ManM

Is there any way to save science from the philosophers? I'm coming to believe that science's claim to truth is no better than a consistent religious or philosophical outlook. The theory comes first, and then the data is interpreted to be consistent with the theory. If another theory comes up, the scientist employs apologetics to explain why their theory does a better job of explaining the data than another. How is this different from a religion or philosophy which also explains the data?

The standard answer involves Occam's razor. But why should I accept the razor? How is simplicity anything more than a pragmatic choice? And if it is just a pragmatic choice, then why throw out the other theories? Even worse, why look upon the other theories in contempt?

copernicus

Every theory can "explain" the data. For example, ptolemaic astronomy was able to provide very complex descriptions of the movements of the planets. What made copernican astronomy a better theory was that it provided simpler explanations and better predictions than the competing theories. And, as with most successful theories, it provided insight into phenomena that were not previously recognized as "data". When science advances to a stage where it can better account for natural phenomena, it invariably changes the nature of what is perceived as "data".

You have equated Occam's Razor with "pragmatic choice" and asked why it should be accepted. The alternative, by your own logic, would be unpragmatic choice. Take your pick.

Finally, it can be said that religion--supernatural explanation--is always an option for any phenomenon. If we treated all natural phenomena as "miracles", then we wouldn't have to explain anything at all. From a historical perspective, science has advanced to the detriment of religious explanation. What could previously be explained by the supernatural behavior of gods--e.g. volcanism, weather, the sun's apparent movement across the sky, complexity in life forms--can now be explained in terms of naturally observable phenomena. Religion does not really answer questions. It just stops us from asking them.

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: copernicus ]</p>

John Page

My recommendation; insist on proof with real data.

jpbrooks

You have certainly raised some good points, ManM. IIRC, the "Razor" is used on theories that are (semantically?) equivalent to a simpler theory, but that are "embellished" with superfluous concepts and/or eniities. Since the "embellishments" do nothing to change the equivalence relationship between the theories, the "embellishments" are arbitrary and irrelevant to the truth of the theory.

An example of this would be the "theory" that "pixies" sit on top of molecules to sense infrared energy and move the molecules around in response to the sensed energy. Since the energy's effect on the molecule is exactly the same, whether we posit "pixies" as "intermediaries" to account for the motion of molecules in response to heat energy or not, "pixies" are an arbitrary and superfluous complication to the simpler theory.

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Vorkosigan

The standard answer involves Occam's razor. But why should I accept the razor? How is simplicity anything more than a pragmatic choice? And if it is just a pragmatic choice, then why throw out the other theories? Even worse, why look upon the other theories in contempt?

Scientific theories are never looked on with contempt. They are either confirmed or denied by data and in conjunction with other laws and theories. Other types of claims about the nature of reality may be looked on with contempt, especially when their holders require that one remain willfully ignorant or credulous.

Scientific theory formation and acceptance is a complex and controversial field. Why not look up some of the big names in the field and read them?

Michael

wdog

In a way that is kind of funny since PhD stands for doctorate of natural philosphy.

That is simply not how it works. Usually the data (experimental results) leads theory, sometimes the opposite occurs. What do you mean 'if another theory comes up'? most theories are rejected. Someone may try and justify a theory, but the fact is that there really are not a whole lot of new theories (serious ones) that are routinely proposed. The test of theories comes through repeated testing and experimentation, it is judged on 1) consistency, 2) accuracy of predictions, 3) coherence with other well accepted theories. Over time a theory will become well accepted if and only if it keeps on providing valuable predictions about what it is supposed to explain. There are not a lot of theories that survive that, to the state of being well accepted that is. It is much different than religion or other philosophy in that it is actually useful for doing things like making space stations, medicines, predicting the positions of the planets, ect. One simply needs to become astute at seperating the real from the chaff (which is promulgated by the people outside the mainstream of science).

The standard answer is what I told you above, it must be useful in actually describing nature.

Well not every theory. It is true one can always curve fit, but not every theory can explain all the 'data' (experimental results and consistency with all else we know valid). ptolemy really could not predict all the movements, and his epicycles would have been inconsistent with what we know now about gravity, so there have been too many inconsistencies to have it be credible.

Christopher Lord

I was under the impression that PhD stood for Physical Doctor, am I mistaken?


I can't find information either way after a few seconds of googling.

*Edit: nevermind, I was wrong. From <a href="http://www.csauto.com/ask/CatsDetail.asp?ID=6216" target="_blank">here</a>:
PHD is an abbreviation of the Latin term Philosophiae Doctor meaning doctor of philosophy

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Christopher Lord ]</p>

NialScorva

"Philosophers do conceptual tidying up, among other things, but scientists are the ones making all the sawdust in theworkshop, and they need not be so tidy. And no cleaner should tell any professional (other than cleaners) how itought to be done."

From "Evolution and Philosophy" by John Wilkins

I think it's a pretty good thought. Philosophers tend to look at things that we do and wonder the whys or hows. No amount of philosophizing will change the fact that we do it and it just works.

crocodile deathroll

Humanity would still be floundering back the days when the holy inquisition was at it worst if we only let the church to be to only authentic custodian of truth, and if one ever questioned it they would be forced to recant on their theories or face dire consequences
If I were a scientist was living in such intolerant times I would recant on them too. I do not like the idea of being tried for "heresy" for my scientific theories and burnt at the stake along with all the papers I published my theories on, because the clerics were skeptical of my theories (maybe a few very sound scientific theories met that very fate who knows) .
Maybe I would just have to hope a wait for a more sympathetic ear when all the inquisitors die then, then I would publish my theories.

CD