and quark, is a theory-laden term: the theory determines, or partially determines, what we see.


Finally, I'm not sure what you're implying with the question about flight, but it has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that birds, airplanes, and certain superheros (ironically not including Batman) fly, if that's what you mean.

(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: P.S.

@ - "would you Colin, say that flight is true"

In fact, it's hard to even make sense of a question like this. Similarly:-

"This table is true"
"Eating is true"
"Flight is true"
Or as our religious friends are wont to aver - "God is truth"

I'm not sure what these sentences could possibly mean. Isn't truth a property of statements? E.g. the statement...

"Bats can fly"

... might be assigned a value of true or false.

But how can a table or a process be "true"?
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: Yes we see something, and that something is what we call an electron. Now you are arguing semantics, which IS a logical fallacy. You can call it whatever you want, electron, or super duper magical spinning thing that makes electricity, it doesn't matter. It still exists nonetheless.

In order to test for H, you use the scientific method. The scientific method means having to check your hypotheses to make sure they fit with current scientific theories and data for a reason, they work. However, in this particular case, your argument fails horribly, as the very scientific theory that makes the Big Bang a mathematical inevitability does NOT work with the very scientific theory of how electrons and quarks exist. For this reason, physicists are still trying to figure out a unifying theory, such as string theory. The fact that we compare it to what is already known doesn't make it all sheer guess work as you seem adamant on demonstrating. The fundamental flaw in your logic stems from a straw-man fallacy of what science is…and that is simply what science is not: absolute. Science never proves anything. It merely collects empirical data for or against an hypothesis. Thus, while science can disprove things, can never prove them. We can, however, test the accuracy of things, and compare how well it works. Scientific "realism" therefore, as you describe it, is the very pseudoscientific claims you make. Science never claims certainty. It is tentative, and is the best current explanation of the physical world. Mathematics, and the formulas used in science are, therefore, explanations in ways we can understand.

The statement of use of deduction to derive certain observational consequences, therefore, becomes an absolutely wrong statement. This is because science is based primarily on INDUCTIVE reasoning, not deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning means basing the application of evidence to develop reasoning, which is based on probability, NOT certainty. While deductive reasoning, such as the Kalam cosmological argument Blackshoes has used on here for example, claims absolutes, inductive reasoning, such as scientific theories simply don't. The current position of the scientific concept of the Big Bang is simply that it is a mathematical inevitability that follows given the theory of general relativity. It best describes the conditions that led to an expanding universe, and has made accurate predictions. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation was predicted before it was discovered. The cosmological "Wall" that it creates was also predicted before it was discovered, and just this month, gravitational waves, another prediction made by the mathematical formula of the Big Bang, have been shown to exist. When a theory not only fits the available evidence, but predicts the existence of more evidence that, when we seek to find it by means of using the tools predicted to work, we do find it…this tends to lend credibility to the argument.

One of my favourite examples of the concept of theoretical science, is the flight of aircraft. The Wright brothers succeeded in building a machine that, as they theorized, would fly according the the theory of flight. Their predictions were correct, and the theories that explain how the aircraft flies, worked. If not by means of being correct, then YOU are asserting it was all just coincidence.

And so this naturally arises the simple question:

What is more likely, that all of science is wrong, having lucked out in predicting things it actually does not understand, and succeeding in building devices (such as the computer you are reading this on) with absolutely no understanding of how it happened, and you are right….or you simply don't understand, and the scientific method actually works, having successfully developed and predicted the advancement of technology, medicine, and all sorts. Which should we conclude is most probable? (…see what I did there?)




"Similarly, there were people who pointed at old women and said "Look! It's a witch! How can you doubt now?""

Logical fallacy: False analogy. The difference is that the definition of an electron is based on that which is observed in that video. The definition of a witch is not based on that old lady. Thus it is you that is guilty of a logical fallacy, unless we are to apply the same logic for both, in which case we are then saying that a witch is just another word to describe an old lady, and nothing more; in which case she, as an old lady, would be a witch. You can play semantics all you want, it does nothing to take away from the fact that we have observed electrons. Furthermore, we use electrons, which we have observed. Electrons are what make electrical appliances have electricity. Passing electrons from one atom to another is the process that makes your computer work, and having seen them moving in the video, we can conclude as to the claim that we have observed them.

"Finally, I'm not sure what you're implying with the question about flight, but it has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that birds, airplanes, and certain superheros (ironically not including Batman) fly, if that's what you mean."

Which is precisely the answer I would expect from you.

