Considerations for science

pshun2404 · May 24, 2015

Some interesting philosophical assessments for the scientifically oriented were pointed out in Living Issues in Philosophy (1972 edition) that I though worthy of consideration and wondered what others might think…

1) Scientific research can only find that which our methods and instruments are capable of finding.

2) Every observation includes an observer, and every experiment, an experimenter who designs it. Thus one can never be totally free of the somewhat subjective element in one’s conclusions.

3) Each scientific conclusion includes the physical analysis (which is concrete and for the most part objective) and a resultant mathematical and logical speculation (which is abstract and often contains unconscious bias)

4) No single method of classification adequately and absolutely describes or finds everything of the subject matter being classified.

5) Definitions (for example what is a “species”) vary over time to include the more general variances and nuances of the one or many that are defining a thing or subject in their time.

6) The whole may have qualities not found in the parts, and the parts can have qualities not clearly reflected or discerned when looking at the whole (the nature of the atom is a great example here).

7) There can be many interpretations of a thing, person, or event. How, when, or from what angle we look at a thing or event/process can influence our conclusions (what is the nature of an electron is a perfect example…was it a particle or wave or both…was it a solid following a path or is it a quantum leaping pseudo mass made of pure energy).

8) Anything in process or development can only be completely understood when one grasps the past of the process or development and the future or where or why it is going there (which can never actually be fully known until we actually arrive at that place).

9) Conclusions are only as precise as the concluding intellect can analyze, organize, and articulate them and must not be closed to alternative possibilities that are not the norm.

(parentheses mine)

Paul

pshun2404 · May 24, 2015

Would you say these are true or false....

The Cadet · May 24, 2015

pshun2404 said:
Some interesting philosophical assessments for the scientifically oriented were pointed out in Living Issues in Philosophy (1972 edition) that I though worthy of consideration and wondered what others might think…

1) Scientific research can only find that which our methods and instruments are capable of finding.

True. This is the case in any endeavor; if we cannot detect something, we cannot find it. We also have no reason to believe that it is there. I mean, there could be an entirely different dimension of wavelengths that is beyond our comprehension, and there could be entities there thumbing their nose at us... But science couldn't find them if they were there. But the important question here, in my opinion, is "how would we ever know that they're there?" If we cannot detect them, how, then, can we possibly make the case that they exist?

2) Every observation includes an observer, and every experiment, an experimenter who designs it. Thus one can never be totally free of the somewhat subjective element in one’s conclusions.

This is the case in any endeavor of understanding anything. A human is observing something and trying to make sense of it. Their subjective whims can influence the results. But a large part of science is trying very hard to eliminate that bias. For example, in medicine, the gold standard is the double-blind, large-scale randomized placebo-controlled control trial. Look at what's demanded there. Neither the doctor nor the patient knows who is getting what treatment, so neither party can be biased in that regards. Large-scale means that the results are less likely to be affected by statistical noise. Randomized ensures that you cannot bias the trial by putting healthier patients in one group or another. Placebo-controlled ensures that the placebo effect does not play a significant role. Every single step is to ensure that the researcher cannot bias the result.
Science tries to put as many barriers between bias and the evaluation of the result as possible, including the harsh peer review system. Nobody is perfect, but we do the best we can.

3) Each scientific conclusion includes the physical analysis (which is concrete and for the most part objective) and a resultant mathematical and logical speculation (which is abstract and often contains unconscious bias)

I'm not sure what you mean; could you please provide an example?

4) No single method of classification adequately and absolutely describes or finds everything of the subject matter being classified.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean, could you clarify or provide an example?

5) Definitions (for example what is a “species”) vary over time to include the more general variances and nuances of the one or many that are defining a thing or subject in their time.

Of course. This is one of the things that makes science so great - when a model doesn't work, it's discarded in favor of a new one which does.

