|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 07/27/2005 : 14:27:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Do you consider a theory that is falsified only in part to be a "falsified theory?"
It can be, as in Newtons law of gravity. But this was never the key point. The main issue was really whether you have to propose a new theory when you discard an old one. My position was that you didn't have to. I'm racking my brain to try to find an example where this has actually been the case, but I can't think of a single incidence (to do this, we also have to make the distinction between a theory and a hypotheseis, which is not necessarily easy). Hypothetically, however, if we found intact geological columns with Ediacaran mooses, Devonian bunnys and Jurassic humans + discovered that some flies are spontaneously generated from rotting meat (and, why not, cats giving birth to dogs), then we could no longer with any confidence say that ToE is valid. I know this is a contrived example, but in principle, couldn't you now discard the theory without replacing it with something else? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 16:02:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
quote:
Do you consider a theory that is falsified only in part to be a "falsified theory?"
It can be, as in Newtons law of gravity. But this was never the key point. The main issue was really whether you have to propose a new theory when you discard an old one.
Hawks, I agree with you that hypothetically theories can be falsified and dropped without a new theory to take its place. I differ with Dude in that respect. I don't believe a new theory is always necessary for an old one to be abandoned. I was only trying to point out that this almost never actually happens in practice (as illustrated by the extreme sets of imaginary evidence you had to suppose in order to dislodge Evolution).
And, yes, the questions I posed to you were tangential from that key point. I take it from your above comment that you do not believe that "hole in theory = falsified." That was all that I was asking.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/27/2005 16:03:21 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 18:40:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I was only trying to point out that this almost never actually happens in practice (as illustrated by the extreme sets of imaginary evidence you had to suppose in order to dislodge Evolution).
No, I can't think of a single instance in real life. For something to be called a theory, it has to be pretty well supported, and so complete abondonment of one would probably be pretty rare. What I meant was that in principle you don't have to have a new theory.
quote:
And, yes, the questions I posed to you were tangential from that key point. I take it from your above comment that you do not believe that "hole in theory = falsified." That was all that I was asking.
That's probably a better way to say it than I did. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 22:35:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I know this is a contrived example, but in principle, couldn't you now discard the theory without replacing it with something else?
No.
Because if you could prove spontaneous generation, for example, you'd be creating the theory of spontaneous generation at the same time.
And, if you found some geological strata with cambrian reptiles, you'd be formulating new theories to explain your new observations. Even if you, personally, didn't present a theory, somebody looking at your new evidence would see the implications and state a theory from it.
And so on. The new observations/evidence will suggest a new theory/hypothesis.
To remain in the realm of logic and scientific method you have to stick to proving positive statements. To rule out one possibility, you must prove a positive statement that is mutually exclusive.
To use your example of rubberband gravity: You swing your knife under a falling rock, the rock still falls... you still can't claim that rubberbands are not the cause of gravity. Because what if they were rubberbands that didn't interact physically with the material of your knife? And so on and so on to infinite futility and stupidity.
The only way to disprove rubberband gravity is to propose a different mechanism, one that excludes the possibility of rubberbands, and prove it. (Gravity may be a bad example, simply because we haven't proven the mechanism yet, but I hope you see what I'm getting at here)
You propose that gravity is a force of attraction between matter, and that gravitons are the mechanism. You build a detector and observe a graviton. Then you have excluded rubberbands.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2005 : 23:25:59 [Permalink]
|
I think Dude might have just finally swayed me with his last post.
Except I have one remaining concern. What did the Greeks replace the phlogiston theory of fire with when it became untenable?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2005 : 15:41:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What did the Greeks replace the phlogiston theory of fire with when it became untenable?
Greek civilization was dust by the time Aristotle's theory was finally replaced.
And it was replaced, starting in the early 1600's, by scientists who developed and refined ways to perform accurate measurements.
Replaced by new observations and the implications of those observations as they were refined into new theories.
Eventually it turned into what we have now, the various modern theories that comprise chemistry and physics as we understand it today.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2005 : 08:28:55 [Permalink]
|
Coincidental post over on the Panda's Thumb:To the extent that scientists talk about natural laws at all, they really just mean certain generalizations that have consistently been successful in predicting the results of experiments. The key criterion is usefulness, not capital-T, metaphysical truth. Science is a way of bringing order and predictability to the observations we make about nature. We need a word to describe those theories and models that have consistently proven themelves to be useful, and the word that is chosen for that purpose is "true." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2005 : 08:48:13 [Permalink]
|
| Well, it begins to look like Larry Boy has bailed... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2005 : 19:08:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, it begins to look like Larry Boy has bailed...
