Reg Prescott

Can you explain what you mean, please? It's not so much refusal to discuss than inability to discuss that of which I know nothing. I've read a little on Bayesian confirmation with respect to scientific methodology, but I'm not quite sure what "Non bayesian statistics" refers to in this context. I'm all ears if you'd care to explain. Thanks.

Throughout the thread several posters have asked the question, "How would we ever know [that out hypothesis/theory is true]?" "Everyone is trying to tell you that we may never know the 'truth' " - Studiot (post 150) "If you cannot test "the way things really are" then how does anyone know?" - Klaynos (post 158) etc., etc. Given that certainty seems beyond our grasp, more realistic, I think, would be to ask: How can we ever have good reasons for believing that our theories are true? One possible solution to this important conundrum is offered by "Inference To The Best Explanation" (IBE), known to some as abduction. We haven't adverted to the relevance of explanation at all in the thread, except very briefly at the bottom of my post # 160, however it seems a matter of course that scientists, at least in some cases, infer from the goodness of an explanation to its truth. That is, from a set of two or more competing hypotheses, all of which are consistent with the data or evidence, the scientist infers that the hypothesis among them which best explains the data is likely to be the true one -- just as we all do routinely and mundanely on a day to day basis! This, of course, is a form of inductive inference, and thus can yield no logical certainty; only some degree of epistemic justification -- good reasons for believing the hypothesis/theory is true -- or so the realist would argue anyway. It's regrettable that the thread seems to have degenerated into petty squabbling; nonetheless, I offer the following link ("Inference to the Best Explanation" - Peter Lipton), and two excerpts, for any members genuinely interested in these matters: http://philo.ruc.edu.cn/logic/reading/philofscience/lipton-Inference%20to%20the%20Best%20Explanation.pdf "The model of Inference to the Best Explanation is designed to give a partial account of many inductive inferences, both in science and in ordinary life. One version of the model was developed under the name `abduction' by Charles Sanders PIERCE early in this century, and the model has been considerably developed and discussed over the last twenty five years. Its governing idea is that explanatory considerations are a guide to inference, that scientists infer from the available evidence to the hypothesis which would, if correct, best explain that evidence. Many inferences are naturally described in this way. Darwin inferred the hypothesis of natural selection because, although it was not entailed by his biological evidence, natural selection would provide the best explanation of that evidence. When an astronomer infers that a star is receding from the earth with a specified velocity, she does this because the recession would be the best explanation of the observed red-shift of the star's characteristic spectrum. When a detective infers that it was Moriarty who committed the crime, he does so because this hypothesis would best explain the fingerprints, blood stains and other forensic evidence. Sherlock Holmes to the contrary, this is not a matter of deduction. The evidence will not entail that Moriarty is to blame, since it always remains possible that someone else was the perpetrator. Nevertheless, Holmes is right to make his inference, since Moriarty's guilt would provide a better explanation of the evidence than would anyone else's." [...] "A good illustration of this is provided by Ignaz Semmelweis's nineteenth-century investigation into the causes of childbed fever, an often fatal disease contracted by women who gave birth in the hospital where Semmelweis did his research. Semmelweis considered many possible explanations. Perhaps the fever was caused by `epidemic influences' affecting the districts around the hospital, or perhaps it was caused by some condition in the hospital itself, such as overcrowding, poor diet, or rough treatment. What Semmelweis noticed, however, was that almost all of the women who contracted the fever were in one of the hospital's two maternity wards, and this led him to ask the obvious contrastive question and then to rule out those hypotheses which, though logically compatible with his evidence, did not mark a difference between the wards. It also lead him to infer an explanation that would explain the contrast between the wards, namely that women were inadvertently being infected by medical students who went directly from performing autopsies to obstetrical examinations, but only examined women in the first ward. This hypothesis was confirmed by a further contrastive procedure, when Semmelweis had the medics disinfect their hands before entering the ward: the infection hypothesis was now seen also to explain not just why women in the first rather than in the second ward contracted childbed fever, but also why women in the first ward contracted the fever before but not after the regime of disinfection was introduced. This general pattern of argument, which seeks explanations that not only would account for a given effect, but also for particular contrasts between cases where the effect occurs and cases where it is absent, is very common in science, for example wherever use is made of controlled experiments."

