Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
gazing from the shadows
Joined
·
27,287 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Karl Popper's Criterion for Demarcation of Science.


Scientific statements are falsifiable with empirical evidence.

If you can't falsify it, it is not science.



This argument answered the problems of logical positivism, LP said that we could CONFIRM hypotheses with evidence. That is problematic when analyzed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
dr hoo said:
Karl Popper's Criterion for Demarcation of Science.


Scientific statements are falsifiable with empirical evidence.

If you can't falsify it, it is not science.



This argument answered the problems of logical positivism, LP said that we could CONFIRM hypotheses with evidence. That is problematic when analyzed.
Yeah, but that often is just a matter of semantics. That's why statistics are always framed in the context of the null hypothesis. e.g. If I wanted to test if a new drug improves the surviability of a cancer, the hypothesis would be framed in terms of there is no difference in the survivor rates of drug-treated Group A and non-drug-treated Group B at 1-year post diagnosis. I get the numbers, run the stats and if the drug works I disprove the hypothesis that the survivor rates of group A and B are the same. I've falsified a hypothesis (that the survivor rates would be the same). Logically when we talk about it we would say that the drug improves the survivor rate of this cancer even if a philosopher might object to this conclusion. Like I've said before, the proof is in the pudding, science works.

"Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong."

Richard Feynman (1918 - 1988)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
I just realized my response could have been construed as critical of your post, which it wasn't meant to be. Clearly any theory or claim of being science must be hypothesis driven and testable.
 

·
gazing from the shadows
Joined
·
27,287 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Exactly, null hypothesis.

Dwayne Barry said:
Yeah, but that often is just a matter of semantics. That's why statistics are always framed in the context of the null hypothesis.

You would be suprised how often the REASON for the null escapes people, even people who use the null. Or maybe you would not be suprised?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
BS in philosophy here

dr hoo said:
Karl Popper's Criterion for Demarcation of Science.


Scientific statements are falsifiable with empirical evidence.

If you can't falsify it, it is not science.



This argument answered the problems of logical positivism, LP said that we could CONFIRM hypotheses with evidence. That is problematic when analyzed.
I had the misfortune of majoring in both biology (abandoned after 40 hours of science) and philosophy in college.

Philosophy is about "should," "right and wrong," etc. Science is about measurements (essentially). Science cannot be used to solve many questions, like "is there a god," (nor can it disprove it), just as philosophy cannot tell us the structure of an atom.

Is that what you are getting at?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,302 Posts
This sounds close to a Pragmatic take on LP. As long as it "works" and is prone to falsification then it is good. Kind of a temporal limitation as to how good a scientific statement can claim to be.

I thought the problem with LP was the arrogance. Some people (other philosophers, artists, theologians, etc...) didn't like their things (moral valuations, aesthetics, spiritual concerns) rendered "meaningless" because their wasn't any empirical way of tackling such realms of thought. I always took the "meaningless" assignation more or less as a sign of LPs limitations rather than an evaluation of the worth of such endeavors. I think a lot of people were unnecessarily threatened by LP.
 

·
Unlabeled
Joined
·
3,720 Posts
So, can string theory be science now?

And can something that is not science now become science in the future?

I don't consider string theory to be science because we seem to be stuck in 3 dimensions plus time.

And I don't think that a description of quantum mechnics would have been science if some one dreamed it up in 1890, but it's science now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Continental said:
And can something that is not science now become science in the future?

I don't consider string theory to be science because we seem to be stuck in 3 dimensions plus time.

And I don't think that a description of quantum mechnics would have been science if some one dreamed it up in 1890, but it's science now.
I think the answer is Yes. If someone proposes a theory or a hypothesis that is untestable it may be an interesting idea but it is not science. If at a future date new techniques become available that make it testable, then it has entered the realm of science.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
210 Posts
Agreed, but neither Popper nor Lakatos can be

giovanni sartori said:
I always found Popper a little hard to digest. For less theoretical applications of LP I suggest reading Imre Lakatos.
successfully brought to bear in an argument against the Creationists. They have Revealed Truth and Revealed Truth trumps even the most rigorous science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
You have a pride problem

I think you don't know what you're talking about.