The best example of this, in my opinion, is Pluto. Pluto was classified as a planet until we discovered that there were countless objects quite a lot like Pluto in the Kuiper belt. At that point it became clear that we needed a new classification for the term "planet". Same thing happened a century or so back with the Asteroid Belt. Science changes and modifies its definitions to help better map reality. This is what science is all about - creating functional models of reality in order to explain and make predictions about reality, and you can only expect definitions to change and become better as more evidence comes to light.

6) The whole may have qualities not found in the parts, and the parts can have qualities not clearly reflected or discerned when looking at the whole (the nature of the atom is a great example here).

This is basically a truism, so okay?

7) There can be many interpretations of a thing, person, or event. How, when, or from what angle we look at a thing or event/process can influence our conclusions (what is the nature of an electron is a perfect example…was it a particle or wave or both…was it a solid following a path or is it a quantum leaping pseudo mass made of pure energy).

While the claim itself is not wrong in general parlance, the example is extremely poor. It's not a matter of interpretation whether electrons are particles or waves; the issue is that it displays properties of both and neither, to the point where neither explanation really works. We need a new category. Similarly, science is all about removing subjective interpretation and boiling it down to simply what can be directly deduced from the facts at hand.

8) Anything in process or development can only be completely understood when one grasps the past of the process or development and the future or where or why it is going there (which can never actually be fully known until we actually arrive at that place).

Yeah, this I'm going to disagree with. If I start building a 1000-piece puzzle, and then have to stop because 50 pieces are missing, I can still look at the picture and say, "This is obviously the Taj Mahal. We don't have every piece, but the picture is still clear enough to draw reasonable conclusions."

9) Conclusions are only as precise as the concluding intellect can analyze, organize, and articulate them and must not be closed to alternative possibilities that are not the norm.

I think you may be confusing methodological and philosophical naturalism.

pshun2404 · May 25, 2015

Well for one example we know love is there, but our methods and instruments cannot detect it.

3) Each scientific conclusion includes the physical analysis (which is concrete and for the most part objective) and a resultant mathematical and logical speculation (which is abstract and often contains unconscious bias)

I'm not sure what you mean; could you please provide an example?

Well first off this is the conclusion of philosophers and historians of science so more appropriately what do they mean? But I can provide one example. The Leakys at the Olduvia gorge found stone tools near some footprints (which lack any semblance to the separated big toe or lower thumb joint common to apes), near to this was a stone monolithic structure and about a football field away (at least 750 feet) they found a few remains of a young Ape…all their measurements, timeline calculations, chemical analyses were correct but in their conclusion they ASSUMED the ape or their family must have made the tools and used them and that the footprints were an example of Australopithicene evolution.

Now despite the physical analysis the conclusion was abstract and contained an unconscious bias….

a) It was just as likely what they had found was evidence of early Sapiens or Erectus and some ape they had killed or even eaten.

b) Being already convinced that no humans lived this far back they could not consider it (a lot of evidence of early humans has been re-interpreted under this assumption….absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence)

Imagine if 100,000 or 1,000,000 years from now all that existed here was my functional toilet and a few footprints and a football field away the researchers found the remains of a dog….would it be sound to conclude the dog or his family made or used this toilet? Perfect analogy!

4) No single method of classification adequately and absolutely describes or finds everything of the subject matter being classified.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean, could you clarify or provide an example?

Okay! Again, we are talking “humankind”…now consider Freudian, Astrological, Taxonomical, Biological, and other systems of classification….which one includes all we are? Even “Species” means different things to different fields and at different times in history.

Take as an example when the original Heidelberg Jaw (considered human though large like Shaq's), was combined later with a skull which was found at a different site (braincase equal to modern human - 1100 to 1400 cc's), and mixed with some limb bones found in Spain (average height 5' 7" but as tall as 7" just like moderns)...so they removed the classification "Erectus" and gave this hodge podge its own new classification (this hodge podge is now allegedly a separate species, but all it really is is a variety of early Sapien)....

