Answerer

Hehe, can you two show me the greatness of your minds?

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Answerer ]</p>

Starboy

Agreed, if you look at my post you will see that point stated. Such a proof is not in the same vein as what would be considered a mathematical proof which usually attempts to prove the truth of something. Perhaps proving the falsity of something is how most of the philosophical proofs are conducted. If so my opinion of philosophy sinks even lower.

Starboy

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Synaesthesia

Anybody see the Monty Python "Dead Parrot" sketch?

It is, in essence, a humorous take on the debate between the positivitist notion of a foundational sense datum and the Quinian holism of the later 20th century.

The empiricist notes that it looks dead, when you swing it around it's limp, it's not doing anything, it was nailed to it's perch. The holist accepts these observations but applies different interpretation to them. (He's sleeping, or knocked out...)

Although it seems silly, the essential point is very profound: "Any statement" quine tells us, "can be held to be true, come what may, if sufficient changes are made elsewhere in the system."

Since no unique empirical theory can be formulated for any observation or set thereof, relative veriscimilitude must be judged on the grounds of what Churchland calls the "Superempirical virtues". Inter-theoretical conservatism, internal coherence, parsimony or reduction are a few main examples.

Starboy

And I always thought it was just a sketch about a dead parrot.

Starboy

Synaesthesia, I have heard this argument before and I do not find it convincing. I am not aware of any cases in which the simpler of two theories with the same predictions was chosen over the other. What happens in that instance is that the theories are explored to find instances where they do not predict the same results. In the rare instance where they always predict identical results what happens is that someone shows that the two are different representations of the same underlying theory. It may take a good deal of time for all this to happen, but that is how it goes. I do agree that inter-theoretical conservatism, internal coherence, parsimony, and so forth is used by scientists in the process of concocting theories but who cares, dreams are also allowed. How you come up with the theory is not anywhere near as important as the result of experiment on nature that tests the theory. This is what separates science from philosophy. I have asked proponents of philosophy in the past to present examples of this method of theory selection in science. All they can come up with is cases where controversies continued for some time until the definitive experiments were made. Philosophers just don’t get it. In science the only authority is nature. Science is not in any way shape or form philosophy.

Starboy

Bob K

The Code of Science

I. Science is the organized study of the people/things/events who/which are the natural phenomena of reality for the purpose of determining the causality among the people/things/events of reality.

Causality is the cause-and-effect relationships among the people/things/events.

Causality describes which people/things/events cause other people/things/events.

Scientific knowledge is the description of the causality between/among the people/things/events who/which are the natural phenomena of reality.

II. Scientists must create operational definitions of the terms they wish to use so they can communicate effectively with themselves, with other scientists, and with nonscientists.

Operational definitions are definitions which present the observations and/or measurements [descriptions] of the people/things/events who/which are natural phenomena; operational definitions can be used to define complex and abstract concepts, principles and techniques.

For example, children often use sentence structures of "_____ [concept/principle being defined] is when _____ [observation/measurement/description of the
actions/reactions of people/things/events being operationally defined]." A child may create an operational definition of love in the following way: "Love is when someone says they like you and they do nice things for you and with you ." The child's observation/measurement/description of the actions/reactions of someone who loves provides an operational definition of the term love.

III. Scientists must follow the scientific method in determining the causality of people/things/events.


The Scientific Method

1. Specify the unit of study [the people/things/events to be studied].
2. Observe and/or measure the units of study to gather data.
3. Create a causal hypothesis which describes and predicts the causes of effects among the people/things/events who/which are the units of study.
4. Observe/measure more people/things/events who/which are units of study to gather additional data which can be used to confirm [verify] or deny the causal hypothesis].
5. Determine if or not the additional data confirm/verify or deny the causal hypothesis.
6. If the data confirm the causal hypothesis, then let other people know of the hypothesis and the scientific method that lead to the creation and confirmation of the hypothesis, and declare the verified/confirmed hypothesis to be a scientific law/law of nature; but if the data do not confirm the causal hypothesis, then either revise the hypothesis to fit the data, or else create a new hypothesis and follow the Scientific Method Steps 4-6.

