There Are No Quarks : Can You Prove Me Wrong? (Page 6) DEEP_acheleg: i favor gravity wells, as first proposed. i guess that is an emotional involvement; however, i am not married to it  CoIin: Wes What I suspected from the moment of your opening posts has been confirmed : further discussion with you will be pointless. I'll try to explain briefly why. The following remarks are not intended to be offensive. My purpose in initiating a discussion such as this one is a genuine desire to learn; not to "win". Winning a debate is a matter of no interest to me. I'm delighted to engage posters who I might be able to learn something from. I don't see that this will happen in your case. You've made it clear time and time again throughout your posts that you KNOW what "real science" is, and I don't. Well, you're half right anyway: the latter is certainly true. I don't know what science is. I don't think anyone knows what "real science" is. Philosophy of science is the attempt to find an answer to this question, or at least to clarify the issues - what IS the essence of science; what IS "the scientific method", if indeed there is such a thing at all. I enjoy reading on the topic, and do so at some length in an effort to consolidate my own limited understanding; a burden that the already enlightened needn't encumber themselves with. The following epiphany from yourself leaves the chastised reader with no room for doubt:- "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'. " (And by the way, you clearly have still not grasped the concept of scientific realism. Not that not knowing what it is has deterred you from adjudicating  )I do not intend to waste my time dissecting your posts which are, quite frankly, embarrassingly naive and ill-informed, not to mention condescending (thanks for the Wiki link to Inductive Reasoning ), only to be dismissed here there and everywhere in a quite predictable, formulaic, and... well, boring manner : "Beep! Logical Fallacy #419. You're wrong!" ad nauseum. You're a young man, apparently intelligent. Lack of knowledge in itself is no crime. Coupled with a self-righteous assertiveness, though, it becomes simply obnoxious; an obnoxiousness exemplified by the usual suspects in the Religion Forum who also, like yourself, "know" a great deal, and are thereby largely obviated the onerous task of humble study and re-evaluation of beliefs already held. You'll scoff, of course, but you actually share much in common with the religious folks. You're RELIGIOUS about science, Wes. You know the TRUTH! And that ain't good - in my opinion, I hasten to add. Apart from some pro bono analysis of my apparently beleaguered psychological condition (for which we thank you once more) you've done little but talk down to me and other posters since your bellicose debut in the thread a few pages ago. Now, I don't mind being talked down to by chickens higher up the pecking order, so to speak. I'm surely wrong on many things and will owe a sincere debt of gratitude to any man or woman who sets me straight. In this case, however, I'm being lectured to on "The Scientific Method", induction, the scientific realism vs anti-realism debate, and philosophy of science in general, topics close to my own heart but that I'd be willing to bet handsomely on that our guest lecturer, who has still not even figured out what realism/anti-realism is, HAS NOT READ A SINGLE BOOK ABOUT IN HIS LIFE! Am I wrong? It's happened before. And it's tiresome. Finally, Wes, you've emphasized time and time again that science is a fallible business. We can agree on this much. Science never proves anything, you say. Why is it, then, that high dudgeon was provoked when I recommended circumspection; that what we're seeing in that initial video of yours might not be an electron; that electrons, like the aether and phlogiston, may eventually turn out to have no objective existence at all? Why is it impossible for you to be wrong about this? Why MUST it be an electron? After all, what can we say with certainty about a blip on a radar screen? - that it's a blip on a radar screen. You could, of course, define electron as "that which is detected by my electron detector". In which case, you really can't go far wrong, can you? (Edited by CoIin) CoIin: A thought I offer up to all for consideration (and who knows, there might even be a lesson in it somewhere)... Somewhere on page 4 Wes informs us: "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." Well, whether Wes knows it or not, this is the ghostly voice of Karl Popper (yes, him again! ) calling to us from beyond the grave. There's doubtless a great deal for which we ought to thank Prof. Popper. He has much to answer for too, I'm afraid. I've often read or heard the above insight. Perhaps you have too. Clearly Wes has. Its influence is as hard to escape as its appeal is to deny - "This is what distinguishes science from pseudo-science. This is our DEMARCATION CRITERION." Now, wouldn't that be a nice thing to have? (and we could all know what "real science" is  )And indeed, Wes follows up immediately with : "Science is only