220px-Homo_heidelbergensis_-_forensic_facial_reconstruction.png

it displays properties of both and neither

True that this one example could be an actual paradox, but clearly it violates the rule of non-contradiction if true, so I agree a new classification of their reality must be conceived. It cannot be both AND neither because one (as we currently describe it) negates the possibility of the other. So either one is true and the other false or else both are false because both cannot be true at the same time in the same sense. They must be one OR the other OR neither…

9) Conclusions are only as precise as the concluding intellect can analyze, organize, and articulate them and must not be closed to alternative possibilities that are not the norm.

I think you may be confusing methodological and philosophical naturalism.

You mean they are but that’s okay I thank you for your thoughtful comments...always stay open to alternate possibilities other than the mantra accepted by the pedagogues (remember the Clovis People)...its often colored by conjecture and consensus (the majority is not always right...pr else as you pointed out we would still accept the Newtonian model)

The Cadet · May 25, 2015

Warning: I have become increasingly like Lot after Gomorrah throughout this post, so the declining quality of response should be expected.

pshun2404 said:
Well for one example we know love is there, but our methods and instruments cannot detect it.

I'm not so sure about that.
http://www.livescience.com/18430-falling-love-brain.html
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1101/11010401
http://neurology.about.com/od/NervousSystem/a/The-Brain-In-Love.htm

Et cetera, I'm sure you could find far more. Love is an emotion, and like all other emotions, it's most likely the result of brain activity. Our methods can detect it, but even if they couldn't, guess what: we can observe within each of us this emotion. It's not some undetectable "something" that has no tangible effect on the world, it's clearly an emotional response we all have access to.

Well first off this is the conclusion of philosophers and historians of science so more appropriately what do they mean? But I can provide one example. The Leakys at the Olduvia gorge found stone tools near some footprints (which lack any semblance to the separated big toe or lower thumb joint common to apes), near to this was a stone monolithic structure and about a football field away (at least 750 feet) they found a few remains of a young Ape…all their measurements, timeline calculations, chemical analyses were correct but in their conclusion they ASSUMED the ape or their family must have made the tools and used them and that the footprints were an example of Australopithicene evolution.

If I had to take a wild guess as to why they didn't assume it was early Sapiens or Erectus, it would probably have to do with the rock layer they found the tools in being too old for it. I don't know the precise details of your case, but I will say that those sorts of leaps of logic are, generally speaking, frowned upon, so I'm kind of wondering if you haven't left out any relevant details.

4) No single method of classification adequately and absolutely describes or finds everything of the subject matter being classified.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean, could you clarify or provide an example?

Okay! Again, we are talking “humankind”…now consider Freudian, Astrological, Taxonomical, Biological, and other systems of classification….which one includes all we are? Even “Species” means different things to different fields and at different times in history.

With you so far...

Take as an example when the original Heidelberg Jaw (considered human though large like Shaq's), was combined later with a skull which was found at a different site (braincase equal to modern human - 1100 to 1400 cc's), and mixed with some limb bones found in Spain (average height 5' 7" but as tall as 7" just like moderns)...so they removed the classification "Erectus" and gave this hodge podge its own new classification (this hodge podge is now allegedly a separate species, but all it really is is a variety of early Sapien)....

The Heidelberg Jaw, as shown here, is very different from the typical Sapiens jaw. The difference in classification is entirely justified.

katerinah1947 · May 25, 2015

pshun2404 said:
Would you say these are true or false....

Hi,
I would say those statements are meaningless to most scientists. I am one of sorts. I have worked in the field all of my life, and virtually none of those statements matter to anyone that I have worked with so far.
What matters is what is provably true. And, all things are under the umbrella of science, including Philosophy and God. It is just not talked about and claimed officially.
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

AV1611VET · May 25, 2015

pshun2404 said:
Some interesting philosophical assessments for the scientifically oriented were pointed out in Living Issues in Philosophy (1972 edition) that I though worthy of consideration and wondered what others might think…

Hi, Paul!

Nice post.

