What is Science?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We can demonstrate that science works.

Your epistemology is so poor that you can't even demonstrate that your smoke detector works. In fact, you have to make pathetic excuses for why you won't use the scientific method. It is obvious to everyone that your argument has failed.

What was the reason he said he didn't want to test the smoke detectors again?

 

[lesliedellow]

We can demonstrate that science works.

Your epistemology is so poor that you can't even demonstrate that your smoke detector works. In fact, you have to make pathetic excuses for why you won't use the scientific method. It is obvious to everyone that your argument has failed.

He/she/it has got to have an argument before it can fail.

 

[Loudmouth]

What was the reason he said he didn't want to test the smoke detectors again?

Zosimus was afraid that something as simply as lighting a match would burn the house down.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Zosimus was afraid that something as simply as lighting a match would burn the house down.

Now THAT is bad logic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now THAT is bad logic.

It is the type of thing that happens when people paint themselves into corners.

 

[Doveaman]

Scientists would say that science is the process of trying to prove yourself wrong.

So you start from the premise that you are right?

Isn't that religion?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you start from the premise that you are right?

Isn't that religion?

No.
Science starts from the premise that they are not right. Such as "We are going to try and show this process does not happen this way."

 

[Doveaman]

Scientists would say that science is the process of trying to prove yourself wrong.

Science starts from the premise that they are not right.

If they are not right, then why try to prove themselves wrong?

Isn't that a waste of funding?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If they are not right, then why try to prove themselves wrong?

Isn't that a waste of funding?

No.
Let's take penicillin as an example. They carried out experiments with penicillin strains to try and find which ones didn't work, and they kept the ones that did work.
Then they experimented with the strains they kept to find out which ones didn't work and kept the ones that did work, and they carried on in that fashion until they found the penicillin strains that worked and we use as the basis for most of modern antibiotics today.
Savy?

 

[Bradly Capel]

If they are not right, then why try to prove themselves wrong?

Isn't that a waste of funding?

It's very hard to understand when you have preconceived ideas as to how you think it should be, put your religion to one side for a moment and try to understand what you are being told, after all you are the one who will benefit if you ever decide to move away.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you start from the premise that you are right?

Isn't that religion?

So you misrepresent my position, and attack it?

Isn't that a strawman?

 

[Loudmouth]

If they are not right, then why try to prove themselves wrong?

Isn't that a waste of funding?

If they are right, then they won't prove it wrong.

Isn't that how funding should be spent?

 

[justlookinla]

No.
Let's take penicillin as an example. They carried out experiments with penicillin strains to try and find which ones didn't work, and they kept the ones that did work.
Then they experimented with the strains they kept to find out which ones didn't work and kept the ones that did work, and they carried on in that fashion until they found the penicillin strains that worked and we use as the basis for most of modern antibiotics today.
Savy?

That's certainly not the process of the method of 'creation' proposed by Darwinist evolution. In Darwinist evolution, it was a willy-nilly, random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless process.

 

[Zosimus]

We can demonstrate that science works.

Your epistemology is so poor that you can't even demonstrate that your smoke detector works. In fact, you have to make pathetic excuses for why you won't use the scientific method. It is obvious to everyone that your argument has failed.

No, you cannot demonstrate that science works. In fact, I have repeatedly demonstrated that science does not work. If you believe in science, then you shouldn't believe in science.

Eighty percent of non-randomized studies (by far the majority of published studies) are later convincingly refuted. The remaining 20 percent may also be completely wrong. They're just not straight out refuted.

The reasons that these studies are so often wrong is no secret. It's an over-reliance on p-values, which are not designed to show anything about studies. Additionally, researcher bias is rampant. Mathematical models exist that show how difficult it is to get an a posteriori chance greater than 50 percent.

Your best "proof" of science is correlation. Science (as we know it) was invented in roughly 1925. Since 1925 great technological strides have been made. Therefore, science must be the cause. However, great technological strides came before that too. So what now? Do you backdate science to 1834? To 1686? To 1632? This doesn't change the fundamental principle that correlation is not causation.

Double-entry bookkeeping was invented in 1416, and the world has made great technological strides since that time. In fact, every technological marvel you have was made by a corporation that uses double-entry bookkeeping religiously. Why are you so convinced that technological strides come from science rather than from double-entry bookkeeping?