I'd just like to add a word of support for Cladking: I'm enjoying reading your thoughts. And a word of sympathy too: I see you're struggling against the same jawdropping silliness that I've been dealing with myself in another thread. Take, for example, one of your critics' remark above that, "Science is about what we observe." This claim, and others like it that have been hurled in my direction too, is so... so... preposterously, outrageously, in-your-face FALSE that it takes a few moments to recover one's equanimity before weighing the pros and cons of whether to debunk it, or else simply ensconce oneself in the darkest recesses of a cave somewhere. If the claim was about carpentry, say, or stamp collecting, or mud-wrestling... who could possibly demur? But when the claim pertains to science - and her ontology chock-a-block with quarks, Higgs bosons, fields, forces, and a thousand other unobservable spooks -- who could possibly NOT demur? Argghh! Cladking, you strike me as an intelligent and fiercely autonomous thinker. Don't let yourself be bullied by the herd. Good luck!

@ Studiot It's a fair question. Ans: Hoping for a modicum of justice, perhaps. Wondering if just one among you might have the decency to overcome your collective affiliations and judge impartially.

Well, pardon my confusion, but here's my recollection of events: 1. The original claims made by Strange were : (i) "Remember, science is not about "truth" but about models that work;" (post # 5) (ii) "Science has (almost) nothing to do with "truth", whatever that is". (post #10) (and similar claims - see post #66 for a selection) I cried bs. He requested evidence. I produced it. Seeing his position was indefensible, he adjusted his claim (moved the goalposts) to: "Science is not about truth these days". (see posts 52 & 55) No mention was made of an observation vs theory distinction. Would you now like to adjust the claim (move the goalposts) once more to: "Science is not about truth, at least not in the domain of theory, these days"? And you talk about ME moving the goalposts? *bangs head* Now, even if we do grant this latest embarrassing shuffle of position, I still challenge your claim. It's often said, unless I'm badly mistaken, that the cause of global warming is at least partly human. Causes are not observable. So you'd better not catch yourself telling anyone it's true that we're responsible for global warming. Or that there are good reasons to believe that it's true. Or that we have good reasons to believe that smoking causes cancer. Or... ad infinitum. After all, you guys just deal in models and abstractions. *bangs head again* Ouch!

Then do you recommend that we tell the children it's true? It really is getting warmer and we're the cause? Or, at the very least, we have very good reasons for believing this to be true? . . . I swear this thread is like a Kafka novel set in a land where the terrified subjects have been warned by the King to use the word true and face instant death LOL. Or if you do you use it, you'd better be darn sure to bracket it in scare quotes. Awww, this is all very silly, chums.

We hear a lot from scientists about the dangers of global warming these days. But the wise men tell us "science has (almost) nothing to do with truth" So why be concerned, friends? If the wise men are right, it's not true. Let the cows fart in peace

Just responding to the slur on my integrity about "moving the goalposts". The rest doesn't merit a response.

Piffle. Earlier I suggested the correspondence theory of truth (our intuitive notion of truth). I stand by it. Choose your own if you prefer.

I think this is what's confusing so many people. I doubt we can ever be certain of a theory's truth (not even the most rabid realist would make such a bold claim), but certainty is not required to make a claim to knowledge; only a sufficient epistemic warrant. The realist claims we have such a warrant; the antirealist demurs (with respect to individual theories perhaps) Do you agree we can claim knowledge that, say, the Earth orbits the Sun? If yes, do you feel we can enjoy certainty in this? Is it at all possible we could be wrong?

I thought I did answer your question. As for "compare to the "truth", confused comments like this have been rife throughout the thread. No wonder everyone has a headache. "Truth" is surely a linguistic entity, a property of statements, sentences, propositions, hypotheses, theories, etc... is it not? We might compare our theories against reality, but surely not against truth. I made my definitions clear earlier. Many posters continue not to understand them.