I can sum it up in three words: science is myopic.

And anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to explain this to me:

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

PsychoSarah · May 25, 2015

pshun2404 said:
Some interesting philosophical assessments for the scientifically oriented were pointed out in Living Issues in Philosophy (1972 edition) that I though worthy of consideration and wondered what others might think…

1) Scientific research can only find that which our methods and instruments are capable of finding.

2) Every observation includes an observer, and every experiment, an experimenter who designs it. Thus one can never be totally free of the somewhat subjective element in one’s conclusions.

3) Each scientific conclusion includes the physical analysis (which is concrete and for the most part objective) and a resultant mathematical and logical speculation (which is abstract and often contains unconscious bias)

4) No single method of classification adequately and absolutely describes or finds everything of the subject matter being classified.

5) Definitions (for example what is a “species”) vary over time to include the more general variances and nuances of the one or many that are defining a thing or subject in their time.

6) The whole may have qualities not found in the parts, and the parts can have qualities not clearly reflected or discerned when looking at the whole (the nature of the atom is a great example here).

7) There can be many interpretations of a thing, person, or event. How, when, or from what angle we look at a thing or event/process can influence our conclusions (what is the nature of an electron is a perfect example…was it a particle or wave or both…was it a solid following a path or is it a quantum leaping pseudo mass made of pure energy).

8) Anything in process or development can only be completely understood when one grasps the past of the process or development and the future or where or why it is going there (which can never actually be fully known until we actually arrive at that place).

9) Conclusions are only as precise as the concluding intellect can analyze, organize, and articulate them and must not be closed to alternative possibilities that are not the norm.

(parentheses mine)

Paul

1, true, science only works with the testable and measurable. Is this a problem?
2, false, we repeat experiments hundreds of times, and often the people involved may not even know what the data is for, in order to avoid bias. This is why experiments that cannot be repeated are considered invalid in their data (in cases where it isn't because of legal issues).
3, true, but the bias would be minimal, and eventually rendered nonexistent with repeats of the experiment with different people.
4, false, I think the classification of the states of matter doesn't have any deviants that lack a real label. Even semisolids and similar things are accounted for.
5, true, but the definition of species hasn't changed in decades. Most of the time, such changes occur early on to accommodate new information that cannot be applied to the old labels. I highly doubt the definition of species will ever have to be changed again.
6, true, no contest here.
7, true, but thankfully, computers don't have opinions to mess up their measurements.
8, idk, I am not really sure what you mean by this. Of course we cannot measure that which doesn't already exist in some form, but I don't see how this is important.
9, true, but conclusions are not derived scientifically from just 1 person, but rather the scientific community portion that studies the topic in question.

1watchman · May 26, 2015

There is some interesting discussion here, and worthy of consideration. I would like to suggest one visit the site at icr.org and pose this question to those scientists who are Christians. It might be an interesting viewpoint.

Loudmouth · May 26, 2015

In my experience, what philosophers say about science tend to be irrelevant, superfluous, or petty. Sometimes a nice mixture of all of those.

If you want to ask someone about how science works, ask a scientist.

pshun2404 · May 26, 2015

Well for one example we know love is there, but our methods and instruments cannot detect it.

Et cetera, I'm sure you could find far more. Love is an emotion, and like all other emotions, it's most likely the result of brain activity. Our methods can detect it, but even if they couldn't, guess what: we can observe within each of us this emotion. It's not some undetectable "something" that has no tangible effect on the world, it's clearly an emotional response we all have access to.

Well I submit perhaps they are incorrect, but had we only seen the brain activity would we have known it was love? We see all sorts of brain activity we do not attach specific meaning to.

And yes it is obvious we all can experience it but that void of method or instrument so that sense of love does not apply to their premise.

Also one alternative explanation (just as likely) is that what we see in the brain’s activity may be the physical reaction to our experience of loving. Instead of brain causing the love response, love causes this brain response.