Thus, the scientific method requires observation of the people/things/events of reality and does not allow speculation or religious dogma to be passed off as facts/truth.

IV. Scientific Proof:

A. Physical Evidence: People/things/events who/which can be seen/heard/touched/smelled/tasted and thus observed and measured directly or indirectly through the use of machines such as telescopes/microscopes/audio amplifiers/etc., or who/which can be inferred by their
observed/measured/verified effects upon natural/physical phenomena (people/things/events comprised of matter/energy and who/which therefore exist in contrast to being the subject matter/content of ideas/dreams/fantasies/etc.)

B. Eyewitness Reports: Testimonies (descriptions of physical evidence, people/things/events comprised of matter/energy) by credible individuals (individuals not known to lie or deceive, and who have no known reasons/motivations to lie or deceive) corroborated by corroborating reports by credible corroborators.

C. Logical Arguments: Arguments in which premises which are verifiable/falsifiable/verified lead logically to conclusions which are true if the premises are true; wherein the premises must answer the begged question: Is this premise true?; wherein verification of the premises must be based upon physical evidence and/or eyewitness reports (of physical evidence).

V. Scientists must list the scientific principles they have determined to be scientific principles/laws of nature, so other people can know what the scientists claim to be knowledge. Moreover, scientists must publish/present the observations and measurements of natural phenomena (units of study) by which they created and by which they confirmed/verified their causal hypotheses in order that other scientists may replicate/duplicate their observations and measurements to confirm/deny their causal hypotheses and claims of scientific principles.

Science began when Hippocrates, the Greek father of philosophy, observed a man suffering from what we now know as epilepsy and rejected the claims of priests that the cause of the victim's condition was his inability to reject demons and his consequent possession by demons. Hippocrates thought epilepsy was caused by natural causes, not supernatural or mystical causes, and he began to look for those natural causes. He created a school of thought which became known as philosophy, which was the first science from which came medicine and all other sciences. Hippocrates is still remembered for the Hippocratic oath taken by modern doctors.

Key to Hippocrates' thinking was his determination to reject the authority of priests and to observe people/things/events in the real world to learn the causality of natural phenomena.

Key to the Code of Science and the scientific method is reliance upon the observation of and the experimentation with people/things/events and the rejection of any claims of scientific knowledge not based upon observation or experimentation.

When scientists are required to provide detailed descriptions of their observations and experiments, other scientists can replicate their observations and experiments and thereby confirm their claims of scientific knowledge. By this process of constant checking of claims of knowledge, the Code of Science and the scientific method produce an increasing body of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge created by scientists who follow the Code of Science and the scientific method may overturn the claims of “experts” or “authorities” including priests. That has happened throughout the centuries. People must have the truth—the facts—for making rational decisions, and the Code of Science including the scientific method offers a way to discover and learn the truth/facts that is more reliable than the claims of those who refuse to observe and experiment with the real world people/things/events who/which are natural phenomena.

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

crocodile deathroll

I have no problem with A or C but I do with B. What if that individual is a member of some clergy which were strongly reputed at one time to be the type of individuals not known for their lies or deceit, but with the current sex scandals that are shaking the church this so called bastion of truth is on very shaky ground.

There is also the case in Australia where well known scientist tried to sell the virtues of embryonic stem cell research by showing a movie footage of a mouse that was allegedly cured of its paralysis by embryonic stem cells, but instead it happened to be fetal cells. This was done to attract more government funding as there were very fierce ethical debates on this issue.

However I am still in favor of embryonic stem cell research in spite of that setback, but that is another issue.

fando

If problems do arise with B, they invariably get exposed and corrected. Consider that the example you gave was exposed and consider also <a href="http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/The_physicists.pdf" target="_blank">the case of J. Hendrik Schon</a>. (Edit: typo)

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: fando ]</p>