Science is about observations and testing things. Resting in science alone is a mistake when it comes to important life issues, like does God exist (which evolution says doesn't), because science is based on data points that are observed.

They really don't know why it happens or how it works, they just know and have seen that it does or is.

They only react to the information. Whole theories and beliefs can be discarded and have been, with a new discovery.

Now was the truth ever changed. NO.

The power of observation or looking at the ignored was the key.

Nothing wrong with knowing why things are the way they are, which the Bible does explain, it's funny to see evolution guys scrambling around trying to find ways to show it's not true. Pathetically sad.

Hey, know why they sent the misison to Mars and are planning the next ones. All to find water. If they did, they'd say "see evolution maybe occured on Mars".... Pathetically sad and a waste of a lot of money. See evolutionary belief is not only sad, but a waste of real money to me and you.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,302 Posts
"Nothing wrong with knowing why things are the way they are, which the Bible does explain, it's funny to see evolution guys scrambling around trying to find ways to show it's not true. Pathetically sad."


I think you have a serious misconception here. Evolutionary theory (and science in general) has absolutely no interest in the Bible or other religious precepts. No one, except maybe a wacko or two, is trying to disprove the Bible. Certainly not in the mainstream scientific community. I think you are feeling threatened unnecessarily.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."

John Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, Humanist, Jan.-Feb. 1983, p. 26

FYI, Humanist equals evolution lover.

You see my friend. You don't understand. THe Bible says that we, humans, are in a battle with Satan. A battle where Satan wants us to follow any other belief about ourselves, life and death, than what is real.

Evolution is based on faith, it is a religion itself that is the main force behind the notion that God is not neccessary. People wanted to believe it prior to Darwin, but had no mechanism. Evolution is the mechanism that misleads people. Who better than the expert who convinced to mislead. Innocently enough, but deadly.

Whether by pseudo-science PBS or Discovery channel piece or school teachers instructed to teach it, I can assure you the Fanatics of the Evolutionary Church are backing it as the official approved science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
"Resting in science alone is a mistake when it comes to important life issues, like does God exist (which evolution says doesn't), because science is based on data points that are observed."

Evolution does not say God doesn't exist! It leads to a history of life that is incompatible with what is presented in the Bible (or how that is interpreted often) but that in no way speaks to the existense of God or not. Well unless you believe that a literal interpretation of the Bible is the only reason to accept God.


"Nothing wrong with knowing why things are the way they are, which the Bible does explain, it's funny to see evolution guys scrambling around trying to find ways to show it's not true. Pathetically sad."

I agree it would be sad, what evolutionist is trying to disprove specific parts of the Bible? You should really read about Darwin and how he came up with his theory, I think you would see that refutation of the Bible was irrelevant to the whole process other than it kept him from publishing because of his fears that the fact that his theory contradicted a literal interpretation of the creation myth of the Bible would lead to persecution and scandal. Which is entirely different than saying he set out to "disprove" the Bible.

"Hey, know why they sent the misison to Mars and are planning the next ones. All to find water. If they did, they'd say "see evolution maybe occured on Mars".... Pathetically sad and a waste of a lot of money. See evolutionary belief is not only sad, but a waste of real money to me and you."

You really think the purpose of the mission to Mars was to support evolutionary theory? You just don't get it, scientists are not looking to disprove the Bible, etc. But are looking to satisfy their own curosity. Life on earth is dependent on water, finding water on Mars would mean that life as we know it could possibly exist there or have existed there in the past. Which is quite interesting but hardly why the mission was undertaken.
 

·
gazing from the shadows
Joined
·
27,287 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
more or less.

