9 Questions

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There is a very strong presumption that it applies to species currently unknown or unstudied by scientists.

Yes. So what do you think of the statement by @Frank Robert in post #15?

As described the explanation for the formation of 111 objects would be a hypothesis for the objects lacking evidence not a theory. A well designed scientific study would state it's limitations and indications for further study. Science does not claim to have all the answers.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Physics, institutionally, has really screwed this one up with "string theory". There's probably other fast and loose usage examples as well.
Yes, both inside and outside the scientific establishment, there's a confusing blurring of the distinction between scientific theory and theory in the colloquial sense
 
  • Agree
Reactions: J_B_
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,828
36,129
Los Angeles Area
✟820,797.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Yes. So what do you think of the statement by @Frank Robert in post #15?

I disagree. A scientific theory is a generalized explanation for a large class of related phenomena. If we find that steel spheres, copper spheres, iron spheres, and aluminum spheres all fall to earth with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2, we do not need to test tungsten spheres or diamond spheres or apples or *that* steel sphere I just made that has never been tested before.

If every case had to be tested, we would never get to a theory.

Also the theory itself provides an explanation. The theory of gravity explains that the motion depends only on the mass of the object, not its material composition. Genetics provides an explanation for how traits are heritable.
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Thats why i asked for an example.
If you dont have one its ok to say so.

I'm confused. Post #4 is the example. Plus, since that time examples were added in posts #10 and #19.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,413
15,560
Colorado
✟428,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
...I disagree for the very reason you state. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. AAA is a perfectly acceptable theory for the formation of 111 objects. The appearance of 111d does not falsify it. It triggers investigations.
Maybe.

Do we have to question AAA every time we see a new instance of 111?

What happens when we find 111dfghjkl ? Or 111dfghjkl+1 ? There might not be enough researchers in the galaxy for every new 111 instance to trigger a review of good ol reliable AAA.

I think a review of AAA only gets triggered when new AAA level mechanisms, or the need for them, present themselves.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I disagree. A scientific theory is a generalized explanation for a large class of related phenomena. If we find that steel spheres, copper spheres, iron spheres, and aluminum spheres all fall to earth with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2, we do not need to test tungsten spheres or diamond spheres or apples or *that* steel sphere I just made that has never been tested before.

If every case had to be tested, we would never get to a theory.

Also the theory itself provides an explanation. The theory of gravity explains that the motion depends only on the mass of the object, not its material composition. Genetics provides an explanation for how traits are heritable.

Thanks. I'm enjoying the conversation so far. I very much appreciate everyone's contribution. I don't have a reply to what you said; it seems reasonable enough. However, before I move on to the next set of questions, I want to loop back to my mechanical vibrations example.

What happens when there is nothing to distinguish 2 theories? And anyone can reply to this.

@durangodawood made a point that the new theory needs to demonstrate its parts. With respect to mechanical vibrations, I consider it an emergent model. By that, I mean nothing has been found that definitively links concepts such as "stiffness" and "damping" to lower level sciences such as materials science, molecular science, etc. Mass would be the exception. Regardless, stiffness remains an emergent phenomena whose parts (per science's reductionist tendencies) remain unknown.

Further, better correlation or more experiments is not the answer. Trying to guide complex systems to a simple yes/no answer is fraught with difficulty. Someone may choose RMS error as their correlation metric (and many do), but within the levels of noise 2 models can still produce the same RMS error even though they may match better or worse at specific temporal points.

I would consider biology an emergent science in that sense. So, what happens when there is nothing to distinguish 2 theories?
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I think a review of AAA only gets triggered when new AAA level mechanisms, or the need for them, present themselves.

Fair enough, but it may not be an evidential trigger - a theory that doesn't match the evidence. What if one theory is more parsimonious (per Occam's Razor)? To administrators of science projects that means less cost.

Or ... what about philosophical motivators?
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,413
15,560
Colorado
✟428,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Fair enough, but it may not be an evidential trigger - a theory that doesn't match the evidence. What if one theory is more parsimonious (per Occam's Razor)? To administrators of science projects that means less cost....
Ok wait.... what does explanatory parsimony have at all to do with experimental economy? I'm struggling with this in principle relationship you propose.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,547
3,181
39
Hong Kong
✟147,426.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Fair enough, but it may not be an evidential trigger - a theory that doesn't match the evidence. What if one theory is more parsimonious (per Occam's Razor)? To administrators of science projects that means less cost.