How would we know? The scientific realist would likely appeal to the so-called "No Miracles" argument. The following paragraph is copied from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on "Scientific Realism": "The most powerful intuition motivating realism is an old idea, commonly referred to in recent discussions as the ‘miracle argument’ or ‘no-miracles argument’, after Putnam's (1975, p. 73) claim that realism ‘is the only philosophy that doesn't make the success of science a miracle’. The argument begins with the widely accepted premise that our best theories are extraordinarily successful: they facilitate empirical predictions, retrodictions, and explanations of the subject matters of scientific investigation, often marked by astounding accuracy and intricate causal manipulations of the relevant phenomena. What explains this success? One explanation, favoured by realists, is that our best theories are true (or approximately true, or correctly describe a mind-independent world of entities, properties, laws, structures, or what have you). Indeed, if these theories were far from the truth, so the argument goes, the fact that they are so successful would be miraculous. And given the choice between a straightforward explanation of success and a miraculous explanation, clearly one should prefer the non-miraculous explanation, viz. that our best theories are approximately true (etc.). (For elaborations of the miracle argument, see Brown 1982, Boyd 1989, Lipton 1994, Psillos 1999, ch. 4, Barnes 2002, Lyons 2003, Busch 2008, and Frost-Arnold 2010.)" UNQUOTE Now, the antirealist (or instrumentalist) has weapons in her own arsenal too (the pessimistic induction, the underdetermination of theories by data), of course. This is an ongoing debate, and I wouldn't expect a conclusion any time soon. So, for Swansont to claim as he he does at the bottom of post #152 that: "So realism, as you've presented it in almost all of your posts, is false." ... is just plain silly, unless of course, he's also solved the free will thing and the mind-body problem too without telling the world. So with regards your impression of me, Klaynos, it's just a wee bit frustrating to be continually spoken down to by certain parties who clearly have not even the vaguest understanding of the issues. I'm all for civilized discussion in a cordial atmosphere. Certain parties here would deny me this. I have no interest in bickering. Once again, the scientific realist would appeal to non-empirical factors: simplicity, explanatory loveliness, etc ... she might argue that if Hypothesis A is simpler than Hypothesis B, it's more likely to be true; if Hypothesis A provides a better explanation of the data than Hypothesis B, it's more likely to be true...

The replies from Strange and Swansont are - predictably - not even worth dignifying with a response, but to one member whom I've grown to respect... No, it's not what other members have been saying. I've spent the last few pages attempting to debunk what I take to be the manifestly false claim that "science has (almost) nothing to do with truth", and similar absurdities. (see post # 66) Just a reminder: ajb in the quote above is replying to, and apparently endorsing, my : "I am not claiming science does, or should, reveal some ultimate hippie "Truth", man; but I am suggesting that the aim of science, has been, and still is, largely an attempt to produce theories which approximate the way things really are." This sentence might, without loss of meaning, I suggest, be rephrased as "...but I am suggesting that the aim of science, has been, and still is, largely an attempt to produce theories which approximate the way things really are.. ; that is, an attempt to produce true or approximately true theories." If you accept this, then it would appear that science has a great deal to do with truth.

