|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 07/31/2005 : 19:22:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
I suppose I could crawl into that corner. The evidence wouldn't necessarily have to be fraudulent; It could be that the observations were simply wrong in the first instance, so that there was actually never anything to explain (neither of these can be ruled out, but using them was never my intention).
The only "real" example I have yet thought of (regarding potentially discarding a theory without proposing a new one) is the Michelson-Morley experiment. But you could always argue that the idea of the ether was never discarded until Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity.
quote:
But still, I stand by what I'm saying. If you apply it to a hypothesis or a whole 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.
Well, I could hypothesize that the action of the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator is regulated by cGMP. A test showing a negative result wouldn't really require me to to propose which other molecule might perform this regulation. I could simply say that "cGMP does not regulate CFTR" (just like a positive statement in a theory, this statement is also useful).
I fail to see why this would be illogical (this is a simple example, and I might just have misunderstood what you meant).
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.
I agree that this is a better way than to simply say "WRONG!". As far as having to provide positives, have you got any resources (preferably online) where I can read up on this (it's been a while since I formally read anything about scientific philosophy)?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2005 : 00:06:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, I could hypothesize that the action of the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator is regulated by cGMP. A test showing a negative result wouldn't really require me to to propose which other molecule might perform this regulation. I could simply say that "cGMP does not regulate CFTR" (just like a positive statement in a theory, this statement is also useful).
I fail to see why this would be illogical (this is a simple example, and I might just have misunderstood what you meant).
Because you cannot "prove" a negative statement. That is why it fails logic.
In your example, you can only conclude that the evidence suggests "cGMP does not regulate CFTR". You can even have a reasonable certainty of being correct. But, in order to "prove" "cGMP does not regulate CFTR", you must demonstrate what does. Why? Well, what if cGMP regulates CFTR, but only in the presence of another protien or only under certain specific conditions? What if your test that gave a "negative result" didn't account for the added variable/s?
I understand this isn't easy to grasp, and I'm not all that great at explaining things...
quote:
The only "real" example I have yet thought of (regarding potentially discarding a theory without proposing a new one) is the Michelson-Morley experiment. But you could always argue that the idea of the ether was never discarded until Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity.
The aether was never actually supported by observational evidence. It was proposed as a logical extension of the observed behavior of other waves (water, sound). Alot of great idea get their start this way, but most end up collecting dust in the "unsupported assertion" closet.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2005 : 00:29:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Because you cannot "prove" a negative statement.
Let me modify this statement, because it isn't exactly accurate the way I'm presenting it, I think. Its difficult to explain. Are you familliar with the problem of induction?
Actually, let me just send you to this link.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html
The first section or two are applicable to this conversation.
Ok. 330am and I'm starting to lose concentration, possibly babbling here. I'll come back to it after some sleep :)
|
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 - 08/01/2005 : 08:06:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
quote:
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.
I suppose I could crawl into that corner.
This statement irked me. I certainly don't feel that proposing a hypothetical entails "crawling into a corner." But then I'm not entirely sure what you meant by this remark. Perhaps you could clarify.quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Actually, let me just send you to this link.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html
Thanks for the link. It does clear up some common misconceptions about whether we can "prove" negative statements. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2005 : 15:00:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Thanks for the link. It does clear up some common misconceptions about whether we can "prove" negative statements.
You can prove a negative, but you do it by proving a positive that excludes something, thereby also proving the negative statement. Otherwise you always leave open loopholes.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2005 : 21:08:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
I suppose I could crawl into that corner.
This statement irked me. I certainly don't feel that proposing a hypothetical entails "crawling into a corner." But then I'm not entirely sure what you meant by this remark. Perhaps you could clarify.
I just meant that this was not a path I (myself) had any intention of going down (that the observations were simply wrong). For the purpose of my argument that would be to crawl into a corner. Yours is perfectly valid. I didn't mean any offense.
quote:
Because you cannot "prove" a negative statement.
No, I realize that. (I did try though, didn't I? And that was 3.30 pm.)
quote:
Actually, let me just send you to this link.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html
The first section or two are applicable to this conversation.
Ah...
Ahem...
I see. Good point. There is no better way to say this: I fold.
Unfortunately, my mothers assertion that I am perfect has just been falsified. Darn, best not tell her. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2005 : 22:36:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
I just meant that this was not a path I (myself) had any intention of going down (that the observations were simply wrong). For the purpose of my argument that would be to crawl into a corner. Yours is perfectly valid. I didn't mean any offense.
No worries. I didn't find your post offensive. The comment just seemed rather cryptic. You've cleared up my confusion. Thanks. 
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
You can prove a negative, but you do it by proving a positive that excludes something, thereby also proving the negative statement. Otherwise you always leave open loopholes.
I've given this some thought and I don't think I agree. For example, the statement, "The cat is not in the box." is a negative statement that you can prove or disprove directly, by looking in the box. In this case it wouldn't make sense to try and prove the positive statement, "The cat is outside the box." as this would entail looking everywhere except in the box. So in this case it would actually be easier to prove the negative statement.
I suspect that it is purely a matter of semantics in any case. The positive and negative statements are identical in meaning, so I don't see why in practice one would be more difficult to prove than the other.
From your infidel link:quote:
Logicians note that it is easier to prove that there are such beings than to prove there aren't simply because we only need to find one of them to accomplish our proof, and thus will not have to look everywhere--unless we are so unlucky that where the one Martian is just happens to be the last place we look. But in the final analysis, it is not being "negative" that makes a proposition difficult to prove, but the breadth of the assertion. For instance, "there is gravity on every planet in every universe" could be disproven by searching just one planet and finding no gravity, but if we kept finding gravity we could never decisively prove it true, any more than if we kept failing to find Martians in the universe would we be able to decisively prove that "there are no Martians in the universe." Thus, what people call the "you can't prove a negative" axiom is actually nothing more than the eternal problem of induction: since we can't test a proposition in every place and at every time, we can never be absolutely certain that the proposition remains true in all times and places. We can only infer it.
- emphasis mine
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2005 : 15:59:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But in the final analysis, it is not being "negative" that makes a proposition difficult to prove, but the breadth of the assertion.
Yes.
And in some situations (typically less complex ones) (like the cat/box thing) it is fairly simple to prove a negative, but it also proves the converse positive at the same time. As the number of variables and the complexity of a proposition increase, the positive proposition will tend to be the one with the least breadth.
|
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 - 08/02/2005 : 16:08:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
And in some situations (typically less complex ones) (like the cat/box thing) it is fairly simple to prove a negative, but it also proves the converse positive at the same time. As the number of variables and the complexity of a proposition increase, the positive proposition will tend to be the one with the least breadth.
I completely agree. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2005 : 22:12:23 [Permalink]
|
And then, from a scientific method point of view, it only makes sense to formulate your hypotheses as positive statements. You also make a null hypothesis as well.
Has this thread taken a sharp turn from the OP or what? hehe
|
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
