Hijack - Bayes, kristalris, ad infinitum

[kristalris]

I agree with Mike Cosmos.

 

The OP concerns on an error in reasoning that Bayes easily deals with. If you don't yet have the mathematics or the ability to do so and thus not all the information/ data because it requires mathematics to even understand that, it only means that the prior odds are extremely small of being correct. Agree. If you accept that then logically dictates that using the quoted tests on knowledge are irrelevant. You jumped from the prior to the posterior forgetting the LR's. A fallacy.

 

The norms to be applied are BTW not and should not be in the hands of science. Science should give advice yet in a democracy the constituents as taxpayers should ultimately decide what norms given the correct informed data and advice from scientists. Seeing non mathematical idea's immediately as non starters is applying to high a norm on choosing which seeds to select that have potential for growing into a wise oak.

 

Or even any human should state what risks you want to be taken. My position is that science should state a goal of reaching a TOE within this decade, with the logical consequence that I as a taxpayer must / should support putting up a large enough bag of money.

 

Then you need to create a safe environment for those willing to jump and test seemingly crazy crack pot idea's. Without having the "humor" of being pestered and laughed at.

 

Again the heart of the problem is not mathematics or not because the mathematics even dictate that Mike is correct. It is our DNA / psychology and the way that it is distributed and Bayes with Occam, the latter dictating that any theory should be as simple as possible yet as complicated as necessary as a LAW of science, with the rule of thumb that the theory with the least assumptions is probably best.

 

Ergo the criteria in science are as a dictate of Bayes and Occam:

 

1. does the idea cover all the relevant questions?

2. is the idea consistent with all known observations?

3. is the idea potentially testable?

4. is it the idea with the least assumptions?

5. is the idea elegant?

6. has the idea got better under scrutiny and slight changes to it?

7. are there only - or not even - slight inconsistencies with point 2?

 

When all the answers to above test questions are "yes" then science is - per definition - as a conditio sine qua non bound to investigate because you then have a proven suspect requiring investigation.

 

The dictated norm being verbal logic when you know that you don't know the answer and you know that an extreme amount of data is failing. As with TOE the relevant question is: is the universe infinite or not? Well you are then probably missing an infinite amount of data => Bayes applies. Bayes & Occam => verbal logic as a norm to get started in selecting the seeds via answering the seven stated questions.

 

p.s. this thread doesn't belong in the speculations as is stated earlier in this thread. In belongs in general philosophy.

 

p.s. 2 the problem of TOE is inherently metaphysical in nature and thus not befitting the current paradigm / dogma of physics. Believing that you get there quickly enough by not answering all relevant questions. (Hilarious misconception BTW.)

Edited January 3, 2014 by kristalris

[ajb]

If you don't yet have the mathematics or the ability to do so and thus not all the information/ data because it requires mathematics to even understand that, it only means that the prior odds are extremely small of being correct.

I think most people here would agree with that.

 

The norms to be applied are BTW not and should not be in the hands of science. Science should give advice yet in a democracy the constituents as taxpayers should ultimately decide what norms given the correct informed data and advice from scientists. Seeing non mathematical idea's immediately as non starters is applying to high a norm on choosing which seeds to select that have potential for growing into a wise oak.

 

The problem is that most people just don't know what science really is or how scientists work. Today things are very specialised and it would be rather counterproductive to allow non-experts to completely dictate how science should be done. How science should be used is a different issue and that should be in the hands of the public, especially if public money is being used.

 

This is also a different issue to the popularisation, promotion and teaching of science.

 

You have already discussed Bayes' theorem, a TOE and the relation with science in other threads. To continue here could be seen as a hijack.

[kristalris]

The problem is that most people just don't know what science really is or how scientists work. Today things are very specialised and it would be rather counterproductive to allow non-experts to completely dictate how science should be done. How science should be used is a different issue and that should be in the hands of the public, especially if public money is being used.

 

 

This is also a different issue to the popularisation, promotion and teaching of science.

 

You have already discussed Bayes' theorem, a TOE and the relation with science in other threads. To continue here could be seen as a hijack.

You in effect are saying that the non scientist public can not ask science to put more effort into say finding a cure for MS in stead of say finding a cure for cancer. It is for science to provide advice what best to fund yet when a choice is to be made that is a political problem that requires the public to be heard.

 

It is the public who run the real risks, and pay thus both in money and in getting and staying sick and dying. So the public should decide how much risk they want to run and in what area's. For science to inform and provide advise, yet the public should decide. And THUS the public should also decide what the norms should be to warrant further funding.

 

The risk the involved scientists run is only that of loosing face and funding. The former is something that should and can be dealt with, because doing research has to be done in a safe environment.

 

The point that research is thus at the moment not conducted on the proper norms can not be refuted by stating that they are correct because the public doesn't understand research. That is a circular argument and thus a fallacy. The public doesn't have to understand research other than to decide how much failures and cost are acceptable et cetera. That has nothing to do with knowing how research is conducted in any specialized field whatsoever.

 

Further more it is a strange way of pretending to do a scientific debate and not accept that it is possible to disagree especially on the norms that are required. And thus pretending that there is only one correct scientific view on subjects such as stated in the OP. It is a bit like Jeremy Clarkson in Top Gear asking what is best? A tractor or a Ferrari? (Him knowing full well it is a question for nine year olds,) and subsequently puts the question to the very unbiased BTW test.

 

The OP doesn't constitute an unchallenged view of science, even within science. The OP logically contradicts it self in effect proving itself wrong even taking the estimate to be correct of verbal logic not - probably - being able to provide the answer or a good start in finding that answer. An answer science hasn't been able to answer the last hundred years by going at it in an illogical way. Even though science will probably get there in the end assuming that there is a simple set of formula's and constants at the heart of it.

[swansont]

You in effect are saying that the non scientist public can not ask science to put more effort into say finding a cure for MS in stead of say finding a cure for cancer. It is for science to provide advice what best to fund yet when a choice is to be made that is a political problem that requires the public to be heard.

It's not "ask science", it's "ask a scientist". The OP concerns an individual's response to being asked to evaluate, essentially, crackpot material. He is explaining why he won't.

 

No, it is not reasonable to ask a scientist to investigate MS instead of cancer, because a researcher who studies MS does so because s/he has trained to do so. Forcing people to work outside their area of expertise is not a very efficient use of resources. If they don't just quit the job, that is. Job turnover and extended vacancies also reduce efficiency. It's a bad idea in many ways. Similarly, as the link in the OP says, the poster is not willing to engage in what would basically amount to teaching the basics of physics to those that offer up the ideas which he is describing. That is also an inefficient use of time; it's what universities are for — instead of one student, you get to teach the concepts to a larger group of people with only a minimal increase in total effort.

 

It is the public who run the real risks, and pay thus both in money and in getting and staying sick and dying. So the public should decide how much risk they want to run and in what area's. For science to inform and provide advise, yet the public should decide. And THUS the public should also decide what the norms should be to warrant further funding.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.