Perhaps I'll be safe here (Page 5)

axocanth: @ Harp (above)

Well, consider the situation with the newly proposed Copernican theory circa 1550 - 1600 or so. A precious few scientists of the period took it seriously -- for good scientific reasons, not just fear of Rome!

From the perspective of the majority, instrumental efficacy notwithstanding (i.e., it might be a useful TOOL and nothing more), it was an absurd theory; not only an insult to common sense, but wildly at odds with the evidence.

They might well have described it as a "failed theory", or a theory that never even got off the ground!



Among the myriad awkward (cf. "contradictory" ) evidence the theory faced was the problem of "stellar parallax".

If Copernicus was right, and the Earth was revolving around the Sun, we should see a displacement in the apparent position of distant stars, between summer and winter, say.

Those who don't know what I'm talking about -- close one eye, hold a finger in front of you, and swing your head (analogous to a revolving Earth moving from one side of the Sun to another) from side to side. You will notice that the apparent position of distant objects changes.



Stellar parallax was not observed, constituting yet ANOTHER refutation of the Copernican theory for many people. Evidence/observation was, once again, at odds with theory.

So did the Copernicans abandon their theory, as the writer implies that genuine scientists do and pseudoscientists don't? Nope!

What they did, instead, in order to protect their theory is propose the hypothesis that the stars must be much farther away than we had ever imagined, of such a distance that stellar parallax--though real--cannot be detected.

And they turned out to be right . . . but not till a few centuries later!

The salient point being, however, is that this hypothesis--contra Harp's remarks above--could not be tested, indeed defied testing until the 19th century, I believe.



Now, one man's fish is another man's poisson, and one man's "ad hoc patch" for a theory is another man's "explanatory hypothesis".

To my ears at least, it sure sounds a lot like an untestable ad hoc patch of a hypothesis for what many regarded as a failed theory.

How about your ears?

axocanth: P.S.

After all, dear readers, how would YOU--qua hardnosed scientist--react if you went to see an astrologer, say, and the conversation went like this:


"I've discovered a problem with your theory, Gypsy Vianna. It doesn't fit the evidence."

"Ah yes. I know all about that. And I have an explanation."

"Do share."

{later}

"Well, it's certainly a nice story, Miss Vianna, and IF IT WERE TRUE it would indeed explain the fact-theory mismatch. But can you give me any reason to think that it's true? Can it be scientifically tested?"

"Not now. You'll have to wait a few hundred years."



Ad hoc or not?

harpalycus47: You forget abduction. The best explanation for the evidence. Data and theory don't always match for all sorts of reasons. The best theory provides the best matches. You don't throw out a theory that is manifestly far better than any other alternative because something doesn't fit. Modifications of the theory, corrections of the data, unknown factors are all possible answers. Until a better theory comes along, which people WILL be working on, you go with the best and assume that some sort of answer will be forthcoming. The example of Einstein's explanation of the orbit of Mercury which didn't fit Newtonian Mechanics is a good example.
No one pretends science is perfect. And everyone is entitled to regard what is done in whatever light they choose. But I certainly don't see that the problem of altruism was a defeater for evolution. And I see no reason why scientists should not look at the problem and see appropriate possibilities and advance them for proper consideration and find confirmatory evidence for them (and/or fail to falsify the idea) until they can be regarded as part of the general theory. I see no reason why they should be regarded as ad hoc assumptions.
As for the Copernican system I think that Kepler's Laws of the early seventeenth century provided the necessary validation of the Copernican system.

axocanth: Hi Harp

Nothing in your latest post seems particularly objectionable, indeed, for many of your remarks I've expressed similar sentiments myself, e.g.

"You don't throw out a theory that is manifestly far better than any other alternative because something doesn't fit." - you (above)

vs.

"Good theories are hard to find! Were scientists to drop their theories just because of a few awkward (cf. "contradictory" ) facts, they'd have no theories left!" - me (previous page)




What I've been objecting to in my recent posts is the assertion (quoted by another member) that pseudoscience DOES, and proper science DOES NOT, "erect hypotheses as defenses against the facts".

I'd say it's a fairly routine occurrence in what is generally considered to be science at its best. Moreover, in some cases, these erections ( ) are not testable, as you've been claiming, at least at the time of proposal.


Besides Copernicus, just think of all these new particles and whatnot that seem to be posited every week or so (I exaggerate slightly) in the field of subatomic physics.

Why are these invisible beasties postulated? Precisely because the theory does not fit the facts.

Can these hypotheses be tested? Often not . . . perhaps not till decades later or more.