I have no interest in playing pointless philosophical head games about the existence of reality versus the construct of our minds. There is a reason that the mentality you are demonstrating here has not contributed to the advancement of our technology, while the scientific method has.
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: "@ - "would you Colin, say that flight is true"

In fact, it's hard to even make sense of a question like this. Similarly:-

"This table is true"
"Eating is true"
"Flight is true"
Or as our religious friends are wont to aver - "God is truth""

Again, you play mere semantics, and avoid the actual substance of an argument. Is this because you simply cannot comment on the actual argument, or because you enjoy making etymological fallacies out of straw-man fallacies? (Yes, I know formal logic too).

If you truly (see what I did there?) need us to define truth, we can…but I would think that as a functioning human with a relatively decent grasp of the English language, you would know what the word actually means.

Yes or no, do you accept that airplanes fly?
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: xxxWesxxx

I'm not quite sure what prompted such undisguised hostility, nevertheless I'll try to address some of your points below:-

You said - "In order to test for H, you use the scientific method."

The Scientific Method? Um, whose? Yours? Mine? Wikipedia's? Or are you another of those laboring under the misapprehension there is one and only one such beast carved in stone and locked in a vault somewhere? The so-called "scientific method" is a subject that I've investigated in quite some depth. Your own lack of knowledge of the topic is betrayed time and time again in your unremittingly bumptious assertions above. My first piece of advice to you, if you'll allow me, is to actually do a little reading before mounting that high horse again.

I have a thread on the very topic. You're quite welcome to contribute. Perhaps we can both learn something.

Topic: Philosophy


You said - "sheer guess work as you seem adamant on demonstrating"

I've said no such thing. If you believe that, you've misunderstood the anti-realist stance and the entire thread.


You next go on to lecture - "Science never proves anything. It merely collects empirical data for or against an hypothesis. Thus, while science can disprove things, can never prove them."

I see you're also laboring under the illusion of a "logical refutation". Not even Popper, who suggested the criterion of falsifiability in the first place, was quite so naive. You might like to read up on the Duhem-Quine thesis, as well as the primary Popperian sources. In a nutshell, when observation fails to dovetail with theoretical predictions, inasmuch as hypotheses are never tested in splendid isolation, all we can say with certainty is "something has gone wrong somewhere". Logic alone does not tell us how to distribute praise or blame throughout the entire belief nexus, i.e. there is no such thing as a definitive falsification - just as you rightly note, there can be no such thing as a definitive verification - of any general hypothesis.


You said - "Scientific "realism" therefore, as you describe it, is the very pseudoscientific claims you make."

A less than perspicuous remark, which nonetheless suggests to me once more that you've completely misunderstood the thread. But here's a hint : to someone like yourself, the realists are the good guys. It's once again clear that you're lecturing on subjects you have read absolutely nothing about. Why not do some reading on the realism vs anti-realism debate, then perhaps we'll have something of substance to discuss.

As a side note, I'd reiterate here, although I've stated it earlier, obviously in vain, that anti-realism is NOT an anti-science position. Science has always been torn between the competing desires to, on the one hand, stay close to the evidence, while on the other, offer as much in the way of explanatory power as possible. The anti-realist advocates erring on the side of the former lest we find ourselves perpetrating metaphysics instead of science. It's been done before - remember the aether?


You said - "The statement of use of deduction to derive certain observational consequences, therefore, becomes an absolutely wrong statement. This is because science is based primarily on INDUCTIVE reasoning, not deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning means basing the application of evidence to develop reasoning, which is based on probability, NOT certainty."

Ignoring the final sentence which is unintelligible, this section makes painfully evident what I noted earlier, that - and with no offence intended - you are simply not well read on the topic. The particular model of "The Scientific Method" you have lodged between your ears (psst, and there are others, you know) is clearly some form of the hypothetico-deductive model (it's what you'll find in simplistic school books). Here's a quick synopsis of how it goes : as the name suggests, scientists DEDUCE observational consequences from a theory (in conjunction with auxiliary hypotheses), if these consequences are indeed observed then (under some versions) the theory gains a certain degree of confirmation by dint of INDUCTION (a-la Logical Positivism, Carnap, and his "inductive logic" ). Both deduction and induction, then, are necessarily implicated.

Unless, of course, you're a Popperian falsificationist/deductivist (as I see undertones of in your post - a veritable hodgepodge of bits and pieces from all over the place, if I may say) in which case your theory receives NO INDUCTIVE SUPPORT AT ALL from passing a test.

Well, are you a Popperian or not? Make up your mind, please. If not, and if theories are indeed confirmed inductively, would you be kind enough to explain precisely how this is done. What is the "Method"? Thanks.

I could go on and on... but it doesn't seem worth it. Why not do some reading, learn a little humility, and then perhaps we can enjoy a productive discussion.


Oh, P.S. You asked - "Yes or no, do you accept that airplanes fly?"