If I had to take a wild guess as to why they didn't assume it was early Sapiens or Erectus, it would probably have to do with the rock layer they found the tools in being too old for it. I don't know the precise details of your case, but I will say that those sorts of leaps of logic are, generally speaking, frowned upon, so I'm kind of wondering if you haven't left out any relevant details.

That was the point. The layers did in fact precede the timeline hitherto thought to support Sapien or Erectus. But it is as likely what they found was earlier evidence of them than hitherto accepted. Therefore not believing humans existed at that time, they concluded it was the australopithicene (but such a conclusion is biased by the previously “accepted” or preconceived conclusion without the slightest ill intent or malevolence)…this is the “why” for my analogy….by such reasoning the dog must have built the toilet and used it. Just because evidence does not fit our theory, we must allow the evidence to shape a renewed hypothesis and be careful not to let the theory interpret the evidence.

The Heidelberg Jaw, is very different from the typical Sapiens jaw. The difference in classification is entirely justified.

Yes, you are referring to the shelf but some Erectus finds also display this and besides how can we say an early but unsuccessful variety of Sapien did not also have this? And what does Homo Erectus really mean? An Upright Man? Do we know of any other kind?

pshun2404 · May 26, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
1, true, science only works with the testable and measurable. Is this a problem?
2, false, we repeat experiments hundreds of times, and often the people involved may not even know what the data is for, in order to avoid bias. This is why experiments that cannot be repeated are considered invalid in their data (in cases where it isn't because of legal issues).
3, true, but the bias would be minimal, and eventually rendered nonexistent with repeats of the experiment with different people.
4, false, I think the classification of the states of matter doesn't have any deviants that lack a real label. Even semisolids and similar things are accounted for.
5, true, but the definition of species hasn't changed in decades. Most of the time, such changes occur early on to accommodate new information that cannot be applied to the old labels. I highly doubt the definition of species will ever have to be changed again.
6, true, no contest here.
7, true, but thankfully, computers don't have opinions to mess up their measurements.
8, idk, I am not really sure what you mean by this. Of course we cannot measure that which doesn't already exist in some form, but I don't see how this is important.
9, true, but conclusions are not derived scientifically from just 1 person, but rather the scientific community portion that studies the topic in question.

Really good point on number 4 thanks....

pshun2404 · May 26, 2015

Loudmouth said:
In my experience, what philosophers say about science tend to be irrelevant, superfluous, or petty. Sometimes a nice mixture of all of those.

If you want to ask someone about how science works, ask a scientist.

Hi LM I was an agnostic for nearly half my life (actual shared experiences outside the natural order began to change that)...I did science...actually worked as a clinical trial assistant for years...but I disagree with you on your assessment. Fresh eyes and unbiased assessment improve total understanding....much of science is "best guess" derived theoretically on a variance of data (much is not and is very sound)...a second issue is in the area of interpretation and conclusions (some are simple and straight forward others colored by our expectation or belief). Yet other apparent conclusions are engineered by the outside intelligent force (the designer of the experiment) when their experiment is tweaked to produce the product desired.

Paul

The Cadet · May 27, 2015

pshun2404 said:
Well for one example we know love is there, but our methods and instruments cannot detect it.

Et cetera, I'm sure you could find far more. Love is an emotion, and like all other emotions, it's most likely the result of brain activity. Our methods can detect it, but even if they couldn't, guess what: we can observe within each of us this emotion. It's not some undetectable "something" that has no tangible effect on the world, it's clearly an emotional response we all have access to.

Well I submit perhaps they are incorrect, but had we only seen the brain activity would we have known it was love? We see all sorts of brain activity we do not attach specific meaning to.

But* this is kind of how Neurology works. We evoke particular emotional or rational responses from people, and examine which part of the brain is responsible. Simply by examining brain activity, it's almost impossible to tell what it is; just like simply by examining bits of data, it's almost impossible to tell what they are. We don't quite understand the brain perfectly yet, and a full understanding of neurology may be centuries down the line, it's hard to tell. But there's nothing intangible about an emotion that you can map to a specific brain state.