science if it can be falsifiable." [sic] Well, perhaps so. But it behooves us to remember this was just one man's criterion of "scientificness". Other men have offered others. There's no shortage of candidates. In particular here, though, I'd invite the reader to consider the "They try to destroy their own hypothesis" part. Now, it's very easy to read this, or hear this, especially if it's found in what the reader deems a "reliable source", then obediently and unquestioningly commit it to memory, and finally retrieve it under appropriate circumstances for the edification of benighted souls. Just as Wes has done here. But I'd suggest that during this mechanical process, he's made a mistake that we've all made before. He's forgotten to do something very important. He's forgotten to pause and ask himself : "Is it true?" or "Hey, wait a minute! Is this really plausible?" I recall philosopher Imre Lakatos' quip on this very Popperian doctrine, which I can only paraphrase from memory : "Do you know any scientist who wants to see his theory falsified?" Let the people vote again.  Or better still, get out the history books and see if this IS what scientists unfailingly do. Could this really be "The Scientific Method?" Some readers might recall Einstein, for example, conjuring up an unabashedly ad hoc "cosmological constant" for his relativity theory precisely to RESIST falsification.  I've written about this at some length in my Scientific Method thread. When evidence is at odds with theoretical predictions, is it really the case that the theory gets unceremoniously dumped as the "naive falsificationist" would have us believe? Just like that? Obviously not. Any number of strategies might be adopted. The theory/hypothesis, especially a young one, might indeed be regarded as falsified and rejected. On the other hand, the evidence might be denied, or an ad hoc hypothesis might be devised to accommodate the recalcitrant data, or the intractable evidence might simply be left "on the back burner" - what Kuhn refers to as an "anomaly". (Newtonian mechanics was retained despite prima facie falsifying evidence, e.g. the anomalous orbit of Mercury). And no matter what, history testifies that a major theory is almost never, if ever, abandoned until an alternative presents itself. Well, then, is there any way to know what will happen in any particular case? In short, is there any METHOD to all this? The most charitable answer I can suggest is "not obviously". (Edited by CoIin) bangalactic: Inability to disprove does not prove. Sometimes it is mistaken for an argument from ignorance, which is non-proof and a logical fallacy CoIin: Clarification of Key Concepts ---------------------------------------------- Recent events in this (and other) threads make clear that the philosophical schools of scientific realism and anti-realism advanced within, as well as my own attitudes on the subject, have been profoundly misunderstood. Not for the first time, an alarming degree of acrimony has been inspired in a fellow Wireclub member, and insofar as the core concepts of the thread have not been successfully received, I must shoulder at least partial responsibility. What follows is an attempt to rectify the situation. I'll endeavor to be as clear and concise (not easy) as I possibly can so that YOU, oh darling reader, can, at the very least, gain an understanding of what's involved without necessarily adopting one or the other position. First and foremost, neither realism nor anti-realism is an anti-science position. Let me be quite emphatic that I am not anti-science! It pains me to even have to announce this once again as I thought it would have been obvious enough from my posts. Evidently I was wrong. We are all the beneficiaries of the fruits of science - modern medicine, computers, sex toys, and all the rest - myself as much as anyone else, and we should be thankful for them. Enough said! Back to business... What scientific realists and anti-realists disagree about is not whether science is good or bad (that's irrelevant) or whether science works (that's universally conceded), but rather in the proper attitude to adopt vis-a-vis scientific theories: should they be interpreted literally or non-literally? On page one, I offered the example of an economic theory containing talk of "the average taxpayer". I presume we can all agree that this must not be interpreted literally; it would be inappropriate, foolish even, to commit ourselves to a belief in the real existence of such an entity. Likewise, Newtonian physics makes reference to "point masses" but surely Newton himself nor anyone else imagined that point masses correspond to anything real in our solar system. First then, let's see if we can find common ground with what I'll call the Principle of Sufficient Justification (PSJ): PSJ : In science we should only believe that which the relevant evidence gives us sufficient warrant to believe Everyone happy so far? Cool!  