Looks that way.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2005 : 19:18:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
And it was replaced, starting in the early 1600's, by scientists who developed and refined ways to perform accurate measurements.
Ah, that's exactly what I wanted to know. So the phlogiston theory of fire hung around until the 1600s and the beginnings of modern chemistry, eh? I think that's just as good an example for your point as any, Dude. New theories are required to replace old ones.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2005 : 15:50:12 [Permalink]
|
I've been trying to look into some written (in book form) material regarding this debate. Unfortunately, the books I have at home don't go into any depth at all. I hope to have time to go to the library in the very near future.
This whole debate might just hinge on the differences between a hypothesis and a theory. I have read scientific articles where hypotheses have been discarded without offering a new one. Hypothetically, this could then be extended to a theory, but it might be impossible in practice. Or maybe it's just a philosophical viewpoint? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2005 : 17:20:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This whole debate might just hinge on the differences between a hypothesis and a theory. I have read scientific articles where hypotheses have been discarded without offering a new one. Hypothetically, this could then be extended to a theory, but it might be impossible in practice. Or maybe it's just a philosophical viewpoint?
I think it illustrates the difficulty in explaining what a scientific theory is.
Often the word theory is used in place of hypothesis, probably because it is easier to say.
Typically, in science, a hypothesis is what you have when you are preparing to test something very specific. A theory is a grouping of hypotheses which are related or interconnected.
But still, I stand by what I'm saying. If you apply it to a hypothesis or a whole theory. When you discover new facts, you rule in/or out a hypothesis, and you alter or confirm some aspect of the theory.
As I have stated, if you want to rule out a possibility, you must prove a positive that excludes what you are trying to rule out. In doing so, as you discover new information, you alter and/or confirm theories, or even create a new theory.
If you just walk up and say "X is incorrect", you will have to be able to explain why. The explanation of why X is incorrect will BE the explanation of why Y is correct.
If you don't work from this approach you are not working within the realm of logic.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2005 : 10:23:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Typically, in science, a hypothesis is what you have when you are preparing to test something very specific. A theory is a grouping of hypotheses which are related or interconnected.
But still, I stand by what I'm saying. If you apply it to a hypothesis or a whole theory. When you discover new facts, you rule in/or out a hypothesis, and you alter or confirm some aspect of the theory.
Yeah, I agree. This is more or less my understanding also.quote:
As I have stated, if you want to rule out a possibility, you must prove a positive that excludes what you are trying to rule out. In doing so, as you discover new information, you alter and/or confirm theories, or even create a new theory.
This is misleading. Suppose it were discovered that all the evidence on which evolution is based is fraudulent. What new theory would this turn of events suggest? Would it be impossible to discard evolution without a viable alternative theory in this case?quote:
If you just walk up and say "X is incorrect", you will have to be able to explain why. The explanation of why X is incorrect will BE the explanation of why Y is correct.
X is incorrect because there is no evidence supporting it. The lack of evidence for X is not evidence in favor of Y. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2005 : 16:21:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
X is incorrect because there is no evidence supporting it. The lack of evidence for X is not evidence in favor of Y.
If this were a discussion about unsupported assertions, you'd be correct. But it isn't.
quote:
This is misleading. Suppose it were discovered that all the evidence on which evolution is based is fraudulent. What new theory would this turn of events suggest? Would it be impossible to discard evolution without a viable alternative theory in this case?
If that were the case then evolution would be nothing more than an unsupported assertion.
In the case of unsupported assertions, such as ID, you are free to ignore them as such. They have no bearing or consequence upon reality, regardless of how many believe it to be true.
But again, we are not talking about unevidenced assertions or theories built upon entirely fraudulent data. We are talking about theories and hypothesis which have a base in evidence accross multiple areas of scientific inquiry.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2005 : 18:11:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
If that were the case then evolution would be nothing more than an unsupported assertion.
In the case of unsupported assertions, such as ID, you are free to ignore them as such. They have no bearing or consequence upon reality, regardless of how many believe it to be true.
Exactly right. So if it was discovered that evolution was an unsupported assertion, then it would be reasonable to discard it, regardless of whether or not there was a viable alternative.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
