Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 19
Send Topic Print
the place of evolution in education (Read 15057 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: the place of evolution in education
Reply #180 - May 23rd, 2015 at 3:02pm
 
Quote:
I'm referring to scientific methodologies in common use.


Do you use a different definition of the scientific method to me?

Quote:
Hypotheses die mainly as a result of alternative hypotheses which prove to be more applicable in some way or other.


As Kuhn pointed out, alternative hypotheses rarely arise until after the dominant paradigm is falsified. 'More applicable' can be equated to more falsifiable. Relativity only arose in response to the failures identified with Newtonian Mechanics. Obviously they will only be replaced with a 'better' theory, not a worse one, because if the theory is contradicted by any of the previously existing empirical evidence in support of the old theory it will be immediately falsified. This however, is the outcome of the scientific method, not the motivation or method itself. In fact, the best way to come up with a better theory is to find where the current one fails - by falsifying it. Anything else is a waste of time.

Quote:
"For every metal, there is a temperature at which it will melt."
Is that falsifiable?


No, for two reasons. The first is that it appears to be tautological. If it is a definition of a metal, then it is by definition true. Furthermore, if a 'metal' fails to melt when you heat it, this does not prove the theory incorrect. It merely proves that you couldn't get it hot enough. Or rather, it leaves the conclusion totally ambiguous. Like evolution, the theory does not actually predict anything. It is a vague generalisation that is infinitely adaptable to any evidence that arises. The theory only tells us what we already know, and nothing more.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2175
Gender: male
Re: the place of evolution in education
Reply #181 - May 23rd, 2015 at 4:34pm
 
freediver wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 3:02pm:
Quote:
I'm referring to scientific methodologies in common use.


Do you use a different definition of the scientific method to me?


Do you regard "science" and the "scientific method" as synonymous?
Back to top
 
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2175
Gender: male
Re: the place of evolution in education
Reply #182 - May 23rd, 2015 at 4:47pm
 
freediver wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 3:02pm:
Quote:
"For every metal, there is a temperature at which it will melt."
Is that falsifiable?


No, for two reasons. The first is that it appears to be tautological. If it is a definition of a metal, then it is by definition true. Furthermore, if a 'metal' fails to melt when you heat it, this does not prove the theory incorrect. It merely proves that you couldn't get it hot enough. Or rather, it leaves the conclusion totally ambiguous. Like evolution, the theory does not actually predict anything. It is a vague generalisation that is infinitely adaptable to any evidence that arises. The theory only tells us what we already know, and nothing more.


Interesting.  So here is an important  part of everyday scientific theory (a consequence of Atomic Theory in fact) that is not falsifiable. I agree, but for a different reason, and that is if you were to subject a metal to a higher temperature, it would still melt. 

I don't see how it can be part of the definition of a metal.

So are you saying that Evolutionary Science is just like that example? 

That is  - the theory only tells us what we already know, and nothing more?

If not, why not?
Back to top
 
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: the place of evolution in education
Reply #183 - May 23rd, 2015 at 5:24pm
 
Quote:
Do you regard "science" and the "scientific method" as synonymous?


http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

Quote:
So here is an important  part of everyday scientific theory (a consequence of Atomic Theory in fact) that is not falsifiable.


Wrong. Atomic theory makes specific predictions. You offered vague waffle. For example, it predicted the properties of elements that had not yet been discovered, and these properties enabled the discovery/creation of those elements.

Quote:
I agree, but for a different reason, and that is if you were to subject a metal to a higher temperature, it would still melt.
 

Unless it failed to melt, in which case the results of your experiment would still be inconclusive.

Quote:
I don't see how it can be part of the definition of a metal.


It was a pretty vague statement. It could have meant anything. You can hardly blame me for not reading your mind and figuring out what you really meant.

Quote:
That is  - the theory only tells us what we already know, and nothing more?


The non-scientific parts of the theory of evolution do not make testable predictions. Now that you have changed what you are talking about from a brief vague statement to "atomic theory" we are now obviously talking about very different things.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2175
Gender: male
Re: the place of evolution in education
Reply #184 - May 23rd, 2015 at 6:13pm
 
freediver wrote on May 23rd, 2015 at 5:24pm:
Quote:
So here is an important  part of everyday scientific theory (a consequence of Atomic Theory in fact) that is not falsifiable.


Wrong. Atomic theory makes specific predictions. You offered vague waffle. For example, it predicted the properties of elements that had not yet been discovered, and these properties enabled the discovery/creation of those elements.


Yes, Including their melting points. You must have learned about the work of Mendeleev at school?

Back to top
 
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: the place of evolution in education
Reply #185 - May 24th, 2015 at 8:40am
 
What is your point John? You asked me to comment on a vague theory with no predictive content. I told you it was not falsifiable. Pretty simple stuff. If you merely want to impress everyone with your knowledge of metallurgy or the periodic table, maybe you should start a new thread.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2175
Gender: male
Re: the place of evolution in education
Reply #186 - May 24th, 2015 at 1:47pm
 
My point is that the criterion of falsifiability should not be a stand alone criterion of being scientific. 