I was really just throwing a topic out.

Given the evolution/creationist thread I thought it would lead to some good discussion. Seems to be doing that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
Are you purposefully being idiotic

Evolution does not say God doesn't exist! It leads to a history of life that is incompatible with what is presented in the Bible (or how that is interpreted often) but that in no way speaks to the existense of God or not. Well unless you believe that a literal interpretation of the Bible is the only reason to accept God.

What the heck do you think I'm fighting for. The Bible and it being true.

I agree it would be sad, what evolutionist is trying to disprove specific parts of the Bible? You should really read about Darwin and how he came up with his theory, I think you would see that refutation of the Bible was irrelevant to the whole process other than it kept him from publishing because of his fears that the fact that his theory contradicted a literal interpretation of the creation myth of the Bible would lead to persecution and scandal. Which is entirely different than saying he set out to "disprove" the Bible.

You prove my point. You have to make creation a myth, which is a swear word in my book, to put evolution and the Bible in a "working" system.

You really think the purpose of the mission to Mars was to support evolutionary theory? You just don't get it, scientists are not looking to disprove the Bible, etc. But are looking to satisfy their own curosity. Life on earth is dependent on water, finding water on Mars would mean that life as we know it could possibly exist there or have existed there in the past. Which is quite interesting but hardly why the mission was undertaken.[/QUOTE]

You don't get how evolution is anti-God. I have to get home. Here's a site for you about Mars and Darwin.

http://www.panspermia.org/marslife.htm
 

·
gazing from the shadows
Joined
·
27,287 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I've read Lakatos.

giovanni sartori said:
I always found Popper a little hard to digest. For less theoretical applications of LP I suggest reading Imre Lakatos.
It's been a long time though. I liked his stuff on theoretical research programs (if I recall the term correctly). Somewhere I have a book where he and others savage Kuhn on Paradigm shifts, and Kuhn responds. Good reading, though not for everyone. It's some involved stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Would your Jesus approve of name-calling and debasing of a serious conversation?
I apologize for not recognizing that your belief in God rested on a literal interpretation of the Bible not on Faith. Really you shouldn't be so worried about us "evolutionist", we don't mean any harm nor do we really care about you. Now those biblical scholars on the other hand, those guys must be Satan incarnate, no?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,017 Posts
Yes, his work on theoretical research programs is pretty standard stuff for most students in the Social Sciences with a research bent. Simply put, what I took from it was try to disprove a theory rather than prove one. I do remember them going after Kuhn and I rather like Kuhn. Another good back and forth between scholars is Kenneth Waltz and the non realists - great stuff. Ken Waltz is a sharp guy and doesn't mind a good debate.
 

·
Seeking shades of grey
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
Step back for a moment and think through this a little. You can't quote one humanist and then paint a brush stroke to imply that all humanists are pro-evolution and then deduce that evolutionists are anti-god. It isn't fair to degrade the discussion like that.

In situations like this I like to think about what seems the more likely scenario. I'll give an example. Growing up, my dad always ranted about how the government was out to get us and various efforts by the federal reserve to enslave Americans. For a while I bought into it, but then I saw how there was an entire industry that lived off the fat of people's fear and distrust that some entity was out to get them. After working in DC and knowing a good number of people who flew the black helicopters & such I realize that the government doesn't have time or inclination to care what anyone does. As long as you pay your taxes and keep to yourself they don't care what you think.

As it happens, my dad is riled up about the evolution vs creation debate and says the same stuff you say on this board. Again, he is listening to a media engine that wants to convince him that a legion of frothing-at-the-mouth evolutionists are at war with God. They quote a few wackos on the deep end of evolution as proof and imply that the vast middle feels the same.

Get this straight, because it might be useful to know. Somebody is selling you something when they offer up evidence that there is an agenda by any organization that threatens the moral fiber of the nation (watch for those words in particular). How much longer are you going to buy?
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top