Ah, dear. The wagons have circled and the pistols are blazing. I suppose I should make myself scarce. A few words before I do, though, friends and lovers, if you'll oblige me for just a few minutes. Trolling? (Strange asked) No, my name is Colin, I'm 49 years old, I live in Taiwan, qualified in nothing particularly jawdropping, but spend a lot of time studying philosophy, and the philosophy of science in particular. I joined the site because of a supernerdy pathology for learning and a desire to communicate with like-minded people. Haven't met any yet LOL. Anything else you'd like to know? Why would you ask that anyway? I suspect simply because I may have expressed certain opinions inimical with orthodox party dogma, viz., "We are The Good Guys, and we'll defend each other too, right or wrong; we have a universal Method, yes we do, even though we have great difficulty articulating it; we are the only people who are allowed to speak authoritatively on science (never mind if we've never read a book on scientific realism, or the underdetermination of theories by data, or The Scientific Method, or a hundred other relevant topics in our lives -- be honest with yourselves now, boys and girls. And I get accused of pontificating on matters I know diddly-squat about? Sigh!), and never mind if we conduct scientific studies on, erm... baseball players and then proceed to instruct them on the physics of baseball. "Just don't do it to us, ok?" When scientists speak science, I invariably suggest to the assembled audience, if there is one, that we'd all be well advised to remain silent and listen very carefully. On the other hand, though, when scientists stop speaking or doing science and begin speaking ABOUT science, I humbly submit that their authority ends then and there. Adandon all hope: Phil. Of Science begins right here. Yes, there are extremely odd people who devote entire careers to the study of what scientists past and present do, how they do it, and the claims they make about what they do. I'm not one of them (just an avid reader of these P.o.S. rascals), but perhaps just a little less hubris and a little more humility might not be inappropriate with respect to their research, doncha think? You wouldn't like it if it happened to you. "Science, broadly considered, is incomparably the most successful enterprise human beings have ever engaged upon; yet the methodology that had presumably made it so, when propounded by learned laymen, is not attended to by scientists, and when propounded by scientists is a misrepresentation of what they do. Only a minority of scientists have received instruction in scientific methodology, and those that have done seem to be no better off." - Peter Medawar Anyway, I enjoyed my exchange with ajb earlier today; evidently a very clever chappie and a perfect gentleman to boot. Thank you, sir. Unfortunately, my unholy communion with other members, to a greater of lesser degree, has been somewhat less edifying. Two of the most vocal, in particular, have repeatedly misunderstood, vilified, and misrepresented me to such a farcical degree -- right down to their very last posts -- that the whole room is no doubt thoroughly discomfuddlulated by now. All the while, I suspect, the staff stood idly by. I am not claiming science does, or should, reveal some ultimate hippie "Truth", man; but I am suggesting that the aim of science, has been, and still is, largely an attempt to produce theories which approximate the way things really are. (yes, yes, we remember about the abstractions in physics, thanks. Are there any NON-physicists in the building?) Of course, I could be hopelessly and irretrievably wrong about that too -- personal fallibilism appears to be another elite club here of which yours truly remains founding and sole member. And sorry guys (well, those two odious rotters anyway ), I've lost count of the number of times you've backpedaled, contradicted yourselves, invoked that hoary old lame "strawman" excuse on my behalf, etc., etc., ... while you dismiss poor old Galileo -- "Pfft! He doesn't count!" -- on the grounds that... well, "he was constituting an embarrassment to my argument", and then drag him out again as scientific hero and fighter-for-enlightenment whenever you need his support in a different argument. C'mon now. You can be better than that, chums. The funny things is, people tend to respect you more when you simply admit you're wrong. "You claim you want to discuss the subject of scientific testing, but respond in a completely flippant manner when asked for specifics." - etc, studiot Not exactly, dude. I was in another thread, mentioned a few words about testing, and was diverted here to this new thread for reasons best known to yourselves. But that's fine. I think I've been clear that I know little or nothing about the techniques you mentioned, not once feigning expertise or even basic knowledge in a domain I'm clueless about (which is more than I can say for certain other hairy and smelly contributors ). As for not answering all questions put to me... well, YOU try responding ALONE to as many posts as I have over the last few days. It's been ten-against-one and it's been taking up more time than is probably healthy. Hmm, perhaps another dastardly tactic... Now, seriously though, I also made it clear, I think, that the possibility of a universal method of testing scientific theories (The Scientific Method) is a topic that does interest me enormously and something I have read at quite some length on. And we did discuss it. Finally dude, lighten up a little. Is there a rule against smiling here? To all: there are issues involving scientism, the dogmatism and fanaticism it inspires among certain of its adherents, that I do find disturbing, but to raise them almost invariably incurs the opprobrium of being labeled "anti-science" and immediate demonization. No social functions for this ignominious iconoclast this week then. Aye, well, I suppose I've said my piece. You may have your peace back now. Fair thee all well, now. But never forget... Eppur si muove Some food for thought : The Medawar Lecture 2004 The truth about science http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569498/

Ooh, I almost let this one slip through... And "The Scientific Method" is not a philosophy? Do you know how many people have written on The Scientific Method? Do you know how much they share in common? Ans : very little

Erm, what about like effects having like causes? Isn't that a principle you guys endorse?