My point is that in science, all manner of techniques can be used to get closer to the truth. In practice, it's not just a question of falsifiability on single hypotheses. One example is what is known as bootstrapping, where a hypothesis is assumed to be correct and the implications  of this are tested on other related hypotheses.

It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. All kinds of techniques can be used

In effect, what are we trying to achieve in science? We are trying to get closer to the truth. (Maybe you prefer to get further from the truth?)

In what way is a non-faslifiable hypothesis further from the truth? - because you can't knock it down? No. I already explained how other competing  hypotheses can win on the basis of probability. This is much more likely at the hypothesis level rather than the theory level.

At the hypothesis level, we are dealing with provisional knowledge. Most hypotheses are necessarily working hypotheses.

I said before that General Relativity would have died at birth had falsifiability been applied. The theory had a very fragile beginning, and it wasn't until a considerable amount of work that confirmed the findings that it became more generally accepted.

You said yourself that there was a need for a theory to fill the gaps left by the breakdown of Newtonian mechanics under certain conditions.  This is just one example of external  pressure that can influence how a theory goes.  There is a lot more to science than simple falisifiability. It's just not that sterile and inorganic.  Science is also a social phenomenon, and this was observed by later philosophers as previously mentioned. If you fail to account for the social nature of science, and just rely on falsifiability, then you miss a lot.

Why are you stuck in the past? Because of what your teacher said 25 years ago? (I'm guessing the 25 bit)

If science was entirely  driven by the falsifiability principle , scientific knowledge would be poorer for it.  Fortunately it is not.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 24th, 2015 at 1:56pm by John_Taverner »  
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: the place of evolution in education
Reply #187 - May 24th, 2015 at 2:23pm
 
Quote:
My point is that the criterion of falsifiability should not be a stand alone criterion of being scientific.


How exactly does mangling atomic theory into "For every metal, there is a temperature at which it will melt" make this point? Are you trying to argue that I was discarding all of atomic theory with my criticism of the mangled version you posted?

Quote:
One example is what is known as bootstrapping, where a hypothesis is assumed to be correct and the implications  of this are tested on other related hypotheses.


Are you suggesting I am ruling this out? Why do you have to assume it is correct in order to test it this way?

Quote:
In effect, what are we trying to achieve in science? We are trying to get closer to the truth. (Maybe you prefer to get further from the truth?)
In what way is a non-faslifiable hypothesis further from the truth? - because you can't knock it down? No.


The criterion of falsifiability largely explains science's success at getting closer to the truth. Assuming you have already found the truth is the biggest barrier to getting any closer. Science is so powerful because it discards what is wrong. Using your Darwinian analogy, falsifiability is exactly what allows you to weed out the less fit theories. You attempted to argue that science progresses by one theory replacing the other because it is better, apparently in the absence of the falsification of the weaker theory. In practice, this falsification of the weaker theory comes first.

Quote:
I already explained how other competing  hypotheses can win on the basis of probability.


You made the claim repeatedly. That is not the same as explaining how. I expect if you actually explained how, it would look identical to falsifiability. In fact I responded the first time you made this claim by pointing out that it is never certain. I can only assume this is yet another example of you thinking you understand something without being able to explain it.

Quote:
I said before that General Relativity would have died at birth had falsifiability been applied.


I know you said it. I pointed out that you are wrong. You had nothing in response. You are still wrong. Yet you repeat the claim without being able to back it up. This is taking you back to the first step again. Once more, you are somehow failing to understand my position and making unjustifiable claims about it.

Quote:
You said yourself that there was a need for a theory to fill the gaps left by the breakdown of Newtonian mechanics under certain conditions.


Correct. The falsification of Newtonian Mechanics was the primary motivator for the development of relativity.

Quote:
This is just one example of external  pressure that can influence how a theory goes.  There is a lot more to science than simple falisifiability.


It is an example of falsifiability directly contributing to the advance of science. Just one of many.

Quote:
It's just not that sterile and inorganic.


Who is arguing that it is? Step 1 remember. Figure out what my position is before trying to disagree with it. I know it sounds like I am talking to a child, but it is extremely difficult to get basic concepts like this through to you. I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt, and you keep proving that you are trying to disagree with a position that you have absolutely no knowledge of.

Quote:
Science is also a social phenomenon, and this was observed by later philosophers as previously mentioned. If you fail to account for the social nature of science, and just rely on falsifiability, then you miss a lot.


Yet another strawman. Read the article again. I directly refers to these social phenomena.

Quote:
If science was entirely  driven by the falsifiability principle , scientific knowledge would be poorer for it.  Fortunately it is not.


Another strawman. As I already explained, it is one of many criteria, not a "driver". Why is it so hard to get this through to you?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2175
Gender: male
Re: the place of evolution in education
Reply #188 - May 24th, 2015 at 2:38pm
 
Quote:
No theory ever solves all the puzzles with which it is confronted at a given time; nor are the solutions already achieved often perfect. On the contrary, it is just the incompleteness and imperfection of the existing data-theory fit that, at any given time, define many of the puzzles that characterize normal science. If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times. On the other hand, if only severe failure to fit justifies theory rejection, then the Popperians will require some criterion of "improbability" or of "degree of falsification". In developing one they will almost certainly encounter the same network of difficulties that has haunted the advocates of the various probabilistic verification theories [that the evaluative theory cannot itself be legitimated without appeal to another evaluative theory, leading to regress.