Next, let's consider the parable of planet Vulcan and the development of its science. Vulcan, like Earth, suffers from frequent natural disasters: earthquakes, typhoons, tsunamis, tornados, and so forth. It would be enormously helpful to be able to accurately predict the occurrance of these events. Vulcan science, then, in its more primitive instantiation begins by identifying regularities in nature and making simple "more-of-the-same" inferences. If, for example, historical records from the past few centuries indicate that a major earthquake has occurred every 50 years in a particular area, say Spockland, Vulcan scientists extrapolate to a general law or theory stipulating "There is a major earthquake every 50 years in Spockland". (T1) (We pause to note here that our EVIDENCE in this case is constituted by the meagre records of several earthquakes in recent history. T1, however, makes a universal claim - a claim for all time; past, present and future. We should be aware that T1, a rather puny theory by scientific standards, already goes far, far beyond the evidence.) Vulcan science develops and Vulcan scientists get better at what they do. Subsequently, they discover that by going behind the scenes from what is observable, and postulating unobservable entities, say Bings, Bongs, and Bungs, they are able to produce a theory (T2) of greater predictive power and accuracy. They are even able to unify disparate phenomena (earthquakes and typhoons, say) under one theory in this way. (We pause here once again to stress that Bings, Bongs, and Bungs have never been observed. Inasmuch as Bings and Bongs are supposedly non-material entities (cf. forces and fields), they are not even observable IN PRINCIPLE. Bungs, meanwhile, are supposedly material entities (cf. quarks), but are so unimaginably small that direct observation seems out of the question too.) The people of Vulcan are, quite rightly, extremely grateful. Many lives have been saved thanks to the predictive power of the theory. Everyone agrees that theory T2 works exceptionally well - it is a SUCCESSFUL theory. The Vulcan scientists and philosophers are divided however. The anti-realists among them claim that the proper scientific attitude is to avail ourselves of the instrumental value of the theory, but not to take too seriously the unobservable entities postulated within - they should be regarded as no more than useful fictions. T2 helps us by yielding useful and accurate predictions about potential disasters at various times and places. This is enough. This is already to go far beyond the evidence. We should stay as close to the evidence as possible, and all evidence for the anti-realist is observational. The realists, on the other hand, assert that Bings, Bongs and Bungs, even though never having been observed, exist just as described in the theories. Their main argument for this is that T2 is so successful - it yields predictions accurate to such a high degree - that the only possible explanation is that the three B's really do exist. It would be a miracle otherwise!  This is the "miracle argument" for scientific realism (see page 1). The realist is likely to challenge the anti-realist "If B, B & B don't exist, how else could we possibly explain the success of T2? DO YOU HAVE A BETTER EXPLANATION???"  (And sure enough, xxxWesxxx challenges me in the Big Bang Theory thread - " Premise 2., has absolutely zero reasoning to be entertained. Can you explain how, not only the prediction of a Cosmic Microwave Background itself, was true, but how scientists were able to calculate out the various requirements for variations in density and temperature within it? It wasn't just that some photos were taken of bright light, or some noise heard on a radio. These predictions were completely accurate to only one explanation, and that is the state of the CMB as per a big bang inflation. Can you even explain what that means?" ) The Miracle Argument is superficially compelling, at least until subjected to scrutiny. My own personal belief is that the arguments for anti-realism are even more compelling. Let me remind you of our PSJ from above. The anti-realist resists a realist interpretation of scientific theories because he insists that IT IS NOT WARRANTED BY THE EVIDENCE. The anti-realist maintains that the job of science is just to systematize the phenomena; to anticipate nature; not to perpetrate metaphysics! And he has two primary arguments to support his view (see also page 1). 1. Underdetermination of theories by evidence It's crucial to understand that scientific theories, at least those containing unobservables, are not DERIVED from evidence. A given body of evidence or data does not lead uniquely or inevitably to any particular theory. (In logical terminology, the evidence does not ENTAIL the theory). According to the underdetermination argument, any given body of evidence can be accommodated by a multitude of equally adequate but logically incompatible theories, and so earthquake and typhoon behavior on Vulcan, for example, might be described just as well by countless theories that make no mention of Bings, Bongs and Bungs. And the same applies to any of our Earthling scientific theories you'd care to mention - relativity, quantum theory, the Big Bang, etc, etc. Looked at this way, it would be something of a miracle if the T2 theory actually WAS the true one, and by extension, that Bings, Bongs and Bungs really do exist. We may only have one theory right now (T2). That doesn't mean it's the only one that can be found. 