But with all due respect, that wasn't the point. The point was: surely there can only BE one mechanism used by Mother Geller Nature? Not whether we can know what it is.

We don't need to know how he did it to know that he did it in only one way (at least on each occasion), right?

Everyone seems to be harboring Californian transcendental yoghurt-and-sesame-seed concepts of reality. Reality is just what's out there. It needn't be anything very sublime or Kantian. The statement "Paris is the capital of France" is true if and only if, in reality, Paris is the capital of France. Hands up who's been there? Welcome to reality. The hypothesis "Pigs like to wallow in mud" is assigned a truth value of T if and only if... well, you get it I believe it was Richard Feynman who observed "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds" You guys can be so cruel

Well, let's make an analogy (and the historical accuracy isn't important). How many of you hoodlums are old enough to remember Uri Geller of spoon-bending fame - loved my many and despised by the skeptics. James Randi, for one, decided that even if he could not catch that scoundrel red-handed, he would at least show the world that any magician worth his sodium-chloride could replicate what Geller was doing. And he did. Now, let's say we invite 100 talented magicians to replicate the Geller magic. And they do, each in a different way. But surely only one or none of them can be doing it in the same way Geller did. Capiche, paisan?

Getting back to swansont's wonderful hole... The first reason your question gripped my attention is because it immediately reminded of a similar issue in the philosophy of mind, namely (and this might sound silly but it's not) : Is the mind (entirely) inside the head or not? Consider the case of your leaving a footprint in the sand on a beach. Then, somewhere and sometime else, freak weather conditions result in a perfect replica of your footprint being created. The question is : Is this a footprint? Or is what makes a footprint a footprint dependent upon its causal history? But that's a story for another camping adventure... My second thought takes us to the terrifying precincts of the philosophy of language and the problem of non-referring terms. For example, a statement such as "Pegasus is white" is perfectly intelligible, and apparently quite meaningful, but the term Pegasus (presumably) refers to nothing, or to be more correct before the pedants have a fit, it doesn't refer. Just like your hole. Or it it? Is the shadow on the wall a referring term? Or the footprint in the sand? Beats me, chaps. Anyone unfortunate enough to be tied down and subjected to a course in the philosophy of language may have to listen to an initial six lectures on the dreaded statement "The present king of France is bald". All agree, I think, that "the present king of France" does not refer, but not all agree on the truth value that should be assigned to the statement: Russell says false; Strawson says neither true nor false; and the bloodbath continues... But I don't think anyone has ever suggested that this implies "two different meanings for 'true' ". These are my only -- not very carefully considered and probably a load of bollocks-- thoughts so far...

Exactly Well, I was worried some smartass might drop in and tell us about the Earth's slowing rotation, or.... . . . Hey, you know what. It just struck me. I think you guys are afraid to use words like true and truth coz you feel it'll put you on a par with the religious wackos. I don't think it will.

Harumph How about this then... Assuming that the dinosaurs-succumbing-to-a-meteor-strike theory is, er, accurate, do you believe there a correct answer to the question "There is a certain number of days since that meteor struck the Earth?" Oh, and let's stipulate GMT to keep the pedants happy. And if there's no such thing as truth, why did my science teachers at school keep telling me all my answers were wrong? . . . P.S. from dictionary.com's entry for "accurate" : SynonymsExpand 1. true, unerring. See correct.

"More accurate" as in...um, closer to the target? What target? Dare I say.... the right answer? ... the true value? * panic breaks out * Well, I'll be in the lab testing my hypothesis that "all scientists are stubborn as a mule" if you need me. It seems much more accurate than my previous and now largely discredited "most scientists are stubborn as a mule" hypothesis.

They work to the extent that they generate (more or less) true predictions. Would you accept that characterization? For example, a theory that generated the (presumably wildly) false prediction that the Earth is 5000 years old would appear not to be working very well.