The Copernican saga, meanwhile, does present a few puzzles of its own. We're often told, for example, by people like Forrest (the Youtube fella in my recent posts)--with his signature naivete--that scientists just go to where the evidence leads. Change in science can be rationally explained, unlike, say, changes in art trends.

In retrospect, we can all agree that switching from Plotemaic to Copernican cosmology was a step in the right direction. Explaining it RATIONALLY isn't quite as easy, though.

Now, the introduction of the telescope in the early 1600s spelled bad news indeed for the geocentric model. A minority of top-notch scientists, however, including the greatest of them all, Galileo, were championing the Copernican system BEFORE telescopic evidence was available.


I think it's reasonable to say that, circa 1600, the situation looked something like this:

* The weight of the evidence supported the geocentric theory.

* The rival heliocentric model was neither simpler, nor more predictively accurate, than the geocentric model.


Why, then, were a few prescient individuals like Galileo rooting for the Copernican theory? It's far from obvious that these people were just "going where the evidence leads".

Perhaps he just saw a certain beauty in it. Perhaps he had a gut feeling!

Beauty and gut feelings, though, are the stuff of nightmares for the scientific methodologist lol.

harpalycus47: harpalycus47: If they cannot be tested they remain postulates. I see no problem with that. Science is problem solving. You can't solve problems without making suggestions.
As for Galileo, I have never researched that area, but scientists are human and prefer some hypotheses over others for somewhat less that rational reasons. many scientists regard some theories as more 'elegant' than others, which always seems to me to be a concept beyond definition. .Besides which Galileo saw evidence through his telescope, the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, that strongly suggested that smaller objects orbited larger ones and that the Sun was the largest (sunspots on the 'perfect' sun shook a lot of people. Besides which, having different views is not unscientific. May the best hypothesis win. If two hypotheses describe the same data reasonably well, then decision must await convincing evidence. I really do not see what your fundamental objection is. If it is that science has been, can be and undoubtedly will be wrong on occasion, if not often, then i will agree with you. If you are saying that the demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience is an incredibly difficult one to define, I would agree with you. But what I cannot agree with, and I don't think you are saying this (sorry, but I have missed much of the conversation and haven't really the time to 'catch up' is that science is not our best way of making sense of this world, albeit in limited areas.
sorry, was caught up on phone.

axocanth:
"If they cannot be tested they remain postulates. I see no problem with that." - Harp


Me neither . . . except that it does not sit well at all with what the fella in the quote (previous posts) says. It is not true (as he implies) that bona fide science does not erect hypotheses--which are often untestable--as defenses against awkward facts. Pseudoscience and science both do it as a matter of course.

This has been the gravamen of my recent posts.





"Besides which Galileo saw evidence through his telescope . . . " - Harp


Yes, but everything I wrote above pertains to BEFORE the introduction of the telescope. Galileo was championing the Copernican theory for ten or fifteen years, if I remember right, PRIOR TO the invention of the telescope.

Why's that a problem? It doesn't bother me one iota. It IS a problem, though, for those (e.g. the Youtube dude that I can't stand lol) who claim that science just goes where the evidence leads. It not at all obvious that's what Galileo did.

harpalycus47: It's surely obvious that Galileo would go where he THOUGHT the evidence was leading. That, I am sure, is the thrust of what your bete noire was saying. There may, will be, some who are so besotted with their own ideas that they will refuse to follow the evidence, but that is not science and they are not scientists. And that is not a No True Scotsman fallacy. The methodology of science requires you to follow the evidence. How much weight you give to evidence is subjective of course, but anybody who deliberately goes AGAINST the evidence isn't a scientist. Period.

axocanth: "It's surely obvious that Galileo would go where he THOUGHT the evidence was leading."

and

"How much weight you give to evidence is subjective of course, but anybody who deliberately goes AGAINST the evidence isn't a scientist. Period."

- Harp




Interesting! But it seems to me you'd have difficulty reconciling these statements without lapsing into triviality. Surely everyone, or almost everyone, scientist or nonscientist, goes to where they THINK the evidence leads. It's not really saying anything at all, and no scientist need fear losing his bona fide "scientist" status with a characterization like that.



Lets go back to the year 1900 or so. Despite what we unfortunately read in popular science Whiggish rewritings of history, the aether was still very much in vogue. The evidence for the aether, not unlike what we hear about the evidence for evolution these days, was effectively described as overwhelming and other hyperboles by some of the top names.

Einstein, meanwhile, with one stroke of his theoretical pen, nary an experiment in sight, does away with the aether, proposing instead his special theory of relativity.