Yes.
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: P.P.S.

And if you're going to dismiss any of my arguments as "straw men", be good enough to explain why. Otherwise your "straw man" allegations amount to nothing more than "You're wrong! Na na na na na!"

Thanks.

Oh, and during your paroxysm of indignation above, you were so busy pontificating that you neglected to even address the two arguments I presented on page 1 for the anti-realist case.
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: ad hoc, ergo hoc, prompter hoc
(Edited by DEEP_acheleg)
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: just call his strawman criticism a red herring
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: There's no hostility intended. I tend to communicate as objectively as possible. If it comes across as hostile, then I apologize, it is not. However, your comments seem quite directed in that same nature.

The scientific method is the methodology used within the fields of science. This is the method all experiments, reports, university courses, and all of science follow. Yes, there is one method. This method encompasses many techniques. Like all of science, it is tentative and subject to accommodate the newest facts of successful function. This methodology is based on inductive reasoning, by means of observing evidence, in order to formulate predictable models. These models may be used to make predictions of future evidence, or areas of study, but that alone does not mean it is a deductive methodology, as it still requires the first application of evidence and functionality in order to deduce such new fields of study. When these new fields of study are found, they are not merely accepted based on deductive reasoning, they are accepting by inducing them to rigorous scrutiny.

The scientific method is unique in process for several reasons, and the most important, because it works.

When an observation of a known phenomenon is made, the understanding of known science is applied. Mathematical formulas can deduce logical conclusions about this induced observation, but that is not alone what makes it science. Science postulates hypothetical explanations as to how the phenomenon occurs…and then scientists do something unique to only the scientific method: They try to destroy their own hypothesis. Science is only science if it can be falsifiable. To report your observations, and introduce your own hypothesis within the scientific method, you must also include methods of falsifiability - that is to say, you must also consider what it would take to prove your hypothesis wrong. You then must demonstrate that experiments undertaken to destroy your own work were unsuccessful while experiments undertaken to confirm your work were successful. Having accomplished this, your work is ready for peer-review. Entering the peer-review stage does not mean it is objective fact, although it means it is well on its way to becoming such. Once this report is reviewed by other scientists, they attempt to destroy it as well. They tear it apart and look for any mistakes. Having found some, the paper is rejected, and must start over. Having been accepted, the paper is still not considered objective fact. It is then subjected to repeated experiments by experimental scientists. This process takes years to complete…and only after successful application of this method, does your science stand as the highest probability.


Your statement about logical refutation is rather meaningless. You seem adamant on arguing that we both agree about the fact that science is not absolute. What is the point of having an argument about the same point, in order to prove nothing? The claim that "scientific realism", as you describe, is acceptance of what science is, is demonstrably false by your own argument here. Science does not prove anything. It can only disprove.

A great example of this can be seen in the lab of the University of Alberta, palaeontology department that I have studied in. A graduate student did her thesis on the ankylosaur tail to determine if it could have been used as a club for defence (note, her paper was on if the tail COULD have been used). Why was her paper not on proving that it was used for defence? Because that would defy real science, and make it what you seem to think "science" is.

Her work took fossils of the bone tail, to determine bone density, as well as range of movement. She also applied the known science of muscular systems in animals today, and determined the speed of movement. Once she had these calculations, she then ran it through simulations to determine if the bone structure could survive such an impact. Her tests were positive. That means, they survived the impact. Did this prove they use the tail as a weapon in self-defence? No. It merely asserts that it was possible for them to do so. It cannot prove they did use it for such, but it does disprove the idea that they couldn't.

And thus, we see how true science works. It doesn't aim to prove things, but rather disprove things, as well as increase our understanding of how the universe works. It is always compounding, and the more studies we do, the more we know.

To someone like myself, I comprehend the difference between what real scientists say, and what people like you say about real scientists…and that is the difference between real science, and 'scientific realism'.


You continue to comment as to what I have and have not read, yet have not ever seen any evidence nor knowledge to confirm this. Would this not be the very mentality you accuse others of? The issue here isn't with real science…it's with your inability to comprehend your own limitations and fallibility as a human, like all others, and to realize that all of our understanding is thus limited, science, and all. We therefore, cannot conclude anything definitively (as you have done about me time and again, despite criticizing others of doing this while claiming not to).

The issue is not with sticking to the evidence, and with use of explanatory power. The issue is with your inability to comprehend that our explanatory power is a tentative position, for which we aim to understand the evidence as closely as we can, build models and make predictions thereon, and determine their accuracy. Those that prove inaccurate are rejected as false. Those that are accurate, are thusly considered probable and accurately close to the truth. Note, science never claims absolutes…still. Thus science never claims to be a perfect explanation of the evidence without any error or room to expand on. Our understanding, so far as we can today, will always be simply the best we can conclude, given the known evidence.