Or ... what about philosophical motivators?

Are you proposing these 2 things as sources of bias?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Ok wait.... what does explanatory parsimony have at all to do with experimental economy? I'm struggling with this in principle relationship you propose.

I wouldn't claim it holds all the time, but for any given phenomena explaining it with less parts means less parts to test. That could easily result in less cost. It was just a suppositional example.
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Are you proposing these 2 things as sources of bias?

Yes, but not as inescapable or systemic biases. Nor are sources of bias central to this thread.

Before I asked the other questions, I wanted a feel for what participant's think about the provisional nature of theories. My wife and I have an inside joke about how we have friends, work friends, and church friends. Friends are the people who mow your lawn and bring you soup when you're sick. Work friends are the people who are nice to you from 9-5 M-F ... etc. IOW, when some people say they're your friend, you agree on what that means. When others say it, they're deflecting, or it's just a social nicety.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,547
3,181
39
Hong Kong
✟147,426.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Yes, but not as inescapable or systemic biases. Nor are sources of bias central to this thread.

Before I asked the other questions, I wanted a feel for what participant's think about the provisional nature of theories. My wife and I have an inside joke about how we have friends, work friends, and church friends. Friends are the people who mow your lawn and bring you soup when you're sick. Work friends are the people who are nice to you from 9-5 M-F ... etc. IOW, when some people say they're your friend, you agree on what that means. When others say it, they're deflecting, or it's just a social nicety.

I had to ask as " bias" is a last refuge for the factless creationist.

Probably best to just drop it entirely.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,547
3,181
39
Hong Kong
✟147,426.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I wouldn't claim it holds all the time, but for any given phenomena explaining it with less parts means less parts to test. That could easily result in less cost. It was just a suppositional example.
Again, asking example as that is just hypothetical and maybe non existent.
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Again, asking example as that is just hypothetical and maybe non existent.

Mmm. Sometimes imagination is the better servant than skepticism. This year I proposed a test for work because I needed synchronized data channels that would completely describe the dynamic state of a gear train in a diesel engine. To execute such a test for a full gear train in a complete diesel engine costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. I was asked if I could get what I needed using a fuel bench, which is a partial engine with a partial gear train. Testing costs tens of thousands of dollars. I've made the latter work for me.

In my business such requests happen on a daily basis. Fewer parts means less cost.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I tried to be clear that I wasn't speaking to a complete lack of evidence, but let me try to elaborate further.

Theory AAA is currently the only explaination for the formation of 111 objects. Not all of these objects are identical. Objects 111a, 111b, 111c, etc. have been observed. There is evidence for the formation of 111a, 111b, and 111c per the mechanisms of theory AAA. A new object is observed (111d), but there is not yet any evidence of its formation.

Is theory AAA sufficient explanation for 111d without that evidence?
You can make a rough assessment of how good an explanation a hypothesis or theory is using some criteria for 'argument to the best explanation', such as: tested or testable; makes fruitful predictions; has specificity; provides insight into and understanding of what we've observed; has unifying scope; is parsimonious; is consistent with our existing knowledgebase, and so-on.

I'd guess it's easier to compare competing hypotheses or theories that fit the data than to try to grade a single hypothesis or theory, and this method requires you to decide what weightings to give the various criteria, for example, some degree of inconsistency with existing knowledge may be acceptable if other criteria are strongly satisfied.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,547
3,181
39
Hong Kong
✟147,426.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Mmm. Sometimes imagination is the better servant than skepticism. This year I proposed a test for work because I needed synchronized data channels that would completely describe the dynamic state of a gear train in a diesel engine. To execute such a test for a full gear train in a complete diesel engine costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. I was asked if I could get what I needed using a fuel bench, which is a partial engine with a partial gear train. Testing costs tens of thousands of dollars. I've made the latter work for me.

In my business such requests happen on a daily basis. Fewer parts means less cost.

Sure. But an example would clarify. No point in discussing the non exidtent
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Dont introduce things if you dont want them quedtioned

I appreciate you being here, and I want your participation. I am, by nature, a very sarcastic person. Such doesn't translate well in an Internet forum so I have to be careful. The problem is, even when I say something meant to be fun and playful, it often comes across as sarcastic, which is death in this particular forum. You're not supposed to explain jokes, but in this instance I'll clarify that post #36 was meant to be that fun and playful thing.
 
Upvote 0