Now, we can no doubt say that both parties were going where they THOUGHT the evidence was leading . . . which is to say nothing of any significance. That's what everyone does!

But which party was going where the evidence ACTUALLY was leading? That is to say, in which direction was the evidence of the time almost universally agreed to be pointing? (even though the aether ended up ignominiously on the scrapheap).

Seems to me we have to say the aether guys; they had (what was taken to be) "overwhelming evidence" while poor Einstein appeared to have none, interesting idea notwithstanding.

This is not unlike the current situation with evolutionary theory. Anyone who goes against where the overwhelming evidence supposedly leads is indeed liable to be labelled a pseudoscientist.

On your own account, must we not conclude that Einstein, at that time, was "not a scientist"?

Yes, I know he worked in the patent office lol, but must we conclude that he was not "doing science"?

Wasn't he "deliberately going against the evidence"?

axocanth: Come to think of it, even if Galileo circa 1600 (before the telescope) was going where he THOUGHT the evidence was leading, was he not "deliberately going against the evidence" at the time?

After all, virtually all his contemporaries, with very few exceptions, rejected the Copernican theory. The situation might be described thus:

Everyone, or almost everyone, agreed the evidence AS IT STOOD THEN pointed toward a geocentric model. Galileo went "against the evidence" and--on your account--that marks him as a nonscientist.

Even Galileo himself said something to this effect. Lemme see if I can track down the quote . . .

harpalycus47: That's a practical problem. People see evidence differently. It ends up as a collegiate decision as to where the strength of the evidence lies. Where there two or more alternative theories vying for recognition it will remain uncertain until a clear majority opinion appears. Not a simple majority, something that is recognised as generally accepted as the best explanation. But there are no clear quantifiable definitions as to what constitutes a theory as compared with a hypothesis.
We are living in a world of uncertainties and unknowns and would expect nothing else other than that. If people legitimately feel that the evidence is pointing in a certain direction then they do. What I said was that someone who knowingly rejected evidence on the basis of partiality to a certain hypothesis, without any reasonable cause, was not a scientist. Methodologically following the evidence is a clear requirement. As to what classes as acceptable evidence that is where you get the debate and disagreement. That is part and parcel of the essential uncertainty of science. that no-one can ever claim actual absolute certainty about anything.
I don't see that anyone going against evolution is necessarily labelled as a pseudoscientist. the Punctuated equilibria wars were pretty heated but I don't recall pseudoscience being a factor. Intelligent design is pseudoscience because it does not explain anything. There is no way of falsifying it. There is no actual explanation of anything. It is predicated on the existence of something that cannot be demonstrated, for at the very least, the vast majority of its proponents. What is the evidence that is supposed to substantiate evolution that does not do so? Who are these critics of evolution and what exactly do they criticise? .

axocanth: "What I said was that someone who knowingly rejected evidence on the basis of partiality to a certain hypothesis, without any reasonable cause, was not a scientist."


Hmm, that sounds to me an awful lot like what Galileo did . . . which bars him from the good science club, on your view.

Did he have reasons? Sure! Perhaps he saw a certain elegance in the Copernican worldview. Perhaps he had a gut feeling.

But "reasonable cause"? I'd say not obviously.

How would you describe Galileo's "reasonable cause"?

axocanth: "I don't see that anyone going against evolution is necessarily labelled as a pseudoscientist. the Punctuated equilibria wars were pretty heated but I don't recall pseudoscience being a factor. "


But the PE folks weren't denying evolution.

axocanth: "Intelligent design is pseudoscience because it does not explain anything."


How so? Their explanation is that God did it.

It may be true or it may be false. It may not be the kind of scientific explanation that scientists aspire to.

It is, nonetheless, AN explanation.



"There is no way of falsifying it."

. . . which puts it in the same boat as any interesting scientific theory.

harpalycus47: Not at all. The Ptolemaic system was certainly at least as 'accurate' as the Copernican system, or even more so, but had become increasingly complex and the Copernican system was much simpler. I am not at all convinced that that there was anything about the geocentric model that made it a superior model. The world was known to be a sphere and from all observations had to be 'hanging in space' - not a tortoise in sight. This made sense in light of Copernicus, but there was no reason to suppose that this sphere in space was essentially different from other spheres hanging in space as Ptolemy required. Venus and Mercury could be seen to be orbiting the sun and not the earth. What evidence would you regard as making the Ptolemaic system so superior to the Copernican that Galileo was going against the EVIDENCE by accepting the latter? The only evidence that I can come up with is the biblical texts.

axocanth: " . . . but had become increasingly complex and the Copernican system was much simpler."