 

[Zosimus]

Now THAT is bad logic.

I don't know whether it's bad memory or selective memory at work, but let's return to the Great Smoke Detector debate.

Someone on here suggested that I could test whether a smoke detector worked by pushing the button on it. This is patently false. The only way to test whether a smoke detector detects smoke is by exposing it to smoke. That's so obvious that even Loudmouth cannot argue against it.

Then someone suggested simply lighting a match. However, I doubt that lighting a match is a fair test of whether a smoke detector works. Let's assume that we light a small match and the smoke detector does not go off. Does that imply that a smoke detector might not detect a greater amount of smoke, such as the amount produced in a major fire? Absolutely not.

The only fair test of a smoke detector is to place a smoke detector above a fair sized fire in an enclosed space, such as a house or apartment. However, the benefits of doing so (you know whether the smoke detector works) are far outweighed by the risk (the fire might escape your control and burn your house down).

This leads me back to the original point. Why do we have smoke detectors? Houses in Peru are made out of brick. Brick is not particularly flammable. I don't know anyone whose house has burned down. Even my father-in-law's house, which has a horribly done electrical system–you have to jiggle the wires on the wall to get the lights to come on. In fact, once while my wife was there cooking with an electric stove using an extension cord, the cord itself actually caught fire and I had to extinguish it. Yet the house has been around for some 30 years and has never burned down.

Nevertheless, we have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers and all of that. Why? Induction and empiricism would seem to argue that these things are unnecessary. However, this is missing the point. We have smoke detectors because the cost of a smoke detector is low whereas the value of my children's lives is high. In other words, before I would discard a smoke detector as unnecessary, I would need to be 99.99 percent certain that the smoke detector did not work. Even the most expensive smoke detector doesn't cost more than PEN 60, whereas I would gladly pay tens of thousands of PEN to save the life of even one of my children.

Therefore, the logical thing to do if one suspects that a smoke detector might not work is to install a second one of a different brand. This gives you twice the possibility of saving your children's lives and the cost is low.

This is what we call normative decision theory. This is the proper way to make decisions not, as some suggested, to employ induction.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you cannot demonstrate that science works.

PLoS Comput Biol. 2005 Oct;1(5):e45. Epub 2005 Oct 7.

Protein molecular function prediction by Bayesian phylogenomics.

Engelhardt BE, Jordan MI, Muratore KE, Brenner SE.

We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5'-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER's prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors.​

In fact, I have repeatedly demonstrated that science does not work.

You have repeatedly demonstrated that medical treatments don't work by using the scientific method.

 

[Zosimus]

PLoS Comput Biol. 2005 Oct;1(5):e45. Epub 2005 Oct 7.

Protein molecular function prediction by Bayesian phylogenomics.

Engelhardt BE, Jordan MI, Muratore KE, Brenner SE.

We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5'-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER's prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors.​

You have repeatedly demonstrated that medical treatments don't work by using the scientific method.

The amusing thing (or sad thing, depending on your point of view) is that you actually think that demonstrates something.

Let's summarize this. You have a theory that makes certain predictions. These predictions occur in the real world, therefore you assume that the theory is true. However, you have engaged in a logical fallacy.

Let T = theory and P = predictions.

If T then P
P
Therefore, T.

This is a textbook case of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. By way of illustration, we can substitute "Bill Gates owns Fort Knox" as T and "Bill Gates will be rich" as P. Then we get the following logical chain:

If (Bill Gates owns Fort Knox) then (Bill Gates will be rich).
(Bill Gates is rich).
Therefore, (Bill Gates owns Fort Knox).

Even you, Loudmouth, must surely see that this logical chain is completely fallacious! Yet you return to this idea again, and again, and again–like a sow to her vomit.

You have proved absolutely nothing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know whether it's bad memory or selective memory at work, but let's return to the Great Smoke Detector debate.

Someone on here suggested that I could test whether a smoke detector worked by pushing the button on it. This is patently false. The only way to test whether a smoke detector detects smoke is by exposing it to smoke. That's so obvious that even Loudmouth cannot argue against it.