2. Pessimistic Induction In response to the Vulcan realist's challenge, the anti-realist will ask, "Do you remember that theory we had about tsunamis a few years ago?" The tsunami theory was also very successful; the tsunami theory also yielded accurate predictions; the tsunami theory also contained unobservable entites (Slargs and Slergs) WHICH WE ARE NOW TOLD DO NOT EXIST! Yes, it's happened before here on Earth. Many times. This is not idle philosophical speculation. We already KNOW as a matter of incontrovertible historical fact that a scientific theory can be very successful and yield accurate predictions WHILE MAKING REFERENCE TO ENTITIES WHICH ARE NOTHING MORE THAN FIGMENTS OF THE SCIENTISTS' IMAGINATION! To sum up. Why am I an anti-realist? Ans : Science is in the knowledge business; a responsibility it should not take lightly. Unjustifiable claims to knowledge must be rejected. In my opinion, there are insufficient grounds to support a realist interpretation of scientific theories. The realist makes what I believe to be an unwarranted inference from the success of a theory to its "Truth", that is, the reality of the metaphysical architecture and furniture postulated by the theory. Realism, I submit, constitutes a violation of science's putative commitment to empiricism. I noted earlier that even an anti-realist stance commits one to going far, far beyond all the available evidence. Be aware that the realist stance not only goes far, far beyond all the available evidence, but far, far beyond ALL POSSIBLE EVIDENCE! (Edited by CoIin) CoIin: Has anyone tried acupuncture before? My own experience with it is very limited, but for the sake of argument let's suppose that Jack and Jill have been for acupuncture treatment 20 times each. As a consequence, their chronic headaches (a result of broken crowns) have been relieved, their back pain has abated, Jack's erectile dysfunction no longer troubles him, and Jill's haemorrhoids have shrunk. How do you think they'd answer if we asked them, "Are you anti-acupuncture?"  No, they're both thrilled with the results. Acupuncture works!  Jack and Jill do disagree, however, over the theoretical aspects of the treatment. Jack, although happy to avail himself of the practical benefits, and perfectly willing to acknowledge the efficacy of the treatment - "they've surely latched onto SOMETHING" - remains skeptical with regards talk of "chi" and "meridians" and all the rest. "Well, it might be true I suppose, but it's all unproveable metaphysics. It does the job and that's all that matters. And anyway, what do I stand to gain by committing myself? Call me an agnostic."  Jill, on the other hand, is adamant that the theory must be true. How else can we possibly explain the remarkable success of the treatment unless chi is real? Jack, then, is an acupunctural anti-realist; Jill a realist. And still very much in love.  (Edited by CoIin) CoIin: Allow me to begin with humblest apologies for introducing a non-standard term. Everyone, say hi to Mr Homunculus. "The term homunculus is Latin for “little man.” [...] In the history of embryology, the homunculus was part of the Enlightenment-era theory of generation called preformationism. The homunculus was the fully formed individual that existed within the germ cell of one of its parents prior to fertilization and would grow in size during gestation until ready to be born." http://embryo.asu.edu/pages/homunculus Keep Mr Homunculus in mind. We shall return to him shortly... At the top of page 4 of this thread, a video purportedly showing an electron has been posted. And indeed, when circumstances permit, the theoretical entity realist, whether of the witch variety or the electron variety, is liable to gesticulate excitedly : "Look! There's one!" As I pointed out in my response, the cautious anti-realist may ask : "There's one WHAT?" Poster of said video, xxxWesxxx, was none too impressed with this exhortation to prudence : "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." [page 4] Anti-realist, Bas Van Fraassen, elaborates on the problem confronting us here:- "Realist objection 3 : Theoretical entities and processes tend to become observable, and join the phenomena, soon after their original postulation: for example, germs and viruses." Van Fraassen : Which objection I counter by noting the equally regrettable tendency of theoretical entities to go out of existence altogether soon after they are observed. Whose electron did Millikan observe; Lorentz's, Rutherford's, Bohr's, or Schrodinger's? A good example are also the "homunculi" : when van Leeuwenhoek examined his semen under the new microscope, he saw these postulated fully formed little humans swimming around. Not only that, his friends (all male) saw them too." "You stoopid or something, boy? OF