Hmm, so you'll hear in a lot of elementary science textbooks. Probe into the matter a bit deeper, though, and I'd suggest a claim of "much simpler" becomes hard to defend.

The locus classicus for this is perhaps Thomas Kuhn's "The Copernican Revolution". (1957)

Much simpler how?





"What evidence would you regard as making the Ptolemaic system so superior to the Copernican that Galileo was going against the EVIDENCE by accepting the latter? The only evidence that I can come up with is the biblical texts."


There were several powerful arguments against a moving Earth. If we're hurtling through space at breakneck speed . . .


* Why aren't birds tossed into space?

* Why don't we FEEL the motion?

* The famous "tower argument" : If a rock, say, is dropped from a high tower, then due to the rotation of the Earth (postulated by Copernicus) the rock should land some distance (several hundred meters, I think) from the foot of the tower. Needless to say, this had never been observed.

* No stellar parallax

etc., etc.

axocanth: Oh, here's another . . .


A stationary Earth implies that the planets are (roughly) equidistant from us at all times.

(I say "roughly" due to epicycles)

A moving Earth implies that, Venus, say, will be about eight times (I think) closer to us at certain times of the year than others. Thus, a marked difference in the brightness and apparent size of Venus ought to be observed. It was not.

axocanth: "Venus and Mercury could be seen to be orbiting the sun and not the earth"


How? In 1600.


Yes, the telescope brought new evidence, e.g. phases of Venus that the Plotemaic model had great difficulty explaining. But we're stuck in 1600 right now lol.

harpalycus47: No, it is not an explanation. It explains nothing.

Which God was it? Yahweh? Odin? The multidimensional Jabberwocky of Cygnus 5?
Why did he/she/it do it? How did he/she/it do it? Where did that God come from? How was he/she/it created?
Would you be happy with the explanation that the Flying spaghetti monster did it. Or the Frum Frum Bird? And even if it is regarded as an explanation, albeit a trivial and information free explanation then it most certainly is NOT a scientific explanation. So, it is pseudoscience.
A theory that is unfalsifiable is not a theory. Would you care to give me an example of a theory that is unfalsifiable? Unfortunately theory is increasingly used in a sloppy way - so people talk of string theory, but it is not a theory, it is a hypothesis or group of hypotheses..And will not be a 'proper' theory until there is sufficient evidence to convince the majority of people working in the area that it is the best explanation for the data..

axocanth: "No, it is not an explanation. It explains nothing."


I disagree. Suppose for a moment--horror of horrors -- that God exists and what the Bible says is pretty much true.

Q: What explains the diversity of life on Earth?

axocanth: "And even if it is regarded as an explanation, albeit a trivial and information free explanation then it most certainly is NOT a scientific explanation. So, it is pseudoscience."


It would help if you could tell us what constitutes a scientific explanation. What standard are you appealing to?

Philosophers have been working on that one too, at least since the 1950s. Sorry to say, no consensus has been attained.

harpalycus47: Because they never move far from the sun. The reason that they were given epicycles was probably because of the belief that they otherwise would break through the supposed crystal sphere occupied by the sun.

axocanth: "A theory that is unfalsifiable is not a theory."


First of all, that sounds a bit like Blackshoes saying the science of evolution is not science.

Less flippantly, it is widely recognized these days--in the philosophy of science anyway--that scientific theories cannot be falsified in any definitive sense . . . despite what you might hear some scientists say on the matter.

Other, more philosophically adept scientists (e.g. Einstein), say pretty much as I do: there can be no be-all-and-end-all falsification of a theory. They can always be defended one way or another.


"For it is often, perhaps even always, possible to adhere to a general theoretical foundation by securing the adaptation of the theory to the facts by means of artificial additional assumptions"

- A. E.

harpalycus47: But we are talking about a theory that is by definition unfalsifiable. As God can do anything, there is nothing that cannot be said to be the case because God made it the case..

axocanth: "Would you care to give me an example of a theory that is unfalsifiable?"


Um, take your pick!

How about general relativity, say? How could that be falsified?

No matter WHAT is observed, some way can always be found to guard the theory.

Now, theories do fall from grace, as we all know, but that's another matter from a definitive falsification.

harpalycus47: By showing that light does not bend in the gravitational field of large objects.
Theories can be defended by ad hoc additions, but they will quickly fall into disfavour when compared to a more successful theory. Can you honestly say that the phlogiston theory could be made viable again?