Then someone suggested simply lighting a match. However, I doubt that lighting a match is a fair test of whether a smoke detector works. Let's assume that we light a small match and the smoke detector does not go off. Does that imply that a smoke detector might not detect a greater amount of smoke, such as the amount produced in a major fire? Absolutely not.

The only fair test of a smoke detector is to place a smoke detector above a fair sized fire in an enclosed space, such as a house or apartment. However, the benefits of doing so (you know whether the smoke detector works) are far outweighed by the risk (the fire might escape your control and burn your house down).

This leads me back to the original point. Why do we have smoke detectors? Houses in Peru are made out of brick. Brick is not particularly flammable. I don't know anyone whose house has burned down. Even my father-in-law's house, which has a horribly done electrical system–you have to jiggle the wires on the wall to get the lights to come on. In fact, once while my wife was there cooking with an electric stove using an extension cord, the cord itself actually caught fire and I had to extinguish it. Yet the house has been around for some 30 years and has never burned down.

Nevertheless, we have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers and all of that. Why? Induction and empiricism would seem to argue that these things are unnecessary. However, this is missing the point. We have smoke detectors because the cost of a smoke detector is low whereas the value of my children's lives is high. In other words, before I would discard a smoke detector as unnecessary, I would need to be 99.99 percent certain that the smoke detector did not work. Even the most expensive smoke detector doesn't cost more than PEN 60, whereas I would gladly pay tens of thousands of PEN to save the life of even one of my children.

Therefore, the logical thing to do if one suspects that a smoke detector might not work is to install a second one of a different brand. This gives you twice the possibility of saving your children's lives and the cost is low.

This is what we call normative decision theory. This is the proper way to make decisions not, as some suggested, to employ induction.

That's just daft.
You can light a match, any size match, under a smoke detector and you will get a result. I've done it.
And yes, the stonework may not catch fire as quickly as wood or other materials, but it does catch fire eventually and also remember that there are many, MANY, materials in a house that will easily catch fire. Carpets are a good example.

Having a fire extinguisher is like taking a raincoat out on a grey day. It might not rain, but it's better to take it with you and not need it, than not take it with you and end up needing it.

And the logical thing to do if you aren't sure about your smoke detector working is to test it. If it doesn't work first time, test it again. If it doesn't work a second time, replace if with one that will work. Or better yet, ask the local fire department to help install and test a smoke detector.

 

[Loudmouth]

The amusing thing (or sad thing, depending on your point of view) is that you actually think that demonstrates something.

Let's summarize this. You have a theory that makes certain predictions. These predictions occur in the real world, therefore you assume that the theory is true. However, you have engaged in a logical fallacy.

Let T = theory and P = predictions.

If T then P
P
Therefore, T.

This is a textbook case of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

Yes, we get it. You reject the scientific method because it can't make truth statements. For the rest of us, we use it because it works. You can ignore the scientific method working all you want, but the rest of us don't.

 

[Zosimus]

That's just daft.
You can light a match, any size match, under a smoke detector and you will get a result. I've done it.

How many Peruvian-made smoke detectors have you tested using this method?

And yes, the stonework may not catch fire as quickly as wood or other materials, but it does catch fire eventually and also remember that there are many, MANY, materials in a house that will easily catch fire. Carpets are a good example.

Peruvian houses don't have carpets.

Having a fire extinguisher is like taking a raincoat out on a grey day. It might not rain, but it's better to take it with you and not need it, than not take it with you and end up needing it.

Yeah, that's exactly my point. Making this point is not daft, thank you very much.

And the logical thing to do if you aren't sure about your smoke detector working is to test it. If it doesn't work first time, test it again. If it doesn't work a second time, replace if with one that will work. Or better yet, ask the local fire department to help install and test a smoke detector.

You sound British. Let me guess, you have professional fire departments that are staffed by paid professionals. Peruvian fire departments are staffed strictly with unpaid volunteers whose training is probably not up to UK standards. However, I completely disagree with your assertion. If you find that your smoke detector doesn't work, you should not replace it with one that does. You should add another one because even though the first one doesn't seem to work, it might work in case of a real fire. I don't see any point to removing the one that you think might not work. Just leave it there.