COURSE homunculi exist. We can SEE them, for crissakes! Look! There's one!" (Edited by CoIin)  Bourbaki: It's very possible to logically prove a negative. The negation of a statement is an involution so you're saying it's impossible to prove anything. Hopefully, what you mean it that it's scientifically impossible to truly prove a theory via evidence. CoIin: I'm with Bourbaki on this. I often hear the bizarre mantra "One cannot prove a negative" and am left wondering what exactly is being claimed. Consider the following negative statements:- 12 is not a prime number Bill Clinton was not US president in 1960 Colonel Mustard is not the murderer What's unprovable about these? And once again, I'm with Bourbaki in his final remark. If by "prove" we mean demonstrate with deductive certainty, then of course any general scientific theory is neither provable nor disprovable. Can the scientific realist prove that quarks exist? Or can the anti-realist prove they don't exist? Ans : No, but the former affirms, while the latter denies, there are good grounds for believing they do. DEEP_acheleg: to logically disprove a negative, perhaps not, but to scientifically disprove- there are no impossibilities according to quantum mechanics- it is merely a matter of probabilities. as opposed to making an assertion of impossibility, we assign gradient probabilities. now, the examples you gave. in base 6, 12 would equate to 9, thus, not be a prime number, as 3x3 is 9 (assuming that my memory is correct , and a prime number has no square root) so, the probability would be based on the likeliness of it being in base 10 or base 6, which is a low probability, but not an impossibility. bill clinton was a juvenile in 1960, thus ineligible for president. this conflicts with us law and history, it is not impossible, but it would have the lowest probability imaginable. colonel mustard being the murderer would be assigned probabilities based on the evidence, and each game is different. quarks existing, to me seems highly unprobable, as they are so unstable, that they may never exist as particles, but, rather ghosts of the nuclei- transition phases which merely exibit the expected properties of the predicted quark. other arguments can be made that they are highly probable- depending on personal bias, and other assumptions of qm. there is no proof of existence or non-existence, there is merely the evaluation of probability levels, according to the evidence at hand, which is sometimes conflicting. in summary. an argument can be invalidated- yet, its primary assertion may still be vaild; however, due to variables, like the uncertainty principle, the varied amount of numeral base systems, and the observational bias, or limited observational capabilities- of mankind an assertion of false, or impossible is not scientifically sound. (Edited by DEEP_acheleg) DEEP_acheleg: the fact that science asserts that nothing is impossible- it is more rather a matter of gradient possibilities CoIin: Hi Deep,  It's hard to say much at all when a poster pops into existence for a nanosecond, makes a rather fuzzy claim, and then vanishes again in a puff of smoke, as Bangalactic has done. Those with nothing much to say often hope that their vagueness will be mistaken for profundity. (see also Wireclub Philosophy Room  )I hope at least we can agree on this much: proof means different things to different people, and different standards of proof apply to different domains of inquiry. We should not expect logical proof in empirical matters. Having said that, I don't think my claim "12 is not a prime number" is problematic. We know this with logical certainty. All you've done above in your very confused example is to equivocate on the meaning of "12". I'm talking base 10 (as you well know ), not base 6, or any other base. My claim that a square has four sides is hardly refuted by your counterclaim that the word "square" means triangle in Swahili and a triangle has three sides!  Colonel Mustard, likewise, can be completely vindicated with deductive certainty as long as we treat the game as an analysis of linguistic propositions. Given:- P1 : There is only one killer P2 : Mrs Peacock did it with a candlestick in the bathroom Given the appropriate premises (tidied up a bit ), we can DEDUCE WITH LOGICAL CERTAINTY that none of the other five suspects committed the crime. In the realm of the empirical (science, history, courtrooms, etc), of course we should not, and DO not, expect logical proof. In a courtroom situation, for example, we might construe "prove" to mean a unanimous verdict by the jury. Yes, it's LOGICALLY possible that I could be mistaken about Clinton. But since when has the historian been held to the standards of the logician? It's also LOGICALLY possible that we're all being deceived by a Cartesian demon, or that we're all brains in vats, or that we're all in the Matrix. But so what? Tell it to the judge next time you're in court for lewd and lascivious behavior, dude.  P.S. Doesn't 12 (base six) represent 8 (base 10)? (Edited by CoIin) | Science Chat Room Similar Conversations |