Familiar?
Back to top
 
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: the place of evolution in education
Reply #189 - May 24th, 2015 at 3:05pm
 
Falsifiability does not require a theory to solve all the puzzles with which you could confront it. If you understand what they mean by imperfect, go ahead and explain. Nor does "any and every failure" lead to falsification - hence the need for repeatability and the role of the "social phenomena" that you (and Kuhn and Popper) refer to.

It is my view that all scientific theories are wrong. I do not see this as some great dilemma, nor as introducing a need for probability or degree of falsification or some other bluriness. If a theory is wrong, it is wrong. Rather than scientists randomly trying to come up with a better one as you imply, falsification both motivates and directs the search for a better theory.

Again, you are failing to get past step 1.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2175
Gender: male
Re: the place of evolution in education
Reply #190 - May 24th, 2015 at 3:19pm
 
freediver wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 3:05pm:
Falsifiability does not require a theory to solve all the puzzles with which you could confront it. If you understand what they mean by imperfect, go ahead and explain. Nor does "any and every failure" lead to falsification - hence the need for repeatability and the role of the "social phenomena" that you (and Kuhn and Popper) refer to.

It is my view that all scientific theories are wrong. I do not see this as some great dilemma, nor as introducing a need for probability or degree of falsification or some other bluriness. If a theory is wrong, it is wrong. Rather than scientists randomly trying to come up with a better one as you imply, falsification both motivates and directs the search for a better theory.

Again, you are failing to get past step 1.


Kuhn,  That's correct. The last quote that you ferociously attacked was written by Thomas Kuhn in criticism of Popper's falisifiability principle.

That's why I asked you if it was familiar.

Quote:
Another strawman. As I already explained, it is one of many criteria, not a "driver". Why is it so hard to get this through to you?


Whether or not it is one of many criteria is immaterial to my argument as long as you insist that it's a prerequisite for being scientific.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 24th, 2015 at 3:25pm by John_Taverner »  
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2175
Gender: male
Re: the place of evolution in education
Reply #191 - May 24th, 2015 at 3:51pm
 
This link comes very close to explaining the criteria for scientific research, or how it works in practice. Note that there is no "exclusive" falsifiability principle:

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02

Note what I am not saying - Falsifiability is totally useless within the discipline of science. (I am not saying that)
- Karl Popper was not an influential figure in the Philosophy of Science (I am not saying that either)
Back to top
 
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: the place of evolution in education
Reply #192 - May 24th, 2015 at 4:40pm
 
Take two!

You two blokes having a great time?  I'll bet no-one else is reading any of this non Board relevant philosophical wan k fest.  Why bring this esoteric garbage here when there is a dedicated Philosophy Board?

This Topic (linked as follows) gets moved ~ today ~ out of here by Freediver, correctly ~

Link ~ yet this one gets to stay in Technically Speaking.

Here is the relevant edict by non other than freediver:

Link.

Oh well, I guess if you own the place, you can do what you like, and the peasants can eat it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John_Taverner
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2175
Gender: male
Re: the place of evolution in education
Reply #193 - May 24th, 2015 at 4:57pm
 
Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 4:40pm:
Take two!

You two blokes having a great time?  I'll bet no-one else is reading any of this non Board relevant philosophical wan k fest.  Why bring this esoteric garbage here when there is a dedicated Philosophy Board?

This Topic (linked as follows) gets moved ~ today ~ out of here by Freediver, correctly ~

Link ~ yet this one gets to stay in Technically Speaking.

Here is the relevant edict by non other than freediver:

Link.

Oh well, I guess if you own the place, you can do what you like, and the peasants can eat it.


We've just about wrapped it up, Aussie.  You can come back in a couple of days to mop the place out if you like.
Back to top
 
72+Adelaide+Street  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: the place of evolution in education
Reply #194 - May 24th, 2015 at 5:02pm
 
John_Taverner wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 4:57pm:
Aussie wrote on May 24th, 2015 at 4:40pm:
Take two!

You two blokes having a great time?  I'll bet no-one else is reading any of this non Board relevant philosophical wan k fest.  Why bring this esoteric garbage here when there is a dedicated Philosophy Board?

This Topic (linked as follows) gets moved ~ today ~ out of here by Freediver, correctly ~

Link ~ yet this one gets to stay in Technically Speaking.

Here is the relevant edict by non other than freediver:

Link.

Oh well, I guess if you own the place, you can do what you like, and the peasants can eat it.


We've just about wrapped it up, Aussie.  You can come back in a couple of days to mop the place out if you like.


That is not the point.  Members here get pushed and shoved around, and why is never explained.  This Thread should have been cleaned out of here the instant it began.  I guess the GMods too, technically, are willing to turn a blind eye if it is freediver ignoring his own edicts.

As I said,  he is the owner and can do what he likes...the peasants can eat it.

Is that a 'falsifiable' concept?

Is all.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 19
Send Topic Print