*To my knowledge, I am not an expert in the field

Also one alternative explanation (just as likely) is that what we see in the brain’s activity may be the physical reaction to our experience of loving. Instead of brain causing the love response, love causes this brain response.

Except that this explanation has one clear problem: it does not offer any explanation for what love is or where it comes from. We can make no predictions based on this. And, of course, it's also not just as likely, because all the research done into how our brain interacts with our consciousness implies very heavily that the brain is the basis of all consciousness.

We can also make testable predictions based on this - for example, if we disabled the part of the brain responsible for "love" and then tried to evoke the same emotional response, if love was an emotion made by a brain state, we would fail to evoke the same emotional response. And while, to my knowledge, this experiment has not been done with love, explicitly, you can find all sorts of interesting research on the effects of various mental diseases on the brain, and how people with brain damage live. Here's a good example: you could easily claim that empathy is some intangible, external force, and that our brain reacts to that force. However, if that were the case, you would expect that shrinking the part of the brain hypothesized to be responsible for understanding other people would not lead to a decrease in empathy. Instead, what we see is exactly the opposite. Brain structure offers us a strong warning sign for psychopathy.

And of course there's the issue of falsifiability. Let's keep something in mind here - love being the result of a brain state is a workable hypothesis. It can be proven wrong (if we isolate the part of the brain responsible and mess with it and see no changes to people's loving reactions, then there's clearly a problem) and it offers us useful explanations and predictions (for example, potential drug treatments to get over heartbreak). Love being some intangible, undetectable "outer force" offers no such utility. It's not science. And thus it should be discarded, along with the idea that, say, consciousness is 8th-dimensional vibration of the quantum wavelength**.

See, science is all about making models to explain and predict reality. And if your idea cannot be made into a useful model, then it is worthless and must be discarded in favor of alternative hypotheses that can be falsified and do make useful predictions. In this case, there's nothing arbitrary about rejecting your model and accepting the one of neuroscience. One model expands our understanding of the universe; the other simply replaces one mystery with another mystery.

**Spirit Science needs to go die in a fire.

pshun2404 said:
Fresh eyes and unbiased assessment improve total understanding....much of science is "best guess" derived theoretically on a variance of data (much is not and is very sound)...a second issue is in the area of interpretation and conclusions (some are simple and straight forward others colored by our expectation or belief). Yet other apparent conclusions are engineered by the outside intelligent force (the designer of the experiment) when their experiment is tweaked to produce the product desired.

And yet, for all the criticisms one can (justifiably) lob at science, it's important to keep two things in mind: firstly, that all of these criticisms are based on making the method stronger rather than replacing it, and secondly, that we have no alternative that even comes close to being this useful.

pshun2404 · May 27, 2015

But* this is kind of how Neurology works. We evoke particular emotional or rational responses from people, and examine which part of the brain is responsible.

Yes this is how Neurologists INTERPRET this. They conclude the brain is the cause of the love but it is just as likely the love is the cause of the brain’s response.

Except that this explanation has one clear problem: it does not offer any explanation for what love is or where it comes from.

Yes it does…but you will reject it! Spirit or life is a quality of reality separate from that acts on certain constructs of matter.

We can make no predictions based on this.

Sure you can, you can predict likely behavioral choices and responses. Science (which I love) can only address these after they occur.

And, of course, it's also not just as likely, because all the research done into how our brain interacts with our consciousness implies very heavily that the brain is the basis of all consciousness.

Note in your own “explanation” (the human factor)

a) the Brain and consciousness “interact”. But logically if that first premise is necessarily true, then

b) the Brain cannot be the basis (cause) OF consciousness. (might be, could be, but not IS)

In my view the brain is like the tuner or hardware which receives and interprets/directs that quality you call consciousness (life being a vitalizing principle that acts upon certain structures of matter) which you say "interacts" with the brain...