Unintelligible? So you don't accept the actual terminology of philosophy then? Here's a simple and basic lesson for you:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning


…and yes, I know wikipedia is not perfect…unlike you I comprehend that ALL of reality is subject to misunderstanding of fallible humans. However, this little nugget of information could do you some good, as it gives a rather good generalization and introduction to the topic you so hastily call "unintelligible".




"ere's a quick synopsis of how it goes : as the name suggests, scientists DEDUCE observational consequences from a theory (in conjunction with auxiliary hypotheses), if these consequences are indeed observed then (under some versions) the theory gains a certain degree of confirmation by dint of INDUCTION (a-la Logical Positivism, Carnap, and his "inductive logic" ). Both deduction and induction, then, are necessarily implicated."

Which is just ONE method used within scientific methodology - and by no means the most common. The deduction method has been stated time and again…why you continue to grasp at straws is beyond logic, yet not beyond the ability for anyone to see just how hasty you are in proving the scientific method false (should we suggest a reason or motive to this?). Deducing observational consequences from a theory necessarily requires a theory to exist in the first place…a theory that has been induced by the evidence.



"Well, are you a Popperian or not? Make up your mind, please. If not, and if theories are indeed confirmed inductively, would you be kind enough to explain precisely how this is done. What is the "Method"? Thanks."

It can be done by reading any number of papers on the subject of science. I recommend you stop "educating" yourself with google searches of the philosophy of scientific "realism", and failed psychological analysis of authority figures, for which science has none. Yes, NONE. Instead, use your time to actually learn something of value, such as the real workings of science, and not the hypothetical philosophical possibilities of internet experts on websites. A good place to start is the NCBI. Their database contains all peer-reviewed literature in the field of biology and medicine contained in the USA. Here, you can see first hand how they deduce or induce theoretical explanations of evidence. It's also worth noting that the theoretical science you continually speak of is only one portion of the scientific methodology…a point you seem adamant on defining all of science on, and erroneously at that.


"I could go on and on... but it doesn't seem worth it. Why not do some reading, learn a little humility, and then perhaps we can enjoy a productive discussion"

I have. I suggest you get off the internet and do the same. Try going back to school in these subjects and learning how they actually work for starters.

"Oh, P.S. You asked - "Yes or no, do you accept that airplanes fly?"

Yes. "

And since the machines built to fly were successfully done by theorizing how they would, I guess you even acknowledge the true power of theoretical science. Yes, flight IS a theory.
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: "And if you're going to dismiss any of my arguments as "straw men", be good enough to explain why. Otherwise your "straw man" allegations amount to nothing more than "You're wrong! Na na na na na!""

I have. Try reading what is really written, and not what you'd like. You might understand objective reality a little better that way.



"Oh, and during your paroxysm of indignation above, you were so busy pontificating that you neglected to even address the two arguments I presented on page 1 for the anti-realist case."

Probably because I didn't bother to discuss them. It was YOU that began debating me. I merely asked why you foolishly claimed that we haven't observed electrons when we have…and even shared one video of just that. FYI, the linguistic skills used to communicate tell a lot about the psychology of a person. There is not a psychologist out there that doesn't agree the use of excessive higher vocabulary words within the same sentence or point, demonstrates a deep seeded need for the individual to attempt to convince others of their superior intellect. Ironically, a truly intelligent person is smart enough to know what they know, and thus, doesn't have to prove their intelligence by use of words instead of substance within them. Same goes for the constant "P.S" or "P.P.S" comments (which doesn't follow where you applied it here). Something screams of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: You mean Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: you admit?
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: Admit what?
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: hey, those are your words not mine. i would say that your verbosity would nearly qualify as ad nauseum, or perhaps- merely mental masturbation
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: What words? I have used many on here. If you cannot speak specifically, then it is you that is failing in your argument.
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: succinctly- its not my argument
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: Then why comment at all?
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: i merely lobbed the tomato of logic
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: I hardly noticed any logic.
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: great, we finally discharged the emotions.

it is the emotional attachment to a thesis which leads scientists to cherry pick, and treads the scientific method across the oversight of logical fallacies.

i suggest you take the day off, take a spliff to the head- and i thank you for providing the perfect example.
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: Which is precisely why we have peer-review.
9 years ago Report
0
xxxWesxxx
xxxWesxxx: And your failed logical attempts at a loaded question fallacy are nothing but cherry picking....just FYI
9 years ago Report
0
DEEP_acheleg
DEEP_acheleg: you mean ad concensium/ad authouritarium?
9 years ago Report
0