Your unfounded preconceived belief that “spirit” or “life” is the result of evolved matter dictates your conclusion. I am not limited to that view.

I will respond to the rest later I have to get my grandson ready for school….have a good morning.

Paul

pshun2404 · May 27, 2015

Brain structure offers us a strong warning sign for psychopathy.

Yes, exactly! If the software or wiring in one section is damaged or shuts down it will obviously not work properly and thus interprets or directs the signal improperly.

The brain is merely the hardware. Correct or fix the hardware and it will do what the programmer and software originally intended.

Damage or disconnect a section of the hardware containing information, instruction, or memory relative to a particular function and that function becomes inoperable and may be permanently lost.

If it is a section controlling or directing a secondary function (say the movement of certain parts) they cease to work properly (possibly not at all).

This however does not automatically equal that the hardware IS the cause of the programmer or software it draws upon and relies on. Such a conclusion (that this means it is or must be the cause) is what we call an “invalid derivation.” Do not think (or accuse) that I negate neuroscience or where it has taken us I just note that some of the "conclusions" are assumption based and can be explained in other ways.

AND yet, for all the criticisms one can (justifiably) lob at science, it's important to keep two things in mind: firstly, that all of these criticisms are based on making the method stronger rather than replacing it, and secondly, that we have no alternative that even comes close to being this useful.[/QUOTE]

I am not (and neither were they) lobbing criticisms at "Science"! I questioned the logic of how some people form conclusions (which has nothing to do with what is truth in many cases). it is opinion. conjecture, and consensus among the like-minded. So went the Nazi's. Science is great and the method is usually sound (but even it changes over time as have many conclusions). So by no means would I throw away science or try to place it (or even say it should be)...we just need to stop assuming conclusions.

If it were not for thinking outside the box (questioning the mantra of the pedagogues like I am doing here) we would still be stuck in Newtonian Mechanics as an explanation of the Universe. Now again do not get me wrong or falsely accuse me, I am not saying there is something wrong with this basic model (which allowed us a fundamental approach we can test and derive results from utilizing), but it was not complete, or the final word on the matter (hence relativity and now quantum physics) as our methods and instruments (even our reasoning about alternate possibilities) has improved.

If there were not people like me to question the blindly accepted assumption based conclusion simply because it fits the preconceived model, we would not progress in our understanding. So I am not suggesting you throw away science (God forbid) just learn to reason so as to not conclude beyond what the data ACTUALLY provides. I gave the example of the Leakys, tool and monolith making Zinj theory is an assumptive conclusion based on a preconceived unproven belief.

As I always said as an agnostic, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Many YECs arguments flow from this same logic fallacy.

Loudmouth · May 28, 2015

pshun2404 said:
Hi LM I was an agnostic for nearly half my life (actual shared experiences outside the natural order began to change that)...I did science...actually worked as a clinical trial assistant for years...but I disagree with you on your assessment. Fresh eyes and unbiased assessment improve total understanding....

I agree. However, philosophers don't offer either one. To paraphrase Steven Weinberg, the only good thing philosophers do is point out bad philosophy. In the scientific realm, they are pretty worthless.

much of science is "best guess" derived theoretically on a variance of data (much is not and is very sound)...

Were you in any clinical trials where you tested the reliability of empiricism as a metaphysical worldview? Probably not, right?

What you did do is take hypotheses and test those hypotheses with hard data anyalysed through statistical analyses. If you know of a better way of figuring out how reality works, now would be the time to describe it. If not, then people will continue to use science because it is the best method we have.

a second issue is in the area of interpretation and conclusions (some are simple and straight forward others colored by our expectation or belief).

How are they colored by expectation or belief?

Yet other apparent conclusions are engineered by the outside intelligent force (the designer of the experiment) when their experiment is tweaked to produce the product desired.

Huh?

pshun2404 · May 28, 2015

a second issue is in the area of interpretation and conclusions (some are simple and straight forward others colored by our expectation or belief).
How are they colored by expectation or belief?

Well in the example I gave (twice) because the Leaky's accept and believe there were no humans at the time of gorge they conclude the tools were made and used by the australopithicene they found remains of.

Yet other apparent conclusions are engineered by the outside intelligent force (the designer of the experiment) when their experiment is tweaked to produce the product desired.
Huh?

In other words they tweak and re-tweak aspects of the experiment until they get a desired result (like in the Miller/Urey experiment)

Loudmouth · May 29, 2015

pshun2404 said:
a second issue is in the area of interpretation and conclusions (some are simple and straight forward others colored by our expectation or belief).
How are they colored by expectation or belief?

Well in the example I gave (twice) because the Leaky's accept and believe there were no humans at the time of gorge they conclude the tools were made and used by the australopithicene they found remains of.

There is no evidence for modern humans during that time period, so the only thing that would lead you to the conclusion that they were made by modern humans is faith based belief.

The Leaky's tentative conclusion that the tools were made by Australopithecines is supported by the observation that Australopithecines are found during that time period and in those geographic areas.

In other words they tweak and re-tweak aspects of the experiment until they get a desired result (like in the Miller/Urey experiment)

Why is that a problem, as long as you are upfront about the conditions that are necessary to produce the observations?

pshun2404 · May 29, 2015

Thanks LM your input is a fine representation of the accepted perspective...

In other words they tweak and re-tweak aspects of the experiment until they get a desired result (like in the Miller/Urey experiment)
Why is that a problem, as long as you are upfront about the conditions that are necessary to produce the observations?

Nothing! You asked and I gave an example of what they may have been referring to...

Now as to their allegedly being no evidence of humans that long ago I again must repeat ifa person refuses the possibility they will not see it...(I believe an objective scientist should never close their mind to any possibility when so detached from the time period in question...on a more recent scale, there were scientists who refused to accept a Hittite empire for there was yet no conclusive evidence...and then we found it nearly two centuries later)

Oldest “modern” human remains about 300,000 years ago (oldest entire specimen from Ethiopia about 130,000 years old)

Heidelbergensis (not the Leaky Frankenstein hodge-podge) about 500,000 years ago (formerly classified Erectus but re-classified) many bones conceded to be equal to “modern” humans

Peking man (Erectus) possibly 770,000 years ago (human remains in the same area as apelike remains assumed to be from the same creature)

Java as early as 1.2 million years ago (Dubois’ find alone included a human femur, and two human skulls…stone tools)

Olduvia site 1.5 million years (stone tools, a monolithic structure, and footprints that lack the separated big toe or rear thumb exhibited by apes)

All show signs of human life possibly existing (I consider Erectus as an early, though unsuccessful variety) but not ape…

These and other finds indicate human life to have existed long before what is “accepted” and “believed”…it just depends on the interpretation if one sees the these as possibly indicating separate creatures. But if one assumes the “accepted belief” as true, they cannot see the distinctions. It is very similar to what happened in academia with the Clovis Theory….

The pedagogues insisted on their accepted Clovis-First theory so adamantly that historian Josh Clark in Were the Clovis the first Americans tells us “they jealously guarded their ideas and evidence. A "Clovis barrier" shielded by the scientists who formed a sort of "Clovis police" discounted any other theory that placed other cultures in the Americas earlier than the Clovis.” We know from testimonies that scientists and professors who saw and expressed other possibilities were immediately discredited and often removed from positions of authority and so on.

In my opinion, over the past century we have seen the presence of a Darwinian Barrier (not blaming Charles) complete with a whole host of Darwinian Police who discount any alternative theory as “not scientific”, and who have proactively discredited any other scientists or professors who propose alternative theories or interpret the evidence differently (selectively excluding papers and studies that bring legitimate questions to light from their Peer Journals).

Considerations for science

Newbie

Newbie

SO COOL

Newbie

SO COOL

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Chaotic Neutral

Overseer

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

SO COOL

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Similar threads